The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Director: Peter Jackson

Now if you're a fan of the first Lord of the Rings trilogy then you're certain to find some enjoyment in returning to Middle Earth, as I did. The world of Middle Earth is as rich as ever. But The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is certainly not the ideal introduction to this world and the story of the ring. It's a movie in which the stakes are not very high, especially when compared to Lord of the Rings. Bilbo Baggins has a strong character arc, the theme of taking back the homeland is also well established, but as of now there's no existential threat to the world as a whole, at least not to justify the extremely long running time. But at the same time it's difficult to judge the film because the movie is written almost as a miniseries. It's clear that Peter Jackson knew he was going to two more three hour long movies and so he took his time and included every side adventure from the book and much more that was never in the book.

The movie is the first of three movies, and unlike the fairly cinematic ending of The Fellowship of the Ring, the end of the The Hobbit feels very much like the ending of an important episode of TV. While I enjoyed the movie, the eventual three-part structure makes the movie hard to truly criticize because there's so much more. Certain scenes in the movie are meant to introduce a certain concept and then are not talked about it again, which would be a blatant flaw in any other movie but in this one you can't fault the film because obviously it will be brought up in the later films. If you don't compare it to the previous trilogy, this is a very satisfactory first film, though much of it could have been streamlined and cut out. But if the film was streamlined and only scenes that were important to the direct plot, the movie would not quite have felt like a part of Lord of the Rings, which is a series known as epic fantasy. Instead we've got the beginning of what I'm sure is going to end up an epic, but it just isn't quite there yet.

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-

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-

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-

Prometheus (2012)

Director: Ridley Scott

 Art is the expression of ideas and emotions that may not always be comfortable or easy to experience, while entertainment is for the soothing of the masses. For decades there has been a battle in Hollywood between the studio executives interested in creating mass entertainment and the filmmakers behind the camera interested in creating timeless art. But in Prometheus there is a slight  variation in that battle, because it seems that the filmmakers themselves are interested in creating a fun entertaining movie, but also exploring big ideas at the same time. Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, this ends with a failure, but that failure is still more interesting than most everything Hollywood has put out this year. The movie explores fascinating ideas, notions, and symbols pertaining to creation, rebirth, sacrifice, power, ambition, God, and science. But ultimately it's all too much. One two hour movie will never be able to be successful at exploring all these ideas while still delivering a science fiction film with a standard beginning, middle, and ending.

The movie shifts focus many times throughout the movie. Sometimes it is focused on David the android, and his ambiguous issues, then later we will focus on the faith of our main character Shaw's issues of faith, then later we will contemplate man's desire to meet his maker. None of these threads successfully mesh together and it's pretty disappointing because these ideas are all fascinating on their own but they all get glossed over so quickly. Director Ridley Scott and writer Damon Lindelof are definitely ambitious filmmakers. As I've explained already, Lindelof's script is incredibly ambitious. But Scott's visual eye is one of the best parts of the film. The production design, the visual effects, the magnificent vistas, and overall look of the film is all extraordinary. These aspects are certainly the best part of the movie, and even when movie turns into more of a standard sci-fi action movie, Scott's visual eye keep the movie at least somewhat interesting. This movie is honestly not very good, but it's one that I can't help but recommend because it's such a fascinating miss.

Grade: B-

The Avengers (2012)

Director: Joss Whedon

Regardless of the quality, I feel like the fact that this movie was even made is enough for me to like it at least a little bit. Making four movies based on previously existing characters, and then bringing all of those stories together, including most of the same actors, is a big accomplishment. Even though this movie won't be my favorite movie of the year, it is still impressive just based on the fact that it's as enjoyable as it is. When comparing The Avengers to other superhero movies, it's definitely one of the most fun ones yet. And if I was talking about this film from a business perspective, it's even more impressive (but I'm not).

