Skyfall

I don't care what anybody says: James Bond is dumb. I've seen most of these movies and I've read a couple books, and all I get is that they're all the same. Bond gets sent off to fight a racial/cultural stereotype, he seduces a girl with a terrible namen, banters with Q, uses a carrot as a machine gun or something, kills the bad guy, quips, martini line somewhere in there, end. Lather, rinse, repeat, be sure to cut out Ian Fleming's virulent sexism, and you've got a franchise. A franchise that as far as I'm concerned, only gave us Sean Connery. I prefer spy fiction where the spies don't go around telling people they're spies; stuff like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. But as much as I don't like Bond, I liked Skyfall. More or less. After getting shot and taking a break, James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns to MI6, only to find that he is returning to a broken home, so to speak. A mysterious baddy has blown up the headquarters, revealed the identities of several undercover agents, and is targeting M (Judi Dench) for death. After meeting the new Q (Ben Whishaw), a very rusty 007 is thrown back into the field. Even though he still has his moves, Bond's loyalty to M is tested by deranged ex-MI6 agent Silva (Javier Bardem), who knows a lot of secrets about her. Now Bond must stop Silva, and wonder if he should've stayed dead. Even though Skyfall is definitely the best James Bond in a while and is arguably the best Daniel Craig Bond film, it honestly has one of the worst scripts of the year. Silva perfectly plans for events he couldn't have possibly predicted, there are no good henchmen, and they took out the martini line. Also, Javier Bardem is completely underused; they give him terrible dialogue that just tries to be a mixture of Chigurgh from No Country for Old Men and the Joker and fails at both. The product placement is ridiculous too; many shots focus on Bond's Rolex, there are comments about the awesomeness of popular car brands, and there are random scenes of MI6 agents sitting round and knocking back a couple bottles of Heineken. There's also a completely pointless Albert Finney cameo, the dumb decision to make Q a hipster, and too many jabs at old Bond tropes like gadgets and villain gimmicks. It's almost like Skyfall is ashamed of its heritage, and while I prefer realistic action films, the few 007's I like are real "Bond" movies. But there are some clever moments, the women are beautiful and only kind of objectified, and the action is pretty great. The martial arts are actually well done (watch Goldfinger or Tomorrow Never Dies and you'll understand what I mean here), the car chases are really fun, and Bond actually comes off as professional instead of a tuxedoed tornado of destruction. Really, this means a lot coming from me, because like I said I'm not a Bond fan and I usually don't like Daniel Craig either. So yeah, I liked Skyfall. I'd probably see it again with a couple friends, but I wouldn't casually turn it on and I definitely wouldn't buy it on DVD. Personally I'm more into the silly Bond films like Man With the Golden Gun and Live and Let Die; I never thought these needed a gritty reboot. Thankfully Skyfall isn't too ridiculous or too much of a Bourne ripoff, and it never gets boring. There's plenty of explosions and quips and babes to keep classic fans pleased, and enough hyperbolic dialogue for modern culture snobs. I was hoping for a nod to older films or maybe an appearance by Roger More or something, but we can't have it all. There could've been more "Bond-ness" in Skyfall, but whatever, it's fun I guess.

