Upon exiting the theater after seeing Chronicle a couple days ago, fellow That Was Junk writer Josh asked me, “So, why was it called Chronicle?” After struggling to think up a logical answer, we both came to the conclusion that it was honestly the coolest word they could think of to generally describe the movie: a story. This kind of laziness is apparent in almost every aspect of Chronicle, which takes the found footage format, a genre which used to provide a somewhat new take on old concepts, and does whatever it has to in order to provide the audience with a product that seems somewhat different, but is filled with more lapses in logic and plausibility than some of the worst found footage films out there.

Following three teenagers as they basically gain superpowers after experiencing the most rushed and vague encounter with an alien life form ever put to film, Chronicle shows the effects these powers have on the boy’s friendships, home lives, and the most important aspect of all: their self-esteem. The filmmaker’s then take no time at all to throw many of the famous superhero life lessons towards our heroes: with great power comes great responsibility, absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. And while the actors do a fine job with their severely underwritten and conventional characters, especially Michael B. Jordan as the popular and personable jock, the main problem with Chronicle comes entirely from its presentation.

 

Found footage films used to be (you know, a year ago) a way to creatively tell an old story in a new way. Instead of simply showing the audience what they’ve already seen in the same way they’ve always seen it, filmmakers had be creative in conveying the information without any fancy narrative tricks, and figure out how to arrive at plot and character points in both a realistic and natural fashion. However, instead of trying to find a creative way to tell the story of Chronicle, we instead get a hundred different cheats that make all of the bland characters and boring story beats look like any other normal movie. Lacking any kind of third party piecing together the presented footage, or any single camera or source of continuous perspective, Chronicle simply shows the audience whatever it wants, justifying it with any number of nearby video sources, be they security cameras, a passerby’s cell phone, some dude’s video camera, and a number of cameras that are, along with their footage, lost or destroyed. Oh, your characters are going to have a heart to heart three hundred feet in the air? Well, how about our main character pulls fifty or so iPhone’s out of the nearest skyscraper, and then we’ll cut between them as they all record our perfectly framed characters, getting great audio, and giving us as many angles as we want! It’s all so lazy, it almost feels like a huge step back for the entire genre. Now, instead of finding natural ways of getting out characters to film themselves delivering important exposition or participating in important plot points, we’ll just have the crowd record it, or make the main character pull some Gaspar Noe shit, having the camera float around on its own accord and recording it all perfectly without any help.

Despite this, Chronicle’s not actually that bad of a movie, just an incredibly bland one that attempts to spice things up with a few acts of extreme violence and destruction, and make up for its own failings with the extreme misuse of the found footage device. The leads have a good time with their roles and the audience definitely won’t be bored while watching it, but walking out of Chronicle, the first thing that popped into my mind was, “Why couldn’t they just have made this like a normal movie?” Chronicle already looks like a decently produced studio movie to begin with, so much so that people don’t seem to get that it’s found footage from the commercials and trailers, so obviously getting that aesthetic wasn’t a huge concern during the process of making it, and it would’ve kept the camerawork and motivations for filming certain scenes a non-issue. But, since it’s too late to fix any issues that it might have now, Chronicle will have to settle for being an average superhero movie with some fun scenes, neat effects, and natural performances. In other words, it’s not great, but it could’ve been far, far worse.

 

5 out of 10.

 

If it weren’t already apparent with the announcement of this year’s Academy Award nominees last week, it’d be hard to deny how lame a year it was for movies 2011 was. That’s not to say that there weren’t a few good movies to pull from the pile, but when you realize your movie of the year has been the same since March, and your top ten is filled with mostly movies you weren’t even aware of before you saw them, well…it’s a little disheartening. It’s not even that a majority of the movies that came out in 2011 were bad, but that a lot of them never rose above ”good” to be fantastic or even very memorable. Sure, there were fun ones and cool ones, but nothing that really blew me away.

 

But enough complaining! Look, for all the shitty movies I saw, there were obviously enough to warrant even making a ton ten list, so instead of focusing on the bad (at least until we get to the bottom ten list), let’s take a look at some good movies, and remember that even if there’s nothing but shit at the multi-plex, there’s always a thousand good movies you can download on the internet.

 

I mean rent.

 

From Redbox.

 

Yeah.

 

Redbox.

 

Top Ten Best Movies I Saw For the First Time In 2011:

 

10. No Way Out

One of the most common side effects of anticipation and excitement for a movie is the inevitable disappointment one will probably walk away with after something doesn’t meet their expectations. However, after being unable to find No Way Out anywhere (even the internet), I was not disappointed when it played at the Exhumed Films’ ex-Fest earlier last year, as I stated in my review of it here.

 

9. Shallow Grave

Danny Boyle’s first feature isn’t anything as mind-blowing or as epic as his later features, but it’s a tense little thriller that has a dark sense of humor and never really shows any sign of where it’s going until its surprising ending. Knowing anything about the story kind of takes the fun out of it, but it’s well worth a watch.

 

8. The Last Temptation of Christ

Now, I don’t know much about this Jesus character, but Martin Scorsese’s movie is pretty cool, especially it’s emotional and epic ending, which was apparently the source of some controversy when it was released in 1988. Looking past any plot points that conflict with The Bible, The Last Temptation of Christ is simply the character study of a man who has to choose between a normal life and sacrificing himself to serve the purpose he was raised believing he was born to fulfill. All set to some rocking’ Peter Gabriel music! What’s not to love?

