Alrighty then, readers, it's time for me to rattle off my favorite films of 2012, the ones I've found to have major replay value over time, the cream of the crop. These are not necessarily what I think are "The Best" movies, they're the ones that stand the test of (one year's) time, that affect me without fail, that get better with each successive viewing. I subject them to friends, hold them aloft as a focus of righteous defiance, and create obsessive lists about them on obscure movie blogs.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present My Top 25 Favorite Movies of 2012.
Part One of Five.
I heard that. No groaning, please.
Wreck-It Ralph
John Lasseter was the man responsible for bringing Pixar Animation Studios to the world. He ran the studio and wrote, produced and directed many of its timeless classics. When Disney created their own computer animation division, they asked Lasseter to shift some of his focus from Pixar and oversee their new studio's movie projects. Since that time, the quality of Pixar's flicks has dropped and the movies produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios has become the Gold Standard. "Frozen" is but the latest example of this - "Wreck-It Ralph" was 2012's. Produced by Lasseter but written and directed by longtime veterans of "The Simpsons", "Wreck-It" presents an imaginative new world where all video game characters coexist together, creating an endless onslaught of in-jokes and references for gamers everywhere. Beyond that, it's just a darned good time, with a fantastic cast voiced by fantastic actors (Sarah Silverman, as Vanellope von Schweetz, comes this close to being annoying, but ends up as endearing), with colorful, standout animation, heartfelt gooiness, exciting action, a poppy soundtrack, crackin' 3D, and much of the magic that Pixar seems to have lost. And there are so many avenues to explore in this new world that I'm eagerly anticipating what new developments the sequel will bring.
Safety Not Guaranteed
Director Colin Trevorrow is currently making the new "Jurassic Park" sequel entitled "Jurassic World". I can see why he was chosen for that project; although "Safety Not Guaranteed" is his first movie, and is quite bereft of special effects, there's a vaguely Spielbergian quality to it all, like a modern indie-film version of "Sugarland Express" or "1941" or "Always"or. . . well, it's hard to provide a satisfactory comparison, but the elements are there. As Aubrey Plaza's character sinks into the crazy world of Mark Duplass's "time traveler", it enfolds us all in its alluring promise - everyone has regret, some mistake they've always wanted to go back and fix. It's tempting, the option to really go back and fix something wrong, even if said option is a long shot invented by a crazy person. It's a very human, classic Spielbergian-style desire, wrapped up in the body of a quirky, funny, surprising indie flick with an uplifting, open-ended (yet satisfying) finale. It kind of reminds me of my favorite film of 2011, "Take Shelter". Only funnier. And with less thunderstorms.
The Dark Knight Rises
Everyone's favorite Republican superhero is back (no really - he's a rich, angry white guy who saves the world from oily-haired hippies with his expensive toys), and this time - it's final. Until his next reboot in "Man of Steel 2", that is. I think it's really cool that there exists an epic, standalone Batman trilogy. Even though "Rises" is the equivalent"Return of the Jedi" in terms of quality (it's the least best of the three films) and has some problems of its own (major plot twists are telegraphed too soon, some rather wonky writing, too many contrived plot devices), it's still a great movie with many stellar moments. And the finale is quite ballsy and moving (Big Spoiler Alert - Batman dies). Like any good trilogy-ender, it brings the story back around to the beginning ("Batman Begins") and wraps things up nicely. As for the cast, Tom Hardy, as Bane, can't outdo Heath Ledger's performance in "The Dark Knight", but he's still an imposing villain (with an oddly endearing accent), Anne Hathaway is an appropriately alluring and realistic Catwoman, Christian Bale is still solid in the thankless lead role, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (quickly becoming one of my favorite new actors) is good even though his character is kind of a throwaway, but it's Michael Caine's Alfred and Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon who've always been, to me, the heart and soul (in that order) of these pictures. Filled with that propulsive Christopher Nolan energy, it's a fine ending to a great story. Bring on Ben Affleck!
Argo
And here he is! You'll have to wait until 2015 to see him put on the Bat Suit, but until then you can see him as CIA agent Tony Mendez in the (Best Picture) Academy Award-winning "Argo", based on a true story. Going into this movie for the first time, I was merely expecting a Rah-Rah, Go America!-style political thriller. What I saw was something quite, dare I say it - charming. While the Rah-Rah factor is present (buoyed by the fact that America's actions sparked the Iranian hostage crisis in the first place), and there are political maneuverings at work, "Argo" is really a movie about human ingenuity and our ability to resolve dangerous situations through nonviolent means and peaceful action. Okay, that makes it sound like one hell of a fruity movie but, trust me, it's good. It's tense, funny, respectful to its real-life subjects, features a fantastic cast of actors (Alan Arkin and John Goodman are standouts), has a healthy dose of geek love for 70's science fiction, and is a great example of a modern film filled with old school Hollywood charm. While the runway chase sequence at the end is silly (and invented merely to provide an "action climax"), director and star Ben Affleck did a fantastic job. This movie gets a lot of play at my house.
The Cabin in the Woods
Get this: A murderous unicorn violently kills its hapless victim by stabbing him repeatedly with its horn. That scene alone is enough for me to put "Cabin" on this list, but the rest of the movie is pretty damn brilliant, as well. The less said about the tricky plot, the better (it's a movie that needs to be experienced rather than told about), but let me just say this - if you are a horror movie fan, this is your wet dream. If you like dark comedy, this is your wet dream (it's funnier than most of the comedies released that year). If you like movies overflowing with references to classic horror movies, this is your wet dream. If you like intelligent films with deeper themes about the relationship between the horror movie fan and the movies themselves, this is your wet dream (I, for one, am tired of being treated like a drooling, beer-swilling idiot - even though I am one). If you like Richard Jenkins or Bradley Whitford, this is your wet dream. If you like cool, old school makeup effects, this is your wet dream.
You should probably just wear waterproof pants. Or a diaper. Or sit in an inflatable wading pool.
Directed by Drew Goddard, and co-written and produced by Joss Whedon (the first of 2012's one-two Whedon punch), "The Cabin in the Woods" is fantastic fun, from its opening credits, to the point where all hell breaks loose (literally), to its nihilistic John Carpenter-esque ending.
"Am I on speaker phone?"
Join me next time for really tiny people, dead dogs, bald time travelers, apocalyptic love stories, and Jonah Hill in a Peter Pan costume. I don't know which one is scarier.
That big, blonde, lunkheaded deity is back in yet another big screen fantasy adventure, but before I get into the new movie (which I enjoyed), I'm going to take a look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe entries I've missed since my last Marvel review ("Iron Man 3").
Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter
Captain America's love interest, Agent Peggy Carter, played once again by the stunning Hayley Atwell, finally gets her very own short film. Set in the 1940s after Cap has seemingly sacrificed himself over Antarctica to save the world, Carter has to prove herself to her sexist male superiors by taking on a dangerous case all by herself. It's got punchy action, cool cameos, and another strong performance by Atwell, making this my favorite "One-Shot" to date. It also deals with the beginnings of the S.H.I.E.L.D. organization, which is neat. Word on the street is that Marvel Studios is working to make "Agent Carter" a prime time, full-length T.V. show. Bring it on, I say.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
As of this writing, the series has only aired 6 episodes, but I'm enjoying what I'm seeing. Clark Gregg returns as Phil Coulson, who's back from the dead and leading a newly-assembled team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents (and one wild card) to investigate the weird, the superhuman, and the "magical". There are a couple of main mysteries driving the narrative (how/why Coulson is alive, what the nefarious Rising Tide organization is), but the reason I like the series so much is that it focuses on the ants (humans) struggling to survive the stomping of the boot (superhumans) while simultaneously trying to keep it all from spilling over into society. The characters were, at first, kind of bland, Hollywood-pretty cyphers (except for Coulson - he's cool from Day 1), but over the course of the series the onions have continuously peeled back, revealing the characters beneath and opening up a couple more mysteries to be pondered. The action is rollercoaster-y, the humor is occasionally uproarious, and the scale is surprisingly huge. I also dig the many references and tie-ins to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as the surprise cameo appearances, making it all one big, fun, cohesive universe to delve into. So far, so good.