Lincoln

My dearly departed grandpa an unshakable admirer of Abraham Lincoln. To him, Lincoln was the best American president and possible the best American to have ever lived. And while I was often skeptical of of his undying adoration, to see my grandpa gush about Lincoln was a wonder that I miss a lot. This film directed by Steven Spielberg, gives me some solace, knowing my grandpa would be very happy with it like I was. Welcome to 1865: America is in its fourth year of Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) has just been reelected as the President of the United States. The country is desperate for peace, and both sides struggle to deal with the war's climbing death toll. The president is under constant pressure to make a deal with the Confederacy, but his mind is occupied with passing the Thirteenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to abolish slavery. To do so, Lincoln needs at least twenty Democratic votes in addition to Republican votes, something Secretary of State William Seward (David Straithairn) and the rest of the presidential cabinet are worried about. So while Abe also must be a husband, a father, and a friend, he must be a president, and, well, Abraham Lincoln. Before watching the film, I was surprised to learn that Lincoln had a rather high squeaky voice, and I got worried that wouldn't work well on screen. I was completely wrong. Daniel Day Lewis is stunning as the sixteenth president; his body language, facial expressions, and speech all bring the man to life. For a while there were three girls behind me chatting loudly, but as soon as Lincoln spoke the whole theater went silent. He is commanding, legendary but also human and fragile. The magnificent script by Tony Kushner never gets too melodramatic, and the scenes and dialogue are written with an amazing authenticity and emotion. With Lincoln, Spielberg is in top form. He paces everything incredibly , and the gorgeous cinematography shows off the perfect production design while keeping you invested. There are moments when the story drags a little, but the performances and direction keeps an amazing tension; I got nervous about what was gonna happen, even though I knew most of the history. The supporting cast, including Jared Harris as Ulysses S. Grant, Jackie Earl Haley as Alexander Stephens, and Sally Field as Mary Todd-Lincoln are also incredible. Tommy Lee Jones in particular deserves an Oscar for his portrayal of abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens. The film is so well researched (Spielberg, Kushner, and the actors and crew did research for two years before even beginning production) and put together; I enjoyed every minute of it. I admit, Lincoln made me cry. Just a little, but it did. Partly because it reminded me of my grandpa, but mostly because it's just so moving. It reminded me that no matter how fed up I get with American politics or the state of the country, that good can be achieved when the right leader brings the right people together. Lincoln is a film about an extraordinary man who was in the end, just a man who managed to be extraordinary. He loved to tell stories and be with his friends, and more than anything he believed in human dignity and the power of the American ideal. He compromised yes, but he never quit fighting for the equality that he knew America could achieve. So go see Lincoln, and remember how good we've got it because of one man and his determination.

Wreck-It Ralph

Theoretically, video game movies should be easy to make. Just ask the creators of the games to help with the script, cast a good actor and try to reach beyond the source material, right? But Hollywood refuses to take video games seriously, and as a result, all video game movies are the same. They're all cheaply made, they're all quickly made and they're all really bad. As far as I know, none of them reach beyond twenty or so percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and infamous ones like Alone in the Dark have been mocked in online videos. The only passable one is 2010's Prince of Persia with not-Persian Jake Gylenhaal, and that was just trying to be a new Pirates of the Caribbean. So I am thankful for Wreck-It Ralph, because it brings the whole idea of a video game movie to a new level. Ralph (John C. Reilly) is a self-aware eighties video game villain in a midlife crisis. His game just turned thirty, and he's tired of being friendless while his game's beloved hero Fix-It Felix (Jack McBrayer) lives the high life. One day, Ralph decides to prove his worth by winning a medal from a new shooter in his arcade. After grabbing the prize, Ralph hops to Sugar Rush, a candy-themed racing game and meets Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a glitch in the game's programming. Ralph finally has a friend, but when his absence from Fix-It Felix makes it look like the game is broken and threatens the machine with unplugging, Ralph needs to find himself and restore order to the coin-ops. I really hope there's no last-minute foreign animated film or innovative pet project this year. I hope Sylvain Chomet (Triplets of Belleville) and Studio Ghibli (Spirited Away) are quiet until 2013, because I really want Wreck-It Ralph to win an Oscar. Wreck-It Ralph is the best animated film I've seen this year, and it's most definitely the best video game movie ever made. It has a great cast, it's very well written and directed, the animation is beautiful and it's really fun. The film is a love-letter to games and their nostalgia, and Wreck-It Ralph treats them in a sensitive way that ends up really touching. Another great part of Wreck-It Ralph is how much detail the filmmakers put into every scene. The objects Ralph smashes shatters into realistic dust and debris, there are old Nintendo sound effects when people jump and environments are fully animated, not just characters. Every other American video game movie has been live action, and seeing the idea in animation really makes it work. When Ralph walks through "Game Central Station," classic characters like Sonic the Hedgehog and Chun-Li from Street Fighter pass by and chat in the background. There's even an axe-wielding zombie from the old House of the Dead games. These are homages rather than just references; never does the film look to the audience and say "remember this? This existed!" It's all in great taste, and it's a blast to watch. Wreck-It Ralph is a film for anyone who has ever loved video games. No matter what generation you are from, whether you grew up at the arcades or with Final Fantasy, you'll find something to like here. It's just so damn well done; from the jokes to the animation to the story and characters. It all melds really well together and even though there are some parts that are clearly made for kids, adults have a lot to look forward to. However I wouldn't recommend seeing it in 3D, because there's no noticeable effect and the film clearly wasn't meant to be watched through glasses. Other than that, Wreck-It Ralph is pretty flawless, and regardless of age, you'll be sure to enjoy the movie. So plug in and see Wreck-It Ralph.