 

7. Ruthless People

Just a really fucking funny black comedy. With Judge Reinhold.

 

6. Eyes Wide Shut

One more impressive example as to why Stanley Kubrick is probably one of the greatest filmmaker’s ever, and one more reason why Tom Cruise should get more respect than he does, off-screen antics be damned. Also, just another reason to never wear masks.

 

5. Lawrence of Arabia

I tend to hate it when people say that “they just don’t make them like they used to”, but in the case of Lawrence of Arabia, they’re completely right. Watching this, or pretty much any sort of epic, historical film that mainly takes place in an exotic location, it’s hard to believe anyone ever took the time and effort to actually shoot anywhere but a climate controlled studio in front of a green screen. Aside from simply existing, however, Lawrence of Arabia’s also an impressive spectacle to behold, despite it’s length and emphasis on sand, telling a compelling story that almost makes you forget that your ass fell asleep a half hour before the movie even started.

 

4. Uncle Buck

Am I saying Uncle Buck is a better movie than Lawrence of Arabia? Well, maybe if there was a scene where Omar Sharif thought Peter O’Toole was having sex with a washing machine, we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

 

3. Bad Education

After attempting to watch all of Almodovar’s films over the last year or so (a journey which I continue to endure), Bad Education not only stood out as his best, taking all of his usual themes (transsexuals, sex, gay culture, anal sex, movies, gay sex, etc.), and applying them to a twisting mystery that keeps the audience wondering what is real and what is meant to appear real for the duration of the movie. Considering many of his movies either feel extremely similar to each other, or feel extremely similar to an obscure Hitchcock movie, Bad Education is a nice reminder of why Almodovar is probably Spain’s most famous filmmaker, and why he has become so respected in the first place.

 

2. Robocop

How have I not seen this until now? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!?

 

1. Fish Story

I didn’t really know what Fish Story was before I saw it, and as I watched, I realized that that’s because it’s almost impossible to summarize this movie into anything less than a few paragraphs that would basically just ruin the fun of watching it in the first place. It’s the kind of movie that doesn’t really seem to make any sense at first, but you don’t really mind, since everything that happens is pretty interesting and different, until you then realize that everything makes perfect sense, and it all comes back around to make an incredible statement about the beauty of randomness and the chaos that makes the world work. Trust me, even if you think it’s a piece of shit, you’ll still watch it until the end.

 

Top Ten Worst Movies of 2011:

10. Fright Night

9. Jack and Jill

8. Season of the Witch

It probably wouldn’t have been so bad if it weren’t so fucking boring.

 

7. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark

Seriously?

 

6. No Strings Attached

5. The Darkest Hour

This year’s Skyline.

 

4. The Art of Getting By

3. Sucker Punch

2. Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star

I’ve got to hand it to Bucky Larson: never before has a movie made me consider not watching movies ever again moreso than this piece of shit. Usually, it’s easy to find the smallest aspect of a movie that makes it worth existing, and, aside from being another one of Adam Sandler’s charitable donations to his friends, there’s nothing here meriting anything but extreme prejudice from the people of Earth.

 

1. Dream House

Remember how I said that it’s easy to find the smallest aspect of a movie that makes it worth existing? Well, Bucky Larson had Adam Sandler supporting his friend’s wellbeing in mind when he ponied up the $10 million for it. Dream House? Not fucking way someone thought this was a good idea. It was reported that Rachel Weisz, Daniel Craig and director Jim Sheridan threatened to not publicize the movie after the studio tampered with it during editing, but there’s no way that studio tampering could’ve been to blame for the terrible direction, writing, acting and general incompetence that must’ve gone into making Dream House.

 

Usually, if a movie has a terrible story, or some bad performances, or a multitude of inconsistencies and absurd twists, it’s at least technically proficient, but, in the most surprising twist Dream House has to offer, not even the fucking way the camera moves or the order of the shots makes sense. From it’s retarded story to its impossibly silly end, Dream House feels like the kind of movie that was conceived and green-lit based on a story conference where a group of people threw a bunch of words like “multiple personality”, “burnt house”, “hospital bracelet”, “leetspeak”, and “Naomi Watts” onto a white board, and then sent it to a man who’d been locked in a closet for twenty years to finish the job. This movie should not exist, and everybody who participated in its creation should each sacrifice a limb in penance.

 

Top Ten Movies of 2011:

10. Real Steel

9. The Muppets

8. The Skin I Live In

If Bad Education is my favorite Almodovar movie of the dozen or so that I’ve seen, The Skin I Live In is definitely in the top three. With another chronologically warped narrative, The Skin I Live In uses the device not just to tell its story, but to keep its audience constantly thinking about their perception of its events, going back to details that initially seemed to be unimportant or obvious, only to give them a far greater and far weirder importance than they first seemed to have. Since the biggest twists of the movie need to be seen to be believed, don’t let your asshole friends ruin the impact of the movie for you, and download, uh…get to the Redbox  and check out The Skin I Live In before just looking it up online. I promise, it’s not a movie you’ll forget anytime soon.

 

7. We Need To Talk About Kevin

6. The Tree of Life

5. Shame

Far more cohesive than his first movie, Hunger, Steve McQueen’s latest tale of a sex addict struggling to find normalcy while continually succumbing to his dark habits not only feature the best male performance of the year in the always great Michael Fassbender’s tortured Brandon, but also makes for one of the more compelling movies I’ve seen about self-control or addiction of any kind.

