Skyfall (2012)

Director: Sam Mendes

 When you ask someone how a Bond movie was, they usually tell you by comparing it to other Bond movies. I personally can't do that because I'm not much of a Bond fan. I've seen my fair share of Bond movies, but I had yet to find any of them, besides Casino Royale, to be anything more than occasionally entertaining heterosexual male fantasies. But I did have somewhat high expectations coming into Skyfall due to Sam Mendes' involvement. It's probably safe to say that he has been the most high-profile (and probably talented) filmmaker to direct a Bond film yet, and so unsurprisingly Mendes delivered the goods, but not by being Mendes, but instead by taking a page out of the Christopher Nolan textbook. Mendes pulls a Nolan by giving us a spectacle-filled blockbuster with a resourceful and strong, but flawed, main character with a plot that is relevant to our world. While Nolan doing it first takes away some of the "unique" factor from Skyfall, Mendes made a movie almost as good as The Dark Knight and that in and of itself is impressive. Not to mention the fact that the cinematography by the legendary Roger Deakins is even better than anything Wally Pfister has shot in a Nolan movie (the Hong Kong skyscraper scene and the final scene with the burning house were especially shot beautifully).

Even Javier Bardem's extremely entertaining villain character seems modeled after the Joker, though I felt Bardem's character didn't quite connect with the rest of the movie as well thematically, he's a great character but one who seemed to be on the sidelines. But the film still succeeds. This could have been just a bland superhero movie, which is what Bond movies often times are, but in this film we see a vulnerable James Bond who is fighting the threat of old age. He struggles, his confidence is pushed to the limit, and his own personal history is brought into the equation. The main theme of the film, aging and fading relevance, is wonderfully woven in to not only reflect Bond the character, but also Bond the franchise. In the film M is asked the question as to why people like Bond are still relevant, and by the end of the movie we have a good answer to that question. But that doesn't just apply in the story, it's also a question about the Bond series itself, and ironically that self-questioning about why this series still exists is exactly why this particular film serves as a reminder as to why these movies can be worthwhile.

Grade: B

Ivan's Childhood (1962)

Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

I have experienced many works of art that depicted the horrors of war and how horrible it all is, so the subject on its own doesn't really do it for me anymore. If a movie about the horrors of war wants to be memorable, it must try to be unique through something else besides just the subject. With Ivan's Childhood Tarkovsky does this, most effectively with some beautiful dream sequences sporadically placed within this tragic film about an orphaned child helping the Russian army in their fight against the Nazi's. The fantasy/dream/nightmare sequences take us inside the head of Ivan and make his childhood experience all the more tragic when we see what exactly he witnessed, what he is now fighting for, and the desire he has to return to a peaceful life with his family.

Those dream sequences give heft to the important, but a bit tired cinematically, subject of the consequences of war. The rest of the movie feels a bit more conventional compared to those great scenes, but Tarkovsky manages to once in a while fill even the more conventional scenes with beauty. It is apparent that this is not a movie Tarkovsky initiated, as the movie is a bit too blunt and straightforward for his more poetic and ambiguous sensibilities, but you can tell that the dream sequences were very much his idea. He shoots those scenes with passion and subtlety, and the camera moves fluidly, it's all much more in line with the Tarkovsky that we know from his later more personal films. His later films are certainly much more impressive than this one, but this one fits well in his oeuvre and takes it's own place in the list of quality movies about the horrors of war and the important consequences it has on the most innocent in society.

Grade: B+

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Director: Rich Moore

The simplicity of most animated films works both for and against them. Some of them are simple to the point where the moral of the story doesn't register at all, but for others the simplicity is what makes them so refreshing and enjoyable. Wreck-It Ralph exudes a simplicity that mostly works in the same vein of Toy Story. The concept of a world inside an arcade is one rich with potential, and most of the enjoyment of the movie comes from seeing the various ways the film uses the concept for great subtle in-jokes and references to old video games (and candy which will make sense when you see the movie). Because of this I'd argue the movie might be more enjoyable for a 25-35 year old adult than it would be for a child. But unfortunately the story probably would not catch the attention of older viewers.

The main character, Ralph, is a bad guy in a game, and he dislikes his role in this game. This makes the moral of the story a bit complicated, because he is a "bad guy" but he also needs to be okay with what he is. In the end, self-acceptance is the moral of the story, though for kids especially this might be a bit confusing because Ralph is technically a villain. Accepting being a bad guy is not really the best moral. The filmmakers certainly did not intend that but it just comes across that the video game world can't quite be equated with the real world so easily. The movie doesn't quite work perfectly in that sense, but it's got some wonderful moments, clever jokes, and even an engaging plot which makes it stand out from almost all non-Pixar animated fare these days. In the end I was most satisfied with the fact that they took advantage of the clever concept, and because of that I eagerly anticipate any more escapades into this world of video games.

Grade: B-

Argo (2012)

Director: Ben Affleck

 It is fascinating to me that this movie got such an enthusiastic critical reception. It's certainly a very good movie, but at the same time it's nothing groundbreaking. Argo is a well-made, very methodical, and well-directed thriller. But that's really all it is, there's no big political or social messages, the characters aren't complex, and the style is pretty standard. It feels like this is exactly how Hollywood should make films, but because Hollywood doesn't, critics found this film to be refreshing. It's too bad that it's a rare thing that well-executed tension filled thrillers are hard to come by. It makes sense then that the movie has a bit of a 1970's vibe, as these types of movies were much more prevalent in the Hollywood system of the 1970's.

The true story itself, if you don't know it already, is also very fascinating and provides much of the joy that comes from the film. Though I think the film makes a serious misstep in the end when we see a scene that is just so unrealistic that people who don't even know the story will know was a fabricated scene. But tension is built because of Affleck's filmmaking, he really knows how to craft a film, though I think he's still looking for that next step. The movie reminded me of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy for a variety of reasons, but that film was much better than Argo because there was much more underneath it all. Argo is mostly devoid of real substance, it's just a well made thriller with some entertaining Sorkin-like dialogue and Fincher-lite filmmaking. The movie doesn't do anything special between the lines, it's just a well-made movie for grown ups, but unfortunately that's a rare thing nowadays.

Grade: C+

Rebecca (1940)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

This film represents one of the things Alfred Hitchcock does best, and that is to work within the Hollywood studio system to craft a cerebral, but still accessible, psychological thriller. The movie has the spine of a typical Hollywood romance, but Hitchcock succeeds in riffing on the shadows of the past and how they can continue to haunt us forever. In the movie, Laurence Olivier's character marry's Joan Fontaine's character, and as she moves into his enormous mansion she finds that she has taken the place of his old wife (Rebecca), a woman who has evidently left some very big shoes to fill. The period in the film when Fontaine first moves into his mansion is the films best, because that's when we realize what Fontaine has gotten herself into. It's marvelous how Hitchcock creates the presence of Rebecca to be so eerie without ever showing her.

The romance of the film is not all that romantic because it's obvious early on that this is a woman who has married a man who wants her to be something else. It's a doomed romance from the get-go, and because of that the movie doesn't feel like a traditional Hollywood romance, instead it feels more like a gothic tragic romance, something much more unique for 1940's Hollywood. But as refreshing as this film is, Rebecca ends up morphing into a typical Hollywood murder mystery towards the end, when Rebecca's disappearance becomes a plot point and much of the tragedy goes away in favor of a murder mystery. The ending of the movie is significantly more uninteresting than the rest of the film, but besides that serious misstep, the movie is a wonderful gothic tragedy about a romance that is overshadowed by the past.

