The Lorax

Rating: 3.5/5

Global warming is real. People can deny all they want, but the science is right, and they're not. Climates are changing, oceans are rising, and most things caught in the middle are dying. Governments scramble to show each other up, but just make each other angry and stop. Of course, lots of people are making sure action is taken, though if you think that's the solution, you're mistaken. Now, I'm not here to preach, I'm not here to teach, but I do have a suggestion. If you care about the issue but are too sensitive for hard facts, treat yourself and see The Lorax.

Thneedville is a plastic city, no growth or decay. Nothing natural at all, and the people like it that way. A boy named Ted (Zac Efron) is stricken with love. For the beautiful Audrey (Taylor Swift), who he ees as an angel from above. All Audrey wants is to be brought a tree, but outside town is a wasteland as far as the eye can see. Ted knows where to start to win Audrey's heart; a visit to the mysterious Once-ler (Ed Helms). Ted hears his story of nature's lost glory, and The Lorax (Danny DeVito), who spoke for the trees. Now it's up to Ted to bring trees back from the dead, and avoid the evil O'Hare (Rob Riggle) while he' at it.

There's an early moment in the story, where the film shows man's violence without being frightening or gory. Shortly after the flashback where Once-ler kills the first tree, The Lorax appears and is shocked by what he sees. He and the animals give the tree a grave, lamenting what they could not save. It's a beautiful and heartbreaking scene, so much so my little cousin asked me "are people really that mean?" And that is the message of the film; nature is not just fuel to our kiln. The message is good, and it is told well, but The Lorax still has problems of which I must tell.

The Lorax does two major things wrong; the first of which is generic and lame songs. Each number is rather uninspired, and each one comes off as tried and uninspired. The second fault is that it aims too low, it really is a young'un-centered show. As a result the story is predictable and thin; we know exactly who will lose and who will win. The animation is gorgeous, as is expected; the guys at Illumination are rarely bested. My final critique is that the film is too tame, unlike other eco-films I could name.

I will not lie and say The Lorax is perfect. That's not something I'll do. That would be two lies; to myself and to you. Still, the film has its heart in the right place, even if it shoves its message in our face. The voices are good, the animation is pretty, and most of the film is in fact quite witty. In terms of story and pacing it is a bit lacking, but that wasn't enough to send me packing. Now, I hope you enjoyed this review of limerick and rhyme, writing it took me quite some time. And so my friends, I bid you adieu; I had a good time with The Lorax, and so should you.

Safe House

Rating: 3/5

January and February are, figuratively speaking, the "dump months." This term refers to the fact that January and February see the most releases of bad action and horror films. A prime example was in 2010, when movies in these months included Legion, The Book of Eli, and Splice. Early 2011 featured Jonah Hex, Cowboys & Aliens, and Priest. However, not all Jan/Feb movies are bad; I'm sure there are a couple good ones. All in all, Safe House.

CIA rookie Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) hates his job; he's stuck inside all day watching a hardly-used safe house in Cape Town. Wishing for a promotion and more time with his hot girlfriend, Matt's life is boring. That is until the agency brings Matt his first "guest," notorious CIA traitor Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). While waiting for a routine pickup, shadowy mercenaries break into the safe house and kill everyone but Matt and Frost. Now the two must survive Cape Town and each other.

Very few action movies also manage to be psychological thrillers. Some, like Blood Diamond and the Bourne Movies do, but most that try get lost. Thankfully, Safe House skirts between the two genres to last ninety minutes. There are still glaring problems, like no character development, too much shaky cam, and some rather boring scenes, but it's cohesive enough and never bugged me two much. Don't get me wrong, some parts are just dumb, but it's a fun ride overall.

Safe House is actually a surprisingly well made film. Even though the action scenes don't make a whole lot of sense, they are fun to watch. The acting is another story. I've seen Ryan Reynolds do a much better job in silly action movies; he just seems bored here. And Denzel Washington? Oy vey, Denzel Washington. The man has tons of charisma but he's been playing the same character for years. I wouldn't even call his character Tobin Frost, more like Denzel Washington if He Was a Secret Agent.

This is a hard review to end. The film I'm addressing today just didn't leave a huge impression. I saw it and I've moved on. Safe House isn't terrible, nor is it fantastic. It's just an action movie, more of an Under Siege than a Bloodsport. What I mean is that it won't tarnish anyone's career or be shown as part of a retrospective of classic action films. Safe House is, love it or hate it, just a goofy action movie, and that's all.

Kill List

Rating: 4.5/5

I am not the kind of horror fan who tries to show off my resistance to gore or make fun of bad horror. I do both of those things, but my core reason for watching horror films is that I like to be scared, and I haven't been really scared in a while. The last new "scary" movie I watched watched was Insidious, but even that got silly despite how fun the movie was. No, I'm waiting for a scary movie that creates suspense; one that purveys a feeling unescapable creepiness. Looks like I got my wish.