 

4. The Ides of March

There’s nothing revelatory or incredible about The Ides of March. It’s simply just a well-made movie with a style, story and message that feels like it came straight out of the cynical, anti-establishment filmmaking movement of the mid-70s. This feels way more in tune with the George Clooney who made Good Night and Good Luck, than the one who made Leatherheads or Confessions of A Dangerous Mind, and it shows that aside from being the kind of movie that should be winning him awards, this is the kind he and writing partner Grant Heslov put more of their personality into, which is especially apparent in some of his presidential candidate character’s more passionate speeches and debate responses. In a period where seemingly every politician and corporate figure has lost the trust of the average American citizen, The Ides of March can either be taken as a nightmare to the most positive optimist, or a dream to anyone who’s looking to break into politics, but either way, it makes its message about human nature and the accountability and moral fiber of our leaders heard, loud and clear.

 

3. Thor

Of the many superhero movies that came out this year, it seems that many people have swept Thor under the rug, favoring the X-Men reboot and Captain America in instead. However, aside from just being one of the better action packed, special effects laden Hollywood blockbusters, Thor seems to me to be the one that most strays from the mold. While X-Men: First Class showed us pretty much what we all knew happened in order for the heroes of the franchise to exist, gave us a few montages and disjointed flashbacks in which they learn and perfect the use of their powers, and also brought in just enough moral ambiguity to make it seem way more important than being about just a bunch of guys running around in matching costumes, Thor was, for all intents and purposes, a non-origin. We meet Thor as he is, and he basically stays the same, despite learning to be a better leader and falling in love while banished to Earth, as the audience is effortlessly thrown into the middle of a conflict and history that spans hundreds of years and nine worlds, which all feels surprisingly easy to follow and understand. Made even better by great performances by the entire main cast, but especially Chris Hemsworth as the charmingly hilarious and decidedly all-powerful hero, and a clever script that places the events of the movie at an almost Shakespearean level of royal treason and family drama, Thor is hardly a normal superhero movie, and despite its flaws, is one of the more original attempts at introducing the world to a lesser known comic book character that I’ve witnessed.

 

2. Warrior

There’s no way of explaining Warrior that makes it sound special or interesting. It’s the kind of movie that you go into knowing the basic gist, but come out sobbing like a five year old watching Simba’s dad get trampled by a pack of…what were those, gazelles? It completely catches you off guard, and ends up digging deep into that little place in your mind that you normally only allow Pixar movies and a few moments in Click, making you care about these characters and their struggle more than you do about most other things aside from any childhood pets and maybe your grandmother. Just give it a chance to do its magic, and I’m pretty sure Warrior won’t let you down.

 

1. Source Code

The best science fiction takes a cool concept or theory (time travel, androids, aliens, etc.), and successfully combines it with a human element, either a character that we can all feel for, that we can all root for to defy the impossible conditions within which their story is set. While Source Code may not fall into the relatively perfect and iconic company of Alien, Back To the Future, Blade Runner, and so many others that got this equation so right, it comes incredibly close.

 

It’s all the things that Source Code does that shouldn’t happen, all the things that Jeffrey Wright’s character laments about Jake Gyllenhaal’s Coulter Stevens as he attempts to justify his situation, the slow release of every answer in a logical order that allow it all to come together, the human error that makes Source Code such a unique movie. It’s through the actions of the characters that we get to know them and judge them, and it’s through each trip that we get that one little hint or one character interaction that all leads up to a conclusion that feels earned and, for once, is not a cheap twist designed to make you feel stupid for not catching it earlier.

 

It’s hard to describe what a movie does right that makes it so good when you just know what it is when you see it, as opposed to when you don’t. Source Code is the one movie that stuck out in mind since I first saw it in March as something that was different, something that not only had an original concept that worked, but also told a really good story that didn’t get bogged down by clichés and overcomplicated fantastical nonsense.

 

2011 wasn’t a great year for movies, but that doesn’t mean some great movies didn’t come out of it. Sure, there were probably more mediocre and frustratingly average movies than strikingly good or bad, but it was at least easy enough to pick a few to celebrate for escaping the pack. As sad as it is that the normal couple of perfect or destined-to-be-classic movies never ended up arriving in theaters, at least there were a couple of Thor’s and Source Code’s around to ease the wait until what’s destined to be an amazing 2012 gets here.

 

Shit. Did I just jinx it?

 

What a year. Although ThatWasJunk is barely alive at this point, and any fanbase we may have developed is now entirely depleted- I still feel an obligation to post my yearly review. I have not yet seen all of the films from 2011 that I wish to see, so my Top 10 of 2011 will have to wait a bit longer. However, since time machines do not yet exist, I can not watch any more movies at all in the year of ’11. So I can confidently offer my Top and Bottom Ten Movies I saw for the first time last year.

Save the worst for first, as I always say.

10. Vampyres (1975)

Lesbian vampires. Not as good as it sounds.

9. Jaws 3 (1983)

How did Jaws fall so far? Just awful… and in 3-D!

8. The Terror (1963)

A film with credit to Roger Corman, Francis Ford Coppola, Jack Nicholson, and Boris Karloff. Sounds like it’s destined for failure, right?

7. Rockaway (2007)

I saw this movie by accident… with Kyle. The tradition continues.

6. Run! Bitch! Run (2009)

Another girl revenge movie. Poorly executed. Unoriginal.

5. Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

The only Jaws movie worse than Jaws 3. Ridiculously bad and retarded.

4. Nightmare Castle (1965)

B-Horror movies from the 60s could not be less interesting.