Argo

Ben Affleck is a really interesting figure in modern cinema. He's one of America's most popular stars, yet it's not easy to name why other than his association with Matt Damon. He's been criticized for being the exact same character in every role, and took the criticism. Then he made a complete 180. Suddenly, Ben Affleck, the quintessential handsome white American movie star, is proven to be a very talented crime director. I liked Gone Baby Gone, I thought The Town was pretty good, but I usually would never expect Ben Affleck to create the tension and pacing that he does. So we come to Argo: Affleck's first spy thriller, one of the best in recent years. It's 1979, the eve of Iran's cultural revolution. The Ayatollah Khomeini has returned, and the United States has angered the revolutionaries by offering the ousted Shah asylum. Protestors take over the American embassy and hold over fifty employees hostage. But six intelligence workers escape and hide out in the Canadian ambassador's house. It's only a matter of time before they're discovered, and the CIA is stumped. But exfil expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) comes up with an idea: have the workers pose as his Canadian film crew, pretend to be scouting for a crappy sci-fi movie called Argo, and have them fly out together. It's a huge gamble, but when the camera rolls, they gotta roll with it. One piece of advice: don't look up the actual operation Argo is based on; it makes the film much more effective. Not knowing the ending allowed me to notice a lot more in the film, and as a result I enjoyed it a great deal. Argo is a movie based in detail; there is a huge effort put into making everything look like it did then, from how cities and people look and talk to the way scenes are constructed based on photos and stock footage. Ben Affleck makes a real and successful push to make sure his audience feels the intense atmosphere of the situation. As a result the script works much better with the direction, and it's much easier to get invested in the story and characters. And Argo's characters are what makes it worth watching. The direction, the script, and the cinematography are all great, but the characters shine as the driving force behind the film. The great Bryan Cranston is great as Affleck's boss, John Goodman is as fun as always as a famous makeup artist, and Alan Arkin steals the show as Argo's foul-mouthed producer. Even the minor characters have done a lot of research into their roles and try to bring their all. They portray the seriousness and tension of the story, the most important part of the film, very well and very convincingly. As such Argo manages to stay realistic and dark but also funny and exciting. Like last year's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Argo is a great step forward for spy movies. Keep in mind that "spy movie" is basically just a synonym for "James Bond" in popular culture. But as a big fan of John Le Carre and classic thrillers of the forties and fifties, I like stories that are meticulous and dense, with realistic characters, actions, and tons of tension. James Bond is a character whose adventures have no stakes and no real consequences, whereas in Tinker Taylor and Argo, the stakes are very high and the consequences dire. Knowing this film is a true story only impresses this. Argo is genuine; the story and screenplay are good, the acting is great, and the direction is very well done. Go undercover and see Argo.

