Adam's January Clusterfilm Project

Adam: We aren’t dead! I just don’t have internet and Riley lives an hour away now. The film blog still lives. And to prove it, I’m starting a new project for the month of January!

For the past couple of years, I have accumulated a multitude of DVDs. I cannot resist a good deal on film, and when I had expendable cash, I would often buy many at once without much time to watch them. Well, thanks to talking with a coworker the other night at work, I realized that I should watch one DVD per day in January, and post clusters of “mini-reviews” for each film throughout the month. For instance, once a week or so, I’ll be posting a cluster of 5-7 films that I watched that week, for the entire month of January.

My reason for doing this is partially because I need to watch these dang movies, but part of it is because I don’t have as much time to stay up to speed on current film lately. I work at a second-run theater now, which means we get the movies a few months after they are released (we still have the freaking Butler…), and it’s hard for me to get to a first-run theater multiple times a week to stay up to speed, let alone find time to write reviews of said films. Thus, this project was born!

Before I begin though, I need to point out something about these 31 films. Of the 31 movies I plan to watch, I have already seen 25 of them. However, I have not watched the DVDs of these films since I purchased them, meaning a lot of these are movies I watched a few years ago and loved enough to buy, but haven’t had time to rewatch. For instance, I’ve seen The Fantastic Mr. Fox like four or five times, but the DVD I own is still in the cellophane. Therefore, I will rewatch it (since it’s been a few years anyway) and write a mini-review (maybe a paragraph or two) about my thoughts on it, such as if it holds up as well as it does in my memory or what new things have I discovered about it. These films vary in length and genre, as well. I’m talking vampires to superheroes to teen pregnancy to mobsters to the apocalypse. This should be fun.

So without further ado, let Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project begin!

The Spectacular Now review

Riley:

And here comes a movie that reminds me why they are made in the first place.

But first, a disclaimer. I have had a long, fruitful conversation with Adam about movie reviews and criticism and I know how I feel about them. I can discuss a movie out loud and in person better than I can write about one. Yet here I am, so I’ll keep it as short and sweet as I can. I’ll try to not speak too much about the content of the story, as far too many film critics do (cough cough, those at The New Yorker), often oversharing elements of it that movie-goers just have to go and experience themselves. Anyways, now, “The Spectacular Now.”

To begin, here is a plot summary I snagged from its IMDb page:

“Sutter Keely lives in the now. It's a good place for him. A high school senior, charming and self-possessed, he's the life of the party, loves his job at a men's clothing store, and has no plans for the future. A budding alcoholic, he's never far from his supersized, whiskey-fortified thirst-master cup. But after being dumped by his girlfriend, Sutter gets drunk and wakes up on a lawn with Aimee Finicky hovering over him. She's different: the "nice girl" who reads science fiction and doesn't have a boyfriend. While Amy has dreams of a future, Sutter lives in the impressive delusion of a spectacular now, yet somehow, they're drawn together.”

“The Spectacular Now” propelled me into the stars with its breathless introduction and it kept me suspended there over the course of its running time. It was during the final eight minutes - plus the brilliant choice of music as the ending credits appear - that I felt like I was thrown to the moon. Most of you will possibly react differently to the film, as there is such a wide variety of things to relate to. Nonetheless, I would be very interested in talking with you if by the closing credits you weren’t wiping your eyes or feeling some sort of emotional weight in the pit of your stomach or in the trenches of your heart.

Sutter Keely (played so damn well by Miles Teller) could perhaps be my favorite movie character of the year thus far. I have never responded to a character like his before; obnoxious, thoughtful, reliant on alcohol, warm, genuine, loud, sensitive. He’s incredibly well-rounded for a young male lead in a coming-of-age tale. The film itself features a roster of characters that could so easily be mishandled and have been mishandled in other films of the same nature. Every character in “Spectacular” has been a caricature elsewhere; party-girl ex, jock football player, preppy older sister, bookish girl, etc. But here, they are given the rare chance to individually breathe in their own shoes. And in doing so, everyone feels sympathetic, understandable, recognizable. Early on, Sutter asks Aimee Finicky (played with equal ferocity by Shailene Woodley) what single characteristic defines her. Aimee responds to his question by posing one of her own: Why do we have to be defined by a single characteristic? As the movie suggests, we’re all so deeply full of a multitude of personality traits, emotions, aspirations, and ideas, and we’re constantly changing our minds, adapting to unexpected revelations and dreaming new dreams that a single word simply does not justly define us.

This is a movie with a big heart. I love movies with big hearts. Cynicism can be fun and thought-provoking in certain cases, but nothing speaks louder than a story that celebrates the goodness in the world or the powers of optimism, respect and encouragement. “The Spectacular Now” frequently resists the temptation of predictability and dishonesty. I am reminded of a scene that first appears like it will be headed in one direction - a fight. Instead, the words that the characters consciously choose to exchange move the scene in the entirely opposite direction. And the implication of Sutter’s reliance on booze refreshingly avoids a trite moral conclusion. That’s not what this film is about.

There are shades of “Good Will Hunting” throughout, including what appears to be a brief homage towards the end as we watch a car drive down a highway. Saying anything more would spoil the fun. “The Spectacular Now” is not without its flaws, but I’ll leave those up to you to determine on your own.

*For those of you interested in a more expansive examination of “The Spectacular Now”, I’m going to go against my disclaimer and direct you to the late, great Roger Ebert’s review - one of his sweetest, and one of his last.

Link:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-spectacular-now-2013

The World's End review

Adam: I know Edgar Wright’s brilliant comedy The World’s End has been out for a couple weeks now, but a friend requested I write a review of it, and having seen it three times and being unable to stop thinking about it, I simply had to oblige. So here it is. Enjoy.