Thor: The Dark World
After rebuilding the bifrost (which he destroyed in the first "Thor"), the big Norwegian doofus (Chris Hemsworth) has been spending his time hopping from realm to realm in order to quell all of the rebellions which have sprung up since they lost contact with the "capital realm" of Asgard. Meanwhile, on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) has been combing the fringes of astrophysics, hoping to find a way to reconnect with her lost love (the aforementioned doofus), who didn't give her so much as a phone call when he briefly hopped back to Earth in "The Avengers". How rude. Unfortunately, her search leads her to uncover the Aether, a powerful source of primal energy which the uppity Dark Elves (the original inhabitants of the universe) once used in a near-successful campaign to usurp life as we know it. Now the Dark Elf leader, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston, a.k.a. Doctor Who #9) has awakened, and Thor must not only return to Earth to face Jane's unholy, angry-girlfriend wrath, but free his imprisoned bad boy brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) in a last ditch attempt to save us all from destruction.
I thought the first movie had a pretty far-ranging scope, but this one is much larger and more grandiose. Throughout the course of the movie we get to visit every major realm in the cosmos, beyond just Earth (Midgard) and Asgard. Nearly all of the characters return from the first movie in expanded roles, mixed in with some new characters, creating an ensemble that threatens to engulf the main players but, thankfully, never does. There are a plethora of alien critters and spaceship battles, enough to give "Star Wars" a run for its lightsaber, and, of course, there have to be plenty of tie-ins with the rest of the Marvel Universe as well as two post-credits scenes which hint at things to come (coughInfinityGauntletcough). This could have been a mess of a movie, but the writers (overseen by Joss Whedon) and the director, Alan Taylor (the primary director of "Game of Thrones") keep it cohesive, entertaining, and ultimately satisfying.
All the stuff I loved from the original movie is back, but more improved. That crazy mix of science fiction and magical fantasy (I'm sucker for this particular sub genre) is still here, enhanced with a more earthy, gritty, lived-in sheen courtesy of director Taylor. Thor's powers, which were all introduced in the first movie, get utilized in nicely creative ways this time around. The cast is fantastic. Hemsworth still owns the role, and I totally dig his character arc and, in particular, where he ends up at the close of the movie. Portman is also excellent. She gets to participate in more of the action this time around but, unfortunately, she still comes across as "the girlfriend", but the enhanced, butt-kicking roles of Lady Sif (Jaime Alexander) and Frigga (Thor's mom, played by Rene Russo) make up for that in spades. Eccleston's Malekith suffers from some missing character scenes (to be restored in the promised Director's Cut), but he's appropriately, theatrically evil. He's just too one-note (the usual "I will do anything to save my people, which means destroying all of yours" shtick). It's Hiddleston's Loki, though, which is the movie's best highlight. He's always a complete blast to watch, and he clearly loves playing the role, but his turn in "The Dark World" is definitely the most satisfying Loki appearance yet. He's the secret weapon of the Marvel Universe. And surprise, surprise, he still loves his step-mommy.
The abundance of humor is back as well. Some would say overabundant, but I disagree. There are some misses, but most of the jokes are hilarious hits (Thor's confused hammer, his humbling one-liners, every other line out of Loki's mouth, Darcy 80% of the time, the shoe portal, etc.). Unlike DC Comic movies (Batman, Superman, etc.), which are so self-important that most attempts at humor feel forced and creaky, laughs are an integral part of the Marvel feel. It makes "the world" feel far more human and, to me, there's nothing more human than laughing in the face of true danger.
I would say to skip seeing this movie in 3D (except for a couple of shots, it's unremarkable), but the IMAX showing has a fantastic 5-minute preview of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", which is surprisingly, epically cool. Your choice.
I loved the first movie, and this one is better. While it has its own satisfying story arc, it's still part of a larger story, which makes it feel like a middle episode in a series (which it is). I dig the series; I dig this episode. The universe which opened up in the first "Thor" is nicely expanded even further here. As of now, the "Thor" movies have surpassed the "Iron Man" movies in sheer entertainment power.
Next year, we come back down to Earth for "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", then back into space for the far-out "Guardians of the Galaxy", then comes the big climax in 2015's "The Avengers: Age of Ultron". I can't wait!
Chucky never scared me. He makes me laugh. Does that make me a bad person?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Chucky film series for what it is - this is a twisted, goofy pulp horror yarn, and extremely proud of it. It's the corporatization of childhood gone horribly wrong. It's the "Anti-Toy Story". And it's clearly hit a nerve with people because here we are, 25 years later, with the sixth entry in the saga, "Curse of Chucky", which is my second favorite sequel in the series to date. But I digress. . .
Here's a quick run-up of the saga, so far:
Child's Play (1988)
The one that started it all, and still the best. It's great fun, and even manages to elicit a couple of honest-to-goodness chills. And it's so very, very 1980s, which can be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. Catherine Hicks (as "The Mom") and Chris Sarandon (as "The Cop") are good, but it's the kid actor Alex Vincent (as Andy Barclay) who steals the show for me. It's one of my favorite child actor performances of all time. "This is the end, friend." I cackle with glee every time I hear that line. Add to that Brad Dourif's iconic voice performance as Chucky, Kevin Yagher's great puppet F/X, mix it all together under the talents of director Tom ("Fright Night") Holland, and you've got a horror classic.
Child's Play 2 (1990)
The inevitable sequel. It's okay. The highlights include the return of Alex Vincent as Andy, Dourif's foul-mouthed voice work, Yagher's puppetry, and an epic climax which takes place in a Good Guy doll factory and features the best Chucky death of the series (well, multiple deaths, really). A by-the-numbers follow up, but watchable.
Child's Play 3 (1991)
You know, I tend to nod off every time I try to watch this one. It's the worst entry in the series, says I. Andy (now played by "Dungeons and Dragons" star Justin Whalen) goes to military school, and Chucky follows. Nothing remarkable here except for the ridiculous tagline - "Don't F**k With the Chuck!"
Ridiculous.
Bride of Chucky (1998)
Here's my favorite sequel in the series. In the post-"Scream"(1996) era, every new horror movie had to be all self-aware and ironic, and BOC was no different - but it worked. While "true" fans bemoaned the more comedic turn that the series had taken, fans like me, who've always found the Chucky flicks to be hilarious, didn't mind it at all. Adding Jennifer Tilly as Chucky's girlfriend Tiffany was a great addition, and Dourif's performance (as well as Yagher's gory F/X) have never been better. Plus, hiring visionary Hong Kong director Ronny ("The Bride With White Hair") Yu was a boon - this is easily the most visually interesting of all the Chucky movies.
BOC's female protagonist is played by famous movie star Katherine Heigl, in a breakout role. This is still, by far, the best thing she's ever done.
Seed of Chucky (2004)
First Chucky found a bride, now he's got a kid - the gender-confused Glen/Glenda, played by Billy Boyd (Pippin from "Lord of the Rings"). Meanwhile, Chucky and Tiffany attempt to transfer their souls into the bodies of rapper Redman and actress Jennifer Tilly (campily playing themselves). As you can tell, this is the weirdest Chucky movie of them all. Don Mancini, the man who wrote every single Chucky movie, makes his directorial debut with SOC. It's a solidly-made flick, but head-scratchingly odd and a bit too cute. It's like a Tim Burton movie on acid.
Ultimately I have mixed feelings about this one, but it contains one of my favorite moments in the saga when Chucky, tired of always trying (and failing) to transfer his soul into another body, finally gives up and makes peace with who he is. "I'm Chucky, the killer doll! And I f**kin' love it!"
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Mancini returned to write and direct this new direct-to-DVD installment and made a concerted effort to create a more frightening experience for the fans. He succeeded. This is the only Chucky movie since the original that gave me a couple of chills. But I still mostly laughed (with enjoyment).