Grade: B+

You Can Count on Me (2000)

Director: Kenneth Lonergan

 The one thing that stands out the most from this quiet drama is that its central relationship is a brother-sister relationship. When I saw this I realized that you just don't see that very often in art. You don't often see an honest brother-sister relationship be the central relationship in pop culture. When you see an honest real-life relationship expressed on film, it all becomes so much more captivating. Voyeurism is a big reason we watch movies, and when we see something that feels extremely real we get drawn in. On top of that, the writing, acting, and directing by all involved are top-notch. Each actor, Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo (and even the son) are amazingly honest in their roles and by the time one of the characters recites the title of the movie to another towards the end of the film, you are incredibly attached to these characters

The filmmaking on display is unobtrusive and realist. It's a movie that tries to feel honest above everything else. It's not a flashy drama, neither is it that ambitious either. The descriptions of the characters aren't too exciting: one is a single mom struggling with her personal life and the other is a struggling 20-something year old guy who's a bit of a free spirit, but it's Lonergan's writing and the great performances that make these people come to life in a way that is engaging, emotional, and tugs real hard on your heart strings. The theme of the movie is fairly simple (see the movies title for a hint), but it comes across powerfully. You don't get attached to characters like this in movies often, as opposed to TV characters, mostly due to lack of time in fleshing them out. But with this film, I reached the end of it feeling like these siblings were part of my own family.

Grade: A-

Happy Together (1997)

Director: Wong Kar-Wai

This is a story of two people who are, contrary to the title, mostly not very happy together. These two men are in what we would call an abusive relationship. They hurt each other and many times can't stand each other, but they simultaneously need each other as well because without each other they become lonely and end up in a downwards spiral. The film presents their relationship in a very brutal and raw way, director Wong Kar-Wai doesn't hold anything back and never refrains from showing us how emotionally abusive, and sometimes physically abusive, this relationship is. But they still come back together and attempt to start over, and that dynamic is a fascinatingly complex one. It sheds a lot of light on why some people either take a long time to leave an abusive relationship or never leave one at all.

As you can imagine, the movie can be extremely depressing at times, in my opinion sometimes even too depressing than it really needs to be. The lack of joy and the constant misery is really what keeps the movie from being great. While I really like what the movie accomplishes, it doesn't quite have enough dynamism to make me feel like this is anything more than just an exceptionally well-made single issue film (mostly a nit-pick). The movie might be called Happy Together but it's anything but happy. But Wong brings energy to the movie via his cinematography and editing which varies quite a lot during the movie, always seemingly mirroring the emotions of the men in the relationship. In the beginning when the two have broken up the film is black-and-white, but later when they decide to start over color comes in and the cinematography becomes more jagged showing the excitement that is renewed in their lives, though excitement doesn't necessarily mean happiness.

Grade: B+

The Lovers on the Bridge (1991)

Director: Leos Carax

I really like this movie, but I think much of that like is based on admiration rather than actually connecting with the film emotionally or even intellectually. I love that this film is a romance between two homeless people, a small subject, but is so ambitious in filmmaking and scope. Director Leos Carax re-built the the oldest and most famous bridge of Paris in a countryside and uses it magnificently. It's obvious his camera angles were never restricted, as he gets all sort of angles, all sort of freedom on this bridge. It's most obvious in a brilliant nighttime sequence on the bicentennial celebration of Bastille Day, complete with fireworks and a wide-range of loud music. But not only does the scope give us the visual spectacle, but also a full fledged romance from the beginning to the end. Carax is given free reign and is never afraid to go all out.

The film is centered on a romance between two odd homeless people: a guy who eats fire and can't sleep without medication (played by Denis Levant, brilliant as always), and a girl who is recently homeless and is going blind (played by the great Juliette Binoche). Both actors make this odd romance work wonders and makes the films celebration of odd love work. Both people live in a brutal world, and only find solace in each other. It's a way to show that love can be a way out of brutality, but Carax is also not afraid to show that love itself can be brutal as well. At least, that's what he's going for. It all works on paper really well, but Carax walks a fine line between his massive scope and the emotionality of the story, and he doesn't always make it across. The movie can be incredibly impressive at times and Carax shows that he is a great filmmaker, but many scenes don't add much at all emotionally. But I found The Lovers on the Bridge to be a magnificent achievement, it's a film about an intimate story made large and epic, and that's what I want to see more of.

Grade: B+

La Jetee (1962)

Director: Chris Marker

 The opening credits of this short film bill it as a "photo-novel". A fairly accurate description, as the 28-minute film is pretty much completely made of nothing but black-and-white still images. It sounds like it's mostly an experiment in form and that the still image format is just some experimental gimmick, but this film actually works brilliantly on every level. The still images bring cinema back to its roots. Cinema is basically a bunch of photos shown in quick successive motion (24 frames a second usually), so this film just does it all in much much slower motion and proves that it is the illusion of movement that creates the illusion of linearity that makes film so powerful as a format. Director Chris Marker then equates that with how our memory works, which directly ties into the subject matter of the film, which is time travel.

The main character of the film has a strong memory, an image of a woman he once saw before the world had been destroyed and everyone moved underground, and the strength of that image gives him the mental stamina that allows him to be the perfect guinea pig for a time travel experiment (this film was the inspiration for Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys). The movie gives us the poignant notion that memory is basically a form of time travel, that memory is a way for us to back in time while time is really moving forward. It's the perfect story for a film made with still images. Photographs are memories, and for the main character the memory in his head was so powerful that it enabled him to go back in time, just like how movies (photographs in quick motion) can be so powerful that they can enable us to feel like we're going back in time. It's amazing how visceral a movie that has no motion can feel. La Jetee is maybe the most intellectual film about time travel I've ever seen, Marker uses time travel not as a gimmicky plot conceit, but a way to look at the human minds relationship to the world around it. It's an amazing accomplishment that a 28-minute black-and-white film with nothing but still images can be simultaneously about the nature of memory, the nature of time, and the nature of cinema itself.

Grade: A

Damsels in Distress (2012)

Director: Whit Stillman

It's hard not to describe this film as anything but a Whit Stillman film. It has everything you expect from his films: whip-smart dialogue, subtle intellectual jokes, young well-off characters who still complain about their lives, and an exploration of a specific young people culture. The only way this film is a little different from his other films is that it's not about bourgeoisie yuppies of the 1980's, instead these characters are modern day girls in college. These specific college girls, led by a great lead performance by Greta Gerwig who is really coming into her own as an actress, are not your average college girls though, they are smart self-confident girls who date men who are pretty much buffoons. It's a very specific subculture, but Stillman treats it as a subculture nonetheless. The girls believe it is their duty to help these boys out and elevate them by dating them, all in addition to operating a suicide prevention center out of what they believe to be their own good will. In the beginning of the film though, a new girl comes along, befriends them, and provides perspective to what they are doing by confronting the selfishness in their actions.

Like all Stillman films, there is very little plot and the true joy of the movie comes from listening to these people speak and just go through their fairly normal life. Their complaints about their normal life is also what makes them such shallow people, because all this faux-drama is introduced even though their lives are really quite simple. The movie though is pretty slight, not really ambitious at all. The reason to see the film is because it's just a joy to see smart intellectual, but arrogant and selfish, people try to find love and connection with other human beings, especially with those who aren't like them. Stillman's dialogue is just wonderfully entertaining because of its unique Woody Allen-esque intellectual humor, though it's definitely a type of humor that not all filmgoers will connect with (see at your own risk). Damsels in Distress does its dialogue and characters best, and while it's not the most meaningful film by a longshot, the film does provoke thoughts on the ideas of shallowness, ones principles and its relationship to your image, all while being enormously entertaining and funny.