--

A Review of Love Letter to The World’s End

It would be impossible to review this film without at least mentioning the other two films in the loose “trilogy” (dubbed the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy or The Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy, if you haven’t heard by now): the flawless living dead satire Shaun of the Dead and the spot-on action spoof Hot Fuzz. Each of the three films, though not connected through plot or characters, are written and directed by the same people (written by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, directed by the latter), and often include the same actors. Not to mention, there are subtle tropes specific to these three films, including but not limited to: intense editing cuts, giving away important plot points through seemingly unimportant dialogue, sound effect gags (like the pinball machine), a running gag of jumping over/into a fence when attempting a “shortcut,” and most importantly, the appearance of Cornetto ice cream treats.

I was fortunate enough to see the trilogy in its back-to-back-to-back glory on the big screen, and even though I have seen Shaun of the Dead countless times, I still found myself picking up on things I hadn’t previously noticed. This trilogy of films rewards repeat viewings more than almost any film(s) I have ever seen, which is a testament to Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg’s tight, obsessively detailed writing, and The World’s End did not disappoint in that regard (or any, for that matter). But don’t feel like you can’t see any one of them without having seen the others; each of these films can stand alone without losing any comedic potency.

The third and final installment in the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy, The World’s End, is about a group of childhood friends who return to their hometown to complete a legendary pub-crawl called The Golden Mile. The Golden Mile consists of twelve pubs, each with names ranging from sort-of-normal (The Hole in the Wall, The First Post) to utterly outlandish (The Famous Cock, The Two-Headed Dog). But, as I mentioned earlier, the writing is so good that nothing happens without a purpose, and if the viewer pays attention to the names of the pubs, said viewer will also notice that the plot parallels their titles. Take for example the third pub, The Famous Cock. Simon Pegg’s character (the unforgettable Gary King) is barred from this bar because of his raucous teenage actions. Hence, Gary King is a famous cock. That’s just one of the more overt references. I won’t give away any more because half of the fun is figuring out the event-parallels for yourself. Not to mention, the amount of pubs is important considering the back-story of a certain character…but this is a spoiler-free review, so I shall refrain.

Anyway, as the story progresses, tensions rise between the friends, specifically the aptly named Gary King and Andy Knightly (a refreshing change from Nick Frost’s usual slacker persona), but even the rich, believable back-story between the two of them is only the main course. The audience is treated to a full plate of character depth (what a weird comparison…) with not a single primary character being anything less than well-rounded and believable. And as if that wasn’t enough, the posse of old mates discovers a secret about the town that throws this tale into a full-blown apocalyptic science-fiction epic.

That’s all I’ll say in terms of synopses, but I’ll write now about what a success this film is on every level, from the directing (Edgar Wright is a genius) to the acting (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost had me almost in tears, both from laughter and sadness) to the writing (better than almost every single film I’ve seen this year). I’ve seen The World’s End three times thus far, and I would not be opposed to seeing it again soon. I find myself quoting funny lines constantly, even just to myself, and I simply cannot stop thinking about the character of Gary King. He is fascinating. But no matter how obsessed with him I am, I also find myself thinking about Martin Freeman’s character often, or the woman who plays his sister, Sam, as well as the man who is in love with her. This film is truly something special, and I believe that if you write this off as “just another British comedy,” you are robbing yourself of one of the best film experiences of the year.

The one and only complaint I’ve heard about this movie is that the ending is rushed and “too much.” I’ll admit, I felt the same after my first viewing, but the second viewing cleared that right up and now I see this movie as near perfect. Like I said before: this series rewards repeat viewings.

This film is currently sitting pretty in my top five best films of 2013 thus far. If the prospect of a British sci-fi comedy with brilliant writing, jokes with staying power, and a warm emotional center sounds good to you, do yourself a favor and go see The World’s End immediately.

Critical Hit: A Discussion of Critical Cynicism, The Effects of Negativity, and Why We Go See Movies in the First Place

Adam: If you haven’t noticed, it’s been quite some time since I have posted a movie review. There is a reason for that. It is not that I have been too busy, because I am always too busy, but rather it has been an intentional absence. Starting in September, I will return to writing reviews on a more regular basis, but as for now, I’ll leave you with this explanation.

--

Critical Hit: A Discussion of Critical Cynicism, The Effects of Negativity, and Why We Go See Movies in the First Place

This Summer at the movies began like any other: a superhero movie jumped the gun in April and kicked off what was sure to be a slew of successful, expensive franchise films, sensational sequels, and the occasional origin story. My apatite for Summer blockbuster fun at the movies was already raging after the fantastic Evil Dead sequel, and considering the fact that I cannot resist soaking up the overdose of glossy, plastic pop culture that Summer brings every year, I jumped on the chance to see Iron Man 3 a night early (thanks to my job at a movie theater). If you read my review, you know that I loved it. Many critics, however, did not.

I didn’t flinch at this, since Iron Man 3 did deviate from the source material enough to anger the fanbase as well as confuse a few casual moviegoers. Not to mention, it was extremely character driven and comic-y, unlike the two action-driven previous efforts in the series (a change I attribute to Shane Black’s direction). I was certain the upcoming Summer treats would be better received.

The month of May saw the release of Star Trek Into Darkness, which was a smashing success with fans new and old, and critics alike. On a smaller scale, Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby was hit or miss, depending on the audience member or critic (not uncommon for Baz). Apart from that, we had blockbusters like Fast & Furious 6, The Hangover Part III, After Earth, Epic, Now You See Me, and The Purge, all of which receiving some negative critical response, both deserved and undeserved. Again, I ignored it. I loved Epic, but didn’t care for Now You See Me and didn’t see any of the others (though I heard FF6 was good). I stayed optimistic.

June begins the bulk of what I would like to discuss here. The abysmal reception of Snyder’s brilliant Superman film Man of Steel got the worst of it, but Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 each got torn to shreds by some major critics, though the latter was quite successful with audiences, but neither of them got the credit or praise they deserved. They were both accused of lacking the heart of the originals to which they were sequels, when this was simply untrue of both films. The Heat, This Is The End, and World War Z were each well received in their own way, but the fact that World War Z was better-received than Man of Steel or Monsters University hurt me personally. More on WWZ later.