After a traumatic and disastrous job in Kiev, contract killer Jay (Neil Maskell) is having a tough time at home. Money is tight, Jay doesn't work, and he constantly fights with his wife. In an attempt to save his marriage, Jay agrees to join his friend Gal (Michael Smiley) on a "kill list" of three people. The two are given the job by mysterious and very creepy employers, but they decide money is money. However, as the job gets more and more strange and violent, Jay and Gal wonder what they've become a part of.

Complete and utter dread. That is what I feel watching my favorite horror films. Kill List does the same thing, and it is one of the scariest movies I've seen in a very long time. Director Ben Wheatley gives Kill List a nearly impenetrable texture of uneasiness and suspense; using Hitchcockian music, creepy lighting, and great mis-en-scene. Also, I've never heard of either of the leads, but wow. These two do a great job at portraying the paranoia and insanity of their situation incredibly realistically.

Now, usually the worst thing a bad horror movie can do is have an abrupt ending. This is the cheapest way to end a film without closure. But in good movies like Kill List where the whole film is scary, an abrupt ending works. The ending of Kill List leaves an impact; it is completely unexpected and very disturbing. What makes it work so well is that the film has been built up with atmosphere and well-developed characters. Jay and Gal are likable guys in a bad situation; we can sympathize with them.

I was glad to see Kill List. In a time of remakes, sequels, and Shark Night 3D, the appearance of a truly frightening film is a welcome sight. Ben Wheatley has made a well acted, written, and directed horror story that is worth seeing. Kill List will enrapture and disturb you, and it will do it well. The entire film, especially the tunnel sequence (one of the most terrifying scenes of the past fifteen years) kept me on the edge of my seat. If that isn't a recommendation, I don't know what is.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Rating: 1/5

I love mysteries. As a kid I read pretty much every Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot story, and more recently I've explored the works of Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, and Georges Simenon. The downside of this passion is that mystery TV shows and movies are transparent to me. I spot red herrings and plot twists very fast, and it's hard not to get bored after I do. With that ladies and gentlemen: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is hired by dying billionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to find the reason behind the disappearance of his beloved niece twenty years ago. Henrik believes she was murdered by a family member, and Mikael has to figure out who. Meanwhile, antisocial goth-chic P.I. Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) conducts her own investigation while under the thumb of a corrupt social worker.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is two hours and forty-five minutes long, and a lot of it could've been cut. There are so many plot points, sequences, and bits of dialogue that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot it's astounding. I guessed the bad guy around half an hour in, but even if I hadn't I could still count the maguffins on both hands. David Fincher's tense direction and Trent Reznor's awesome soundtrack work well together, but can't save the film from feeling extremely flat. The acting is fine, except that Daniel Craig is the only Brit is Swedish.

There is a rape scene in this movie. It involves Rooney Mara, and it is one of the most vile, tasteless, and exploitive scenes since "I Spit on Your Grave." It is drawn out to an excruciating degree, and has nothing to do with anything. This scene kills the film. I am not upset because it's graphic. I am upset because David Fincher made a choice to focus on Rooney Mara's sexiness while her character is anally raped and please the lowest common denominator.

This is a bad mystery. Its plot is faux-complex, there's no character development, the conclusion is ludicrous, and it's boring. Half of it makes NO sense, the whole thing is bland and pretentious, and it ignores the work films like Bridesmaids did for women in cinema. The only compliment I have is for Rooney Mara; she is fantastic as Lisbeth, and I can't wait to see her in better movies in the future. For now I'm just sorry she has to be associated with movies like this.

The Artist

Rating: 5/5

As pretentious as this is going to sound, I really do prefer black and white. The lack of extreme detail and, well, color gives black and white movies a feeling of fantasy and escapism that I feel no 3D or CGI can. Three of my top five favorite films, including my number one, are black and white. I find an innocence in it that I don't anywhere else. This love is but part of why I love movies such as The Man Who Wasn't There and my new favorite film of 2011, The Artist.

Silent star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is on top of the world in 1927 when sound on film is first invented. George thinks it's just a fad, but is shoved aside for younger, talking stars like extra Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). Peppy is endlessly cheerful and indebted to George, who first drew in the beauty mark that has since become her signature feature. However as her career rises up and up, George's continues to fade into obscurity and destitution. But Peppy and George's destinies are intertwined, and not even sound will pull them apart.

I was genuinely surprised by how much I liked The Artist. The trailers and marketing made me think it was just a snobby French film in black and white only to please Oscar voters. How wrong I was. The Artist is a true labor of love to the art of cinema. Michel Hazanavicius does such a freakishly good job directing; beautiful cinematography, great, real sets, wonderful storytelling, and a feeling of pure wonder. Jean Dujardin may have the most charming smile ever, and he and the beautiful Berenice Bejo have such skill in facial expressions and body language it's hard to believe they aren't real silent stars.