3. The Apple (1980)

Rocky Horror Picture Show was a huge cult success. Menahem Golan attempted to capitalize on the genre and created The Apple. It doesn’t make much sense, and it’s an allegory for Adam and Eve. Gag!

2. Dollman (1991)

Reviewed it here: Dollman

1. Slaughtered Vomit Dolls (2006)

I’m not sure how I got through this entire movie. Gross does not equal good. One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.

And now for the best….

10. Closer (2004)

This movie totally caught me by surprise. It is depraved and sexy and tense.

9. His Girl Friday (1940)

Great classic Hollywood film. I have seen The Front Page, which is the story that His Girl Friday is based on, and the latter is far superior in my opinion. Also, Cary Grant is hilarious.

8. Auntie Mame (1958)

Just a funny little movie. Interesting story.

7. The World According to Garp (1982)

A fictional biopic that is likely more interesting than your life.

6. Dogville (2003)

Kind of a genius film. People may disagree, but I was captivated by the story, the acting, and the narration. Oddly enough, I also dug the set.

5. Wait Until Dark (1968)

For 1968, this is an awesome thriller. Alan Arkin is a badass psychopath terrorizing a blind Audrey Hepburn.

4. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Bold statement: Sergio Leone is the best Western director of all time. This one is quite possibly his best.

3. Easy A (2010)

We have talked enough about this movie on TWJ. Surprisingly hilarious!

2. Barney’s Version (2010)

A touching movie. Paul Giamatti is one of America’s greatest actors, especially in a role like this.

1. Another Year (2010)

I reviewed it here: Another Year

That’s it. Ten movies for you to see and enjoy. Also ten to AVOID AT ALL COSTS. I love you.

At some point over the last year, I decided that when I wrote a review for this website, I was going to try and be professional, always backing up my judgments on whatever movie I was criticizing with fair and objective reasoning. But then it came to my attention that this is a really boring way to discuss movies, and that there really is no way to objectively judge something since it’s all shaped by our personal tastes and opinions anyway. So, since it’s 2012, I’m going to start making these reviews a little less academic, and a little more…readable.

 

So, anyways…Man On A Ledge.

Man On A Ledge is basically just Ocean’s Three, except with no one quite as famous as Casey Affleck or Scott Caan. There’s a plot to steal a diamond from a greedy real estate tycoon/jeweler, and a big, elaborate scheme that doesn’t really make all that much sense, but it’s missing all of the style and clever twists of mostly every other heist movie to come out in the last fifteen years. And while it does kind of keep you guessing how everything’s going to turn out, the non-revelation that everything is almost exactly as it seems, along with some easily foreseeable twists, kind of kills any excitement or tension as the movie chugs along. It’s almost remarkable how lucky the thieves end up considering how poorly planned out the robbery is, and how bad they seem to be at their jobs, but, hey…that’s the movies!

 

Now, despite how kind of dumb and straightforward most of Man On A Ledge is, that doesn’t keep it from being at least fun. Laughing at Sam Worthington as he attempts to figure a way out of his position as decoy after his role in the heist ends after the twenty minutes, and realizing that everything that the trailers made seem smart and cool is actually the complete opposite makes the movie a pretty good time if you don’t try to pick it apart too much. Ed Harris, as the tycoon under attack, seems to have a good time screaming at various underlings to go places and perform tasks, and it’s at least interesting to see how the robbers clean up the various messes they get themselves into. Throw in some light nudity, action packed flashbacks, and enough moments of logic defying, ledge-based drama, and you’ve got yourself an entertaining little movie. And that’s just what Man On A Ledge is.

There’s not much else to say, really. There’s nothing here that especially screams, “See me!,” and I’m sure the critical raves aren’t going to be dragged out for something like this. Man On A Ledge was made for and aims to please the kind of people who know what they want in a movie about a guy on a ledge for 105 minutes, and it gives it to them. It moves along at a nice pace, doesn’t try to change the world, and tells a complete story with a few moments of tension and a nice ending that should satisfy anyone who puts themselves in the 99%. One day this will fit right in on HBO’s Tuesday afternoon schedule, but until then, you could do much worse at buying a ticket blindly based on the words at the top of the multi-plex marquee.

 

6 out of 10.

 

The rules that define a horror movie have long since moved past simply including a scary monster, spooky sound effects, and black cats jumping out from off-screen. Surprisingly, many of the better horror movies over the last few years have gotten far more subtle, creating a long, drawn out sense of dread that gives way to on-screen insanity, rather than cheap scare tactics, making most of them not even seem like what is normally considered a horror movie at all. On paper, Lynne Ramsay’s We Need To Talk About Kevin seems more like a hard drama, telling the story of a mother recollecting her struggle to raise her seemingly sociopathic son, all the while finding herself chastised and punished in the present day for something horrible he’d done. However, it is presented in such a way that creates a mystery about the nature of Kevin, and a sequence of events which aim to shock the audience as they wonder which one of these people is the real monster.

Chronologically beginning before Kevin has even been conceived, We Need To Talk About Kevin flashes back and forth from the past to present day as Eva (Tilda Swinton) thinks back on her life in an attempt to figure out how it all went so wrong. Her main source of frustration and blame comes in the form of her son, Kevin, who, even as an infant, seemed to do everything in his power to purposely make her life difficult, always putting on a happy façade whenever in the presence of anyone but his mother. While the beautiful, dream-like photography and scattered editing does a good job at setting up Eva’s almost always delirious mental state and providing clues about what exactly Kevin did, it also helps to keep the movie from feeling generic and makes some of the more questionable aspects of the story more dark and dreadful, as opposed to how silly they could’ve seemed in hindsight. It also helps give depth to Tilda Swinton’s nearly comatose present day persona, allowing us to visualize what’s running through her head as she wanders from location to location, finding comfort in the smallest victories and shock from the sudden outbursts of unexpected hate directed towards her.