For some reason, I was still optimistic. This is probably because I hadn’t yet disagreed with critics any more than I usually would when it comes to, well, anything, but the final straw was about to be pulled, and I had no idea.

Enter The Lone Ranger.

[Okay, I’m about to go on a wicked-long rant here. I delve into a lot of crucial points of this post, but if you want to skip them and get to the REALLY important stuff, I put more bolded brackets down there.]

Gore Verbinski’s Western-action-adventure movie went way over budget for Disney, but they clearly assumed Johnny Depp had the star power to make up for dipping into the Mouse Wallet a little too deeply. They were wrong. The movie flopped at the box office, costing Disney an estimated $150 million, and for some reason, The Lone Ranger became the movie everybody loved to hate.

I would hear it at work daily: “Wow, that movie sucked.” “What a waste of time.” “Johnny Depp has lost it. He always plays the same stupid character.” (or my personal favorite) “Um, that was incredibly racist and not a kids movie.” Now, I’m not going to turn this into a defense of The Lone Ranger post, but I would like to clear a few things up.

Firstly, The Lone Ranger was never meant to be a “kids movie.” Did you notice the PG-13 rating? It is on par with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise in terms of darkness, though Ranger does not have nearly the charm Pirates has.

Secondly, racist? Really? So World War Z, the poorly written, over-budget, all-white movie about a “world” war where a white man saves his white family and the rest of white humanity (with a few tourist stops in foreign countries) from zombies (they weren’t zombies) was fine? Or the racially diverse but totally sexist Fast & Furious franchise is just something to brush off because of the mostly-male fanbase, right? It’s supposed to be sexist, right? And let’s not even get a little irked over the sexist, racist, and oh-so-homophobic Adam Sandler classic Grown Ups 2, which went on to be a huge success! Nope. The problem lies on Johnny Depp’s shoulders alone, as he plays (with respect and purpose) the sidekick Tonto, who is a (pretty obvious) character statement representing both the horrific Native American history in this country, as well as an attempt to make amends with how the character has been received in the past, as well as lightening up a dark movie, by making him more fun by telling it in an occasionally loopy flashback. Is it perfect? Not even close. But to throw accusations of racism around so brashly while ignoring many other instances of racism in other films is just another example of American culture’s habit of latching onto something minor, ignoring every other more relevant example or piece of information, tearing down a (complex and expensive) work of art for said minor grievance with a biblical fervor, and then forgetting about it a week or two later as if it’s nothing while the creators of said piece of art are left to pick up the pieces of their hard work.

This trend of unleashing a truckload of hatred on a piece of art of which one has had no involvement in the creation is childish and toxic. And thus, I begin discussion of the main theme of this post: the cynicism of critics, its effect on audiences, and why the public feels the need to tear down some pieces of art (but not others) and forget why we come to the movies in the Summer in the first place (hint: it’s to have fun, escape, be entertained, and maybe even feel something more).

Okay, if you’ve read this far, I want to thank you personally. Because it’s about to get messier.

The theory that critical reaction to a film can make or break said film has a certain amount of truth to it, but there are just as many examples to prove otherwise. For instance, this Summer alone, The Lone Ranger was destroyed by critics, tanked at the box office, and was altogether widely considered a failure. However, World War Z had a decent critical response (despite being worse than The Lone Ranger on every conceivable level) and Grown Ups 2 was ripped apart by critics, and yet were both incredibly successful with audiences and dollar signs. Clearly critical reaction didn’t play too big of a role in the destruction of The Lone Ranger, right? Here is my response to that: the reason The Lone Ranger failed and the other two did not partially has to do with how vocal critics were about The Lone Ranger and not about the other two, and partially to do with what the critics were criticizing.

Critics focused on Johnny Depp’s “acting failure,” claiming that he has lost his touch. Combine this with his past few “identical characters” that people always complain about, and naturally the public will agree with critics that he has lost his star power. Conversely, Brad Pitt is still hitting home runs in his career, both in blockbusters and arthouse films. I mean, he’s great. I love the guy. But since his character in World War Z was flat and boring, he didn’t have to do much acting to carry the movie, now did he?

Critics also honed in on the aforementioned “racism” complaint. You read my response to that earlier, and why World War Z was actually just as racist, if not more (racist-er?), but I’m going to elaborate further, so brace yourselves.

Racism is bad. We all know this. Nobody sides with a racist except other racists, and if someone claims you side with a racist, you’ll do everything in your power to convince them otherwise. This is what happened with The Lone Ranger. Critics accused it of being racist, and since some people can’t evaluate and interpret art for themselves (The Lone Ranger was not racist) and don’t like associating with things publicly called out as racist, they trashed it for being racist. I said racist a lot there, but I’m trying to make a point: if the American public associates racism with something, even if they can’t back up the accusations, they will hate that thing blindly.

The same thing happened when a small but loud group of critics claimed Star Trek Into Darkness was sexist because of a scene with Alice Eve. Yes, some of what they said made really good points, but if you want to go after and expose sexism in film (which we absolutely should do), go after more than just one really well-known and relevant example, and don’t back down a week after the movie opens. Doing so has a counter-intuitive effect, and can make people more numb to sexism because it doesn’t seem like that big of a problem. Into Darkness was still a massive hit despite this hiccup accusation of sexism.

Am I making sense at all?

My point is that critics can have an effect on the public’s perception of a film, but not because of their overall opinion of it. If multiple critics point out a fatal flaw like racism, whether or not it is founded on fact, it can bring a film’s reception down significantly.