Fiona Dourif (daughter of Brad Dourif, the voice of Chucky himself) is Nica, a paraplegic who lives with her mother. One day she receives a creepy looking Good Guy doll in the mail and, soon after, her mother dies from a self-inflicted stab wound (yeah, right). When the rest of the family arrives to mourn the loss of their matriarch, the mysterious Good Guy doll (okay, you guessed it, it's Chucky) begins to pick off the family one by one.
Simple premise, simple movie. Mancini sets up some very suspenseful sequences and a couple of surprising twists, and it's all heightened by the fact that the character of Nica is wheelchair-bound, which makes the entire situation even more believable when she has to fend off the little ginger bastard without the use of her legs. Nica is played very capably by Fiona Dourif (who can also be seen on "True Blood"), but it's a little disconcerting sometimes because she has the same intense eyes as her father. That's a compliment.
There are plenty of surprises here for the longtime fans, which I won't give away (be sure to watch the scene after the end credits - the best scene in the movie, I think), and there's the central mystery of why Chucky is even bothering to kill off this family in the first place, which I won't spoil either (it may not be what you're thinking, what with daughter Dourif being in the lead role and all), but it all adds up to my second favorite sequel in the series. Which would make it my third favorite Chucky movie, I suppose.
The only real drawback concerns the limited budget. This is, by far, the least expensive Chucky movie, and it shows in some of the special effects shots (especially the CGI). Tony Gardner (who took over puppeteering duties on "Seed") provides some good work here, particularly in the punchy gore effects, but he wasn't working with much. He did manage to make Chucky himself look creepier than ever before, due to some slight redesign work, but he clearly wasn't working with many resources.
In conclusion, I was surprised by how much I liked this one. It's not groundbreaking in any way, but it's solid low budget creepy cheese. That's also a compliment.
Do you like scary movies? Then here's a good one for you.
It may seem odd to label a Sandra Bullock/George Clooney-starring astronaut adventure as a 'scary movie', but few movies have made me tense up and soak my seat with sweat (at least I hope it's sweat) quite like this one. Just replace the usual horror villains such as creepy ghosts and brutal killers with fast-as-a-bullet flying debris, suffocation, freezing, burning and utter isolation and, presto, you have "Gravity".
Filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron ("Children of Men", "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban") took four years to develop this movie, and it was clearly worth it. It's a work of efficient simplicity, like a breath of fresh air amidst the bloated, overbaked sea of movies we usually endure. Essentially a one-character narrative, the story follows Bullock's character Ryan Stone as a space disaster strands her (and cohort Clooney) in cold, unforgiving outer space, and they must work together to survive and return to Earth. Simple. Clean.
For most of the 90-minute running time, it's one breathless setpiece after another. Dizzying camerawork, perfect special effects, masterful sound design, excellent score, great acting - it all blends into one perfect suspense machine. It's not without its quiet, introspective character moments, however. It can be quite beautiful and moving at times, even trancendental, but it's first and foremost meant to be a wild, nail-biting ride. In that respect, it succeeds admirably.
If you choose to see this movie (recommended), you MUST see it in IMAX 3D. It's the perfect format for "Gravity", and an experience all its own. IMAX 3D and "Gravity" were made for each other.
It's one of my favorite movies of the year so far. If you want an exciting, amazing ride, or if you just want to see Sandra Bullock bark like a dog(?), then "Gravity" is the one you can't miss.
It's safe to say that if you like the music of Metallica, you'll like this concert film/extended music video hybrid.
A couple of years ago, someone whose opinion I trusted (in cinematic matters) recommended that I see the documentary "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never" because it shows the pop star in a new, respectable light, showcasing his hard-working nature and the troubles he encountered in his rise to fame. Sure, I thought. I'll take a look.
What I failed to realize was that I would have to sit through Bieber's crappy music (an obviously stupid oversight, on my part). While I did gain some respect for the dude (temporarily), the yodelingly saccharine assault to my eardrums nearly destroyed my sanity. Lesson learned. Don't see a concert film if you don't like the artist.
Which brings me to Metallica. This year marks the band's 30th anniversary and this is their gift to fans, a 3D IMAX concert/movie experience. The concert portion was recorded live in Vancouver. The movie portion, featuring Dane ("Chronicle") DeHaan as a roadie who must brave riots, psycho killers and the apocalypse while running an errand for the band, was directed by Nimrod Antal ("Kontroll", "Predators"). While the movie would have been perfectly fine as a mere a concert film, the film portions (written by the band members themselves - James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Kirk Hammett and Robert Trujillo), while at first intrusive, eventually merge with the concert portions and come together nicely by the end. Think of it as an extended music video, filled with loads of headbanger iconography.
The real treat of the film is the concert itself, and the band proves once again that they're still in top form. Even fans who've fallen out of favor with the band will enjoy the set - they don't play any songs from "St. Anger" or "Lulu", or even "Load", for that matter. It's a nice mix of classics from throughout their career (although the only song they play from "Death Magnetic" is "Cyanide" - my least favorite track on that album). My entry point for the music of Metallica was The Black Album, and the focus of "Through the Never" is primarily that album and their older classics. There's also a nice version of the intrumental "Orion" over the end credits that I really dug.
The 3D is some of the most well-done 3D I've seen to date, and well worth forking over the extra dough to see it. It's high quality. They really put you right on stage with the boys, up close and personal. Right now the movie is only playing in IMAX 3D, but it will open wide in the next couple of days. Still, given the choice, I recommend three dimensions.
If sitting through 90-plus minutes of Metallica music sounds like a good time to you, than you will be in heaven. I enjoyed the hell out of this movie.
Thanks to the emerging popularity of internet movie gossip sites, word had spread that this little sci-fi monster flick from writer/director David Twohy was rather good, so I leapt into the Bastardmobile and sped towards the nearest multiplex. Actually, it wasn't the nearest multiplex. It was a place called Willow Creek 12, and it was rather far away. But it was one of my regular haunts.
When I entered the lobby, I noticed something strange. One of the concession stand goobers was dressed up like that character from the movie I was about to see, the one played by the actor with the improbable name of 'Vin Diesel" - black tank top, bald head, goofy dark goggles. I asked him what the hell was going on here and he told me that, after the previous night's employee screening, he had become a fan of the flick. And he wasn't the only one.
The movie is set up like this: After the opening spaceship crash sequence and aftermath, the main threat for the core characters in the movie comes from badass escaped convict Riddick (Diesel). Then a planetary eclipse occurs, darkness falls, and all of the human characters must band together to survive against an onslaught of night dwelling beasties. Well, during the special effect shot when the eclipse happens and the screen goes black, I noticed that, gee whiz, it was awfully dark in that theater. Even the exit lights and floor lights were dark - they had turned off all of the lights at that exact moment. It was literally pitch black. And boy did it add to my enjoyment of the movie. A little old fashioned showmanship goes a long way.
After seeing that movie a couple more times at Willow Creek (allowing me to confirm that the 'blackening' of the theater was 100% intentional), I became a fan as well. Twohy's solid filmmaking and surehanded grasp of good ol' pulp science fiction, as well as Diesel's breakout performance as Richard B. Riddick (he's like one of those antihero characters from a classic John Carpenter film), made "Pitch Black" highly watchable (and re-watchable). And it was also Diesel's first step from being 'the first squad member who dies in "Saving Private Ryan" and the voice of "The Iron Giant"' to full-on action superstar.
Dark Fury (2004)
This short (30 minute long) animated flick was released as part of the promotional ramp-up to "The Chronicles of Riddick". Directed by Peter Chung ("Aeon Flux") and based on a story by David Twohy, it picks up shortly after the events of "Pitch Black", with our surviving characters being picked up by a unique kind of mercenary ship which they must break free of. If you can deal with Chung's odd animation style (rubbery, exxagerated characters) then you'll have a decent time with this. Not only does it introduce the character of Toombs (Nick Chinlund), but it also starts the character of 'Jack' down her new path as Riddick, Jr. The actors who portray these characters in the live action movies also provide their voices (Diesel included).