Now I will address the issue that many people I know have used as an excuse not to see the film: the silence. The fact that The Artist is silent is not a detraction. Film is a visual medium, not an auditory one, and The Artist is a perfect example of that. Some of the media's most jaded critics loved this film, so there's no reason anyone else can't. You do not need dialogue to love a film. If that wasn't true then there would be no need for good cinematography, and The Artist wouldn't be so perfect.

I saw this movies with a group of people I wasn't sure would like it, and at the end they all raucously applauded. As I said before, I was surprised at how much I loved it. The Artist is pure unadulterated joy, and I dare you not to smile from beginning to end. I enjoyed every second of The Artist, and I really can't praise it enough. If you have ever claimed to love film, you are obligated to see The Artist. There simply isn't anything else like it.

The Adventures of Tintin

Rating: 4.5/5

In my not-so-humble opinion, Spielberg's best work is the original Indiana Jones trilogy. Yes Schindler's List is a classic and so are E.T. and Saving Private Ryan and Jaws. Nothing rings with me like Indiana Jones though. High adventure, ancient secrets of ancient civilizations, and villainous Europeans are my alley. This is also an alley where I believe Spielberg is most comfortable. And thank god for that, because Tintin fits right in with that criteria.

When boy reporter Tintin (Jamie Bell) buys a model ship at a flea market, he is immediately accosted by the devious Dr. Sakharin (Daniel Craig). Sakharin is extremely keen on buying the ship, but is refused. Tintin's detective sense starts to twitch when he finds that Sakharin already has a model, and that his own has been stolen. After learning that the ship, the Unicorn, may be the key to a great mystery, Tintin, the alcoholic Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), two bumbling detectives (Nick Frost and Simon Pegg), and his faithful dog Snowy must solve the secret of the unicorn.

Tintin is the beter Spielberg film of 2011. It's not as melodramatic or as cheesy as War Horse, it's much better acted, and a lot more fun. The motion-capture animation is a bit too realistic and initially creepy, but it finds its niche and works. The screenplay by Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish is smart, well-paced, exciting and very funny. There are many memorable lines, great character development, and the actors are wonderful. Daniel Craig is a great villain, Jamie Bell captures Tintin perfectly, and Andy Serkis steals the show.

My favorite part of Tintin is that anybody can enjoy it. The plot is smart enough to for adults to stay interested and there's enough slapstick to keep kids awake. The intelligent dialogue rides the line between complex and accesible very well, and makes it fun for all. Action-wise it's also great with grand setpieces complemented by the beautifully animated environments. It's just a fun ride all the way through and does great justice to the comic books.

The Adventures of Tintin is probably the best action movie of the year. Spielberg and crew have given us a monstrously entertaining film that's also smart and genuine. Going in not expecting anything goof, Tintin was a great surprise. I honestly would see it again if someone wanted to, and I can't say that for many movies this year. I also really do want to see a sequel and so, you should go see it.

Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol

Rating: 4/5

You know, I've never had a problem with Tom Cruise as an actor. Sure his personal life has involved some zany public events. But does that negate the quality of his performances in films like Jerry Maguire and Tropic Thunder? I certainly don't think so. Plus I actually enjoy the Mission: Impossible movies in the same way I enjoy Rambo 4 or Commando. Plus plus, Brad Bird, who directed The Incredibles and Ratatouille, also did this film. Simply put, it works really well.

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back after six months in Russian prison with a new assignment to take out a Swedish nuclear terrorist. While gathering intel on baddy from the Kremlin, Ethan falls for a trap that leads to the IMF being framed for bombing the building. As a result, Ghost Protocol is activated and the entire IMF is disavowed. Now Ethan, his team (Simon Pegg & Paula Patton), an analyst with a dark past (Jeremy Renner), and a train car full of gadgets have to save the day.

The only way I can really describe Ghost Protocol is to quote my dad: it's a cartoon. I use that quote in the most endearing way possible. Yes the movie is akin to a cartoon, but a badass one like Transformers, not Ben 10. But I digress. Ghost Protocol is a good old-fashioned action movie that I'm surprised came out in December of all times. The story and script are just silly enough, the cast is great, and of course, Brad Bird does an amazing job.

But a Mission: Impossible movie is nothing without spectacular action and stunts is it? Rest easy dear reader, because Ghost Protocol has both in spades. The aforementioned topics are both very creative and exciting; each outdoes the last and I spent many parts on the edge of my seat with my teeth clenched. The gadgets are also awesome and not totally unbelievable like in some other spy movies. It really is a blast to watch.

Besides a bizarre opening credits sequence that reveals the entire movie (seriously it's really weird), Ghost Protocol is a ton of fun. I was never bored, never thought it was too silly, and enjoyed myself all the way through. The only time I fell out of the atmosphere of the movie was a couple moments of spectacularly bad acting from Paula Patton. Other than that I had a great time. Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol is funny, exciting, badass, etc.

