Jack the Giant Slayer/Oz the Great and Powerful

Honestly, there's not much to say about Jack the Giant Slayer. It's your basic fairytale/adventure family movie. There's a princess who wants to have more freedom and thinks she can take care of herself. (spoiler alert: she can't.) There's a young, humble farmboy who dreams of a more exciting life. And there are big, ugly giants who want to eat them. It's a fairly entertaining film, mostly because the cast really goes above and beyond with mediocre material. Nicholas Hoult is charming and unassuming as Jack and Ian McShane has a great deal of fun as the well-meaning King Brahmwell, but the real star of this movie, in my opinion, is the perfectly coiffed Ewan McGregor as Elmont, the leader of the king's guard. How the princess could resist falling for him is beyond me (and several Tumblr users I've discovered).

On the other hand, Oz the Great and Powerful is highly entertaining and perfect for almost the entire family (the flying monkeys have definitely gotten scarier, so kids under 7 should probably stay home). Predictable? Of course, it's a prequel, but still amusing and sweet. There are a lot of people out there who dislike James Franco, for whatever reason, but I quite enjoyed his scampish Oz, especially when teamed with his sidekick(s) Frank/Finley, masterfully played by the adorable and hilarious Zach Braff, who had me laughing out loud in almost every scene. Sam Raimi and his screenwriters, Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, stay faithful to the spirit of the 1939 film throughout, which makes it all the more enjoyable for those of us who've seen that movie over and over again. The costume design is magnificent and the art direction, especially when we first enter the land of Oz, is utterly magical. I thought the film was heartfelt, without taking itself too seriously, and I recommend it for a fun night at the cinema.

The Impossible

The Impossible is the story of the utterly devastating tsunami of December 2004. It focuses on Henry and Maria and their three boys Lucas, Simon, and Thomas. All five are magnificently acted and their performances carry this film. When the tsunami hits, the family is separated and their urgency to find one another and uncertainty in the others's fates drives the movie and is its true heart. I found the most heart-wrenching moment of the film to be Henry's (the brilliant Ewan McGregor) call to his father-in-law. For the first time we see Henry completely lost, almost hopeless, sobbing into the phone, his words nearly unrecognizable. Then, he composes himself and vows that he'll never stop looking for his wife and son.
The film, of course, examines the destruction of the tsunami and the effect of that disaster on those directly involved. It also shows the dichotomy that kind of chaos can create--some people are focused solely on their own survival, while others are moved to help those around, even when they cannot help themselves. This manifests in the survivors around the family, but also within the family itself. "Even if it's the last thing we do," Maria tells Lucas as she insists they help a stranded boy, despite the fact that she's been seriously injured.
All the buzz about this film has been focused on Naomi Watts's performance as the matriarch of this family. (She's nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award.) Watts completely takes on the role and goes from the kind, wise, Conrad-reading mother we see at the beginning to the impossibly strong, selfless woman who spends the entire second half of the movie lying in a hospital bed, yet still able to convey the depth of her spirit in only her face. Welcome back, Naomi.