 

It’s the narrative combination of this version of Eva, along with the harried mother persona that we see in the flashbacks, that provides one of We Need To Talk About Kevin’s greatest assets: the relationship between Eva and Kevin, and the question of parental responsibility in the outcome of a child. As the story is told from Eva’s perspective, there is no reason for us to believe that Kevin is anything but a bad seed, who naturally acts difficult and belligerent for no reason but to be a burden on his mother. However, as the movie proceeds, and we see how initially reluctant Eva was to have Kevin, and how this attitude towards parenthood, as well as an impatience and ignorance for her child’s needs, may have created the monster that Eva comes to fear. There are several moments during the childhood of Kevin where we see him delight in simply getting the attention of his mother, thriving in her discipline, which seems to scare her, creating a cycle in which Kevin does terrible things to get his mother’s attention, which only serves to drive her further away from him.

We Need To Talk About Kevin isn’t always an easy movie to sit through, and there definitely aren’t any happy endings, but it’s style is almost hypnotizing as the audience never knows where or when each lens flare or focal shift will take them, or what terrible thing Kevin will do next. Lynne Ramsay, along with co-writer Rory Kinnear, has created every expectant parent’s worst nightmare with Kevin, not only providing one of the worst child characters ever put to film, but also providing the idea that the primary blame on the behavior of such a creature will always fall squarely on the parents, following them around for the rest of their lives. Perhaps it’s this realistic take on the “bad kid” sub-genre of movies combined with the absorbing power struggle between Eva and Kevin that makes the movie feel as engaging and tense as it does, but whatever it is you get out of We Need To Talk About Kevin, it’s definitely not a movie you will forget about anytime soon.

 

8 out of 10.

 

With the announcement that several film production companies are phasing out a number of their product lines in the next few years, and the ever increasing obsession the world seems to have with the next big wave of technology, it would appear that the old wave of studio filmmaking is slowly falling into obscurity. As studios continue releasing their movies using the latest advances in digital projection and 3-D, people sometimes forget that movies weren’t always expected to have color and sound, and were often played in enormous, single-screen halls with nothing but the accompaniment of an orchestra, or, at the very least, a single piano. It’s no surprise that with this ignorance of the past, two filmmakers saw it fit to release two seemingly different, but thematically similar films which both not only highlight filmmaking methods of the past, but also give us a look at how the magic of movies as we know it has never really changed. These two movies are silent film tribute The Artist, and the magnificently magical Hugo.

 

As he struggles to find the secret of a mechanical man he helped rebuild with his father, all the while attempting to escape the clutches of the seemingly evil security guard at the train station he lives above, the titular character of Martin Scorsese’s Hugo may appear to be leading the life of any normal family film hero, filled with magic and wonder. However, after the big secret of the mechanical man is revealed, the movie becomes something far bigger and stranger than your average children’s fantasy movie. As it turns out, Hugo is a big-budgeted, special effects filled kid’s movie…about film restoration. Now, that’s not to downgrade what a fun, exciting, and sweet movie Hugo is, but it’s strange to see this kind of attempt at creating a broadly appealing movie with a story that is obviously very personal to its director…you just don’t really see that kind of studio support very often, especially when it comes to a subject so few seem to care about.

 

While this may be a mild spoiler, the main focus of Hugo turns out to be early 20^th century science fiction & fantasy film director Georges Melies, and his hand in creating some of the earliest and most influential films ever made. Seeing the fantastic and tragic history of Melies’ Star-Film Company, including recreations of their inventive sets and special effects is incredibly interesting, especially for anyone interested in this period of film. However, an epic exposition session that fills the audience in on all of this back story ends up making the second half of the movie feel more like a college course on film history, as opposed to anything resembling the fun and fantasy of the film’s first half. Hugo never gets bogged down enough in its necessary over-explanation of its coincidences and character connections to make it unlikeable or take away from its fantastical nature, as these glimpses into early filmmaking only support Melies’ claims of being a maker of dreams, but the whole thing seems so specifically geared towards the greatest of dreamers, it’ll make even the most upbeat and optimistic of audience members do a double take at its overly-sentimental nature.

 

However, if Scorsese went ahead and made his ode to the fantastical films of old, Michael Hazanavicius & Co. went one step past that, and straight up made a fantastical film of their own. Having the distinction of being a true throwback to the silent films of the late 1920s and early 1930s with its stark black and white picture and almost completely silent soundtrack (aside from a full orchestral score, naturally), The Artist goes beyond being just a tribute, and instead tells a clever and timeless story that never gets too cynical or gimmicky to distract from its style or message. Following the concurrent rise of up-and-comer Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) and descent of stubborn silent film star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), during the emergence of talkies, The Artist could’ve easily turned into something just as meaningless as any of the silent films it references and parodies. Instead, it defies this fate by exploring a somewhat darker side to the film industry, allowing its hero to fall victim to his own pride as he refuses to change in the face of progress, and watches him descend into alcoholism and depression as the wave of the new world washes over him. Although The Artist keeps you guessing whether or not it’ll be a comedy or a drama up until the last few scenes of the movie, this doesn’t keep its star’s earnest portrayals, along with some spot-on production and costume design, from making the movie effortlessly capture the look and feel that is perfect for this kind of homage.