War Horse

Rating: 4/5

The last time I visited New York City, I had the great pleasure of seeing the stage adaptation of War Horse. It was an essentially simple story, but it was beautifully acted and directed, and featured life size horse puppets operated by 3-4 people each able to create ultra realistic movements. When I heard about the film adaptation, I was admittedly cautious even though it was Spielberg. Was I right? Let's find out.

On the eve of World War 1, poor Irish farm boy Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) and his family are struggling to get by. In the heat of the moment, Albert's alcoholic dad (Peter Mullan) buys a majestic hunting horse at an auction. Tasked with training the horse to plow, Albert immediately takes to the animal, named Joey, and forms a unique bond with it. Once war is declared, Joey is bought by the army, and his journey to hell and back begins.

I love Steven Spielberg, but I can admit he isn't perfect. He has a bad habit of making things way over dramatic and never having a purely evil villain unless they're a nazi. At the same time he's one of America's best directors and I love his work; most of it anyway. War Horse doesn't change that fact for me. Sure it's predictable and cheesier than the cheddar kingdom, but so was the play and I bet the book is too. War horse does its job however, and does it well.

First things first: this is a beautiful movie. Spielberg uses his cinematographer to his advantage with sweeping shots and majestic portrayals of landscapes and the horses themselves. The acting is also good, except two French characters who are onscreen way too long. Other than one other moment of complete melodramatic silliness, the story moves well and isn't boring. Overall, it works.

This will be a polarizing film. Anybody going in expecting another Saving Private Ryan will be very disappointed, as will those expecting Schindler's List. War Horse is a big, over the top Spielberg movie and nothing more. I enjoyed it, but I honestly don't think I'd see it twice. It's beautiful to look at, very well done, touching and inspiring, but very cheesy. In the end War Horse is a totally solid drama by one of our best filmmakers, take it or leave it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Rating: 1/5

Sherlock Holmes is not James Bond. He is not Jason Bourne, or MacGyver, or John McClane, or or an Inglorious Basterd. I have read just about every single Sherlock Holmes novel and story, I've seen the Basil Rathbone movies, and the excellent BBC show Sherlock. I grew up with Sherlock Holmes, and that is only one reason I hated this movie.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is back with a newly married Watson (Jude Law) in tow. Holmes still doesn't want to accept Watson's matrimony, and drags him into another wacky case. As it turns out, evil college professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) wants to incite war between France and Germany and reap the profits. After figuring this out off-screen and rescuing Madam Simza (Noomi Rapace) from Moriarty's assassins, Holmes needs to stop a villain who is always one step ahead.

Ok, as much as I like RDJ, giving him a pipe and a British accent does not a Sherlock Holmes make. Neither does having him use big words and deduce conclusions from ridiculous and impossible evidence. Neither does having him play out fights in his head so we have to watch every stupid victorian kung-fu scene twice. A way to make a Holmes nerd like me happy would be to have a) a plot that actually makes sense, b) pacing and buildup, and c) little things like character development and actual detective work. Also, having Moriarty put a big "M" on everything probably isn't the best idea either.

But no, bad Jess. You're a film critic, don't get weighed down by book nostalgia. Anyways, say what you want about the first movie, at least it made sense. Not a whole lot mind you, but it did. At least it established that Mark Strong had combat training, whereas Moriarty is a "boxing champ" who delivers judo chops and grapples. At least in the last one the amount of henchmen didn't change between shots and there wasn't the stupid fast-slow-fast thing every second. All this combined with schizophrenic direction and editing, I got genuinely dizzy at parts.

Both "Sherlock Holmes" movies are bad examples of Hollywood reboots, but the first actually had Holmes as a detective who stumbles onto something huge, not a wisecracking version of Batman. Seriously, there's no sense of danger (Holmes "dies" around five times), most of the action doesn't have anything to do with anything, and there's this weird undercurrent of homoeroticism. Various parts hint pretty strongly that Holmes is trying to get Watson to marry him instead of his wife. But neither movie is Sherlock Holmes, and this one isn't even a good action movie. Just don't bother.

Albert Nobbs

Rating: 4.5/5

One of my favorite albums is "The Stranger" by Billy Joel. I grew up listening to it, and I've seen Mr. Joel himself play most of the album live. So, as most people familiar with the title track do, I get the message of being yourself. But what if someone put on the face of a stranger and became that person permanently? Where would that leave them, especially if they never took off the mask? Uplifting, or tragic? Shakespearean, or Albert Nobbs?

In early 20th century Ireland, there is a hotel. It isn't the fanciest, but it has Albert Nobbs (Glenn Close), the best waiter in the world. Nobbs is always on time, never screws up, always does more than needed, and is respected and well liked. Albert Nobbs is also a woman who has dressed as a man for the past thirty years. A victim of horrible abuse, Albert has retreated completely into her male identity, and harbors a crush on Helen (Mia Wasikowska), a naive young maid. After meeting another, married, crossdresser (Janet McTeer), Albert decides it's high time she realized her dream.