Silver Linings Playbook

Silver Linings Playbook was one of my most anticipated movies of 2012. Naturally, I had to wait two months after its nationwide release date for it to make it to West Virginia, but thankfully it was worth the wait. It is definitely the funniest movie of the year and possibly the sweetest. It would be easy to categorize Silver Linings Playbook as a quirky love story with a happy ending, but it's so much more than that. The film, adapted and directed by David O. Russell, is also a thought-provoking look at family, relationships, and mental illness.
The protagonist, Pat, expertly played by Bradley Cooper (proving he deserves to be known for more than the various incarnations of The Hangover), is a man striving to achieve his silver lining. Over the course of the film, the many forces he is struggling against are gradually revealed. In fact, I think this was one of the strongest elements of the film. It almost starts in the middle of the story and piece by piece the beginning is unfolded to the audience--not just Pat's, but Tiffany's as well.
Tiffany is a magnificent character and Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant in the role. She has a tough as nails exterior masking an incredibly vulnerable woman who is desperately trying to make sense of her life. In Pat, she finds a kindred, messed up, human soul and thus begins their unique story, which is an absolute pleasure to watch.
Favorite moments include Pat's rant against Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms at 4am and all of Chris Tucker's scenes (so nice to see him bounce back from Rush Hour 3 so well). Less than perfect moments: I wish Julia Stiles had gotten a bit more screen time. Her character's marriage could've been explored a little deeper, but the film is very focused on the central couple. On that note, I'm not sure Jacki Weaver deserved her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Not that her performance wasn't lovely and heartfelt, because it certainly is, but her character doesn't have much of an arc. She and De Niro play Pat's parents and they have roughly the same amount of screen time, but Pat Sr. has so much more depth. Understanding him is crucial to understanding Pat. De Niro, by the way, is beautiful in the role (he was apparently very moved by the script).  There is also a moment of direction at the climax of the film that took me out of the realism of the film, which unfortunately lessened its effect for me. However, all in all, this is definitely a movie I look forward to owning.

Zero Dark Thirty

Everyone is entitled to their own politics and opinions, but Zero Dark Thirty isn't a propaganda film either way. It is not a movie about torture or the war on terror or any president. This is a film about one woman who dedicates herself completely for years on end to a single goal: locating Osama bin Laden (UBL). Zero Dark Thirty follows Maya, brilliantly played by Jessica Chastain, from her arrival in Pakistan throughout her dogged manhunt to its familiar conclusion and more importantly, it examines the cost. Maya is tough, persistent, brilliant, honest, and fearless. She has no romantic partners, no family; she makes a friend only to lose her to a suicide bomber. The pivotal moment in the film isn't the death of UBL. It's Maya's response to the Director of the C.I.A. when he asks her what else she's done for the agency. "Nothing. I've done nothing else." For almost a decade, she's done nothing else. The emotional and physical stamina of this woman is incredible. The whole film leads up to the final image, not of celebration, but of grief.
Chastain is a star. If you didn't already know this from her breakout year in 2011 or her Golden Globe win this past weekend, allow me to assure you. She is the real deal. There are several strong supporting actors in this film as well, including Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt (doing serious work!) as SEALs and Jason Clarke and Jennifer Ehle as fellow Agents. Kathryn Bigelow's direction is excellent, balancing the tense and violent with the calm and, at times, beautiful. I think she was robbed of an Oscar nomination. In fact, Zero Dark Thirty might get my vote for Best Picture (whether or not The Academy agrees is another story). This is a film that really sticks with you, for days after you've left the theater. Inevitably, this will be a film that continues to divide audiences, but if you like strong female characters, contemporary story lines, and thought-provoking direction, I think this is the best film you'll see for a while.

Django Unchained

If we're going to talk about a Quentin Tarantino flick, I might as well say upfront, I'm not a fan of his work. I didn't like Pulp Fiction; the ratio of violence to plot in that movie is horribly lopsided. So, going into the theater, here's what I expected from Django Unchained: a lot of people would get shot, there would be blood everywhere, Samuel L. Jackson would drop a few of his trademark curses, and Leonardo DiCaprio would die magnificently. I got all of that. I also laughed. That I did not expect. There's a scene in which a KKK-like mob have some trouble with their hoods (bags with cut-out eye holes) that actually reminded me a bit of Blazing Saddles. In fact, several moments in the first hour or so of the movie have that feeling--it's a Western that pokes fun at Westerns--like when Django gets to pick out his own clothes for the first time and dresses himself in a bright blue outfit from the previous century or when he uses a snowman for target practice. 

Then, the film takes a striking turn as the hero begins in earnest his quest to rescue his wife, who's been sold to the sadistic plantation owner, Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The second half of the film is tense and the violence takes on a calculated viciousness. Leo steals the show here. Candie is unpredictable in his moods and draws complete attention, even when he shares the screen with Jackson. DiCaprio's been nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role and in a less densely packed awards season he might win it, but I look for Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln) to take it.