I am not saying The Lone Ranger is one of the best films of the year, or even the Summer, but I am saying that we as moviegoers need to actually take in what we are watching, use our amazing brains (seriously, the human brain is mind-blowing, pun intended), and decide for ourselves if what we are watching is well-crafted, beneficial to society or ourselves, culturally relevant, artistically beautiful, or even just plain ol’ fun entertainment. If a critic says a film is sexist, see it for yourself and think, “does this really oppress other genders or show gender minorities in a negative light?” and then discuss it with others who have seen it. If a critic says a film is racist, see it for yourself and think, “does this really oppress other races or show other races in a negative light?” and then discuss it with others who have seen it.

But most importantly, if a critic says that a film is bad, in any way, shape, or form, and you want to see it, see it anyway and decide for yourself if you agree. If you don’t want to see it, don’t see it, but don’t bash on it either. (I fall victim to that pitfall a lot.)

Cinema is a beautiful art form with the power to change hearts, minds, and the world. Don’t let another human being decide your opinion on a certain film for you.

[START READING HERE IF YOU SKIPPED THE LONE RANGER BIT.]

So what does all this have to do with me not writing reviews? Well, it all comes down to the power of negativity on a positive person. When I write reviews, I write them because the film I saw made me feel something that I want to share with everyone, and maybe, just maybe, someone else will want to go see the movie and feel something of his or her own too.

When someone tells me they saw a movie solely because I recommended it, and then go on to tell me that they loved it and wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t mentioned it, it gives me a feeling akin to approximately 503 hugs from the best-smelling person anyone has ever met. I am not joking. It is great.

So when I spend months hearing negative remarks and snarky criticisms, where movies that have made me feel hope, love, fear, curiosity, happiness, relief, melancholia, courage, or any number of emotions get reduced to “well, that was a waste of time” because the person who made those remarks didn’t give the piece of art more than two seconds of surface-level thought, it is disheartening. It is discouraging to the level that I simply didn’t want to write about any film I loved for the rest of the Summer.

I could have written a glowing review of Monsters University, and its shocking anti-college message or its fascinating look at twenty-something “real life” fears. I could have discussed the beautiful coming-of-age story of The Way, Way Back and how it was like a perfect snapshot of the best Summer of your life. I could have delved into the unexpected equality themes, awesome originality, and staggering scope of Pacific Rim. I could have erupted with how much I believe Before Midnight to be one of the best films of the year, and lamented about how it hasn’t reached the audience size it deserves. I could have written posts and posts praising or constructively critiquing the ever-changing and always-beautiful art of cinema that has brought my life so much joy and meaning.

But I didn’t.

I chose, instead, to watch everything I could and enjoy it within my own head and heart. Sure, I posted little “review shot” statuses that were but a few sentences long, and talked about them with coworkers and friends, but I couldn’t help but feel impotent any time I sat down to write at length about a film that I loved because I couldn’t shake how much unfounded hate I had heard about it. I felt as though my positive voice in a sea of negativity would go ignored or even ridiculed.

Don’t get me wrong: I did not take this break from reviewing films because of some fear that my differing opinion would invite criticism I could not take, tolerate, or debate. I took the break because I needed a breather. I had spent so much time and energy, both in person and online, defending films I loved, only to have my defense laughed off because to many people, they are “just movies.” I couldn’t bring myself to invite more immature eye-rolls by writing more reviews. I see the beauty and worth in almost every single film I watch, and if expressing that just results in a complete disregard for what I am saying, I will rest my vocal chords a bit. But I will never be silenced. I will always speak my opinion to those willing to listen and share their own with me.

My point here is not to refrain from criticizing, or even teasing and light-heartedly bashing, any and all movies. Be a critic if you want. Take in what you see, chew it over, and give an opinion. My point is that when you do make a criticism or comment, make sure you can back up what you are saying. I mean, I tore World War Z a new one before I even saw it (thank you to my friend Jake for making me see it anyway, even though I totally was right about it =P), and that was wrong of me. I didn’t care for Now You See Me, I was bored with The Bling Ring, and I loathed The Kings Of Summer. But I can back those opinions up with legitimate complaints, desire to discuss my criticisms with others, and am willing to maybe even change my perspective and opinion.

But I never aimed my disdain toward a person who got something out of those films. Sure, they didn’t speak to me personally, but maybe they spoke wonders to someone else.

And that is what matters.

Here’s to the future. My apologies for my absence, and for the length of this post.

Let’s watch some movies.

lovelovelove,

Adam

Man of Steel review

Adam: Wow, was the last review really Iron Man 3? My apologies. Um, let's do them really fast: GO SEE STAR TREK AND MUD AND THE GREAT GATSBY AND EPIC AND THIS IS THE END!! (And probably Frances Ha, The Kings of Summer, The Purge, and pretty much anything that's out right now. It is blockbuster season and quirky indie season, you know.)

Below is my review of Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, which opened tonight at midnight. I've already had the pleasure of seeing it twice, once in 3D and once in 2D, both in IMAX, but quite frankly I'll probably go again this week at least once more. I am a little worried about how it will be received with the casual moviegoers (which I talk about in the review), but perhaps I just need to have more faith in the American public. Go see it, decide for yourselves, and enjoy the review!

--

Man of Steel

When I finished watching Man of Steel, Zack Snyder’s submission to the Superman films, I knew I needed to chew it over and certainly see it again. After a second viewing the following night, it was confirmed: I loved it, but I’m scared that the general blockbuster movie-going public will not. My reasons for this fear are that the saturation of Marvel’s happy, easily digestible, often silly-humored superhero movies along with the conclusion of Nolan’s Batman films have turned people off to a superhero movie that would take itself seriously (which Man of Steel certainly does), and that this film might go over some audience members’ heads because it doesn’t spoon-feed the story like most summer blockbusters. Man of Steel is a work of art that demands multiple viewings, more than just casual focus, and an open mind. This could either lead to its downfall or make it a classic, all depending on the reception to its release this weekend.