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
What a gamble. Thanks to the runaway home video/television success of the first movie, as well as Vin Diesel's successful follow up roles in "The Fast and the Furious" and "XXX", writer/director David Twohy was given the green light to make a big budget sequel, the first in a proposed trilogy called "The Chronicles of Riddick". Applying the pulp fiction sensibilities of the first movie to the template of a "Dune"-esque, galaxy-spanning adventure, "Chronicles" finds Riddick coming out of hiding in order to rescue badass killer Kira (formerly 'Jack'), only to run afoul of the Necromongers, an army of religious zealots bent on converting the known universe to their weird beliefs. It's goofy, but I enjoyed this. Diesel is fun to watch as the beating, testosterone-fueled heart of the movie, and there are a couple of original, well-conceived actions sequences to boot. The R-rated Director's Cut is my preferred version of this movie. Not only is it more hardcore, but there's more 'meat on the bone' in the form of extra character moments and some otherworldly dream sequences featuring Riddick's hot mom.
Unfortunately, the movie was a box office dud. Riddick was dead.
Or was he????? (scratches goatee pensively)
Spoiler Alert: Nope.
Blindsided (2013)
Riddick, of course returned. Before that, however, there was this motion comic called "Blindsided" from a story by Twohy. Riddick, now the leader of the Necromongers, fears that he's becoming soft after he barely survives an assassination attempt by unknown parties. That's pretty much all there is to it - it's only five minutes long, fer crissakes. Besides Diesel and Karl Urban (as Vako) returning to lend their voices, there's nothing else of substance. The fight between Riddick and a nasty looking, bladed Necromonger assassin would be the highlight of the piece if not for the whole 'motion comic' style - it's like half-assed animation and I don't like it.
This illuminates nothing. Skip it.
Riddick (2013)
"The Chronicles of Riddick". Then "Riddick". What's the next one going to be called? "Dick"?
They should have called this one "How Riddick Got His Groove Back". Writer/director Twohy returns to how it all began with this lower-budgeted monster fest. Following the three act structure of "Pitch Black", we begin with Riddick being attacked and left for dead on a remote planet by his Necromonger lackeys (Karl Urban cameos as Vako). The first (and best) act is watching him learn to survive on this hostile world. It's nearly wordless and full of pure Riddick moments as he tackles the environment head-on. Act Two begins when he finds a remote outpost and triggers a 'Wanted' beacon, drawing two separate parties of bounty hunters to the surface ('calling a taxi', as one character puts it). Riddick then largely disappears from the movie, becoming the monster in the darkness as he picks off the bounty hunters one by one. Act Three - Riddick steps out of the shadows and teams up with the surviving hunters to get through the night, which finds the planet overrun by water-lovin' scorpion beasties.
The Cons:
- Similarities. Revisiting the "Pitch Black" format is somewhat problematic. While Twohy is able to throw a couple of welcome twists into the formula, a few scenes have the unmistakable aroma of 'been there, done that'. It's not enough to turn me off of the movie, but it makes me wish that Twohy had tried something wholly different. I get that the whole "Riddick regains his mojo" theme is meant to play off of our knowledge of the original movie (Riddick's life defining ordeal), but it also invites too many comparisons, and "Riddick", simply put, is not as good as "Pitch Black".
- Mo' Money. In some of the more ambitious action sequences, it's pretty clear that the movie had a much lower budget than "Chronicles". It overreaches a little too much. Thanks for trying, though!
The Pros:
- Thespians. While most of the bounty hunters are monster fodder, I would go so far as to say that this entry in the series has the best supporting cast of them all. Diesel, of course, still owns the character of Riddick and is fun to watch. He's like a Robert E. Howard character come to life. Katee Sackhoff (Battlestar Galactica) plays 'the girl' in the movie, tough as nails, who can stand toe-to-toe with Riddick himself. She's pretty much Valyria to Riddick's Conan, equally fun to watch. I really like Matt Nable as the leader of one of the bounty hunter parties. He's got a great 'old school' Hollywood tough guy vibe and reminds me specifically of Charles Bronson. It's Charles Bronson - In Space! The other bounty hunter leader is played (with over-the-top flair) by Jordi Molla. He's the biggest scumbag in the movie and is the brunt of a lot of punishment, adding much audience satisfaction. Lastly, there's Dave Bautista. I think this guy has great screen presence and could go far as a big screen action hero, if given the right role. We'll see how he does in next summer's "Guardians of the Galaxy", but his work in "Riddick" is a pretty good indicator of his potential.
- Ouch. The R rating returns with a welcome, bloody vengeance. There are a couple of kills in this movie which evoked cheers from the deviants in the audience (okay, I'm one of them). "Riddick" is also the most sexually charged movie of the trilogy. In fact, it almost seems out of place for a Riddick movie, yet at the same time it adds an element which helps differentiate it from the others. Some "Battlestar Galactica" fans will come out of this movie very happy, I can tell you that.
Overall opinion - I enjoyed this movie. Despite its rank as my least favorite Riddick installment, it's still a great, pulpy night at the movies and I wouldn't mind seeing the character return again (is that a Spoiler Alert?).
In closing, I would now like to present to you my favorite Awkward Out-of-Context Riddick One-Liner (from "The Chronicles of Riddick") -
"It's been a long time since I smelled beautiful."
Labor Day weekend is here, marking the official end of the summer movie season. As I sit through Wong Kar-Wai's unbalanced but beautiful Ip Man flick "The Grandmaster" and Courtney ("Dungeons and Dragons") Solomon's pathetic car chase romp "Getaway", I can't help but reflect back on the cinematic highs and lows of the past four months. So how did 2013 stack up against previous years? Well, not as good as 2012, that's for sure. Still, it wasn't a bad year, not by a long shot. Here's my rundown -
Caveat: This is not a comprehensive list, by any means. I am not a professional critic (it's a blog, people), but here are my thoughts on the movies I sat through during the summer of '13. . .
MAY
The season kicked off, as usual, with a Marvel superhero flick. "Iron Man 3" was the first one out of the gate and, while not as good as last year's "The Avengers", still turned out to be a fun epilogue to that epic comic book tale. Hardcore fans hated what the filmmakers did with the Mandarin, but I harbored no preconceptions (I'm not much of a comic book reader) and liked the twist. And Robert Downey, Jr. is fun to watch, as always.
"The Great Gatsby", F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel, got a visually splendid 3D treatment courtesy of Baz ("Moulin Rouge") Lurman and star Leonardo DiCaprio. While the movie looked and sounded fantastic, it was ultimately hollow and unfulfilling. That, I think, was largely the point, yet the movie also seemed to simultaneously miss the point. It was very contradictory. "Tyler Perry Presents Peeples" also opened that weekend, but I honestly can't sit through another Perry-related movie without having a brain seizure.
"Star Trek: Into Darkness" was a bit of a disappointment. I greatly enjoyed the first one, but this time around director J.J. Abrams turned the 'Dumb' knob up to 11. It breaks both the real laws of science and the made-up laws of Trek, and, for a rebooted franchise in which "anything is possible", they just ended up copying characters and plot points from previous movies ("Wrath of Khan", I'm looking at you). Still, the cast has great chemistry and are fun to watch, the action sequences are exciting, and the music and special effects are great. A mixed bag.
Then came Memorial Day weekend. Here's where the really good movies started to come out. Let's start with the not-so-good:
"The Hangover Part III" arrived to conclude the Wolf Pack Trilogy. Thank Jeebus it was better than Part II, but still far less funny than the original. They just shouldn't have made sequels. The animated adventure "Epic" was released to appease the younger crowd, and it's not a bad movie at all. It's not terribly great, either, but this "Avatar"-like 3D action fest has its moments.
"Fast & Furious 6" (or just "Furious 6", as the in-movie title reveals) proved to be nearly as good as its excellent predecessor ("Fast 5") and ended up as one of the best movies of the summer. Sure, it's not Shakespeare, but it knows how to deliver satisfying action and how to please longtime fans of the series. It's a lovably cheeseball soap opera with an honest, adrenaline-fueled heart. If the post-credits kicker is any indication, next summer's "Fast & Furious 7" could be the one to beat (Jason Statham, Thai action god Tony Jaa and Kurt Friggin' Russell are in it, along with Vin Diesel and The Rock - need I say more?).