The best part of this movie is most definitely the relationships between the main characters and the humor that comes from that. Joss Whedon does a great job at making sure the film never takes itself too seriously. This is important because the plot of the movie is honestly horrible. If I just gave you a quick rundown of the plot, it would sound incredibly substandard. While this movie is really good for a superhero movie, it is still plagued with many of the same issues the genre of superhero movies face, which are plot issues, tonal issues, and plausibility issues. This is a still a very silly movie that is impossible to take seriously at all. Thankfully Whedon seems to know this, and while I do wish he would have taken a bit more time with the story, the humor and the action scenes are good enough so it's possible to enjoy the film even with the disappointing plot.

Grade: B-

21 Jump Street (2012)

Directors: Phil Lord & Chris Miller

 Currently, people love making fun of the 80's, and this movie plays into that current cultural sentiment completely. Most people watching this movie probably have not seen the 80's TV show that it's based on, but it's obvious this is a movie that is remake of something from the 80's, and the movie is very self-aware about that fact. A lot of great humor comes from the acknowledging of 80's high school stereotypes and parodies of 80's action movies. It's all very good fun.

This is also one of those movies that has laughs every minute or so, instead of those other comedies that that may be funny due to the premise. This is one is definitely one of those laugh-out-loud films rather than the joyful smiling movies. The story is fairly standard for an action/comedy like this, there are barely any risks or anything unique with the structure or story, but there are enough laughs to make this very worth it.

Grade: B-

Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

Director: Brian De Palma

 A really wacky, silly, over-the-top movie that you can't help but like because its so fun to watch. This is a movie that mixes the genres of comedy, horror, and the musical, while also acting as a tragedy. It references an insane amount of prior work, from Psycho to The Phantom of the Opera to Faust. This movie is the definition of campy fun, I'm not sure if I learned much from the movie or if the movie represents any great artistic filmmaking, but it does represent a wild time.

The themes it has have been done to death, especially the main theme of artistic integrity. And there are scenes that are not campy fun, but just campy dumb. So it's not completely successful, but the unique visuals, musical dances, and costumes do give the movie an other-worldly feel that set it apart from any other movie you've ever seen. The highly expressionistic style is definitely De Palma at his most fun. It doesn't work all the time, but no one can deny that this is one unique film.

Grade: B-

Interiors (1979)

Director: Woody Allen

This one of the few films Woody Allen has made that has absolutely no comedy in it. I've also seen Allen's Match Point, which also has no comedy, but if I had not seen that I'm not sure I would have a whole lot of confidence in Allen's dramatic chops. The movie is good, but there is not a lot that stands out in it. The movie centers on one family that has three mature daughters, and we see that everyone has a wide range of problems, from a fear of death, guilt for not caring about parents, loneliness, etc. All of this makes the individual characters fascinating to an extent, but the film as a whole lacks focus.

One of the more impressive things is that the film is directed with a lot of control by Allen. Every shot is blocked perfectly and the compositions are framed with precision. The characters get to stand out and become real people. Allen definitely tries to get all Ingmar Bergman in its serious examination of the issues above. While I was fascinated by the characters, their dialogue, and certain individual scenes while I was watching, the movie lacks memorability because of the aimless story.

Grade: B-

Breathless (1983)

Director: Jim McBride

This is a remake of the landmark French film by Jean-Luc Godard of the same title, so expectations were quite low coming into this one. But to my surprise it was not horrible, it actually is an interesting translation of the French original to an American context. It captures much of the depth of the love story in the original and does includes its own pop cultural references like Silver Surfer and Jerry Lee Lewis. Richard Gere's performance is also quite good, though I cannot say the same for the female lead, who is frankly horrible.

It's in no way a great movie, and there are some laughable moments that are the epitome of 1980's cheese, but by the end this relationship at the center of the movie becomes fairly real and the love between the two characters feels as complicated as it should. It's not a subtle film in the slightest, everything about it is direct, and unlike the original there is nothing all that experimental or rebellious in the filmmaking to reflect the main character. While it's not the most wonderful film, it is one that takes you by surprise in its intertextuality and its genuine emotion.