Also, nominated for a Golden Globe in the same category is Christoph Waltz, whose performance as Django's bounty hunter mentor Dr. King Schultz is zany and subtle in the perfect combination. Waltz is to Tarantino as Depp is to Burton. In other words, Waltz and Tarantino are the perfect actor/director team. They speak the same language, so to speak.

You may be surprised by my use of the words "subtle" and "Tarantino" in the same paragraph. I certainly was, but the best moments of this film were subtle and suspenseful. Particularly Jamie Foxx, who could've played Django just as a vengeful former slave in a country on the brink of war, but there is a lot more going on behind his eyes that is beautifully expressed in every perfectly framed shot. This is especially important since Django is more of the strong, silent type, like the D in his name. (Although, when he does talk, Foxx delivers his zingers with depth.) 

This film was full of surprises, including several surprise appearances by everyone from Tom Wopat to Jonah Hill. Those two were lovely in their roles, but I did spend a good minute wondering what Amber Tamblyn was doing looking out a window, and then never saw her again.

All in all, I enjoyed this film. It is quite long and could've used a little more editing and if you don't enjoy walls literally dripping with blood, this isn't the film for you. It is, however, a legitimately interesting film. If there's a message, I'm not sure what exactly it is (as one never is with Tarantino), but I think there are some thought-provoking moments. It will be interesting to see if this movie, like the original Django, spawns a wealth of sequels/knockoffs. If so, I'd like to coin the term for the genre now (and I hope I'm the first to do so): Hip-Hop Western.

Les Miserables

I would have to say I'm fairly familiar with Les Miserables as a stage musical, (I played in the orchestra for a production about 6 years ago.) so I had high expectations for this new film version, but I was also apprehensive about certain aspects. There have been many mixed responses to the film from patrons and critics alike, but I was overall incredibly pleased with this movie. 
I found Tom Hooper's direction lovely and very appropriate for a movie-musical, for the most part. There is a scene transition towards the beginning that took me out of the world for a moment, which I wish hadn't been so fantastical. I also found the camerawork during "Bring Him Home" somewhat confusing. Movie-musicals (or movie-operas, in the case of Les Mis) are tricky endeavors for filmmakers, because the audience is reminded that what they are watching isn't quite real every time a character breaks out into song. On the other hand, one of the benefits of transitioning a musical to film is the closeness of the audience to the cast. When in a theater, the distance of audience members from the cast means that actors have to make everything "bigger" from their facial expressions and gestures to the volume of their voices and film eliminates that necessity. This element especially I think was very well handled by Hooper and the cast. During many songs, particularly "I Dreamed a Dream," the camera holds on a close-up of the actor's face, letting them use subtlety in beautiful ways and bringing the audience into the story more. Most of the tears I shed while watching the film (and there were many) were because I was face-to-face with the suffering of the characters. 
Going back to "I Dreamed a Dream," Anne Hathaway got a lot of criticism initially for her take on this iconic song, in large part because she isn't belting it to the back of a packed theater, but barely able to get out the words, breaking down in every way. I found her performance absolutely magnificent throughout, but during this song, I was utterly captivated. 
Someone else getting a lot of criticism for their performance in this film, at least from theatre-goers, is Russell Crowe. I didn't hate his performance, but it is markedly different from his cast mates, and I think this stems from their different backgrounds. Russell is a film actor and a rock singer. He's never done a musical before, movie or stage, and I think this lack of experience with the genre shows and has caused some to call his performance "wooden" or "lackluster." Even in film, audiences expect "big" performances from actors in musicals and Crowe delivers a lovely film performance, which is much "smaller" (meaning more precise, subtle, etc). Unfortunately it just doesn't quite mesh with the performances from the other actors who all have some sort of theatre or movie-musical experience. 
Hugh Jackman is incredibly powerful as Jean Valjean, even though "Bring Him Home" is a tad out of his range. He, like Hathaway, plays the songs with overwhelming emotion and it works. Eddie Redmayne was a wonderful surprise as Marius, with an angelic face and voice. His performance of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" will haunt me for days. A friend of mine complained about the vibrato in Amanda Seyfried's voice, saying she "sounds like a lamb," but I replied "at least she hits the notes," because, to her credit, she does hit the notes and they are not easy ones. The rest of the supporting cast are all really magnificent. Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche is outstanding and I only wish so much of his part hadn't been cut. Samantha Barks's experience as Eponine shows and she makes the transition from stage to screen beautifully. Colm Wilkinson (the original stage Valjean) has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance as the Bishop. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are expertly cast as the greedy, conniving Thenardiers. My personal favorite is Aaron Tveit as Enjolras. I've long been a fan of his stage work and he is just heartbreaking perfection from beginning to end in this film. If anything pulls me back to the cinema to see this movie again, it'll be his performance. 
The film also includes a new song, "Suddenly," from the original composers. At first, I was up-in-arms against the addition of a new song, but I thought it worked quite well in the film, not at all out of place amongst its brothers. And after all this, there is the story of Les Miserables itself, a tale of the still-relevant struggle between the miserable poor majority and the powerful wealthy minority, of love of all kinds, of faith, of good and evil and the gray area between them. A tale, simply, of life, beautifully told.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was lucky enough to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at the midnight premiere this morning in all its 3D 48fps glory. I have to say up front that I loved the film. Here are the reasons why:

• The acting in this film is superb, especially Richard Armitage as Thorin & Martin Freeman as Bilbo. The audience can see Bilbo's thought process on Martin's face, can see the courage he possesses, even as the character is discovering it, and it's absolutely wonderful. Armitage does an excellent job of balancing Thorin's inspiring leadership and Dwarvish pride. (Also, his rumbling, melodious singing voice might have been the highlight of the score for me.) Of course, returning cast members Sir Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, and Elijah Wood deliver stellar performances as well. Lee Pace and Benedict Cumberbatch also make brief appearances in this film and I, personally, can't wait to see more from them in the next two installments.
• Speaking of the score, Howard Shore knocks it out of the park. Again. I downloaded it from iTunes as soon as I got home from the theatre, after 3am this morning. It was worth it.
• There was less included in this film than I thought there would be, yet at that same time, there was more, if that makes sense. In other words, the end of this film is earlier in the story than I expected, but there is more back story. I think it's a pretty perfect combination actually. If there's one thing Peter Jackson (& his writing partners) does well, it's end a film.
• Now, in regard to the visual effects: There's a heated debate over Jackson's decision to shoot in 48fps (frames per second), which is double the fps of most films. Those against it say that the extra frames per second give the film a feeling similar to HD television and declare that this feeling takes away from the mystical quality of a fantasy film. I was wary going into the theatre. I'm not a big fan of 3D, in any case, as it tends to be used mostly for cheap thrills (and it gives me a headache). While this film does have a couple of obvious 3D gags to throw at the audience, for the most part, I thought the 3D was more like that of Hugo (the gold standard in 3D technology, in my opinion), in that it was mostly environmental and aesthetic, used to bring the audience into the story instead of taking them out of it. As to the 48 fps, I found that the hyper-reality it lends was completely appropriate for telling this story. The Hobbit is a much lighter tale than The Lord of the Rings and the high visual quality and clarity afforded by the extra fps delineates this film from those in a very visceral way. It is, after all, a children's fantasy adventure. 
• The only criticism I have to offer is this: With thirteen dwarves running around, it becomes difficult to tell them all apart at times, even for those of us who are already familiar with their names and characters. Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, and Bombur are all easily identifiable, but not enough time is spent introducing the others to the audience and therefore they tend to get lost in the shuffle a bit.

With an awards season as densely packed with quality as this one is, it's doubtful that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will come away with many big awards, but it is definitely worth seeing. There is battle violence, so bring younger children at your discretion, but I think The Hobbit is an excellent movie for children of all ages.