Taken 2

This is gonna be a weird one to talk about. I mean, even though every bad action movie and their brother gets a sequel these days, was Taken 2 really expected. The first Taken was its own thing; it had a unique tory and a badass main character, and it ended without a cliffhanger. There wasn't much wiggle room: what would your Taken sequel even be about? Who would be kidnapped, and who would rescue them? Liam Neeson again? Why? Well, somebody answered these questions, because here's Taken 2; it's really real. I wish they'd left it alone. When good-old Brian (Liam Neeson) brings his ex-wife Lenora (Famke Janssen) and his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) to Istanbul for a vacation, he (literally) puts his guns in the closet and is ready to have some fun. Reconciliations and cute conversations are abound; Brian even seems to accept his daughter's serious relationship back home. That is of course, until the family of the Albanian traffickers from the first movie and kidnaps Brian and Lenora. Kim helps Brian to escape, but the baddies escape with Lenora. Now, Brian needs to get her back...2. If I'm going to judge Taken 2, and I absolutely am, I'm gonna have to forgive the fact that it's incredibly dumb. Because come on, nobody was gonna attempt an intelligent and complex sequel to Taken. And even if someone did, they wouldn't have succeeded. So yes, I can forgive the silliness. However, I absolutely cannot forgive how cheap, boring, and lazy Taken 2 is. Every expense was spared, every shortcut was Taken; so much so that it would be hard to make a worse version. Liam Neeson is apparently a teleporter, Albanian terrorists only speak English, the clearly twenty-something Maggie Grace apparently doesn't have her driver's license yet, it's a mess. Absolutely nothing many any damn sense. Not even the action, literally the only thing director Olivier Megaton had to deliver on, is any good. For some reason Liam Neeson does all his own fights, and he's no Tom Hardy, so all of the kung-fu is very jerky and boring. Megaton also decided to up close and with tons of cuts, so it's very disorienting and hard to follow. There are even scenes where Neeson kills bad guys by just kind of pushing them over. And it's just as bad in the ludicrous car chases and the gunfights, when somebody can shoot in the wrong direction and still hit someone dead on. The script is just so bad and none of the actors put in any effort; it's really frustrating how little work went into Taken 2. Seriously though, Taken 2 is awful. I didn't expect much from the film, and I didn't really want anything out of it. But this is just so...lame. Like I said earlier, this really is the most barebones sequel they could've done. Keep in mind there was no chance this would be a good movie, but it could have at least been kind of fun. At least it could've been entertaining. Taken 2 is exactly the opposite; it's dumb, boring, terribly made, nonsensical, ridiculous, and strangely trippy. As goofy as the first Taken was, at least it kept my attention. This does nothing of the sort; don't let it Taken your money.

Hotel Transylvania

C'mon Hollywood, why are you doing this to Genndy Tartakovsky? He is literally one of the most talented animators working today; he created Samurai Jack and Powerpuff Girls for Pete's sake. Why is he doing movies like Hotel Transylvania? Films like this allow almost no creativity or experimentation with the medium of animation, and are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of humor and story. Want barebones animation? Look here. Want a terrible plot? Look here. Want a cringe-worthy song at the end? You're in luck. Want a film that should've been direct to DVD and is worse than Shrek Forever After? Welcome to Hotel Transylvania. After losing his wife and being forced into hiding, Dracula (Adam Sandler) starts a hotel for monsters which doubles as a safe haven where he can raise Mavis (Selena Gomez), his teenage daughter. Mavis is about to turn 118, and Dracula wants the celebration to be perfect and to curb Mavis' desire to leave and travel the world. Stuff seems to be on track, and usual guests like Frankenstein (Kevin James), Wolfman (Steve Buscemi), and The Mummy (Cee-Lo Green) are all showing up and helping with the party. That ends however, with the arrival of Johnny (Andy Samberg), a human backpacker who finds the Hotel by way of being a complete idiot. Dracula hires to get rid of Johnny, but Mavis falls for him, and hijinks ensue. Hotel Transylvania made me feel like I was on some sort of hallucinogenic drug, in a bad way. A very bad way. Dear god, was this a bad trip. Hotel Transylvania is, for lack of a better word, schizophrenic. Someone or something is constantly moving or jiggling or twitching, even when nobody is talking or making noise. And when there is talking and noise making: oy. Just oy. I honestly had no idea what the hell was going on ninety-nine percent of the time, and when I did follow the story, it was so absurd and insane I started looking for the David Lynch credit. People in the audience around me laughed at what I think were jokes, but as it stands I cannot identify specific lines or scenes that made me laugh or were supposed to. If anything, I left Hotel Transylvania extremely confused and mildly terrified. Furthermore, whose stupid idea was it to make Cee-Lo Green a minor character? I love the guy and I love his music, and making him an exuberant and musical mummy is a great idea, but don't just keep him for the very end. Also, Fran Drescher as Frankenstein's wife? Why? Why would you subject us to that? Not to mention how profoundly dumb the plot is; it's a complete pandering to Disney kids, and it's really boring. I'm not quite sure what I expected, but I didn't expect something this shockingly lazy and terrible. Now I know what it's like for Roger Ebert to sit through a Friday the 13th film. It's just bewildering and upsetting and maddening. I mean it. I am baffled by Hotel Transylvania. I literally have no words. Wow. I mean wow is this one bad. Everything falls flat. Everything backfires. Nothing works. Wow. I don't care if it's a kid's film, there is no excuse. Bible cartoons put more effort into their productions. Sorry, I know I'm overreacting, but I just can't deal with this film. Hotel Transylvania truly needs to be seen to be believed. It's Wal-Mart Bargain Bin level terrible. How do I even end this review? I have no idea what else to say. Genndy Tartakovsky...I feel so bad for you man. You're so talented and creative, I don't understand how you get stuck with crap like this. Maybe that's why I had such a problem with a dumb kids film. Or maybe just because it's awful.