Grade: B-

Infernal Affairs (2002)

Directors: Andrew Lau and Alan Mak

I've already seen Martin Scorsese's The Departed, which is a remake of this film, so many of the surprises in the movie weren't all that surprising to me. But nonetheless the movie is wonderfully plotted and paced, and it does actually get into some of the psychological issues of the characters. The two main characters in the movie make sensible decisions, and that difficulty of living a double life for both of  them is well established and not entirely cliche.

While the plot is exciting and well done, some of the filmmaking is actually pretty cliche, and worse, lazy. The music is cringe-inducing at times, and the all-too-frequent flashbacks to scenes we've already seen assumes the viewers are not smart enough to figure the movie out. The movie has got some serious flaws in the way it tells the emotion of the story. But the relatively high level of actual character study in what is essentially a crime picture, is enough to make it worth it. It's not quite as great as The Departed, but it is a movie that can be enjoyed on its own merits.

Grade: B-

A Dangerous Method (2011)

Director: David Cronenberg


This isn't a great film, but I feel like it will eventually become an essential part of David Cronenberg's career. A Dangerous Method boils down so much of the thematic material in Cronenberg's earlier films, which makes the fact that it's basically a talky period drama not that surprising even though it should be. Both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung are the main characters of the film, and their studies on human sexual behavior and psychoanalysis were probably studied by Cronenberg many times when he was making his earlier body-horror movies.


So the subject matter and all the conversations that Freud and Jung have are directly related to Cronenberg's sensibilities, and if you're a huge Cronenberg fan it's definitely a must watch. But I'm not sure it's a great movie. The film does not have a singular focus, instead it tries to be a film about the birth of psychoanalysis, the rise of a young psychologist studying under Freud, and a love story between a patient and her psychologist. The elements in the film were certainly connected, but tf it wants to satisfyingly tackle all of these stories it should have been much longer than the 99 minute runtime.


It may not have been exactly what I wanted, but A Dangerous Method is still always completely fascinating. This battle that Jung has between repressing his sexual desires and staying true to the monogamous relationship that he believes he must uphold makes for some inner conflict that is thrilling to behold, especially for a figure as educated and intellectual as Jung. I certainly was engaged in intellectual thought while watching and listening to Jung, Freud, and the very entertaining Keira Knightley, but it was the result of the dialogue and the real life figures in the film, rather than the filmmakers.


Grade: B-

Young Adult (2011)

Director: Jason Reitman
Country: USA


I don't think we'll ever get tired of the man-child character (or in this case, woman-child). Its an adult character that acts immature and like a child. Part of the reason we'll never get tired of them is that contradictory image of a full grown person doing some pretty stupid things. Charlize Theron indulges us all greatly in Young Adult with a performance that convincingly allows us to hate her completely without much sympathy at all. She's an adult who is still stuck in a world of teenage fantasy, and we flock to it because we know so many people like just like her.


Diablo Cody's script is sometimes very clever and definitely coherent, but it's not unique in many ways. What you might expect from a character like Mavis who comes back to her hometown is basically what you might expect to happen (except for a great ending that is certainly not conventional). The movie flows very well most of the time, but it comes to an abrupt close towards the final quarter that seems to suggest that the movie should have actually been much longer than it is. The main reason this movie does not get top accolades from me is the lack of ambition, not only from the script, but mostly from Jason Reitman's directing. The movie feels like something he did on a whim as a favor and didn't spend much time thinking about it in pre-production.


The film is ultimately a clever character study of a person who is flat-out fun to watch. Seeing the fancy and hot Mavis interact and befriend the nerdy guy played by Patton Oswalt is something that seems to happen only in the movies, but the actors and the script play on that so well that it's hard not to be amused. But really, I wished this film would be more than just amusing.


Grade: B-