Albert Nobbs is a beautiful tragedy. It has gorgeous cinematography, costumes, and sets, but it is very melancholic. Albert, whose real name is never revealed, has made a prison within her own clothing. We never see Albert without her tuxedo or male pyjamas, and it's sad. This is a sad story about a woman who has learned to survive in her own sad and strange way. Weirdly enough, it's very good. Here we are presented with a rare kind of film that does not drive us away with its sadness.

The real reason to see the movie though, is for Glenn Close in the title role. I am not familiar with her work at all, but wow. She does such a good job here of making a slightly crazy transvestite incredibly endearing and fascinating to watch, I have no words but wow. The rest of the acting, besides a criminally underused Brendan Gleeson, is also great. Like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestlerm Close holds it together.

Albert Nobbs isn't for everyone. It's a bit weird, there are very cheesy moments, and as I said it's melancholy and the ending is really sad. But Glenn Close is so great as Albert it deserves to be seen. There isn't anything else like it currently out, and there won't be in the near future. And to me, in this world of 3D, sequels, reboots, and remakes, that makes it worthwile.

The Descendants

Rating: 1.5/5

Welcome, my friends, to Oscar season. Expect to see a lot of period dramas, serious character pieces, indie darlings, and films about quirky but happy families that are interrupted but brought closer together as a result. Seriously, look at every year from like 2005 onward and every category, especially the last one, pops up. From the very good The Squid and the Whale a while back to last year's ok The Kids are All Right, these films are commonplace and often pretentious. Here to prove that stereotype is The Descendants; a true example of Oscar Bait.

Matt King (George Clooney) us a wealthy and detached lawyer living in Hawaii whose wife is in a coma after a serious accident. Matt is sitting on top of his a huge plot of land that his cousins want to develop into hotels, but he's not sure. It also turns out that Matt's wife was having an affair with a developer (Matthew Lillard) who has interests in Matt's sale. For the first time, Matt looks at his life and sees the imperfections. Now with the help of his "quirky" daughter (Shailene Woodley) and some unexpected allies, Matt has to work it all out.

The Squid and the Whale, Little Miss Sunshine, The Kids are All Right, Juno, and The Descendants. While individually unique, each film is, at its core, about a seemingly perfect group of upper-middle-class white people who are in transition with one another. Get ready for sex jokes, kids cursing like sailors, one-on-one character development, "eclectic" soundtracks, and old people not getting it. Films like this are released almost every single year around Oscar season, get lauded by major critics, take out full ads in the paper, and don't usually win. And out of all these examples, The Descendants is the most mundane.

I did not like this movie. Every shot, every line of dialog, every character, every performance, and every direction is tantamount to a cookie cutter Oscar film. Each element of The Descendants has been done a million times. But here it just doesn't work. The script and story are completely fake, George Clooney is the same as every drama he's made since Michael Clayton, Shailene Woodley is very annoying, and it's boring. The Descendants is a movie a lot of critics will love, but that does not make it good. This is a film anyone could have made. Combine that with a very cheesy ending, and that's what we have here.

George Clooney wants to win the Oscar for best actor. I believe that is a major reason he made Up In the Air and The Descendants. However Up In the Air featured Clooney as a character with genuine conflict in a story about the real issue of massive corporate downsizing. The Descendants insensitively presents a tragedy as an interruption of the lives of generic characters with superficial conflicts. It's pretentious, very badly acted, obnoxious, and unpleasant to watch.

Hugo

Rating: 5/5

Let's talk about the cinema. Not innovations or the art of film, I mean the cinema. I mean the experience of buying a ticket and popcorn, taking your seat, and losing yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything else like that experience. Sadly, recent innovations in home theaters and videogames have made a lot of people question the relevance of going to the movies. But I don't think the moviegoing experience will be replaced any time soon, especially when there are films like Hugo.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a young orphan living in the walls of a 1930's Parisian train station, who keeps the clocks running while avoiding the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and thereby the orphanage. In his little hideaway, Hugo keeps a small automaton that Hugo tries to fix in memory of his late father (Jude Law), who found it at work. To do so, Hugo steals parts form Georges (Ben Kingsley), a pessimistic old toy shop owner. After Hugo is caught by Georges and loses his father's notebook, he finds a friend in Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), Georges' granddaughter, who introduces him to the outside. Slowly, Hugo and Isabelle find out about Georges' mysterious past with cinema and Hugo's automaton.

In 2010, my favorite film of the year was Toy Story 3. I saw a bunch of other brilliant movie like Inception and True Grit, but nothing topped Toy Story 3. Until now, 2011' TS3 was 13 Assassins, a masterpiece in its own right. Now, it's Hugo. Martin Scorsese's love letter to old film is so brilliant, so magical, it deserves nothing less than Best Picture. Everything about it is perfect: the cinematography is beautiful, with long swooping shots that perfectly sync with the ingenious sets and production design and gorgeous music. Jugo's story and script are unique, enthralling, and remind you how to love the movies. And, anyone can enjoy it.

