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