Man of Steel is the origin story of Superman, a being from another planet who is sent to Earth and raised as a human, but also wields incredible strength, heat vision, and the power of flight. As someone who has never seen a Superman movie (except Superman Returns), nor had any exposure to Superman besides what is already common knowledge in society (as well as a few hours put into the mediocre Superman game for Nintendo 64), Zack Snyder’s vision of Superman was completely new to me. I did not have a base knowledge pool to go off of, and therefore watched Man of Steel with fresh eyes. That being said, I can review the film as such.

Firstly, as a huge Zack Snyder fanboy, I must say I loved seeing "Slow-Motion Snyder" shake it up a bit by shooting this movie handheld and with an almost complete lack of the slow motion stylistic effects that have proven to be such a signature of his. Man of Steel is probably his most realistic film to date (which is kind of funny considering it’s about an alien sent to Earth and chased by another alien who threatens to destroy the planet). The special effects and fight scenes are top-notch, and the flashback scenes (which I’ll mention later) are some of the most gorgeous cinematography I’ve seen this year. As a Snyder film, I’m not sure where I’d rank it with his others, but that’s only because it’s so radically different from anything he’s ever done, and I love that.

Secondly, the casting was spot-on and the acting was great. Henry Cavill plays Superman with a distant humanity that the viewer can relate to while still feeling as though he just isn’t from around these parts (you know…Earth). Amy Adams was born to play Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon will haunt your dreams as the furious General Zod. Not to mention the strong performances of Superman’s two dads, Russell Crow and Kevin Costner. Their influence on the young Kal-El/Clark Kent is apparent throughout his journey to discover his purpose and save the planet.

Thirdly, and here’s where it gets bumpy, I want to talk about the plot. What at first seems jarring and off-putting, the “jumpy” structure (jumping from past to present without the usual “oh hey, this is a flashback” cues) is actually the most beautiful and artistic way I’ve ever seen a superhero movie told. It’s honestly like a poem about Superman in film form. I know that sounds weird, but that’s how it seems. The first half of the movie or so (before the journey becomes about stopping Zod instead of figuring out who Clark is as a person with powers) jumps back and forth between present action and flashbacks, with very few hints that it is happening. The flashbacks, however, provide an abundance of background character detail on Clark Kent and his Earth parents, as well as his problems fitting in and reconciling his ability to save lives with his struggle to remain hidden. They are truly beautiful little poems of exposition, but they will not work for everyone. They are distancing in a way and can make the casual audience member wonder why they are even happening. The way the story is told is the main reason why I fear that many people will hate this movie, because it's so untraditional for a blockbuster. I can only hope that the Superman fans will love this movie, as well as the casual moviegoer, and my fears are unfounded.

Oh, and Hans Zimmer’s score deserves its own paragraph. It was powerful and memorable, but quirky enough to not get lost in the slew of generic superhero scores, and this film wouldn’t be what it is without it. I might even purchase it to make my drives a few notches more epic.

I know this review has seemed like a love letter, so let me mention some “negatives” to this movie. First off, it takes itself seriously. Like, really seriously. This didn’t bother me, but it might bother others. I found it refreshing, but I know a few of the people who saw it with me didn’t feel that way. Secondly, some of the 3D was sort of unsettling. Since the cinematography is mostly handheld, the post-conversion to 3D made the effects a bit dizzying. This doesn’t really ruin the movie…unless you have to close your eyes to recover for a moment. I really can’t think of any more negatives off the top of my head other than the fact that I’m not watching it a third time right this instant.

Overall, I highly recommend that everybody who has any interest in this year’s big summer movies go see this (which I’m sure you already have, tonight at midnight, right?), as well as fans of Zack Snyder, and, honestly, anyone who finds the story of a lonely-loner-turned-super-savior inspiring (as I certainly do). Go see Man of Steel whether it be in IMAX, DBOX, 3D, 2D, or whatever other format there is. Just see it, and prepare to see something super.

Iron Man 3 review

Adam: Hello, all! It's that time of year again: blockbuster season. And with that comes an overload of superhero films (as well as sci-fi for some reason), the first of these being Shane Black's Iron Man 3. I was fortunate enough to see an advanced screening of said film, so I've had a few days to chew it over and review it. And what better day to post said review than on opening day?

Enjoy!

--

Iron Man 3: Focusing More on the “Man” and Less on the “Iron”

As a casual, but still devoted, fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I have to say I was unsure about Shane Black’s Iron Man 3. This past summer’s The Avengers was undoubtedly one of the biggest film successes of all time, deserving pretty much all of the praise it received and blowing box office records out of the water. Many fans agreed: there simply could not be a better superhero movie. To follow such a film seemed like a feat only a superhero could handle.

Luckily, Iron Man was there to save the day.

Iron Man 3 is the kick-off of Phase Two of Marvel’s epic cinematic universe, but instead of attempting a bigger story than The Avengers, it did the smart thing; it assumed we knew enough about Tony Stark to completely obliterate him as a person. This movie beats the stuffing out of Stark and then puts him under a microscope, forcing the audience, as well as Stark himself, to examine the man he really is and fight his internal demons. It does this by using a simple, but so very well-done, metaphor of “inner child” vs. “adult vice” by means of a young boy Tony meets who helps him work toward fixing and regaining control of the Iron Man suit, as well as his life.

But it wouldn’t be a superhero movie without an external villain, which is where The Mandarin, Iron Man’s arch-nemesis, comes into play. And here is what separates the comics with the films more so than anything in the Iron Man films (except for maybe the Tony/Pepper relationship). There is a twist in this film that blindsides the audience, whether you’ve read the source material or not, and it has caused what will inevitably become a huge uproar with die-hard comic fans. I won’t give away said twist, but I will say that I absolutely loved it (since I haven’t read the comics, nor was I particularly attached to Iron Man before this film). Whether or not it will be this film’s downfall at the box office is yet to be seen.