Grade: B

Looper (2012)

Director: Rian Johnson

This is a film of two wildly different halves, and that lack of complete tonal coherence is maybe the reason I can't completely love it, but I definitely come close to doing so. The first half of the film is a sci-fi noir influenced a bit by Jean-Luc Godard in the way Godard depicted the reckless criminal lifestyle. It does a fine job of setting the rules of the world and the character types for when it morphs into a much more low-key film set in large part on a farm of all places. I don't want to spoil why it moves onto a farm (the marketing did a great job of keeping this part of the plot a secret), but it's a symbol of the higher ambition of the film to reach beyond the trappings of the time travel genre and sci-fi genre. It's not a film that focuses on the time travel elements of the plot, it mostly ignores the complexities and paradoxes of the premise while giving you enough information to figure a lot of that stuff out on your own. Instead it focuses on the characters, their emotional attachments, and even how important parenting is.

Time travel films can be confusing to follow, and this one has a very well thought out time travel premise, but writer-director Rian Johnson makes it easy to follow by making it an experiential time travel film in which we only see the movie through the experience of the lead character. The only exception to that is one sequence in the middle of the film in which we follow "Old Joe" played by Bruce Willis in a separate "alternate" timeline set mostly in China that we fast forward through, which sets up Old Joe's character in the timeline of the main plot of the movie. That China sequence/montage is in my mind the standout sequence of the whole film and really shows how much Rian Johnson has improved as a filmmaker. That sequence fits decades in a short time span very efficiently, it's shot beautifully, and manages to make us feel for Old Joe which gives his actions later in the film that much more emotional weight. Those emotional attachments the characters have factor in greatly to why these characters make the decisions they do later in the film and eventually what becomes of the future itself. It's a fantastic sci-fi film by a filmmaker who really is trying to do more than just what fans of the genre expect.

Grade: B

Louie: Season Three (2012)

Creator: Louis CK

 Last season, Louis CK gave us what I saw as of the best seasons of TV I had ever seen. It was completely atypical of any show that had ever aired in not only form, but also content. The show encapsulated the human condition better than any show that year. So it's pretty high praise when I say that the third season completely met my very high expectations. At the most basic level, it's a show about a man in a mid-life crisis, but that description really doesn't do the show justice. Louie is a man who takes care of his kids half the week, but he is searching for something to focus his attention in that other half of the week. This season he looks at many things to fill the void he has in his life. He comes across many women who he attempts to court, he finds a new career goal to strive towards, and even tries to make a new Cuban best friend.

In typical Louie fashion, he's not too successful with those endeavors, but it's the journey that is so touching and so affecting. As a director and writer, Louis CK is able to capture the most complicated of human emotions and feelings. He has a talent that outshines most Hollywood filmmakers. A great example of this is when Louie goes to meet his father for the first time in many years. This is a show about what Louie is feeling, so appropriately the audience views reality through Louie's eyes, and so when he is in on his way to meet his dad there is tug-of-war going on his head and Louie actualizes that brilliantly on screen through surreal moments that bend reality for the sake of Louie's inner feelings. The ultimate highlight of the season is most certainly the "Late Night" arc, when Louie gets the chance to replace David Letterman. Those episodes (which are really one big movie) not only provide a commentary on the vicious way show business makes enemies out of friends, but also give us as a "Rocky"-like arc for Louie that should have been cliche, but somehow managed to be genuinely triumphant while still keeping the downer tone and ideology of the show intact.

There were moments of the season that were certainly not as creative and ambitious as Louis CK's best work, but any show with the vignette structure will have its low points. Louie counterbalances those low points with some extraordinary high points, all capped by the amazing transcendental season finale in which Louie literally gets away from it all and goes to China. What did he do there? Nothing really. But it felt completely right, and that's what Louie is about: feeling right.

Grade: A

The Brothers Bloom (2008)

Director: Rian Johnson

 At this point, it's pretty difficult to make a unique con film because the genre itself has with it a set of expectations that make it difficult to do anything new (Inception is the only unique recent heist/con film that comes to mind). The main expectation for the audience is a clever plot/con, and that must be the first priority. The Brothers Bloom tries to stand out by adding a unique sense of style to the con film, with some commentary on truth vs. fiction and whether a life is written or unwritten. What it succeeds at is the style, and while the themes are ambitious and refreshing, they don't quite come together at the end. There are hints of a greater movie that does much more than your average conman film, but it doesn't quite reach that height and director Rian Johnson seems to buckle under the weight of the convoluted plot.

The reason to watch this film though is clearly the fun stylistic flourishes that exist mainly in the first half of the film. The opening scene, showing the two conman brothers as children, is absolutely brilliant and is as good as anything in a Wes Anderson film. The film never really lives up to that beginning, but the characters are fun, quirky, and likable the whole time. The relationships between the characters are also important, and those are hit & miss. The romantic friendship between Adrien Brody's character and "the mark" of the con, played by Rachel Weisz, works well and you feel their connection. But the more important relationship, which is between the two brothers, Brody and Mark Ruffalo's characters, doesn't quite come together the way it's supposed to. The last third of the film relies on this relationship heavily and this is one of the main reasons I lost interest in that last third. The problem with long cons is that they can get quite complicated, and if there's no strong emotional anchor it just feels kind of pointless, and that's what happened in this movie.

Grade: C+

Shadows (1959)

Director: John Cassavetes

This is a film I admire more for its place in film history and its capture of a time and place than I do for its actual quality. This is John Cassavetes' first film, the man who is known as the father of American independent cinema. He took American film out from under the studio system and made films that were more experimental and more honest in nature and in turn influenced the great American filmmakers of the 1970's. For the late 50's this is a film that is very progressive, especially in its depiction of race. The film depicts prejudice against blacks, and the identity problems of someone who is half-white and half-black. The structure also is very unique for the time, it's not plot-driven at all, and the style is more handheld and improvisatory. The film represented a way of filmmaking that was spontaneous, low-budget, and free.

An aspect of the film I very much liked is the jazz score that goes very well with the jazz-like structure of the film. The movie is improvised heavily (though there is debate about what that means), there are seemingly random scenes that don't add much to the whole at all, but in the end the experience as a whole is satisfying. I'd say this is more a slight and minor piece of jazz than it is a major one. In today's standards, it's not a very ambitious film and it doesn't quite feel as new. The film is great if you really want a time capsule experience and want to see how a transgressive film of the late 50's is like. I found it more interesting in that sense than as I did for the actual qualities of the movie itself.

Grade: B-

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season One (2000)

Creator: Larry David

It was hard for me to figure exactly what this show was trying to do in its first season, but it was certainly funny and showed potential. Larry David plays himself, and he plays sort of a social observer role poking fun at social norms. His character is in the vein of Woody Allen, but without the personal stakes that Allen had in his films. David shows great talent in plotting episodic TV comedy, but I found his character mostly one-note, because unlike Allen's films, there wasn't much at stake. This is a show though that has gone on for many seasons, so I would not be surprised to learn quite a bit more when I see more episodes (and similarly I can't imagine a show like this going on for 5+ seasons without stakes).

The average episodes basically seem to unspool a yarn of unfortunate events that occur due to unforeseen events that unfold due to usually some innocent action that David did. It's the classic comedy of chain reaction. For example we might see one very subtle racist comment that David makes becomes so much more by the end of the night, affecting his wife's health. Even though the dialogue is improv, the plotting sure isn't, and the plotting is done very well and seems almost effortless which is remarkable considering the planning that has to go into writing these types of stories. What the show does well this season is establish a tone, and a feel for who David is. I hope the subsequent seasons do better in creating cohesive stories that actually affect David's life more substantially.