 

Unfortunately, while The Artist manages to be an enjoyable temporary escape from reality, it never seems to itself escape the kind of light and breezy nature that caused its inspirations to be so easily forgotten. While George’s arc does carry a certain amount of weight, even coming close to the kind of dramatic twists and conclusions that are indicative of what has become more natural of modern storytelling, there’s very little that keeps The Artist from feeling just as cute and disposable as its predecessors. There’s really nothing wrong with this, considering the tone Hazanavicius achieves, but while everyone may like an enjoyable, amusing and ultimately uplifting movie, it’s not the kind of thing that really sticks with you for too long after you’ve left the theater.

 

While Hazanavicius and Scorsese really do nail the eras and artists they strive to portray, it seems that they’ve also inadvertently made arguments for why their idols and legends eventually faded into obscurity, and why we needed to be reminded of them to begin with. Hugo surrounds its old-school trickery with state of the art 3-D and computer generated cityscapes, showing its audience exactly what they’ve come to expect from a movie of this scope and pedigree, while The Artist reminds us why we tend to like our movies to strive for a little more dramatic heft and original technique with its cute, little story about the futility of attempting to outrun progress. These are by no means bad movies; in fact, they’re both excellent in their own ways. But in reminding us of how easily some things are forgotten and left to the past, neither really made much of an argument for their own importance, leaving them to feel like nothing more than expertly made and incredibly detailed history lessons.

Both Movies:

8 out of 10.

Cameron Crowe seems to thrive on creating movies that border on the schmaltzy, but tend to strain the edge without ever going over, always staying on the right side of romantic, without ever getting too “romantic comedy”. Sure, there were a few missteps, most notably Elizabethtown, which found its underdeveloped and averagely acted leads falling for each other in the midst of a series of obstacles that only lead to their eventual reunion to be all the more unbelievable and silly. However, never before has Crowe gotten so disgustingly sappy as he has now with his latest movie, We Bought A Zoo.

Based on a true story, this aptly named movie tells its whole story in its title. After his wife’s death, Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon), along with his caricature of a bratty teenage son and angelic young daughter, purchase and attempt to renovate a failing zoo, full of dozens of exotic and dangerous animals. Along with the compound, the family also inherits a stable of one-dimensional misanthropes who help maintain the animals, including an overworked animal expert (Scarlett Johannsen), her socially retarded niece (Elle Fanning), an arrogant, alcoholic habitat designer (Angus MacFayden), and a slew of others. The problem isn’t that these characters aren’t relatable or interesting, but that they’re never really given a chance to grow or change, appearing early on in the film as exactly the same people who they continue to be for the whole movie. The only sense of growth comes from Benjamin’s half-hearted acceptance of his wife’s death at the end of the movie, and a begrudging truce called between him and his moody son, with neither arc providing enough to create any kind of satisfaction with the story or movie as a whole. Sure, they bought a zoo, and, through a series of wacky misadventures (including the always hilarious “trip to Home Depot” scenario several times; that’ll slay ‘em), they rebuilt a zoo, but, in the end, it all feels predictable and unearned, with the only actual hurdle being Thomas Haden Church’s negative attitude.

Aside from the lack of an interesting story or characters, one of the biggest letdowns and most divisive aspects here has got to be Sigur Rós frontman Jónsi’s original score for the movie, with the term “original” being used very loosely. While most of the score comes off as repetitive, and sounds an awful lot like it  came right off of Jónsi’s 2011 album “Go”, the biggest problem is it’s fantastical whistling and stereo, bell chiming makes every scene come off as wondrous and lively, when, more often than not, they’re, well…not. In what has to be one of the most ill-fitting, mismatching of score and film in the last few years, Crowe fills his movie with these flittery, light-hearted soundscapes, despite whether the characters are engaged in a motivational speech or simply feeding some goats, making everything feel like it’s supposed to be far more magical, even though it never is. What’s most heartbreaking, though, is when the music and movie actually do work together to eventually make the audience feel something, only for the feeling to last for just a few minutes before the credits start to roll.

 

We Bought A Zoo is not a good movie, but it’s even more disappointing considering that it comes from long-dormant filmmaker Crowe. Some people will be satisfied with the upbeat characters and story, but coming from someone we know can do romance (Jerry Maguire) and self-discovery (Almost Famous) so well, one can’t help but watch We Bought A Zoo and feel like it could be so much better. Hopefully, after taking a six year long break between movies, Crowe will come back a little faster after this disappointment with something a little more worthy of his talents. And maybe also something with a title that doesn’t sound so awkward when the characters in the movie say it in the movie (like they do here…three times).

 

4 out of 10.

 

Full disclosure: I, jat59072, am a huge fan of Tintin, and have been since I was seven years old. I have read all of the books, named my dog after Tintin’s terrier, Snowy, and have a French poster for The Blue Lotus hanging in my bedroom. Ever since I first laid my eyes on the incredibly detailed and entertaining adventures of the boy reporter and his canine companion, I’ve been hooked, and that’s why the news of Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson coming together to bring one of artist/author Hergé’s adventures to life (albeit, in motion capture form) brought mixed feelings. However, having now seen what, given the nature of the two filmmakers, could’ve potentially been a colossal explosion of good intentions, misguided ambition and overblown filmmaking, I can say with certainty that The Adventures of Tintin far surpasses any negative assumptions I may have had, and ended up being something pretty spectacular.