To me, Iron Man 3 is the best film Marvel has put out in this franchise in terms of character study and development. It is my favorite Marvel film in the entire Cinematic Universe movies, hands down. Switching directors may have seemed dangerous at first, but it certainly paid off. That, along with the fantastic special effects, versatile acting from Robert Downey Jr. (he’s more than just a rich, sarcastic, narcissist this time around!), oddball humor, and multi-suit showdown makes Iron Man 3 not only my favorite in the series, but one of the best films I’ve seen this year so far (on the list with The Place Beyond the Pines and Spring Breakers…wow).

In short: go see Iron Man 3 with an open mind, and get ready to see a surprisingly great standalone superhero film, as well as a fantastic addition to Marvel’s grandiose cinematic undertaking. Oh, and seeing it in IMAX is definitely worth the extra coin.

42 review

Adam: This is probably one of the fastest turn-arounds we've ever had in terms of posting reviews. Then again, this is probably because I wrote both of these yesterday and I'm just really excited to get them both posted.

This review is for the new movie 42 that opens today. It really is worth seeing, but if you haven't seen Evil Dead or Jurassic Park in IMAX yet, go see those instead. If you've seen everything else you want to see, or Evil Dead just isn't your cup of blood--erm, tea, then this one is a nice little trip to the movies (as long as you know what to expect). It seems I expected too much from this movie, but I do believe that if I saw it again, I would enjoy it more. Just don't expect a game-changer and you'll be fine.

But enough with this pre-review review. Let's get to the real thing.

--

42: A Movie About Trying Something New That Doesn’t

The new Jackie Robinson biopic 42 could have just as easily been titled Race-ball. We’ve seen it before: a hyper-inspirational movie about overcoming racial equality (through sports, no less) that makes the audience feel really good about not being racist, but doesn’t actually tackle anything new or show racism for the monster it is. Honestly, I could end the review there, but I’m going to go more in-depth because there are actually some really good things in this movie, despite the fact that it follows a list of clichés.

42 is the story of Jackie Robinson, the first African-American baseball player to break the baseball color line. I’d like to say, “but it’s more than just a racial sports movie” here, but I can’t. I will say, however, that it executes a lot of the usual tropes very well. The cinematography captures the era nicely, and all of the actors do a great job bringing life to the mediocre writing (seriously, some of it is so dang cheesy). The melodramatic tone of the film is almost laughable in some parts, bringing eyerolls instead of teardrops when the inspirational score plays over preachy dialogue, but not all of the sermons hit a sour note. This film is tailored to a crowd that just wants to see racists be utterly destroyed by “forward thinking” without having to face a real depiction of 40’s racism.

I do, however, feel the need to mention a few specific things that I feel made this movie worth watching and decent (because overall, it is in fact a decent movie). The first, and most obvious, is Chadwick Boseman’s depiction of Jackie Robinson. I’m not that familiar with the real Robinson, but I will say that even I could tell how powerful Boseman’s feelings were about this part. He never once played the victim card, a pitfall of many racially focused films, but rather looked the hatred in the eye and faced it head-on, not with blind courage, but with a real strength that I admired throughout the entire film.

The second was a potent, yet small, interaction between a child and his (I’m assuming) father at a baseball game. It starts with the child’s excitement over the sport, to which the father responds kindly. But when Robinson takes the field and the crowd (including the father) scream racial obscenities, the child has a moment of conflict before joining in with the hateful crowd. This was heartbreaking to me. But the moment is redeemed when the child’s hero (Pee Wee Reese, if I remember correctly) puts his arm around Jackie as an act of acceptance in the face of such hatred. The child stops screaming hate and we can see the absolute regret, yet change of heart, which the adolescent faces. Beautiful.

The third thing that impressed me about this movie was Alan Tudyk’s portrayal of Ben Chapman. I simply cannot stop thinking about it. He plays the manager of the Phillies, and is an absolutely unforgiving manifestation of racism. I’m pretty sure 95% of the uses of the “n-word” came from this man. Being familiar with his other work (A Knights Tale, Wreck-It Ralph, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, Dodgeball, Firefly), I was shocked to see him play a despicable racist so unapologetically, but boy was it effective. The audience is forced to hate him as his two-dimensionality prevents him from actually seeming human, but he gets his dues in a way that had me rolling with laughter. I’d go so far as to say this movie is worth watching for his performance alone.

And yes, Harrison Ford does a great job (even though he had some of the cheesiest and unrealistic monologues in the entire film).

Overall, I would recommend 42 to fans of sports movies and films that safely tackle racial inequality without committing to the real harshness of racism. As for me, I’ll be watching (the historically inaccurate but realistically harsh) Django Unchained again.

Evil Dead review

Adam: Hello, everyone! Sorry about the long break in reviews. Riley and I haven't forgotten about you, we promise. But rest assured, we are back in full swing, and picking right up again with a review of Fede Alvarez's vision of Evil Dead. 

I'd like to say this is as full of a review as I would like to have written, but it's not. You should be really happy to read that, though, because I could probably write a book about The Evil Dead series. They are, without a doubt, some of my favorite horror films of all time. But enough gushing. Read the review.

(And there will be another review tomorrow, so check back!)

--

Evil Dead: Hail to the Queen, Baby!

Sam Raimi’s 1981 splat-tastic classic The Evil Dead is widely regarded as one of the greatest horror films of all time. Shot in an old cabin with just Raimi and a few friends, an almost non-existent budget, and brutal filming conditions, the finished product would go on to achieve cult status, acquire a rabid fan base, and inspire countless horror films to this day. It would also birth one of b-movies’ biggest stars, the chin-credible Bruce Campbell, who also played the chainsaw-arm-wielding hero, Ash, in Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness (the two Raimi-directed sequels to The Evil Dead). But Army of Darkness came out in 1992, and Raimi and Campbell had both stated many times that a sequel/remake of The Evil Dead would not happen. Lucky for Evil Dead fans everywhere, director Fede Alvarez changed their minds.