Unlike most of the films ever made, Hugo leaves none behind, giving every single character a unique arc, backstory, and conflict. Seriously, every single one. Of course, this would not apply if Martin Scorsese did not use all of his brilliance to direct Hugo with the detail and emotion of a Diego Rivera painting. It also helps to have all the of the actors deliver amazing performances, which they do. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz are remarkable, Ben Kingsley is in top form, and Sacha Baron Cohen gives his best dramatic performance ever.

The first movie I ever saw was Toy Story, and I was hooked. I have seen all kinds of films since then, but Toy Story introduced me to movie magic. With Hugo, Scorsese has brought movie magic back to modern cinema. In today's world of gritty reboots and nitpicking everything to death, the fact that Hugo works so well is extraordinary. Never throughout this entire year have I seen such a brilliant film. Other incredible ones have come out, but Hugo is on another level. It is the only movie all year that has come so close to explaining why I love movies. Yes, it's that good. No, let me rephrase: Hugo is magnificent.

The Muppets

Rating: 5/5

The Muppets are special. Whether we're talking Rowlf or Cookie Monster, they have a weird and amazing ability to make people happy. They're a unique part of popular culture that no one really grows out of, not even the most cynical people I know. I don't see how anyone could hate the Muppets anyway. Anyone who claims to is really missing out. But after this movie, I think any so-called hatred for the crew will be extinct.

Walter (voice of Peter Linz) is a young puppet from Smalltown, USA who is the world's biggest Muppet fan. Walter's brother Gary (Jason Segel) is taking his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) for their anniversary, and the two decide to bring Walter along and tour Muppet Studios. To their dismay the studio is completely run down, and evil oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) wants to tear it down and drill for oil. After meeting Kermit, the gang has to reunite the Muppets and save the day.

Remember the last Star Trek movie? The J.J. Abrams one? Remember how it pleased adults and kids, allowing the former group nostalgia and making the latter a new generation of fans? Remember how great it was? Get ready to remember, because like Star Trek, The Muppets is pretty much flawless. The puppets are amazing, the story is lovely, Jason Segel and Amy Adams have never been better, the emotion is real, the songs are memorable, and the script/direction are great. Every joke, every cameo, every one-liner is in the perfect place and is delivered perfectly.

But the cherry on top is that the movie is so touching, so filled with genuine love for Jim Henson's creations that you want every season of the show and every older movie on DVD. I shamelessly teared up several times during the movie, and at others I laughed so hard my sides hurt. A movie that moves me this much one second and makes my fall out of my chair with laughter the next deserves praise. And that what this movie deserves. The Muppets is remarkable.

I don't know what else to say. If you, dear reader, can't tell that The Muppets is brilliant and one of the top five films of 2011 by now, re-read my review. Whether or not you could tell, go see The Muppets immediately, more than once, and experience the love. The Muppets, like Being Elmo, is love. Love for the Muppet gang and what they gave to the world way back when. Also like Being Elmo, I love it right back. Mahnamahna!

The Rum Diary

Rating: 4/5

Hunter S. Thompson and his writings have had a large influence on me. Gonzo journalism is one of the most effective styles of writing, and I use it all the time. You know how I try to write from the point of view of a common moviegoer? Notice how I use a lot of sarcasm? Straight ripped off from the Doc. And as a big fan, I recognize that no one plays Thompson better than Johnny Depp. Need proof and/or an intro to the man's work? Look no further than The Rum Diary.

Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) is a young and talented journalist who has come to Puerto Rico to work at a failing newspaper called the San Juan Star. His only friend is Bob (Michael Rispoli), a pessimistic photographer who likes the finer things in life like rum and even more rum. Kemp is on his way to the same mindset when he is recruited by corrupt millionaire Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart) to write promos for his upcoming land-grab scam. Once Kemp is pulled into Sanderson's world, which includes Chenault (the beautiful Amber Heard), he starts to see what's up, and his debaucherous journey begins.

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT go into The Rum Diary expecting Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. That film, while a complete masterpiece, is based on a novel of Thompson's written after he was established as a revolutionary journalist. The Rum Diary was written when Thompson was in his early twenties, and it's mostly about the experiences that shaped him into Raoul Duke. There's not a lot of narration, psychotropics, or great quotes, but it's very well done and maintains the spirit of the Doc's work.

Johnny Depp is as usual perfect in the main role, not that I'm surprised. But I have to admit I've gotten annoyed at JD for doing this routine in every movie. When it's in the right place though, Depp is incomparable and irreplaceable. Actually the whole cast is great, including Amber Heard, which was a surprise. The pace is a bit slow at times, and it's too long, but I was never bored. The dialog is very funny, the scenery is beautiful, and as a result it comes together well. One of the best parts is the soundtrack, always keeping the mood with an eclectic mix of rock, soul, and traditional Puerto Rican music.

