THE BEST FILMS OF 2013

                   

1- FRANCES HA

                                                             

2- THIS IS THE END

                                     

                                                          

3- THE WORLD'S END

4- JOURNEY TO THE WEST

5- NEBRASKA

6- 12 YEARS A SLAVE

7- HER

8- THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

9- BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR

10- AMERICAN HUSTLE

Review: WORLD WAR Z

 

This film starts in Philadelphia. Instead of shooting this opening sequence in Philly, they filmed that part in Northern Ireland. They even changed the street signs in Belfast in case a viewer was paying more attention to the accuracy of Philly street signs than the zombie apocalypse engulfing the characters mid-chase. And I still wonder now...this film is a mega-budget summer action feature (the budget was reported as $190 million) with one of the biggest stars in Hollywood...and yet they still want to save cash by filming in Ireland? How much could they have possibly saved? Really?
And that's kind of the problem with this film, the newest zombie film on the market. It doesn't know what it wants to be. Filming a sequence that takes place in Philly in Northern Ireland is only a small problem. Is this supposed to be a zombie movie? Then why are the zombies super fast? Is it supposed to be an action movie? Then why is the finale straight out of a horror film but big chunks of the rest feature chase sequences and explosions and even a mid-air catastrophe set piece on a plane? Does it want to be a family film? There is a family drama lurking within. Does it want to be scientific? Realistic? And what was that Budapest sequence that was cut from the film because it was too "political"?
World War Z is, to put it bluntly, a mess. I will say that it's a lot better than I thought it would be, surprisingly. Director Marc Forster previously made Quantum of Solace, a sleek, awesome James Bond film that few liked. I still am baffled how few liked it. Remember that opening sequence? One of 007's best action scenes.
So Forster knows what he's doing and he proves it. The action scenes can be thrilling, the finale is a bit creepy-cool, but, alas, the special f/x of hordes of zombies are typically childish, studio-exec crap that looks "awesome" in a trailer but ends up limp in the grand scheme of things.
Remember how truly awesome zombie films can be? The potential is there, obviously. The sadist factor, the gore, the tension, the thrill. I recall the epic shot of adrenaline that was 28 Days Later (sure, technically a virus film), the black and white scary-as-fuck Night of the Living Dead. The potential is there.
World War Z is an entertaining lark, sure, but just that, a summer popcorn experience featuring various sequences lashed together as if the viewer is being whisked around an amusement park.
I suppose it's apt that there is no ending to the film, as it doesn't really have a beating heart to begin with.
**1/2 (out of ****)

Review: CLOUD ATLAS

"Because a man like me has no business with this substance 'beauty,' yet here she is, in these soundproofed chambers of my heart."
That is the best line, in the best passage, of "Cloud Atlas," a novel written by David Mitchell. Novel isn't really what to call it. A very-loosely linked collection of short stories is more like it. And there's a new film adaptation of the book, written and directed by three people, the Wachowski's and Tom Tykwer. Now the reason this film has any real cachet is the fact that it was at least co-made by the siblings that did the Matrix trilogy. After that they only made Speed Racer, an amusing bomb, so it's kind of a big deal when they show up with a new film. And this is a film based on the so-called "unfilmable" novel.
I will admit that I read this book and found it to be hit or miss. The above line is a part of the beautifully written "Letters to Zedelghem" section, which, alongside "The Terrible Ordeal of Timothy Cavendash," are the only two very good parts of the book. The book & film feature stories in various time periods, so the writing changes from 70's speak to futuristic speak. The book's middle section is near unreadable, and the film veers into cornball territory very easily thanks mostly to having Tom Hanks in it.
The film certainly looks good. It's entertaining, albeit too long. The book is told in a pyramid style; each story is presented once, then a long section set in the distant future unfolds, then we return back to each story again. This means that the opening and closing sections are both of Adam Ewing's Pacific journal. If you're confused, then good luck watching this movie without a road map, as the book's structure is thrown out the window and the film is edited so that it's back and forth, total mayhem between stories.
I guess it's a good accomplishment...but I'd rather have seen Tykwer and the Wachowski's make something original. It doesn't exactly help that the "Somni" story is mostly action in the film, or that the best part of the entire book, Frobisher's foolish love of his composer boss' daughter, has been excised.
I guess to get funding for this expensive picture they needed a name or two, but Tom Hanks and Halle Berry stick out like sore thumbs.
So like the book, the film is hit or miss. But the book does work mostly because of the writing; some of it is so elegant, so poetic, and the film has none of that. It's just a big, glossy, froth of colorful images that combine into nothing. **1/2