Evil Dead (2013) isn’t so much a remake or a sequel as it is a rebirth of a series that had lied dormant for years. It stays true to the formula set up by the original (college friends go to a cabin in the woods and unleash hell via the Book of the Dead), but breathes a fresh, disgusting, undead life into it, and the result is something bloody brilliant.

In this new film, four friends go to a cabin in the woods to help their fifth friend Mia overcome her drug addiction. Right away, this is a stronger plot than The Evil Dead. But their good intentions only make it more difficult to watch as they discover the Book of the Dead in the basement, reading it and unleashing the demonic power it contains. One by one, the friends are possessed and dismembered in fantastically gory ways, made only better by the fact that no CGI was used (except for “touch-ups”) in this film, until a bloody climax that will stick in my mind forever. The signature dark humor is still present, despite the serious nature of the movie, and the blood literally rains from the sky. I’ve never been so grossed out from sounds alone, and the cringe-worthy dismemberments make the Saw movies look like Bambi. Fans of the series will also be pleased to find a treasure trove of nods to the original films, including (but not limited to): Mia wearing a Michigan State sweatshirt, the necklace Ash brings for his girlfriend, the infamous tree-rape scene, and of course, the chainsaw. Not to mention the grooviest after-credits scene I have ever seen.

The biggest criticisms other reviewers have made deal with the lack of humor, that the movie took itself too seriously, or that the plot was weak and the scares were cheap. However, the original Evil Dead also took itself seriously, and had a basic plot. It was just so low budget and campy that it was hilarious. Personally, this new movie scared the hell out of me on multiple occasions, and it is without a doubt the best horror movie I’ve ever seen in a movie theater. I’m not entirely sure what the naysayers were expecting, but as for me, I couldn’t be happier with Alvarez’s vision (not to mention Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell both approve).

As a die-hard Evil Dead fan myself, I was beyond satisfied with this new film, and I’m bursting with anticipation for Alvarez’s announced Evil Dead 2 and Sam Raimi’s also announced Army of Darkness 2, as well as their ambitious possibility of a seventh film in the series that combines the storylines of Ash and Mia. But while I wait, I’ll kill time by going to see Evil Dead again and again. Well done, Alvarez and company. Hail to the King Queen, baby.

Adam and Riley's (2013 Oscars) 85th Academy Awards Predictions

Adam: It’s that time of year again. Mysterious people band together to decide what movies are the best of the year and film lovers curse the Academy for overlooking their lesser-known darlings. That’s right, it’s Oscar season.

Since this post is already going to be a million miles long, I’ll just cut to the chase. Below we have listed each Oscar category (excluding some of the more “minor” ones to save space), the nominees, and what both Riley and myself think should win/what we want to win, as well as our predictions of what we think will win.

I would also like to mention that even though we think some should win over others, a lot of these are not clear-cut and multiple nominees deserve to win (hence why they got nominated). So if some of these win/don’t win, Riley and I won’t be sitting at home breaking stuff; try to keep your minds and conversations open, and try to look at why what wins did win. Most of the time, it’s just a change of perspective that shows why something wins an award over something else. I’ll certainly be keeping an open mind as well (despite my utter fanboy attitude for Silver Linings).

Feel free to comment below, and don’t forget to debate amongst your friends and complete strangers over what you think should take those little golden statues and a permanent place in film history. Enjoy!

--

Adam and Riley’s 85^th Academy Award Predictions

Best Picture:

Amour

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Les Miserables

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Adam:

Want to Win: Silver Linings Playbook

What a brilliant and beautiful snapshot of the world as it is now: we are all crazy, but still deserving of love. This truly redefines the romantic comedy. It is the best picture of the year, without a doubt in my mind.

Prediction of What Will Win: Lincoln

Silver Linings may be the underdog, but history has shown that the Academy wets themselves over a good historical piece, and Lincoln is about as good as historical pieces can ever get. My biggest fear is that Les Miserables will come out of nowhere and take it…but I have more faith in the Academy than that (for some reason).

Riley:

Want to Win:  Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of What Will Win: Argo

Given the remorse the Academy must feel at this point for snubbing Affleck a Best Director nomination, and given how many various wins Argo’s been receiving at other film award ceremonies, I have a sneaking suspicion it might take home the Gold.

--

Best Actor:

Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook

Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables

Joaquin Phoenix, The Master

Denzel Washington, Flight

Adam:

Want to Win: Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook

As someone who is directly related to two people with bipolar disorder, and seeing the way it affects their lives, I can say with confidence that Bradley Cooper played a man suffering from said disorder with absolute accuracy and passion. He wasn’t comical or over the top with it, nor did he use it to get pity from the audience. He simply played a heartbroken man who just so happened to have bipolar disorder, and instead of imitating a president, he became a fictional, but all too real at the same time, person.

Prediction of Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

My explanation is the same as everyone else’s—it’s Daniel Day-Lewis.

Riley:

Want to Win: Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook

The other nominees were very good this year, but no one came out of left field like Cooper did. As an actor who established a career as playing cocky hotshots in crude fratboy comedies (and who was once intimately fucked by Michael Ian Black in Wet Hot American Summer), it was truly a joy to watch him disappear into a heartbreaking, funny, hopeful, frustrating role as Pat in David O. Russell’s modern romantic masterpiece.

Prediction of Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

--

Best Actress:

Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty

Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook

Emmanuelle Riva, Amour

Quvenzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild

Naomi Watts, The Impossible

Adam:

Want to Win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour

There is no competition in my mind. Riva broke my heart. (Plus the Oscars are on her 86^th birthday…give the gal something to celebrate! She deserves it!)

Prediction of Who Will Win: Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty

She played a two-dimensional embodiment of revenge—oh sorry, I mean a “strong female character”—in a “relevant” political movie…that’s gotta be enough to get the Academy’s blood a-pumpin’.