Lest you think of me merely as a beer-guzzling, ball-scratching, hairy ape, let me say this - the first movie I rushed out to see on Memorial Day weekend was "Before Midnight". The third movie in a series of romantic dramas which began with "Before Sunrise" and continued with "Before Sunset", "Midnight" continues the love story between the characters played by Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy nearly 20 years ago. Essentially (like the previous films) one 90 minute-long conversation, it proved to be the most complex, riveting and moving chapter in the series to date and one of my favorite movies of the year. I look forward to seeing the next one in about 10 years.
The Movie of May - "Fast & Furious 6"!
JUNE
The magician mystery spectacle "Now You See Me" proved to be a surprise hit with audiences. While fast-paced and stylish, with a great cast, it had a wink wink 'I'm so clever' attitude which annoyed me since I could see where the movie was headed early on in the story, but it's not a bad ride. Fans will be happy, since this was meant to be the first half in a two part story and its success at the box office guarantees that the next movie will arrive shortly. Also released that weekend was "After Earth", another dopey, awkwardly-acted M. Night Shyamalan debacle which only proved one thing - Will Smith's name is not a box office guarantee.
The social-horror flick "The Purge" had an interesting premise ("Star Trek: The Original Series" did it first, and better) but shot itself in the foot with its stupid plot contrivances and overreliance on annoying jump scares. Ethan Hawke still managed to be good, however. "The Internship" reunited "Wedding Crashers" stars Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn as Google interns, and the result was 90 minutes of unfunny product placement. I've never been a fan of Vince Vaughn. I think his awful attempt at playing Norman Bates in 1998's "Pyscho" still sticks in my craw. Get out of my craw, Vaughn!!! Thankfully it was Joss Whedon to the rescue with his witty, highly entertaining version of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", his low budget follow up to "The Avengers". Don't let the 'S-word' scare you off (it shouldn't anyway), this production of the Bard's classic play takes place in modern times and features many of Whedon's frequent collaborators (Nathan Fillion, anyone?). Great stuff.
The next weekend saw Superman hit the big screen once again in "Man of Steel". Henry Cavill does a fine job playing a conflicted alien Jesus, Amy Adams is a strong Lois Lane, and the movie is, overall, not bad (the opening scenes on Krypton are great). I just wish they hadn't sucked so much of the fun out of the franchise. This is why Marvel movies are so much better than DC movies. It it's fun you want, then look no further than "This is the End", a postmodern postapocalypse romp featuring many of today's comedy stars playing themselves. It's a flippin' riot! If you missed it in theaters, take heart - it's getting rereleased on September 6th! Speaking of Emma Watson (who's in "This is the End"), her other movie "The Bling Ring" opened the same weekend. I haven't seen it because the title annoys me.
Then came yet another prequel that nobody was asking for - "Monsters University". A prequel to Pixar's "Monsters, Inc.", this is a decent animated movie with a great voice cast (Charlie Day is hilarious), but the past couple of years have made it painfully clear that Pixar Animation is no longer the Untouchable House of Genius that it once was. "World War Z", very very very loosely based on the novel by Max Brooks, was a behind-the-scenes mess that should have turned out to be unwatchable. Surprise! It's decent. Despite being far too sanitized and uneven (the climactic scene seems like it's from a different movie), it's worth it to see Brad Pitt fighting zombies.
The final weekend of June saw the female cop buddy comedy "The Heat" hitting screens. I found myself laughing far more than I expected to with this movie, thanks to the teaming of Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy. "White House Down", the second movie about the U.S. capital coming under attack (the other being "Olympus Has Fallen") was directed by Roland ("Independence Day") Emmerich. If you go into this movie expecting the usual Emmerich schtick (corny humor, broad characterizations, overblown action scenes with great special effects), you should have a decent time with this one.
The Movie of June - "This is the End"!
JULY
More animated stuff for the kiddies. "Despicable Me 2" arrived with the promise of more Minions, and it delivered. Unfortunately, the Minions were, by far, the best part of the movie. The rest seemed rather rote and a bit lifeless compared to the original (which I loved). Overall a disappointment, but decent (thanks to the Minions). "The Lone Ranger" rode into multiplexes and empty theaters the same weekend as DM2. Apparently, I was one of the few people who actually liked this one. Sure, it's too long and bloated, and Johnny Depp's 'weird outsider' characters seem to have lost favor with audiences (I thought he was okay in "Ranger"), but a very strong climax, a great soundtrack and solid direction by Gore Verbinski made this a great throwback to the glory days of classic westerns (oops, I said the 'W' word - there goes the modern filmgoer). "Kevin Hart: Let Me Explain" opened this weekend, as well. Didn't see it, but I heard it was kind of funny.
Dear God forgive me, I went to see "Grown Ups 2" in theaters. Why? Because I occasionally like to see movies that I know are going to be bad, just to remind myself what a Really Bad Movie is. It helps me keep perspective. "Grown Ups 2" is even more unfunny than the first one, yet it still made over $100 million at the box office. Thanks to idiots like me. I hang my head in shame. Then I saw "Pacific Rim" the same weekend, and all was right with the world. There are aspects of PR that still annoy me (you have such an original movie yet lift cliched plot points from other movies without applying any sort of twist to them?), but it's still ended up as one of my favorite movies of the year. It's also the movie I've seen the most times in theaters this summer (4 times, and it gets better each time). Its fresh mythology, stellar action sequences, great cast, rousing music, perfect special effects and spot-on direction by Guillermo Del Toro make it one hell of a good time. And it's the only movie of the summer that I will miss seeing in IMAX 3D. Also opening was "The Way Way Back", a nice indie coming of age tale. Predictable, but not cloying. Very watchable.
2013 is a great year for horror films. Case in point: "The Conjuring". It's old school horror done right. James Wan ("Saw", "Insidious") proves once again that he can scare the pants off audiences without resorting to cheap jump scares (although there are a couple of those) and CGI. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are very engaging as the main characters, who are based on real people (scam artists, apparently, but don't let that ruin the movie for you). This movie was also a huge box office hit, the most profitable movie of the summer, in fact. Expect to see "The Conjuring Part II". "Turbo" opened for the kids this weekend. It's an animated movie about a racing snail. Meh (not bad, not good). "Red 2" also hit screens. It's the Bruce Willis-starring action comedy based on a DC comic. Meh (not bad, not good). Certainly not as enjoyable as the first one. The action fantasy comedy "R.I.P.D." also hit theaters this same weekend. Meh (not bad, not good). I was expecting so much more from Jeff Bridges in this. Sigh.
And now for the final weekend of a jam-packed July. The latest Marvel movie "The Wolverine" slashed its way through audiences. Hugh Jackman is good, as always, and it's a watchable, smaller-scale standalone story (way better than the prequel "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"), as well as a decent lead-in to next year's "X-Men: Days of Future Past " (be sure to stay until after the credits). "The To-Do List" is also a decent comedy, although that depends on your tolerance of the comedy stylings of Aubrey Plaza. I loved her in "Safety Not Guaranteed". "Blue Jasmine", the latest from Woody Allen, also opened that weekend. I'm not much of an Allen fan, but I've liked a lot of his movies. Cate Blanchett is in this, so I will be seeing this very shortly.
The Movie of July - "Pacific Rim"!
AUGUST
So here we are, in the Dog Days of summer. Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington kicked it off with the surprisingly entertaining crime thriller "2 Guns". An old school buddy cop movie with a twist (they're both undercover cops and neither of them is aware of it), it's pretty good. 'Pretty good' may not be my description of "The Smurfs 2". Or it may be, I haven't seen it. I've put off sequels to bad movies for now, thanks to "Grown Ups 2". "Fruitvale Station" opened roundabout this time, but I haven't caught up with that one yet, either. It's getting good word, though. Fall is usually a good time to catch up on missed movies.