Grade: B-

The Master (2012)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

 Elusive. Challenging. Mysterious. These are just some of the words that critics and audiences used in describing The Master. Paul Thomas Anderson certainly did not intend on making an easy film in which the meaning is preached to the audience. Instead, the audience must extrapolate the meaning, but what makes it even more difficult is that it would be perfectly legitimate for five different viewers of the film to have five different interpretations of what the film means. I'm sure it's a film that will see its various interpretations dwindle as more people see it more times, because this is a film that slowly reveals itself as you watch, and reveals itself more on repeat viewings (I've seen it twice). At first we notice Joaquin Phoenix's outstanding performance as Freddie Quell, a man who is the epitome of social outcast. But then we start to see his relationship to Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a newly launched cult, and the many complexities involved in the relationship between the two men. Then later it occurs us to the broader social implications the film has on topics as broad as post-war America and cults.

The way I see it, and I think that's the only legitimate way I can start a conversation about this film, is that that this is a film about the complex relationship between a master and his followers. In the film, Dodd sees Quell as a wild savage dog, and he sees it as his duty as the civilized master to tame this seemingly untamable dog. Why Dodd decides to take this challenge up is because he sees his past in him, and he sees a successful taming of Quell as vindication of his own self and his own efforts. But the film is not so simple as to show Dodd as simply a noble master and Quell as dastardly savage dog. The lines between the two are blurred. The performances of both Hoffman as Dodd and Phoenix as Quell couldn't be more different, one is Wellesian in it's grandeur and control, while the other is unpredictable and wild. They are two extremes of masculinity, but we still see that Dodd is not the saint he thinks he is and Quell is not simply a barbaric wild dog. Dodd has outbursts and desires that Quell has, while Quell shows small moments of compassion and empathy. The Master questions the follower-leader relationship, but it's not specifically for or against the notion that everyone needs a master, instead it shows us how complex that relationship truly is. Yes the film feels elusive when you first watch it, but it's a film that comes closer and closer to you the more you take it in.

Grade: A

Chronicle (2012)

Director: Josh Trank

Many people seem to dislike superhero origin stories, but when done right they can be the best films of the genre. Chronicle is a good movie in a similar vein. The movie finds a group of kids who mysteriously get superpowers and we then follow them as these superpowers start to define and mold them. Our main character, the one videotaping this found footage style film, is the one who gets the largest arc, one that is informed by his troubled upbringing and difficult home life. Following this type of story to the end is a great idea on paper, and while the teen actors don't always rise to the occasion, the intriguing plot does reach its potential at times and even tries to add some interesting philosophical subtext, though that angle is glanced over.

That all sounds quite serious, but the real joy of this movie comes in the first half when the kids are just experimenting and having fun with their powers. It was like watching an actual documentary on what real teenagers would do if they got superpowers. By giving them superpowers we get to see who these kids really are, but it also functions as wish-fulfillment for the audience. The movie is most enjoyable when watching the three guys just have fun with their powers and discover how to use them. It's basically the "Spiderman tries to figure out how to use his powers" part of Spiderman movies, though the main difference is that Spiderman usually messes up a few times for laughs while in this one the actions of the kids are much more controversial. While the found footage style adds to the documentary feel of the first half, it turns into a distracting gimmick in the second half when the filmmakers struggled to keep the gimmick going when the main camera man doesn't need a camera anymore. By the end it is clear the film is still a genre film, it's a very good one, but it cannot surpass its genre limitations.

Grade: B-

McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)

Director: Robert Altman

If this film is a deconstruction of the western genre, then this might be the best genre deconstruction ever committed to film. It subverts many traditional notions of the genre, but more impressively, it's a film that feels like a unique and great film on its own, irrespective of the statements it might be making on the western genre. It definitely subverts the myths of the western on purpose, most significantly with the lead character McCabe who initially comes into this Pacific Northwest town looking like a legendary gunslinger, but is slowly unwrapped and revealed as a man who is less a mythical figure than just a real human being. In keeping with the subversion of gender tropes in the western genre, Mrs. Miller, the madame of a group of prostitutes, comes across as quite business savvy, much more so than McCabe who seems to be taking advice from her on how to run his brothel. In this film it is the woman who influences the man.

Altman also uses the rain, the gray skies, green trees, and the fog of the Pacific Northwest setting as a way to make the film feel a bit off. It creates a naturalistic atmosphere for the film while also giving us something much more unique than the typical blue skies and endless barren flat landscapes of most westerns. That natural, and even ethereal, tone of the film is one of the most impressive elements of the film. Altman lets his setting breath, his actors emote naturally, and films everything with an unobtrusive eye. On top of that is the amazing acoustic soundtrack by Leonard Cohen. The importance that soundtrack has to the melancholic feel of the characters cannot be understated. McCabe's melancholic feelings are what truly make the movie for me. His character is such a thoughtful and subtle attack on our concept of masculinity, and his private soliloquy's to himself, especially regarding his feelings towards Mrs. Miller, provide some of the greatest moments of the film. The film does so much (there's even vilification of the no holds-barred free enterprise system) while feeling completely natural. McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a naturalist film all the way, and that's why it's amazing it does so much while doing so little.

Grade: A

Chungking Express (1994)

Director: Wong Kar-Wai

When you think of a film from Hong Kong, you usually think of police thrillers, because those are the types of Hong Kong movies that have achieved success all over the world. But in this film, Wong Kar-Wai takes that idea and turns it on its head. He tells two stories that are just barely connected, each about a police officer in the bustling urban jungle of Hong Kong, but the two police never get involved in shootouts and the film isn't some frenetically paced action film. Instead, both stories are existential stories of the difficulties of finding romantic emotional connection in an urban world. Hong Kong is a place that has a dense population in which you'll see a sea of people either way you look, but this film looks at the paradoxical effects that has on finding real emotional connection in such a dense world.

The first story is more of a noir film with a similar tone to Blade Runner complete with existential mysterious characters, but the second film switches it up completely and is more of a screwball romance influenced more by Jean-Luc Godard with its quirky, loveable yet flawed characters and its guerilla-style down and dirty filmmaking. The second story takes more than half the running time and is more satisfying as a whole and really overshadows the first (this would be more of an issue if the first story took up more running time, but it doesn't). The first story establishes the idea of finding connection in a disconnected place, and the second one takes it all the way, creating a full romance that is entertaining but also one that has the characters actually taking action and trying to do something about the dissatisfaction they have (the frequent use of the song "California Dreamin'" in the second story establishes the idea of yearning for a new experience just so well). This is definitely a film I'll be coming back to, the second story is just so visceral and affecting on so many levels, and I feel like I'll see a lot more in that first story when I see this one again.

Grade: A-

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Director: Sergei M. Eisenstein

 One of the important thing this film does is make you think about the difference between filmmaking as art and filmmaking as propaganda. Can a film that is obviously propaganda be considered art? Battleship Potemkin gives a lot of credibility to the "yes" side. It's a film that is explicitly revolutionary propaganda recreating a rebellion by a Russian battleship against their Tsarist officers. But it's also a very powerful film that used film editing in a way that was never used before, and those techniques only made the film much more powerful. The film is above all a testament to the power of film as an art form. It's a great example of what film really can do and the extraordinary power it can over those who watch it. Film can inspire and it can excite and Eisenstein was one of the first who really took advantage of this power (Joseph Goebbells also learned this power from this film, reportedly).

While the film is known more for being influential, especially in its editing techniques most famously displayed in the Odessa steps sequence, there are many great things about this film that still stand the test of time. The film is only about 70 minutes long or so, so the film doesn't try to build characters as people, what it does is create symbols within the characters. There is no individual, everyone represents the group, and if everyone rose up together against oppression, freedom can be won. One of things I liked most about the film is its message that soldiers are not just pawns of a government. They are citizens of their country like everyone else, and so they have the ability to rebel against their commanding officers and stand side-by-side with their non-military brethren. Sure the movie is famous more for its influence, but even today, almost 90 years later, it is still a powerful piece of work.