Dr. Thompson always said how he wanted to make this movie, and it's sad it didn't happen before his death in 2005. I'm sure he'd bless it though. The Rum Diary is a solid entry in the HST filmography (considering there are only three) and a good place to start if you want an intro to the Doc's work. It isn't Fear & Loathing or Where the Buffalo Roam, and some people won't like it. So think of this as Hunter S. Thompson's superhero origin story. And if you're a fan like me, you have an obligation to go. Don't let the bastards win.

Immortals

Rating: 4/5

As you all should know, I can deal with stupidity in action movies. It doesn't matter how silly the story is, I can turn my brain off and enjoy some good-old-fashioned male power fantasy. For proof of this (if you really need some), see my reviews of The Wolfman 2010, and more recently Battle LA and/or Conan the Barbarian. Or you can just keep reading this one, because Immortals is a dumb movie that rocked my socks.

King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) is a mad atheist who a la Kratos from "God of War" wants to free the titans and overthrow the gods. In order to do this Hyperion needs a legendary weapon called the Epirus Bow, which he plans to find with the power of the virgin oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto). On his rampage across Greece, Hyperion makes the mistake of murdering the mother of Theseus (Henry Cavill), who just so happens to be the mortal champion chosen by Zeus (Luke Evans). And of course, hijinks ensue.

Ok, first things first. Immortals is silly. The narrative is jumpy, the characters are all completely generic, and the acting and dialog are completely melodramatic and ridiculous. There are big moments that make no sense in that "Conan" kinda way where you just have to laugh. However, nothing gets so dumb that you can't enjoy the movie, and I had a blast the whole way through thanks to two things: the visuals and the action.

The visuals in Immortals are Oscar worthy. Tarsem Singh is clearly very gifted when it comes to this, something we saw in his first film, The Fall, which is brilliant. The sets are grand and real, the CGI is fantastic, and the costumes are unique and beautiful. Each one is incredibly creative and really, really cool. It breathes new life into Greek myths in a way Clash of the Titans only dreamed of. The action is 300-level awesome, but much better choreographed and with less slow-to-fast. Immortals is awesome.

Immortals is the perfect Thanksgiving movie. It's a great excuse to get together with friends and enjoy yourself at the movies, even if it's silly. Immortals knows what it is, and takes the stylization of 300, injects it with Tarsem's brilliant visual creativity, and never looks back. This is mostly a guy movie, but anyone who liked 300 or The Expendables will enjoy it. Of course, I'm really just recommending the mind-blowing visuals and action, but go see Immortals for a fun ride.

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

Rating: 2/5

Wow, seriously you guys? I have a huge list of movies I want to see and I get over ten requests for Human Centipede 2? Look, just because I made it through Cannibal Holocaust and love Audition doesn't make me some sort of unfazable demigod of messed up movies. Cannibal Holocaust freaked me out for a while! Besides, the first Human Centipede isn't even that big a deal. It's just a modern exploitation flick. Whatever, let's just do this.

Martin (Laurence R. Harvey) is an introverted, disturbed weirdo who lives with hus abusive mom and is completely obsessed with The Human Centipede. He watches it all the time at work and even has a scrapbook of pictures from and relating to the movie. In his spare time, Martin goes around whacking random people on the head with a crowbar and putting them in a warehouse, where he plans on recreating Dr. Heiter's experiment with twelve people. Using only crude tools and his psychosis, Martin goes for it.

This movie makes a good point: the first Human Centipede was not the grossest movie ever, neither is this one, and neither one should be treated as such. The first film was more suspense driven, and this one is so grotesque and shocking that it's kind of hilarious. I don't recommend either one because they're not good films, but the series doesn't deserve such controversy. Like I said, they're exploitation movies and are just unpleasant to watch.

Anyways, yes, Human Centipede 2 is freaking gross. But not until the final half-hour or so. Until then it's literally just Martin conking people on the head in a parking garage. It's really quite boring to watch, which is compounded by the fact that Martin doesn't talk. Ever. He just makes silly noises. However, the film is shot in gorgeous black and white and is competently acted and directed. In the end though, it's a waste of time.

The Human Centipede 2's final act is insane. Not quite the level of some movies I've seen and I'm sure there are more out there I haven't heard of, but wow. Ligaments are cut, faces are stapled, teeth are smashed or ripped out, and we see every single step. I admit, I looked away a couple times. But it's all so over the top I wasn't bugged by it. The effects are top-notch but silly. This isn't a date horror movie like Saw or even Hostel, it's just bad shock imagery. I paid six bucks on iTunes for this, and it isn't worth it. Ok, that's my review, now can we stop talking about these movies?

A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas

Rating: 4/5

You've gotta love this series. Each Harold & Kumar movie is very funny, relevant, and of course offensive. Each installment also includes developed and memorable characters with real arcs, great jokes, and the greatness of Neil Patrick Harris. That said, it's hard for comedy sequels to stay funny, as evidenced by Hangover 2 and the Scary Movie sequels. Lucky for us, the series isn't done yet, and it's still damn funny.