The movie I was most looking forward to in August was Neil ("District 9") Blomkamp's "Elysium", the socially conscious sci-fi actioner starring Matt Damon. I was a bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's a good action movie with exciting action, excellent special effects and decent performances (although Jodie Foster's accent is somewhat off-putting). I was just hoping for something smarter (beyond the initial premise - 'the poor live on Earth, the rich on a space station' - nothing is done with it). "We're the Millers" is not that 'smarter something' that I spoke of, but it is an okay comedy. It's better than I was expecting it to be (a phrase I've used a lot this summer). "Planes", the non-Pixar spinoff to Pixar's "Cars" franchise, is boring beyond belief, an utter snoozefest. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" is the sequel to "Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief", both of them based on young adult novels. Basically it's Harry Potter with Greek gods. It's not terrible, just okay - slightly better than the first one. On the indie scene, there's Amanda Seyfried in "Lovelace", based on the story of the real life adult actress. I haven't seen it. Neither have I seen "In a World", which is getting mixed reviews but sounds like something I will be seeing this fall. I also haven't seen "House Party 3". Or "House Party 4", for that matter. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Then there's "Sharknado". What can I say about "Sharknado" that hasn't already been said? Well, if you type the word 'Sharknado' while in Facebook, autocorrect wants to change it to shark ado. It's a modern bad movie classic that must be seen with a midnight movie audience to be believed (as I did).
"Lee Daniel's The Butler". Yup, it's maudlin. And manipulative (all movies are). And schmaltzy. But I'll be damned if I didn't like it. Please don't tell anyone, it'll ruin my street cred. I was expecting the worst with "Kick-Ass 2", but it turned out okay. It's not nearly as good as the first one, but Jim Carrey is good, Chloe Moretz is great (the soul of the movie), Aaron Taylor-Johnson is good. There are just a few really wrongheaded scenes that derail the movie. "Jobs", like "The Internship", felt like a 2 hour commercial (in this case for Apple). It's not bad, but it is a rather by-the-numbers biopic. I was really looking forward to seeing Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman square off once again in "Paranoia" (like they did in "Air Force One"). Unfortunately, "Paranoia" may be the dumbest movie of the summer, disguised as a slick thriller. Avoid. Thankfully I saw "Hatchet III" on "Hatchet" Night, which helped me to regain my street cred. The most enjoyable entry in this old school horror/comedy trilogy, it was a great night at the movies. Highly recommended for horror fans. Caroline Williams? Zach Galligan? Danielle Harris? Derek Mears versus Kane Hodder? If any of these names excite you, than you may be a horror geek like me and should see "Hatchet III" immediately.
Now for the final week of summer. First off, more crappy young adult crap - "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones". Yet another witless "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" wannabe, yet it still manages to not be the worst thing ever made. Put that quote on the poster, please. "The World's End" is the latest movie from the makers of "Shaun of the Dead". It's not as funny as that horror/comedy classic, more of a "Hot Fuzz"-level of hilarity, but it's worth your time. Finally, there's "You're Next". Are you still out there, horror fans? This is a great movie. While it appears, on the surface, to be yet another home invasion flick, there's a twist at the midpoint that changes all of that. Then it becomes a wicked, R-rated horror movie version of "Home Alone". And if the names Barbara Crampton, Ti West and A.J. Bowen excite you, then you're a really hardcore horror geek and have probably seen this movie already. It's solid stuff.
The Movie of August - "Sharknado"!
And now, time to declare the ultimate winner of the summer.
The Summer Movie of 2013 is. . .
Before Midnight!
Makes a good "Part 3" double feature with "Hatchet III", yes?
Apparently "The Wolverine" had a very low wardrobe budget, because poor Hugh Jackman had to go shirtless for much of the movie. May I suggest Kickstarter. . .
Here it is, the latest entry in the "X-Men" franchise. Compared to the other superhero flicks of the summer ("Iron Man 3" and "Man of Steel"), "The Wolverine" ranks at about the same quality level as they do. It's good, but it doesn't compare to summer of 2012, where such epics as "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Avengers" were blowing away moviegoers. 2013 pales in comparison.
Here's a quick rundown of 20th Century Fox's/Marvel's "X-Men" series:
- "X-Men" (2000)
This is it. This is the movie that kicked off the superhero craze which has endured for the past 13 years. Director Bryan Singer ("The Usual Suspects") may have seemed like an odd choice for a comic book movie, but his more serious approach to the material elevated it to something more than mere kiddie fodder and struck a chord with audiences worldwide. It also introduced the world to Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (a.k.a. Logan), a star-making performance if there ever was one. While this movie doesn't quite hold up as well as is did in '00, it's still pretty good stuff.
- "X2: X-Men United" (2003)
Singer returned and, in my opinion, improved on everything that made the first movie work so well, creating an excellent sequel and one of my two favorite entries in the series. Sure, it borrowed the template of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" but made it its own, with better action than the first movie, improved dialogue, more assured performances and a powerful story which leaves you wanting more. Great stuff.
- "X-Men: The Last Stand" (2006)
Singer bowed out due to conflicts with Fox, so director Brett Ratner (the "Rush Hour" movies) had to step in to finish the trilogy. Ratner handled the action scenes pretty well, but not so much the rest of it. While it wrapped up the story fairly well (or, I should say, concisely), some of the plot elements felt like a cheat (studio interference, no doubt), rendering much of what happens in "The Last Stand" moot. It's kind of disappointing.
- "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (2009)
This one's a prequel, chronicling the life of Logan from the late 1800s to the 1970s. Hugh Jackman was great in the role (as always), but the movie around him wasn't very good. Badly shot action sequences, an overcrowded mutant cast, annoying plot contrivances, and just plain poorly handled, it's clear that director Gavin Hood ("Tsotsi") should have stuck to directing indie films. But there was hope on the horizon. . .
- "X-Men: First Class" (2011)
Bryan Singer made nice with Fox and returned to produce this awesome prequel, which spans from the '40s to the '60s and chronicles the relationship between Professor X and Magneto. Matthew Vaughn ("Kick-Ass") directed this one, and he did a fine job. "First Class" and "X2" are the two best "X-Men" movies, in my opinion, and while Hugh Jackman only made a cameo appearance in this one, it sure was memorable! Those jonesing for Jackman needed only to wait two years until the release of. . .
- "The Wolverine" (2013)
For the past few years Logan has been living in the Canadian wilderness, hanging out with grizzly bears and beating up asshole hunters (it seems that killing the woman you love in order to save the world will do that to a man). Soon enough, he's summoned to Japan by young mutant named Yukio. She works for a rich industrialist named Yashida, whose life was saved by Logan back in World War II, when the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Yashida is dying and wants to repay Logan by offering to restore his mortality.
Do you think there's a catch?
Yup, it's the old "superhero becomes mortal and learns a valuable lesson" schtick. I don't mind it, though. Consider it a rite of passage that all superheroes must go through to become "fully formed". Besides, it hardly makes a difference in this case. Wolverine may be able to die now, but he's still one tough bastard.
Lets look at the good and the bad, shall we?
Pros:
- Streamlined. The problem with most of the "X-Men" movies is in the sheer overabundance of mutant characters and story lines. "The Wolverine" keeps it simpler. Besides Logan, there are only three other mutant characters, and the story is focused solely on Wolvy. Less clutter is a good thing.
- Hugh Jackman. He still owns this role and is fun to watch.
- Action. There aren't any mindblowing sequences here (although the bullet train scene is silly fun), but the action is far more solid than it was in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine".
- Rila Fukushima. She plays Yukio, Logan's summoner and bodyguard, who has a mutant ability which allows her to see when a person is going to die. She's the other bright casting spot in the movie, besides Jackman.
- James Mangold. He's the director of such good films as "3:10 to Yuma", "Walk the Line" and "Girl, Interrupted". He brings a solid sense of character and a measured, well-crafted buildup to the proceedings. A good choice.