Grade: A-

Heartbeats (2010)

Director: Xavier Dolan

 This is really a minor film that gains most of its memorability due to the sleek and sensual filmmaking on display. The film is about two friends, one male and one female, who both fall in love with the same man. It's a predictable story with not a lot going on, but the story becomes involving and gains emotion due to Xavier Dolan's lush photography, slow motion scenes, and sumptuous colors. The movie also uses talking heads that talk about their experiences with love, and when you combine those with the story of the film it helps the film speak to the power of love. Love is one of those emotions that can overpower an individual to the point where it takes over their whole mind and body, it's an emotion that has a real hold over people, and the film speaks to that power.

In the film we see love threaten to destroy a very close friendship, and this ends up being the case even when that love is over something that doesn't give any love back. Even unrequited love has an immense power over people in a way that really makes no sense, but there is no rationality in love. The story of the film is limited and I never really thought about the plot at all in this film, but Dolan still manages to get these sentiments about love across. I greatly enjoyed and admire this film, but I would recommend the filmmaker as one to watch more than I would recommend the film. Dolan is certainly a filmmaker who has big things ahead of him (he was amazingly only 22 when he made this film) and I will be keeping a very close eye on his promising future.

Grade: B+

The Newsroom: Season One (2012)

Creator: Aaron Sorkin

 If I were to extrapolate Aaron Sorkin's political/cultural views from this series and compare them to my own, they would compare fairly favorably. I have very few qualms with Sorkin's political views and agree wholeheartedly with most of them, yet I still have a big problem with this show, and that's because those views are never proven or argued. Sorkin's ideas and views are broadcasted loudly and literally to the audience. This is a television show that does not show, it tells. There are some great moments of wisdom from Will McAvoy or the other characters, but they only work as moments independent from the narrative. That's why the opening scene of the show went viral in our world (the blind nostalgia of that moment actually makes it one of the few things I actually don't agree with Sorkin on). It worked great as an individual scene, but in that sense it's no different from The Daily Show, which does much of what this show wants to do without the illusion of trying to be an actual drama.

While Sorkin was almost never subtle in shouting his hopeful and sometimes naive ideals there were a couple of moments that seemed to actually take place in the real world and show the difficulties of attempting to be righteous. The main one was the episode in which McAvoy goes extremely hard on a homosexual black Rick Santorum supporter, insulting the man on national television, and in the same episode Olivia Munn's character breaks journalism ethics in the pursuit of what she thinks is the truth. That episode showed that you can try too hard to make the world a better place, and that good intentions do not always result in good results. It was easily the best episode of the season in a season filled with just odd moments in which the news team would seemingly travel into the future and get information that they would use in their news reports, Sorkin was trying to make a statement on how the news should have been covered, but he was doing so frequently with the benefit of hindsight. All I've talked about so far pales in comparison though to the ambivalence I felt to the personal stories of the characters. I did not care at all if whatever-his-name got with whatever-her-name or vica versa. The relationships had almost nothing to do with the main goal of the news organizations to do the news better, not literally nor thematically (see the recently reviewed Broadcast News, or even The West Wing, if you want to know what I'm talking about). Having said all of this though, it's not a show I'd recommend, but it's a show I will continue to watch because I am deeply invested in the subject matter of the news media. And even though I like Sorkin much of the time, I also very much enjoy criticizing him.

Grade: C-

Broadcast News (1987)

Director: James L. Brooks

 If you describe a movie to me as being a Hollywood workplace romantic comedy with a love triangle, I probably won't go in expecting to love it. Mostly because it's just a tired formula that Hollywood has done over and over again only because it's a consistent moneymaker and not because there's any artistic merit left in the genre. That's why I was enormously surprised at how much I loved James L. Brooks Broadcast News (also because Brooks himself doesn't have the greatest track record). In this film the workplace is a broadcast news station, but it's more about the people who work in the news than the news itself. But that's why it works. The people provide the emotion, and you get very quickly attached to the characters. There is subtle commentary on the "showbizification" of broadcast news, but the brilliant thing is that it's never broadcasted (pun intended), and instead it's all subtle and fully at the service of the characters.

The three main characters (each played brilliantly by Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt) are perfectly realized. They each stand for something bigger than themselves, but are still real individuals. Hunter plays a working woman who is successful in her professional life, but struggling in her personal life (think Liz Lemon). As we go through the movie both strands of her professional and personal life are connected together, and at the end of the movie the ethics and principles of her career are actually brought full circle into the romantic conflict in her personal life. It's truly brilliant writing that captures both ideas and emotion. Even though the film is a Hollywood romantic comedy, it still finds a way to be unconventional. You'll find a happy ending in the movie in which things work out to a degree, but it's not the traditional happy ending you would expect. The film makes the statement that while things may not go your way the way you want them to, they will still end up going your way.

Grade: A-

Cosmopolis (2012)

Director: David Cronenberg

 It's not everyday you leave a movie theater confused on whether or not the movie you just watched was a brilliant masterpiece or psuedo-intellectual soulless crap. But this is close to what happened when I finished watching Cosmopolis. It's a movie that is mostly just all conversations, and some very odd, nonsensical ones at that. For example, there is one in which two characters talk about rats becoming the new world currency. My dilemma became "is there legitimate meaning behind all this dialogue or is it all just a fake attempt to try to say something meaningful without actually showing it?" After putting some thought into it, and admittedly giving  Cronenberg the benefit of the doubt, I lean towards actual intellectual rather than psuedo-intellectual. But even if you don't quite understand the concepts and conclusions of the economic and existential conversations, you understand the film because of Cronenberg's direction.

The movie can definitely be defined as soulless, but I'm not sure that's a knock against the film because it suits the subject matter quite well. The film is an examination of a soulless man, a man who has become so cold and distant due to his very sudden rise and fall in wealth and class, which has isolated him from the rest of the world, something that Cronenberg captures extremely well with the many claustrophobic scenes in his limo. He is now experiencing a new feeling of loss, which seems to catapult into an existential yearning for his past, something familiar. The whole movie is him trying to get across the city to go to the barbershop where his family used to get haircuts. Robert Pattinson was made to play the main role. All the negative criticism his acting received for the Twilight movies is a positive in this film. His distant, expressionless performance matches perfectly with Cronenberg's almost-robotic direction.  I'm still not completely sure of what it all means, especially the last scene which appears to turn the film on its head a little too much, but I think Cronenberg got across exactly what he wanted to get across. The feeling of non-feeling.

Grade: B+

Red Hook Summer (2012)

Director: Spike Lee

 There are very few well-known black filmmakers working in Hollywood, or even the independent scene, in America who actually take on serious issues that affect the black community. Spike Lee is really the only one I can think of who has achieved some success. There are many who want Lee to diversify and take on other subjects, but I cherish his films because there is no one doing what he's doing. Lee's new film is just another example. Red Hook Summer is vintage Spike Lee. It's an independent film set in Brooklyn taking on issues like race, religion, poverty, and gentrification. It's style is spontaneous, improvisatory, and almost television commercial-like at times. His style makes his serious themes easy and even fun to digest, and that's why he's such a beloved filmmaker.

The film is about a low-income community that is being over-run with middle class white Americans. It's a community of people that have gotten the short straw for their whole lives and there's no hope for their future. In a community such as this you'd think the local church has a large congregations, but this is not true. Clarke Peters (from The Wire) plays the local reverend and in between his fiery topical sermons that lay out Lee's ideas, we see him trying to increase the congregation and struggle to get people to attend his church. Religion is usually the main source of hope for low-income and poverty-stricken people, so it is a bit befuddling at first he has such a hard time. But by the end of the movie, due to a late twist that is honestly a little too unexpected, you know why the church is having such a hard time. I don't want to spoil it, but I think the film raises a great point with the events of the third act, though I think the first two thirds of the movie are a little meandering and don't lead in at all to the third act. The movie isn't the most focused, the most thought-out movie, but a lot of effort went into creating a spontaneous feel that reflects real life and also actually taking on important issues that affect a specific community.