Riley:

Want to Win: Because I haven’t seen Amour yet, I will pick Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook). She was good. I am proud of her.

Prediction of Who Will Win: Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty

Her characters in The Tree of Life and Mama had more life than…well…what Adam said.

--

Best Supporting Actor:

Alan Arkin, Argo

Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, The Master

Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

Adam:

Want to Win: Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of Who Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Riley:

Want to Win:  Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of Who Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

My two selections are interchangeable. I think both of them are the frontrunners in this category, and I think both of them were fantastic and moving and well-rounded characters in their respected films.

--

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams, The Master

Sally Field, Lincoln

Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

Helen Hunt, The Sessions

Jacki Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook

Adam:

Want to Win: Amy Adams, The Master

Prediction of Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

Riley:

Want to Win: Having only seen Lincoln and Silver Linings Playbook, I think I want Amy Adams to win.

Prediction of Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

--

Best Animated Feature Film:

Brave

Frankenweenie

ParaNorman

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

Wreck-It Ralph

Adam:

Want to Win: Brave

Prediction of What Will Win: Brave

Riley:

Want to Win: Brave

Prediction of What Will Win: Brave

--

Best Foreign Language Film:

Adam: I won’t be listing all of the nominees for this category because I only saw Amour in that list (and Riley didn’t see any of them), but I simply have to mention the effect that this film had on me (and the fact that I’m pretty sure it has the Oscar in the bag). It was devastating. I have never been more aware of my mortality than when I was watching this film, which has never happened to me before, and that reason alone is enough that it should win in my book.

--

Best Animated Short Film: “Paperman”

Adam: Again, here’s another category from which I only saw one nominee, but I simply must mention it. “Paperman” is one of the most beautiful pieces of animation I’ve ever seen. It reduced me to tears every single time I saw it, and to me, there is no competition for this award.

--

Best Director:

Michael Haneke, Amour

Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild

Ang Lee, Life of Pi

Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook

Adam:

Want to Win: Michael Haneke, Amour or David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of Who Will Win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

Riley:

Want to Win: David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of Who Will Win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

I think this race is between Spielberg and Ang Lee, but David O. Russell’s cinematography and altogether knack for storytelling has just been so full of character and life lately. I love my Spielberg, oh yes I do, but O. Russell injected some undeniably creative breath into Silver Linings Playbook that the dry Lincoln lacked.

--

Best Original Screenplay:

Amour

Django Unchained

Flight

Moonrise Kingdom

Zero Dark Thirty

Adam:

Want to Win: Moonrise Kingdom

Prediction of What Will Win: Django Unchained

Riley:

Want to Win: Django Unchained

Prediction of What Will Win: Django Unchained

--

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Adam:

Want to Win: Silver Linings Playbook

The fact that Perks of Being a Wallflower isn’t nominated for this is a crime, plain and simple. It is one of the best book-to-film adaptations ever made. There, I said my piece.

Prediction of What Will Win: Lincoln

Riley:

Want to Win: The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Stephen Chbosky

Oh wait, Chbosky wasn’t nominated. Bullshit of the highest degree. An iconic book translated beautifully into a poignant, critically and commercially successful film by the original author, and not even a little recognition. I suppose my other choice would be Silver Linings Playbook.

Prediction of What Will Win: Lincoln

--

Best Original Score:

Dario Marianelli, Anna Karenina

Alexadre Desplat, Argo

Mychael Danna, Life of Pi

John Williams, Lincoln

Thomas Newman, Skyfall

Adam:

Want to Win: Thomas Newman, Skyfall

I have reservations about choosing this score because it uses so much of the classic James Bond theme, but I’d rather see it win than the other choices. I’m just bitter Howard Shore was ignored for his fantastic The Hobbit score.

Prediction of Who Will Win: John Williams, Lincoln

Riley:

Want to Win: Thomas Newman, Skyfall

Prediction of Who Will Win: Mychael Danna, Life of Pi

--

Best Original Song:

“Before My Time” from Chasing Ice

“Everybody Needs a Best Friend” from Ted

“Pi’s Lullaby” from Life of Pi

“Skyfall” from Skyfall

“Suddenly” from Les Miserables

Adam:

Want to Win: “Suddenly” from Les Miserables

Prediction of What Will Win: “Skyfall” from Skyfall

I agree with what Riley says about “Big Machine” and “Skyfall” below.

Riley:

Want to Win: “Big Machine” by Ryan Miller and Mark Duplass, from Safety Not Guaranteed

Oh wait, another snub. A beautifully written pop song performed live in the film on a ZITHER (instrument) by the actor who co-wrote it….I don’t even…I guess I’d like to see Adele win for “Skyfall.” Bond themes are a piece of history, and her addition was pretty damn classy.

Prediction of What Will Win: “Suddenly” from Les Miserables

--

Best Cinematography:

Anna Karenina

Django Unchained

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Skyfall

Adam:

Want to Win: Django Unchained

Prediction of What Will Win: Life of Pi

Riley:

Want to Win: Skyfall

Prediction of What Will Win: Life of Pi

--

Best Film Editing:

Argo

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Adam:

Want to Win: Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of What Will Win: Argo

Riley:

Want to Win: Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction of What Will Win: Argo

--

Best Visual Effects:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Life of Pi

The Avengers

Prometheus

Snow White and the Huntsman

Adam:

Want to Win: Life of Pi

Prediction of What Will Win: Life of Pi

The things this film did with 3D are nothing short of game changing. I almost picked The Hobbit, but since I didn’t get around to seeing the 48fps, I didn’t feel right about choosing it.

Riley:

Want to Win: Prometheus

Prediction of What Will Win: Life of Pi

--

I hope you enjoyed reading our predictions, and I hope you were forming your own opinions as you went. Don’t forget to tune into the 85^th Academy Awards on February 24^th, 2013 at 7pm!