- Turning Japanese. Setting the film in Japan gives this a flavor unique to the series. Plus, it allows for. . .
- Ninjas! 'Nuff said.
- Brutality. This is the most violent "X-Men" movie yet. It's still PG-13, but it pushes that rating with its abundance of stabbings and slashings. It's great to see Wolverine being the violent bastard he is in the comics. Director Mangold has hinted that a more violent DVD cut will be available in the future, featuring a scene cut from the movie where Logan goes all Ginsu on a small army of ninja attackers.
- The mid-end credits scene. More on that later.
Cons:
- 3D. It's pretty useless here, and not terribly well done. See it in 2D.
- Svetlana Khodchenkova. Bless you. She plays a villainous mutant named Viper in "The Wolverine". She's absolutely over the top and annoyingly EEEEEE-vil. It's like she belongs in a different movie.
- Too much CG. The climax is all computered out, and while it's entertaining in it's own way, it almost feels like something that was shoehorned into the movie for all the 14 year-olds. And it probably was. Could have been handled better.
- Plot clutter. Earlier I complimented this movie on its streamlined story, and while that holds mostly true for Logan's arc, there are an awful lot of doublecrosses, double-doublecrosses and extraneous characters going around. All of these plot machinations are ultimately unnecessary, since I easily figured out what was "really going on" far in advance. It's the typical flaw of many big budget American films these days - too much overplotting. The plot gets in the way of the story, as they say.
In the end, this movie falls in the middle of the "X-Men" spectrum. It's not as good as "X2" or "First Class", but it's far better than either "Origins" or "The Last Stand". It's a nice epilogue to the original trilogy. Worth a look.
Oh, and as for that mid-end credits scene:
It kicks ass. It's practically the highlight of "The Wolverine", and all it really is is a setup for. . .
Some people like it when you are able to boil down your opinion of something into a neat little easy-to-understand rating. This works great for cars, cleaning products, and cell phones, but when it comes to judging works of art, to me it means very little. Opinions on art is primarily based on the emotional reaction of the viewer/listener. Emotional states fluctuate due to any number of factors: health, the perspective of age, time of day, your surroundings, the people you're with, general mood, significant life events, etc., so while boiling it all down into a static rating may seem practical, it's actually kind of dishonest and lazy.
Nonetheless people love bite-sized categorization, which is why I have Professor Shifty's Movie Grades over to the left. Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed that, occasionally, the grades will change. This happens when I see a movie a second time and my opinion has altered. They can go up, they can go down. Here are a couple of recent examples. My opinion of "Star Trek: Into Darkness" was remarkably lower the second time around. "Man of Steel" was pretty much the exact same experience when I saw it again. Which brings us to "Pacific Rim", a movie which I've seen twice. I love it now, but the first time I saw it I was disappointed.
Let me clarify: I wasn't disappointed because I thought it was bad. I was disappointed in the same way that a parent is disappointed in a good, intelligent kid who deliberately does something stupid - you still love them, but your opinion has been temporarily marred. The second time I saw this, the good shit came into sharper focus and the bad shit faded into the background. What bad shit, you ask? Well, here you have a movie which is the cinematic equivalent of a breath of fresh air - it's not a remake, sequel, or adaptation - yet the filmmakers chose to run with some hoary, timeworn cliches which could have benefitted from some witty finagling. Honestly, it's a bit nitpicky, but it bugs me a little.
The Pros:
- Guillermo Del Toro. He can do horror ('"Cronos", "The Devil's Backbone", "Mimic"), he can do fantasy ("Pan's Labyrinth"), he can do Comic Book ("Blade II", the "Hellboy" movies) and now he's proven that he can do Anime. "Pacific Rim" looks and sounds spectacular. And it's distinctively Del Toro, from the look and feel, to the economic storytelling, to his emphasis on story emerging from character relationships, to his usual obsession with recurring visual motifs (heads and shoes baby, heads and shoes), to the color-coded lighting schemes, it's unmistakable and very, very welcome. This movie is clearly a labor of love for Del Toro. It wears its heart on its robot sleeve and the audience feels it.
- Industrial Light and Magic. This is their best work in years. Lately they've been getting their CG asses handed to them by the likes of WETA Digital and Digital Domain, among others, but it's nice to see them recover from such disastrous effects craptaculars like "Battleship" and "Transformers" to reclaim the throne. Sumptuous may seem like a strange word to use when describing special effects, but the attention to detail is amazing. It's remarkable how many interesting new details I noticed in the effects work the second time around.
- World Building. This is the start of a new cinematic mythos, and frankly I would like to see more of it. There's a great setup for a new sci-fi universe here, one which never felt over-explained or preachy to me. The whole notion of using giant mechs to fight off an invasion of giant monsters is rather silly, but it's set up and conveyed convincingly enough for me to buy it (like "The Matrix"). Plus, it's just plain cooler than killing off the monsters with some kind of designer disease or something. Maybe that will be a future subplot. Plus - there are many subtle ideas sprinkled around which I'd like to see explored in the future (ex: the pregnancy, why the Kaiju went after little Mako, Kaiju pilots, etc). Plus Plus - the idea of needing two mentally and emotionally compatible pilots to drive the Jaegers (via mind meld) is a fascinating idea. Making the fight scenes rely on the compatibility of the characters gives the movie a personal, humanistic edge which helps invest the audience in all the comic bookish shenanigans.
- Memorable Names. I love these character names! Raleigh Becket. Stacker Pentecost. Hannibal Chau. Mako Mori (my favorite character). Hercules Hansen. And the Jaegers (the mechs) have great names, too! Gipsy Danger. Striker Eureka. My favorite is Crimson Typhoon. The Kaiju (monster) names remind me of "Pokemon". Knifehead. Leatherback. Otachi. This movie has thick layers of texture.
- The 1980s. I was taken aback by the style of this movie at first until I realized that this was intentional. In terms of the acting style, the dialogue and the general feel of the movie, it's Del Toro's tribute to sci-fi of the '80s. Del Toro himself has said that this is his tribute to"Star Wars". It eschews modern-style cinema (internalized emoting, blunt cynicism, cinema verite camerawork) in exchange for classic '80s earnestness. The unimaginative would call it 'cheesy'. I call it a return to the good old days. Even the score is retro - simple and catchy and rock-n-roll. Perfect for "Pacific Rim".
- Rock 'em Sock'em Jaegers. The action scenes are perfectly executed. The Jaegers, unlike the Transformers, have a real weight to their movements, and I was never confused or lost track of what was happening during the fight scenes. Plus, they never overstay their welcome. This movie flies by fast. Despite the fact that it's establishing a new cinematic universe to play around in, the movie never feels bloated. I wanted more.
- IMAX 3D. Perfect. This is the best movie I've seen in that format in, well, ever. It's really well done. I would like to see this in 2D, just to compare, but I don't want to miss another chance for an IMAX showing. Once it's gone, it's gone. Unless the movie gets rereleased in the future.
- Cast of Unknowns. Like "Star Wars", Del Toro purposely avoided casting any big stars, and it paid off. Some of these characters are cliches, but I dig 'em all the same. Idris Elba is fantastic in everything, even when he's in crap like "Prometheus". Charlie Hunnam is reasonably engaging as the main character. He's a bit too 'whitebread', but I like that he's a kind of damaged Luke Skywalker. Rinko Kinkuchi is my favorite character in the movie, Mako Mori. Her line delivery isn't the best (this is her first English-speaking role), but line delivery is only one facet of what makes a good character. She's the 'Neo' of the movie. The scientist characters (Charlie Day and Burn Gorman) are borderline annoying, but they never crossed that line for me. They made me laugh a couple of times (like the scene with the toilet in the ruins). And, this being a Del Toro movie, Ron Perlman shows up to be awesome, as always.
The Cons:
- "Pacific Rim." Crappy title. Tells you nothing of the movie.
- Climactic Fizzle. Like 95% of genre movies these days, the best action sequence in the film (the battle for Hong Kong) is not the climactic sequence. The climax is still good, just not as good.