 

Combining several of Tintin’s adventures, The Secret of the Unicorn finds the titular hero on a search to discover the truth behind a trio of model ships which all potentially hold the location of secret pirate treasure. Along the way, Tintin escapes death, travels the globe, and meets a series of interesting and unique characters, including the alcohol and violence-prone Captain Haddock and the villainous Ivonovich Sakharine. Generally, motion capture comes off as clumsy, awkward, and often fails to translate anything from the human performance behind the CGI but the very basic motions and gestures. However, with the Adventures of Tintin, a practical balance between human and caricature, as well as incredible realism in the movements of the characters and their surroundings, make every frame a detailed work of art, supported by the actor’s often hilarious and individually impressive performances.

While the technological aspects of Tintin may be impressive, unfortunately, the story and pacing suffer enough to momentarily distract from the visuals. While the mystery behind the events of the movie is interesting enough, the progression of the story is too often stopped by characters putting the puzzle pieces together for the audience, explaining away what each clue means, and how it fits in with every other clue they’ve discovered up until that point. Perhaps this wouldn’t be so jarring if these epiphanies were worked into the dialogue or narrative a little smoother, as opposed to the characters simply monologueing to themselves every few minutes, but for all of the exciting action and fascinating adventure, it’s this unfortunate lack of confidence in its audience which brings Tintin one of its few flaws.

 

Due to Spielberg’s involvement as director, as well as its globetrotting action/adventure format, The Adventures of Tintin has been garnering comparisons to Spielberg’s classic Raiders of the Lost Ark. While there are some superficial similarities, Tintin isn’t nearly as strong of a personality as Indiana Jones, and the story here has far less action, with a greater focus on mystery, then any of his adventures. Aside from an incredible chase sequence at the mid-point of the movie, Tintin isn’t a showcase for spectacular action, instead opting for more of the adventurous spirit of the comics. And there’s nothing wrong with that. For fans of the comics and newcomers alike, The Adventures of Tintin won’t be a disappointment, with its endearing characters, involving story and incredible visuals. Unfortunately, for all its strong points, there’s something that keeps Tintin from being completely successful, although there’s no denying that despite its shortcoming, it is at least a masterfully created piece of pure entertainment.

 

8 out of 10.

 

One of the greatest feelings in the world has got to be discovering in adulthood that something you loved in your youth is actually, legitimately good. It’s so easy for someone to be blinded by nostalgia, pleasant memories surrounding an old song or an amusement park ride, that to re-experience it after gaining a greater perspective of the world, and still finding it to be exactly how they remembered it, well…it’s a good feeling. Having grown up within the last fifty years, there’s a number of things that I, along with most people born during this time period, was exposed to as a child: Slinkees, the Beatles, and, of course, Jim Henson and his Muppets.

It’s hard to pinpoint, but there’s something about the Muppets that makes them more than just pieces of felt and cotton, but almost living creatures, all with their own distinct personalities and pulses. Of course, these characters have had enough time over the last forty years to develop, and become the favorite go-to gag pulling, vaudevillian revivalists to generations of adults and their children alike. From Fozzie’s earnestly terrible jokes, to Rowlf’s lightly soulful piano playing, anyone who’s seen a Muppet related production has their favorite, and most of the dozens of characters have become iconic in their own right. But the one thing that keeps the whole operation running, and the main reason that The Muppet Movie is one of my favorites, has got to be Kermit the Frog.

 

Sure, there are a ton of things to love about the original Muppet Movie: the clever script, the still impressive puppetry, and Paul Williams incredible soundtrack, topped off with the now classic “Rainbow Connection”. But without Kermit, who stands as the heart of the Muppet clan and the joining force that brings them all together, the words are just words. Aside from the sheer ridiculousness of seeing a frog play the banjo, Kermit brings an innocence and goodness to the song, as well as to the trek he makes from his home in the swamp all the way to Hollywood, with his only reason being that he just wants to make people happy. The sole motivation behind the entire story comes simply from one frog’s wish to bring a smile to the faces of as many people as he possibly can. And while Fozzie, Scooter, Gonzo, Miss Piggy and all the others definitely help him get there, it’s the spirit of the Kermit character that keeps them all from becoming some mutated versions of themselves, warped by the world into corporate salesman, or into another lost piece of pop-culture memorabilia, only to be seen in Robot Chicken skits and t-shirts at swap meets.

This iconic goodness that possesses Kermit, as well as the idea of the Muppets as a whole, undoubtedly comes from Jim Henson. While he found help from like-minded writers and puppeteers, as well as support from British and public television, Henson somehow took a dream of entertaining whoever was interested, and achieved it with nothing but cloth, personality and showmanship. To think that someone could take nothing, and turn it into a legacy that continues to this day, it seems almost unbelievable in a world where everything seems to be a remake, reboot or adaptation. With Henson’s death in 1990, however, it seems that fans have become reluctant to accept the slow output of newer Muppet-related projects that have been made without their creator’s input, an obstacle surely trying to be overcome with the latest attempt at reviving the franchise’s popularity in The Muppets.