The Master

Recently, I've seen a lot of lists online naming the so-called "Best Directors of the Modern Era." There are parts of the lists I don't agree with, parts I would change, but I always agree with the inclusion of Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson is unique in his talent; few other directors get the performances from their actors Anderson does. Almost no one else puts the detail into their cinematic worlds Anderson does, and nobody does character pieces like Anderson does. Even in this world of Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson has his own niche that no one can touch. For me, The Master only elevates him more. World War Two veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is doing pretty badly. He's an alcoholic, he's vulgar, violent, abrasive, promiscuous, and alone. One night while intoxicated on his homemade paint-thinner moonshine, Freddie takes refuge on a yacht belonging to Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour-Hoffman), a charismatic intellectual and leader of "The Cause," a religious movement based in Dodd's writings. Dodd and his wife (Amy Adams) take Freddie in as a patient, and Dodd in particular becomes attached to him. Freddie travels the country with The Cause, hoping to find his purpose and curb his PTSD. But his cycle of depression and self-destruction only seems to get worse, and threatens to bring everyone down with him. The Master is not the scientology story. It's not a commentary on said group, it's not a fictionalized origin story, and it's not a biopic. The film's trailers unfortunately marketed it as such, and while Lancaster Dodd's character is clearly based a lot on L. Ron Hubbard, The Master isn't really about him or The Cause. Rather, Freddie Quell is the subject here; he carries the film, and while his friendship with Dodd is a huge part of the film, at the end it's about Freddie. And as a result, The Master is a much richer experience then it would be as a scientology movie. Paul Thomas Anderson knew exactly what he was doing while writing the film, and it makes the movie very worthwhile. But the most impressive part of The Master is the directing. Everything from the dialogue to the scene structure to the jackets on the books Philip Seymour-Hoffman carries around is so thought out and perfectly placed it's ridiculous. The Master is one of those films with a story but without a real narrative, and if you let it take you in you won't regret it. And the acting, dear lord the acting. Everything about the lead performances is noteworthy. Their body language, how they talk, it's incredible. Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour-Hoffman are very captivating in their roles, and are both completely Oscar-worthy. You have to be willing to let The Master wash over you. If you go into it expecting a hardcore slam of scientology through the eyes of Daniel Plainview, you will be disappointed. Each of Paul Thomas Anderson's films is different, so when you watch this one, don't compare it to Boogie Nights or Magnolia, etc. Just dive into this film. Let the characters, the story, and the production flow. Be a transparent eyeball. Enjoy yourself. The Master is a brilliant rumination on post WWII America, and being emotionally detached and isolated from everything, especially the plastique of the time. It's unbelievably well acted and shot and written and directed. It's just a great piece of American filmmaking.