Review: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

What an odd, grammatically bad title. It doesn't even work without punctuation. Who does JJ Abrams think he is...God?
The film, Abrams' second Star Trek film, starts off by ripping off Raiders of the Lost Ark. And by now, if you haven't come across a Spielberg/Abrams rant or tangent or article or musing...then you live in a fucking cave. Abrams was a boy and was asked to repair Spielberg's old 8MM films. Abrams is THE new Spielberg. We've all heard it. But Spielberg, at least in the 70's and 80's, made some good films. Abrams makes empty-shell, silly, entertainment machines. The one thing Abrams did that had some heart and some thought and some fully developed characters unfortunately ended up making no sense (it was Lost...if you, as noted, live in a cave).
I will admit that Abrams last two pictures, Super 8 and this, are entertaining up to a point. But they're riddled will ultra-silliness. Remember how cool Super 8 was for like an hour? Then recall that horrendous ET-copy of an ending? Star Trek Into Darkness has some good action and the characters are fun (a bit too cartoonish, though)...but afterwards it rings hollow. There's nothing deep, profound, or illuminating. This isn't like the old Star Trek show. This is frigging Star Wars. Which I guess is good since Abrams is directing the new Star Wars.
The plot for this new film has a bad guy, Khan, waging war on the Star Trek academy in San Francisco and London. Khan, played by the super-serious Benedict Cumberbatch (what a name!), really doesn't have much to do besides glower. &, honestly, he's more hero than villain for no real reason (the real villain turns out to be Robocop). The plot isn't even really worth talking about, nor are the villains (did they really need to re-do Khan?), because the script seems to have been written simply as a way to piece together action sequences. Even the Klingons show up for no good reason.
If you like mindless action, banter, caricatures instead of characters, then you'll have a blast. Otherwise, I now kind of understand why this film made $100 million less than Iron Man 3 on its opening weekend
. **1/2

Review: THIS IS 40

More like This is Crap.
Harsh. &, honestly, this, the latest Judd Apatow film (only his 4th), is an entertaining film. It's funny-cute more than uproarious. It's simplistic. It's certainly not terrible, but once the credits rolled all I could think about was how half-finished it felt. How nothing added up. &, sadly, that Judd Apatow has grown old enough to just not have it anymore.
This is 40 takes Paul Rudd's family from Knocked Up and makes a movie out of them. I would have rather seen another movie with Seth Rogen's character from that film. Not that Paul Rudd isn't funny. He is. But this film incorporates the whole Apatow clan...and the three of them just aren't as interesting or entertaining as Paul Rudd by himself. Rudd's wife in the film, Leslie Mann, is Apatow's wife in real life, which is super creepy because Mann shows her tits twice in the film...and is in love with a different man...and Apatow's kids play the kids in the film...which is very strange (the youngest isn't at the age to be able to make a coherent decision to say no). The plot is basically a family arguing. That's hilarious, right? No. But Apatow has always combined sweetness and real-life with comedy, unfortunately the sap has overtaken the edge. Remember The 40 Year Old Virgin and how exciting and wild and thrillingly alive and fresh it was? Apatow's last two pictures, this one and the almost-awful Funny People, have been too serious minded and thus dull, diluted, stale. This is 40 feels like a Hallmark movie.
The one saving grace is the rest of the cast. Chris O'Dowd and Jason Segal are so amusing that I wish this film was only about them. Megan Fox looks good but proves how much of a terrible actress she is (not a shock). Albert Brooks is great. & that's kind've it.
The big problem is that nothing goes anywhere. Leslie Mann owns a store. Someone is stealing. Um...why? What's the point or payoff? There is none. John Lithgow plays Mann's father who hasn't been in her life for seven years. Does that go anywhere? No. The daughter is enjoying a marathon of the TV show Lost. You could make a whole movie making fun of that. Does that plot go anywhere? No. There aren't even any Lost jokes. What the fuck?
Rudd does have a few funny lines...but they all come off as lines he improvised. Which means Apatow has lost his spark since he wrote this thing. They all lose it. Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is the latest example. Both Django and This is 40 aren't bad films. They're entertaining. But the earlier greatness is gone from these guys. It's sad. ** (out of ****)

Review: JACK THE GIANT SLAYER

It was supposed to come out last summer. I remember seeing an early trailer maybe a year ago and it looked good. Bryan Singer was directing, usually a guy that doesn't make popcorn crap (he was, after all, the director that turned Superman into Jesus and added Auschwitz to The X-Men). So I was intrigued. And then the film was bumped, lost, forgotten. And a new date, March of 2012, was announced. And the obvious reasons burst forth; time to finish the special f/x, tweak it, bring it out without summer blockbuster competition, etc. And the fans had their own ideas of why it was bumped; the movie sucked, was a mess, major editing needed to be done, the thing is doomed, etc. So here it is, doomed to be a box office disaster (thanks to Oz, the Great & Powerful coming out next weekend), practically limping into theaters like a sick homeless child at your door begging for kindness.
And it's actually a pretty good movie, albeit it's for children, most of the special f/x suck, the 3-D is pointless, it's fluff and dumb, but it is entertaining, it features a pretty princess, and there are some very good sequences here. Everyone hated Singer's last picture, Valkyrie, but I enjoyed it. And while I wasn't a big fan of his take on Superman or The X-Men, the guy does have a knack at providing entertainment. Jack the Giant Slayer is a fun romp. It has a stellar cast; Ewan McGregor, Ian McShane, Stanley Tucci, Nicholas Hoult. And while a hefty majority of the film is played for childish laughs, there are some well crafted and good looking scenes here. The most memorable is the first sight of one of the giants. I don't need to tell you the story of "Jack & the Bean Stalk," right? Well this film is that story but with more than one giant. Once Jack is up there and we hear the foot steps shaking the earth and see the trees swaying and the animals fleeing and it's raining and misty and we're going to finally see the giant...it's suspenseful stuff, very well filmed. Granted, this is one scene in a two hour film, and eventually we get an over-the-top battle down below, but it's all fun, entertaining, and not as bad as you probably thought or wished. Now Singer, it's time to stop playing in the sandbox and make me proud with X-Men: Days of Future Past. **1/2

TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2013

1- THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE: I enjoyed the first film. It wasn't spectacular or anything. It was entertaining. This one has a tropical island setting which is better and a bigger budget and a new director who usually does action films (he made the horrible I Am Legend...but at least he knows how to direct big action set pieces). It'll probably be the last good film in this series as the last, awful book is being split into two films and doesn't even feature a Hunger Games. So enjoy the last, big spectacle in this universe. It's gonna be huge.

2- BEFORE MIDNIGHT: This is the third film in the “Before” series starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy and directed by Richard Linklater. Sure, they're just a guy and girl talking for one night in a foreign city but they're emotional and engrossing and beautiful. The ending to the last one, Before Sunset, was one of the greatest endings of all time. These are perfect films and the early word out of Sundance is that this film is just as good.

3- THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG: Haven't even seen The Hobbit yet...and not even sure what the title is. Hobbit: There and Back Again? Something lame. Should just call it Lord of the Rings 4. But I still want to see this, as the dragon shows up here, plus it's a Hobbit film, which is big. And we're lucky Peter Jackson is still making these films. So enjoy it while it lasts. After all, there are no more (good) J.R.R. Tolkein books to film.

4- THE WORLD'S END: So this is the latest, and apparently last film with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost and directed by Edgar Wright. This trio did Hot Fuzz and Spaced and Shaun of the Dead. This film is apparently about a bar and the end of the world. Should be wild and hilarious. These three guys have been separated for too long. For some reason they aren't quite as spot-on unless they're all together.

5- MAN OF STEEL: Zach Snyder doesn't have the greatest track record...but he does at least make big spectacles. So even if they're not good films they're at least eye candy and entertaining. The last Superman, by Brian Singer, sucked...so this doesn't even have to be great to be a step up. It also looks fairly dark (Superman in handcuffs!), so that means it won't be camp crap. So far from the previews it looks big and expensive...so I can't wait to finally see it.

6- THE GREAT GATSBY: This should perhaps be higher...as it was supposed to hit in December thus the trailer gives it all away since it's been finished and we know what we're gonna get. It's Baz Luhrman's version of the great novel; all gloss, flash, music, costumes, the whole bit. Stars DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire and it really looks amazing. Let's hope it makes us forget Australia.

7- STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: JJ Abram's second Star Trek feature looks...it looks like nothing because I haven't seen anything but the poster. The first one was okay but Abrams always puts on a good show and this should be the big summer film this year. And I think I was the lone person that really enjoyed Super 8.

8- STOKER: This is at Sundance right now. It looks weird but interesting. Nicole Kidman is in it and it was written by Prison Break's Wentworth Miller. The reason I want to see it is because Park Chan-Wook directed it. He made Oldboy and Thirst and is one of best directors out there. Granted, few have made the leap to to Hollywood and survived. We'll see.

9- SNOWPIERCER: Another transplant. So South Korea is fucked. They're losing all their good directors. This is perhaps my favorite director at the moment, Bong Joon-Ha. The Host and Memories of Murder are two great films. This one is about a train and set in some post-apocalyptic world. Really. So you're guess is as good as mine. It stars Thor, Chris Evans, and Tilda Swinton.

10- NYMPHOMANIAC: This one stars Shia Lebeouf and was written/directed by Lars von Triers. It also supposedly features real sex on film, which would make this the first outside-of-porn film to do this since, what? Shortbus? 8 Songs? The Brown Bunny? Lars von Trier's last two films have been more interesting than good (Antichrist was gorgeous but too full of itself and Melancholia was boring). He has made some good films; Manderlay, The Boss of it All, and the TV show The Kingdom. This film will at least be intriguing.

THE BEST FILMS OF 2012

1- SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED 

2- BACHELORETTE

3- V/H/S

4- A ROYAL AFFAIR

5- THE PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS

6- ZERO DARK THIRTY

 7- DARK SHADOWS

8- MAGIC MIKE

9- MOONRISE KINGDOM

10- RUST AND BONE