Set in a universe not unlike our own, where The Muppet Show’s cultural impact has long been forgotten by most, The Muppets follows a die-hard fan and Muppet himself, Walter, as he follows his brother, Gary (co-writer Jason Segal), and his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams), on their anniversary vacation to Los Angeles, where the three of them inadvertently set off on a quest to reunite Kermit and his friends for one last show. It’s a movie steeped in nostalgia, which might seem desperate in any other movie attempting to re-popularize a dying property, but here seems almost necessary. While those with a fondness for the characters may find themselves buying tickets to see their latest incarnation, Segal and co-writer Nicholas Stoller remind them what it was about Kermit and his friends that they loved all those years ago. Seeing these characters coming back together, all because of a little, orange Muppet who seems to associate and embody all of this warm fuzziness because of his life-long fandom, the story not only points out this association, but uses it as a motivation for both its characters and audience to remember why they’re making/watching the movie in the first place.

 

Aside from the blatant use of the The Muppet Show, plus the use of such staples as “The Rainbow Connection”, and a knowing retelling of the first movie, The Muppets comes with its own set of new tricks that keep the movie from feeling too bogged down in the past. While the script keeps the trademark fourth-wall breaking humor unexpected and hilarious, it’s Bret MacKenzie’s songs that keep the movie moving along, and make for some of its more memorable sequences. This is especially apparent with the anthem, “Life’s A Happy Song”, which puts the spirit of the movie on full display, while also planting the themes of connection and belonging right at the very beginning of the story.

 

However, while there is much to like about The Muppets, it does hit a few of the same snares that plague many modern family films. While the dozen or so celebrity cameos will at least elicit a reaction from the audience, many of them have so little to do/aren’t very recognizable that their inclusion almost seems pointless, leaving the audience wishing that they either had more to do, or that they hadn’t shown up at all. Also leaning on the more irritating side of the spectrum, there are several moments throughout the film, most notably during a montage where the characters clean up the theater in sing-along style, where opportunities for original songs are passed over with the use of ill-fitting pop songs (in this instance, “We Built This City” by Starship).

Recently, several puppeteers and writers who have been involved with the Muppet brand for years have come out and denounced The Muppets, claiming that the script did not respect or represent the characters they had been keeping alive for so many years, but, having seen the finished product, they couldn’t be more wrong. Kermit, Piggy, and the rest are all just as honest, funny and recognizable as they ever were, and if there are any complaints to be made, they shouldn’t concern the filmmaker’s treatment of these characters. It’s obvious from the finished product that everyone involved here shares a great deal of respect and fondness for both the creations they are playing with, and the creator’s who are responsible for it. While The Muppets may not reach the level of the original show or movies, it comes very close, and does so with enough sincerity and respect to the original incarnations of these characters, that any flaws that are apparent are completely forgivable.

 

8 out of 10.

 

The term “family film” is often used in a derogatory fashion, usually when referencing some new movie involving kids, animals, or a decidedly inoffensive element (alien, magical creature, etc.) that is singing, dancing, or both. Normally, these kinds of movies are dismissed by “serious” film buffs due to their lack of any complex characters or story, and a general cheeriness that tends to alienate those looking for dark, brooding characters and ultra-violence. So, in an effort to combine all of these elements, six years ago George Miller made a movie about America’s current obsession with penguins, in an all-singing, all-dancing animated/live-action tribute to pop music called Happy Feet. Now, just because a movie features cute animals voiced by famous people who sing all of today’s top hits, doesn’t mean it can’t be an offensively terrible piece of shit, and, somehow, that’s what Happy Feet was. It was a bafflingly jumbled music video with awkwardly blended in live action, and some of the most heavy-handed environmental and anti-religious overtones I’ve ever seen in any film, let alone a kid’s movie about dancing penguins. So, walking into the sequel to this awful excuse for family entertainment, one wouldn’t expect to be impressed, but, surprisingly, Happy Feet 2, while not exactly a great movie, is far, far better than its predecessor.

Picking up several years after the first movie, Happy Feet 2 follows the dancing phenomenon, Mumble, as he attempts to help his young son, Erik, gain some self confidence and find his true talent, all while their colony is trapped at the bottom of an ice canyon after a glacial shift. While the environmental message is just as much a part of the story here as it was in the original, it’s not nearly as forced, and leaves more of a meaningful impact than the originals’ “be nice to penguins” message. However, the best part of Happy Feet 2 (and what desperately screams for it’s own spin-off) is the inclusion of Will and Bill the krill, respectively voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. These two miniscule characters spend the movie epitomizing the “everyone, no matter how small, can make a difference” message, as two of the smallest creatures in the ocean, attempting to break away from their swarm, and discover their place in the universe. It’s this yearning for a more complete life, and a completely sincere motivation that makes these two so much more interesting and entertaining than the rest of the movies other stories and characters. Also, it doesn’t hurt that they’re basically gay, vegan shrimp who strive to “chew on something with a face”, and end up stealing the show.

 

Unfortunately, these things don’t save the movie from falling into the same awful, cringe-inducing habits of its predecessor. Almost every scene involving the colony is still filled with a bunch of annoyingly specific songs with their words changed to reflect the adorable protagonists of the movie, mashed together so as to pack as many “I know this!” moments into each minute. And for every action set piece that provides any kind of genuine tension or excitement, there’s another scene that provides nothing but free-styling penguins and fart jokes.

It’s a shame that despite being such a step up from the original, Happy Feet 2 isn’t more consistently good, and often falls prey to its own misguided sense of what it has to be to please its target audience. Will and Bill the krill alone are two of the most interesting, developed, and hilarious animated characters from a movie this year, yet their story is far overshadowed by a series of events that are far less engaging and far more annoying. While dancing, or as Will puts it, “a momentary release from (the) existential fear of life”, may keep these arctic creatures happy, it won’t do much for anyone in the audience over the age of ten.

5 out of 10.