Grade: B

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Director: Benh Zeitlin

 The American independent movie has become a genre unto itself. They're usually comedic films with some drama mixed, stylistically bare and low-key, and usually starring young 20-something year old people dealing with "relatable" human issues that speak to the modern day. But here comes Beasts of the Southern Wild to give American independent cinema a jolt of life. It's a film filled with magical realism and a folksy but lyrical tone. It's set in a island off the coast of Louisiana in a small community with no connection to the outside world. They are self-sufficient and proud of it. Our lead character is actually the opposite of the cultured, privileged, whiney college graduate whose trying to learn how to function in the world that we see in so many American independent films. Our lead character is Hushpuppy, a six-year-old girl who is learning to come to terms with how nature works. It's a coming-of-age story, only the person who is coming of age is only six years old.

When stripped from the lyrical camerawork, the historic mythology, and the cultural tics the film is essentially about the spirit of individualism and a celebration of independence. It can be construed as a libertarian movie, but even if you're not a libertarian the film will still ring true because the independence of the characters comes from a distrust of others that I think all of us can understand. People leave us, whether it's voluntarily or through death, and we all need to get used to that just as Hushpuppy learns. While the movie never explicitly references Hurricane Katrina it does call back to it quite obviously and the effects that it had on the people who called that area home for so many years. The movie humanizes those who stay behind with their homes during a hurricane, because it emphasizes the importance of a place called home, especially in a community that gets no support from the outside world. As you can tell there's a whole lot of allegorical analysis that can be done with this film, but I still believe that the reason this film is powerful is because of the journey of Hushpuppy as little girl trying to make sense of the world. Beasts of the Southern Wild does something that should be impossible. It combines childhood imagination and naivete with the very adult qualities of responsibility and independence.

Grade: A-

The West Wing: Season One (2000)

Creator: Aaron Sorkin

 Spending my summer interning on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC seemed like a good time to start watching this loved and popular Aaron Sorkin show about the minutiae of daily life in the west wing of the White House. There are a handful of main characters, all of whom work for the President of the United States. In true Sorkin fashion the characters are definitely idealistic, but the show recognizes that the world they occupy is not a world of idealists. I was most impressed with the fact that the show is not afraid to display the characters struggling to get things done the right way. It's the ultimate conflict between compromise and principles (Sorkin's new show The Newsroom mostly fails at this, but more on that in another post). Throughout the season the main arc seems to be this battle between playing it safe to stay alive and taking risks by doing the right thing. It's a conflict that's been present for as long as politics has existed and Barack Obama is proof that it's definitely still a huge issue today.

One of my best ways the show displayed this conflict was the personal issues of the staffers. Sam Seaborn loved a call girl, and even though there's nothing wrong with that, it's still going to be a problem because of how it might be viewed by the press. Another great thing the show did is make sure the personal stories and personal relationships of the characters were focused on the effect they had on the job they were doing. This is a show about the job these people are doing first, and the people who have the job second. We see the negative effects the time and energy the important job has on the personal lives of the characters (though I wish we would have seen more of this). While the conflicts in the job is shown very well, I do think the characters are a little too-good-to-be-true. This is most evident when it comes to President Bartlett. There are a few moments where he does things that make him out to be some Gandhi-like figure. There is a scene early in the season in which the President lets his emotions get the best of him and almost orders an attack on hundreds of innocent civilians, and I would have liked to see more of that side of the President. But I will say one thing, all of the characters on this show are incredibly likable, and because you enjoy spending time with these people it makes it so much easier to watch the show. You'll know what I'm talking about when the season-ending cliffhanger occurs and you find your heart beating a million times an hour.

Grade: B+

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Director: Christopher Nolan

 There are two different ways someone could view this film. As a standalone film or as the third and final movie in a trilogy. As a standalone movie The Dark Knight Rises is mostly just a bloated wanna-be epic with a seriously confused stance on authority. But when the two preceding films are taken into consideration, then it becomes an immensely satisfying end to an epic trilogy on heroism. How the movie ends and what happens to Batman and Bruce Wayne is absolutely perfect. If you were to end the Batman saga the last five minutes of this movie are pretty much exactly how it should happen. But the plot and the events that it took to get to that ending and to make those thematic points were not executed as well as they could have been. The plot is filled with holes, weak assumptions, and cliches. None of the revolution and nuclear winter stuff really was that impressive. Even Bane as the villain felt mostly like a plot device than a real menace and antagonist to Batman (the exception being the initial harrowing underground encounter between the two).

But I still believe that ultimately this is a satisfying ending to a great trilogy. This is because the film emphasizes the ideals that created Batman in the first place. Hope, heroism, and inspiration. All of that muddled and bloated plot was all for one reason and that was to raise the stakes against Batman so high that he would never be able to come back from it the same way. The film highlights the fact that Batman is above all a symbol that is meant to inspire hope. Bruce Wayne never thought he could change his city by individually taking out every single criminal for the rest of his life, and even if he could do that, he would die someday because after all even Batman is mortal. Back in Batman Begins Ra's al Ghul was the one who taught him that he has to be more than a man, that he has to become an ideal, and that idea is taken full circle in this film. The politics of this trilogy are confusing, and if you spend any time trying to figure out what this film believes about authority, government, if it's fascist or anarchist, you'll get a lot of conflicting messages. But that's okay, because I feel like Christopher Nolan is mostly apathetic to all of that. Instead, The Dark Knight trilogy is a story about the power of the individual. It's about how one individual can rise up and inspire others to do the same and create real social change. Even if it does so with some lackluster execution, this final movie does cement those themes.

Grade: B+

The Wire: Season Four (2006)

Creator: David Simon

 After three seasons in which the scope of the urban American problem was expanded each season, the fourth season of The Wire takes a few steps back and shows us the root of the problem. It all begins with the children on the street. Maybe you were wondering what all the gangsters on the street did wrong as kids to get into this situation. Why did they end up on the corner with drugs and a gun? And why can't one of these kids just focus, go to college, and make a life for himself? Well here is your answer. These kids are smart, clever, good-hearted, and innocent, but the environment they live in draws them into the harmful sludge of urban society. It's not even that these specific kids were at the wrong place at the wrong time, because the thing is, every kid in their neighborhood is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fates of these children were planned since the day they were born.

The season follows four kids, all of whom take very different paths that seem to end up in places not too far from each other. They all display a potential to do something, to be something more. But if you've seen The Wire you know not to expect a happy ending where one of the kids from the ghetto grows up to be that astronaut he always wanted to be. But the show doesn't shy away from showing success, we see a relative win with the fate of one of the kids. But even then, we see how the system makes that success so much harder than it needs to be. The ending of this season will have you in tears, and it won't be because of some kid having a cathartic breakdown or someone dying, it will be because of the overwhelming sensation that comes over you in which your emotions finally take in the realization about how messed up everything is. It's a feeling that I've honestly never had before watch any TV show or movie. I've never felt a grander sense of tragedy than I did when I finished season four of The Wire. This is why that out of all the great seasons of The Wire, this season is the greatest.