- Rain and Darkness. Most of the action scenes take place at night, in the rain. Or in the ocean, but that's fine because the Jaegers are meant to intercept the Kaiju before they make landfall, so it's a mythology thing. I would just like more daytime, nice-weather battles.
- Avoidable Cliches. The 'aliens' who are sending giant monsters through the Breach to exterminate us have one goal in mind - to suck the Earth dry of all of its resources. Then they will move on to another world. They are weird, bug-like creatures with large oblong heads and spindly arms. Our last-chance method of striking back is to send a nuke into the Breach to hit them where they live. Before this plan starts, Pentecost makes a rousing speech about the last stand of humanity, at the end of which cheers erupt. Sound familiar? Besides "Independence Day" there are also a few "Top Gun" chestnuts. The character of Chuck Hansen might well have been named Iceman. It bugs me that the filmmakers couldn't have tweaked it up a little bit, just to differentiate it. It's a good thing that I prefer "Pacific Rim" to "Independence Day" (or "Top Gun", for that matter). Just keep the cliches out of the sequel.
Bottom line: it's one of my favorite movies of the year and will likely be viewed by me many more times on Blu-Ray. It's not perfect, but it's fun.
$250 million for a Western? Doesn't Hollywood remember such big budget bombs as "Wild Wild West", "Maverick" or "Cowboys and Aliens"? The successful Westerns are always the ones made on smaller budgets - "Unforgiven", "True Grit", "Open Range", "Appaloosa", "3:10 to Yuma", "Django Unchained", etc. Perhaps Disney thought that by reuniting with the writers/producers/director/star of the highly successful "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies (the first three) they could capture some more lightning in a bottle.
Not so much, it turns out.
2013's "The Lone Ranger" has problems, not the least of which is in its disconnect with the moviegoing audience of today. Having said that, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, to my surprise. But I am a unique case.
My dad was a huge fan of Westerns. When I was young we used to sit together and watch reruns of the classic "Lone Ranger" TV show which originally aired from the '40s into the '50s. The Lone Ranger theme (a.k.a. the William Tell Overture) was burned into my brain. I even had a little plastic toy version of the Lone Ranger riding his famous horse Silver.
As I grew older, though, I had absolutely no interest in Westerns. I used to think that my dislike stemmed from good, old fashioned childhood rebellion. Later I came to the realization that it was because of the cowboy hats - see, I don't like country music. I appreciate it more these days (especially the classic stuff), but I'm still not a fan. I'm a heavy metal/classical kind of dude. I used to equate country music to Westerns because of the hats. It wasn't until I grew older that I learned the truth - the Western movie genre has more in common with metal than with country. This struck me during a week when I was simultaneously studying the Western genre in film appreciation class and listening to all my heavy metal albums during the week at my day job (I used to have musical "theme weeks"). Themes of isolationism, rebellion against authority, civilization versus barbarism, exploration of the scary unknown, survivalism, inner turmoil, good versus evil, justice versus law, freedom - all commonalities. And since then I've read many interviews with heavy metal artists in which they cite specific Western filmmakers as primary influences on their outlook and their art.
These days I love Westerns and count many of them among my favorite movies of all time. "High Noon", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "The Searchers", "The Wild Bunch", the "Dollars" trilogy, "Stagecoach", "The Magnificent Seven", and many more. Which brings us to director Gore Verbinski. . .
In 2011 he made the animated flick "Rango", a comedic adventure and a tribute to Westerns (also starring Johnny Depp). Before that he made slapstick comedies for kids ("Mouse Hunt"), scary horror movies ("The Ring"), moving dramas ("The Weatherman"), comedies for adults ("The Mexican") and fun-filled fantasy adventures ("Pirates 1-3"). I like the guy's films. He's got a great eye and knows how to direct special effects. I dig his style of humor and handling of action scenes. His movies get a little bloated sometimes ("The Ring", a couple of the "Pirates" movies, "The Lone Ranger"), but I can deal with that.
"The Lone Ranger" is not only a tribute to the classic story but a shout out to the entire Western genre. There are direct echoes of classic Westerns in many scenes, many loving cliches reprised and wry, witty in-joke asides. And, of course, there's Monument Valley. All of which leaves modern audiences in the cold, unless you're me. I loved that shit.
Verbinski brings some of the "Pirates" feel to the movie, but not as much as you would think. The trailers would have you believe that it's a nonstop yuk fest of slapsticky action, but it's more straightforward than that. There is plenty of humor, but about half of it falls flat. But the other half worked. I was rolling in the aisles a couple of times. Believe me, a movie theater floor is not something you want to roll on.
As for the supposed "supernatural aspects" of the plot, well. . . there aren't that many. Sure, there are some flesh-eating rabbits (don't ask) but, and here is where I must get into some SPOILERy territory - it's revealed about 2/3rds of the way through that Tonto (Johnny Depp), who is teaching John Reid (Armie Hammer) to embrace his destiny as a spirit walker and become the Lone Ranger in order to avenge his brother's death, is revealed to be an actual crazy person with a tragic past who is shunned by other Native Americans. All of the spiritual mumbo jumbo he's been preaching turns out to be bull pucky. I love that. Many have criticized that Depp's Tonto is just a reprise of his Jack Sparrow character from "Pirates", but I disagree. I see him as as the flipside of Sparrow. See, Sparrow only acts crazy and strange and random in order to throw everyone else off - he really knows what's going on and always has a handle on things. Tonto really is nuts and only thinks he has a handle on things when most of his success in life is due to pure dumb luck. In the end, he's kind of a sad, tragic character, and while Depp's "weird outsider" routine is getting old these days, I'll forgive him for Tonto.
I also like Hammer as the lead character. Another criticism I see leveled at the movie concerns Reid's ineptness and inherent wussitude. This is another thing I love. He's not the warrior - his brother was. He's just a lawyer and a well-meaning doofus. Of course, as the movie goes on, he must step up to be the hero, which adds to the climax.
Okay, here's the scorecard-
The Cons:
-Too long and bloated.
-The humor is hit and miss.
-Too much in-crowd references for Western junkies (which is a Pro for me).
-Depp's character tropes are wearing thin.
-The plot is far too similar to 1998's "The Mask of Zorro". Really, it's soooo close, especially near the end. This is funny because the character of Zorro was originally created as a ripoff of the Lone Ranger.
The Pros:
-Visually solid.
-The cast is great, especially William Fichtner as the villain Butch Cavendish.
-It was clearly made with love for the Western genre, and that feeling bleeds through (a Con if you hate Westerns).
-The movie is surprisingly violent. Puts "World War Z" to shame. No kidding. A Con if you hate movie violence.
-The climax is FLIPPIN' SPECTACULAR!
Here's where the movie shines - it has the best, most exciting climax I've seen in a movie all year. All of the Cons are worth sitting through because they build to this. This is where Reid takes the reins of his own destiny and must prove himself, where Tonto must make up for his mistakes and put things right, where the damsel in distress needs to be saved (although she ends up doing a lot of the saving, in true modern day fashion), and where the villains must PAY. It's a finely crafted, propulsive sequence which hits all the right beats and leaves the film on a high note (although there is one super funny jokes afterwards that I don't want to spoil). And when Hans Zimmer's version of the William Tell Overture kicks in - absolutely perfect. I was a kid again. I literally had tears in my eyes during this sequence. Then again, I have a history with the Lone Ranger many others do not share. I'm biased.
It helped that I saw the movie (on opening night) with a cool audience who applauded cheerily after it was over. I must admit, most of the attendees had white hair. In fact, when leaving the theater after the end of the credit (there is footage playing over the credits which ultimately goes nowhere, literally, so feel free to leave if you want) I was drawn into a discussion with a group of kindly old gents who were surprised to find a guy under the age of 40 in the theater. They all were fans of the classic series and loved this new version. I wish my dad were alive to see this. I think he would have loved it too.
All told, it's definitely a flawed film, but its nostalgic tone and strong climax made it enjoyable for me. But, really, $250 million dollars? What were you thinking, Disney?