Grade: A

Magic Mike (2012)

Director: Steven Soderbergh

When it comes to how prolific he is, Steven Soderbergh is like the new Woody Allen. But where Soderbergh differs from Allen is his versatility. Allen's movies are consistently good, but they frequently feature similar characters and similar themes. With Soderbergh you never know what you're going to get, and there's no better example of that fact than Magic Mike, a movie starring Channing Tatum about male strippers. There was an automatic stigma attached to the movie just on the basis of the cast and its subject matter, but anyone who knows Soderbergh's work knows that this movie isn't going to be some cheap lady-pandering fluffy Channing Tatum vehicle.

The movie is less about male stripping and more about the recession. It's very much a movie from this time. If there was never a recession we probably wouldn't see a movie about two financially struggling good-looking white men. It's also a unique film because of the bait-and-switch Soderbergh pulls by changing up the concept of the male gaze and by almost using a female gaze in certain scenes. The audience settles into the world of male stripping with ease, and that's helped by Soderbergh's style which keeps the editing and the visuals interesting always reminding us of the "different-but-not-quite" world the characters reside in. Soderbergh has so much knowledge on the craft of film that if you're a film buff you'll never be bored during his movies, and when he takes on fascinating subjects like male stripping then it's even better. He's been making so many movies recently that none of them are truly masterpieces, but they're all fascinating and extremely well-made. Whenever I see a Soderbergh I gain a renewed hope for mainstream Hollywood filmmaking.

Grade: B

Ted (2012)

Director: Seth Macfarlane

If it wasn't for Judd Apatow this movie would have been one of the comedy highlights of this year, but the raunchy R-rated comedy is something we've seen so much of recently that it's not as shocking or hilarious when we see it now. You might initially think that if Family Guy was allowed to do whatever it wanted without any television restrictions it might be better, but Ted is basically that, and it's really not that dissimilar from Family Guy. Like Macfarlane's television show, there are moments where the movie is absolutely hilarious, but also like the show there are moments where the pop culture references and "politically incorrect" ethnic jokes just drag on.

The best parts of the movie are definitely when Ted interacts with Mark Wahlberg's character, where they're just sitting around and interacting. Even the initial story about Wahlberg's character having to choose between Ted and his girlfriend is actually not bad, but the final act of the movie becomes some weird thriller that is basically Macfarlane trying to be cinematic for the sake of being cinematic. I certainly laughed a lot while watching, but I also laughed a lot during 21 Jump Street, but that movie was much more clever and had better performances. You'll probably laugh quite a bit while watching Ted but unlike 21 Jump Street it's not one of those comedies that sticks around afterwards.

Grade: C

To Rome With Love (2012)

Director: Woody Allen

 I don't think you can technically call this an "omnibus" film because the film has one director, but the short stories within this film are all unrelated enough to the point that you could actually think of it like that. There are four stories, and the only thing connecting the four is that they're set in the same city and they're all written and directed by Woody Allen. Critics rarely find these kinds of movies masterpieces because they like the movies to work as a whole and for there to be a reason that we're seeing them all in one sitting. While I do agree, I find that attitude to be more nitpicking. In my view, I'm quite glad that I get to see four new short films made by Woody Allen and starring some wonderful actors all for the price of one movie.

And it's certainly a bonus that all four of the stories are really well done. Allen fully flexes the Italian influences that have been scattered throughout his career (Rossellini, Fellini, Antonioni to name a few). Italian films of the 1960's were especially obsessed with upper class and celebrity culture, and Allen comes up with a story in which Roberto Benigni becomes famous literally overnight involving exactly those themes. But perhaps the best story of the film was the one involving Alec Baldwin as some sort of subconscious stand-in giving life advice to a character played by Jesse Eisenberg. It's a unique story about recognizing wisdom from elders but being unable to accept it. The other two, one in which Allen himself stars as an opera director and another where Penelope Cruz is a hooker pretending to be a wife are not as insightful, but are very funny and show that Allen knows humor like he knows the back of his hand. Allen is an incredibly prolific filmmaker, but more impressive is that he rarely has a misstep. To Rome With Love continues this consistently solid tradition.

Grade: B

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Director: Marc Webb

Many in the audience came into this movie already disliking it for being an unnecessary remake of a movie that came out not even ten years ago. Th first and second Sam Raimi/Toby Maguire Spiderman movies were good movies, but it's not like they were perfect and couldn't be improved upon. Which is why I welcomed the re-do, especially with Marc Webb, director of the wonderful (500) Days of Summer at the helm. So is this Spiderman better than the previous ones? I'd say the results are mixed. Story-wise and plot-wise, this movie is a mess. The screenplay seems like it was revised and cut up into smithereens by multiple writers. The conspiracy regarding Peter Parker's parents that's introduced early on is completely forgotten (I guess it's "saved" for a sequel), the main villain Curt Connors is not explored at all, and the genetic swapping is pure contrivance. It's like they filmed using an unfinished screenplay.

But while the plot is mediocre at best, the characters are realized characters and the actors bring their best to the roles. Webb brings the ability he showed in (500) Days of Summer to create real romantic relationships between young people to this film. The moments between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone building their high school romance are endlessly watchable. I'd actually like this movie better if it was just a romance between Garfield and Stone without any superhero business. Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Parker's uncle and aunt also rise to the challenge and elevate the mediocre script into something much more emotional. Even when Parker is Spiderman, the movie does have some great moments. A climactic moment involving cranes, and one great scene involving a boy hanging over a bridge are two scenes in which Webb and Garfield succeeds at establishing the pathos surrounding Spiderman and creating real emotion and tension. This is a movie that has a lot of plot, but instead succeeds at character instead of plot. But because character is a rare aspect in superhero movies, The Amazing Spider-Man is a movie I ultimately value.

Grade: C+

Girls: Season One (2012)

Creator: Lena Dunham

This show about a mid-20's aspiring female writer living in modern-day New York City initially caught my attention due to its refreshing authenticity. The main character, Hannah, was slightly overweight who was definitely not your average Hollywood starlet. There was sex, and it was not glamorous and wild. The cast of characters were people who I could imagine meeting in the real world, flaws and all. Much of this is because creator/writer/director/actor certainly brought much from her own life into the show and that brings a lot of authenticity and honesty into the characters and situations.

Hannah is by no means the greatest person and is certainly not very "likable," and that's not a flaw. It's actually a strength. Hannah is self-obsessed and she believes that the problems she has in her life are unique to her, even though clearly they are not. This self-obsession is the main constant of the season. It's the reason she has most of the problems in her life, and it's the reason she can't solve most of those problems. While Hannah and her friends represent a small slice of humanity, this theme is what enables it to expand into other facets of culture and different types of people. The show does comment on society occasionally, but it's above all about individual problems (if it could do both it would be as good as Mad Men). As good as the show is, there is definitely room for improvement as well. The momentum of the narrative could be done better, and there are lots of moments on the show that could have a greater impact with a better visual eye. But Dunham is young, and if she is someone who learns and improves from the past, then she is definitely going to be a filmmaker to watch.

Grade: B+

Mad Men: Season Five (2012)

Creator: Matthew Weiner

 The 1960's are famous for having been the era of great social change, and Mad Men has been well aware of this during its run, but we haven't seen it manifest itself completely. Up till the fourth season it was mostly hints of what was to come. But now that we're in the second half of the 1960's we're seeing a lot more of the actual social change and seeing how it is affecting both the young and old characters. This season takes on this divide between the young and old workers head-on. The first half of the season is about the old making way for the new. We see people like Don Draper and Roger Sterling struggling to keep up with society's new trends, something that's pretty important to their jobs. The second half of the season we see their responses to that struggle, which ends up being denial. They have an increased ambition to keep up with the younger people and try to get back what they once had.

For the main character, Don Draper, we see this not only in his professional life, but his personal life as well. The beginning is the best of times for Don. He gets rejuvenated when he starts a new firm, a new account, a new family. But once that beginning ends, the dissatisfaction comes back, and a search for a new beginning begins once again. This season shows us the negative consequences that come with ambition, which is a constant sense of dissatisfaction. Mad Men goes deep into the human psyche like no other show has done before, and it does so in a sophisticated, artful, and subtle way. The show has created such complicated characters in a world that is so much like our own that makes it so easy to react to even the smallest of changes or events in their lives because we know exactly what they're going through. This is because Mad Men is a show about one of the most universal things there is, the endless pursuit of happiness. And what is Don's definition of happiness? "It's the moment before you need more happiness."

Grade: A

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Director: Wes Anderson

 Children want to grow up. Adults want to become kids again. This is what Wes Anderson's newest film is primarily about. It's not something new to his films (you can read my examination of his whole filmography here), but it's done better in this film than before. The two idealistic kids in this film who elope together believe they are in love and are mature enough to take the world on. The two kids seem to act more like adults than the actual adults in the movie. The adults that are looking for them are sad and filled with melancholy. They're fed up and yearn to go back to the innocent days of their youth when they believed in things like love. Moonrise Kingdom is a movie filled with sadness through its adult characters, but through the younger characters we see hope and idealism. Getting these two disparate elements to work together in the same film is a perfect example of what makes Anderson such a marvelous filmmaker.

Anderson displays this all with his trademark idiosyncratic style, and he can get away with it in this film more so than previous ones because of the time period and the fact that it's set in a pretty small town, and small towns have a knack for being idiosyncratic in their own ways. The cutesy Godardian style also fits the storybook aesthetic and substance of the film, as our two lovebird characters share a storybook love. Anderson displays that love through some marvelously humorous but oddly beautiful moments between the two. Anderson has a knack for drawing you in with his unique sense of style, and keeping you invested through the real and affecting characters. This is a film that Anderson gets completely right. The writing, the visual style, the acting, and even the music is all flawless, and they converge together as whole as well as any Anderson film has to date.

Grade: A-

Your Sister's Sister (2012)

Director: Lynn Shelton

If you had only seen the first scene of this movie and had to judge it on that, you'd think that it probably be as good as Lynn Shelton's last movie Humpday, but unfortunately the great realistic social awkwardness of that first scene does not last. There are later scenes of social awkwardness, but the awkwardness veers more towards melodrama. Like many improv-heavy films with good actors, the dialogue is a joy to listen to, mostly because you feel like you're actually listening in on someone's private conversation. But as the "getting-to-know-the-characters" part of the movie comes to a close, and the melodramatic plot comes into focus, that real life dialogue starts to get pushed out of the way in favor of some fairly contrived plot points.

I won't spoil it, but I will say that everything that happens in this movie is entirely predictable but also very inconsequential. The movie just doesn't feel important. Even for a low-key "mumblecore" filmmaker like Shelton, this is a pretty minor effort. Most of the movie is set in one house, and it only features about three characters for 90% of the running time. But that's not why the movie doesn't have much of an impact. The movie feels lackluster because nothing of any consequence happens, and the big events that do happen don't feel unique or special in any way. I saw this film in a movie theater, and this was one of the few times I've thought to myself that the movie experience would not be diminished at all if I had seen it on a small screen.

Grade: C-

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

Director: Colin Trevorrow

A man in a mullet posts a classified ad in which he is looking for someone to go back in time with him. It's a real ad that you've probably seen before (apparently the real one was a joke), and when making a movie about it you can go a few different ways. Colin Trevorrow decides to take a semi-serious stab at the story while still poking some fun at the concept of the ad. The movie has a lot of comedy in it, but ultimately it takes the character of Kenneth, the guy who posted the ad, and the situation fairly seriously. The whole romance aspect and the nostalgia for the past aspect has all been done before and the tone is your basic standard Sundance indie/comedy, but this one earns its emotion by being fairly effective in creating a real romance between two people affected by past sadness.

Aubrey Plaza's familiar apathetic character (she's basically the same as her Parks and Recreation character) takes a turn for the serious in a very good performance in her first ever lead role. Even though she's basically playing the same character she always plays, we see a different side of that character. On the other end is Mark Duplass playing Kenneth, and Duplass puts in one of his better performances playing the character whom the whole movie depended on. Safety Not Guaranteed is an effective film only because both lead actors embody their characters and make the relationship between them completely believable. But there are aspects to the movie besides the relationship between the main characters. There is also Plaza's character's boss, played by Jake Johnson, who figures into the nostalgic theme of wanting for the past through his quest to find a girl he was with in high school. It's not a bad story line, but it is a bit unnecessary and almost seems like filler. If Trevorrow was challenging himself with this project by trying to take a concept and making a serious quality movie out of it, I'd say he mostly succeeded. Yes it could have been better, but it's impressive that it's as good as it is.

Grade: B

Veep: Season One (2012)

Creator: Armando Iannucci

 If you've seen In the Loop, the 2009 British film by the same guy who created this show, then you'll know exactly what to expect for Veep (if you haven't seen that movie but like Veep, then you really need to watch In the Loop). The comedic style is dialogue-heavy with a bit of an absurdist slant. It takes a slightly exaggerated, but true in theory, look at the world of politics. Veep gets a lot right about politics in America, even if much of the show is a bit out there. D.C. politicians don't throw creative insults around at each other or engage in the type of shenanigans the show's characters do, but the spirit of the character's actions does ring true.

The lofty over-ambition of Dan and the slave-like loyalty of Gary are two examples of characters on the show that are exaggerated for comedic effect, but are still based on reality, and they're all the more funnier because of it. The same goes for the story-lines on the show, like Selina's efforts to get a Clean Jobs bill without making anyone mad only to find that in the end she has made everyone mad (pretty much politics in America in a nutshell). The show reveals the absurdities of not just politics, but of the human desire for others to approve. Even though the show does seem a bit slight and doesn't have goals that are set too high, it's most definitely achieves the modest goals it has for itself. On top of all of its great digs at the politics, media, and culture in America, the show provides a high and frequent dose of laughs. This is an example of a comedy that does exactly what it's supposed to.

Grade: B

Game of Thrones: Season Two (2012)

Creators: David Benioff and D.B. Weiss

 It should be obvious based on the title of the show that Game of Thrones is about the pursuit of power. The first season disqualified those who were too noble and pure to gain power in a harsh and brutal world and defined what type of people won't be taking the throne. The second season takes a step back and looks at why those who want power think that they can have it. Each of the "kings" this season who want to become king of Westeros find their legitimacy coming from different places. Stannis Baratheon finds his legitimacy coming from religious authority. Joffrey has legitimacy because of his supposed royal blood (and this a point of contention in the series). The Khaleesi's legitimacy comes from the fact that years ago her families power was wrongfully taken. Power comes from many places, but only one person can have it.

This season examines all of the rulers who want to be king, and their very different reasons for wanting to do so. By looking at the show through this thematic lens, this season was definitely better than the first one, which spent a lot of time setting up everything. But there is one thing this season didn't have that last season did, and that's a definitive conclusion to the thematic arc (I'm referring to the fate of Ned Stark in season one). The Battle of Blackwater Bay is meant to be the big conclusion to the season, but nothing really happened. It was a visceral battle that was an incredibly impressive episode, but after the battle everything more or less went back to how things were, and the pursuit of power continues just as it was before into the third season. Not only that, but the final scene of this season was pretty much the exact same as the final scene of last season. In terms of plot, not a lot of progress was made this season, though it's definitely possible and probable that this is all leading to a plot-heavy and exciting third season. But I'm not complaining. Because there was still a great deal of impressive writing this season that examined the everything from the power of legitimacy, the power of gender, the power of brutality, to the power of survival.

Grade: B+