Around three years or so after their escape from Guantanamo, Harold (John Cho) is married and Kumar (Kal Penn) is perpetually stoned. The two meet again when Kumar drops a mysterious package at Harold's house. Harold, who is too worried about pleasing his father-in-law (Danny Trejo), is happy to see his friend, until Kumar burns down Trejo's home-grown christmas tree. Now the two have until midnight mass is over to find a new fern. And as usual, hijinks ensue.

There's something about stoner comedies that I find inherently hilarious. Unless the joke is too dumb (I'm looking at you Your Highness), I will laugh. Boy howdy will I laugh, and this movie made me laugh quite a bit. The jokes and gag are of course all sexual, drug-related, or violent, but most of them work very well. As usual Neil Patrick Harris steals the show, but everyone does a great job. The script has a good pace, and the few serious moments are genuine and well done.

See, now I don't have much more to talk about. It's just hard to review good comedies. Ok, I guess I can talk about how some moments are just stupid and that some jokes rely too much on being raunchy and/or gross, but none of that really matters. A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas is an extremely solid and very funny comedy that's worth seeing.

I honestly hope they make a fourth entry in this series. For me, I think the characters (especially NPH) won't stop being funny and I'll always enjoy them in a primal kind of way. Even though I don't think the series will ever return to the heights of the second movie, I have faith that I'll continue to laugh at additional installments. Until then, I can just enjoy the current one, and so should you.

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey

Rating: 4.5/5

As a young child, my best friend was my stuffed Elmo toy. I took him everywhere and told him everything. My friends loved him, my family did, we all just loved Elmo. But until now, I never thought about why. Why did I love Elmo so much? Why is he so instantly lovable, and how was he created? What brilliant performer created the best friend of billions of children? Well my friends, be ready to be answered and moved by this lovely documentary.

Being Elmo follows the career of Kevin Clash: a kid from Baltimore who loved puppets. When he got older, Kevin started to build his own muppets and was featured on local TV. As Kevin got better and better, he felt limited by his position. Then he met muppet builder Kermit Love (creator of Big bird, Snuffy, and Ms. Piggy), who taught Kevin everything he knew. After meeting Jim Henson, Kevin was well on his way to becoming the legend he is. And of course, the rest is history.

Ok, I know that it looks like I gave the whole movie away, but I only outlined it. Kevin's journey through the world of puppeteering is so deep and interesting that there's no way I could cover it in a paragraph. Anyway, part of what makes the story so great is that Kevin is one of the best examples of someone who followed their dreams. He had real talent in a weird field and he made it through 100% pure hard work. He's never arrogant, never outspoken, and always thankful. Kevin is such a good person, you can see Elmo in him.

Now, I don't consider myself a super macho dude, but I have my pride. And I am discarding that right now because I'm admitting that this movie made me cry. It wasn't sad, and I didn't cry a lot, but I cried. I remembered how much Sesame Street meant to me, and how amazing it is that Kevin Clash makes millions of kids believe they are loved by Elmo. Then there's the scene where all the muppets, including Elmo and friends, sing "Saying Goodbye" at Jim Henson's funeral. I dare you not to choke up.

Being Elmo is special. It is a rare documentary that doesn't uncover political corruption or be pro environmentalism that isn't about a historical figure. Like Anvil last year, Being Elmo tells a story about someone who never, ever gave up. It's effective, informative, interesting, touching, and of course inspiring. Why does it work so well? To paraphrase one of the interviewed puppeteers: Elmo is love, and he loves you unconditionally. And you know what, I love him right back. Always.

Paranormal Activity 3

Rating: 1.5/5

And so the third installment in the increasingly short and unscary Paranormal Activity series inevitably arrives. Seriously, all horror movie concepts get old fast unless they're Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th. Most sequels besides those are rushed out and either nothing like the original (Blair Witch 2) or just a retread of it (every Saw sequel). Plus, movies as original and fun as the first Paranormal Activity don't need sequels. At least not ones this boring.

Dennis (Chris Smith) is worried that his stepdaughters Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) are being haunted by their imaginary friend "Toby." Much to the chagrin of his wife Julie (Lauren Bittner), Dennis sets up cameras all over the house to try and capture evidence. While initially failing to find anything significant, the evidence begins to pile up and Dennis thinks that whatever is in the house is more than just a demon.

I have said this before, but I don't like found footage movies. Besides Blair Witch, they're mostly cheesy, nausea-inducing, and become an not to spend a lot of money on CGI. That is true here because the terrible jump scares rely on the idea that Dennis tapes absolutely everything in his life. Even when the director(s) manage to build a semblance of tension, nothing happens besides camera shaking. Seriously, I actually found myself staring at the ceiling. Even when scary parts do happen, I did not find myself interested.

On the nitpicky side, the movie is supposed to be in 1988, but everyone dresses like a 2010 hipster. The Julie character even has Zooey Deschanel hair and clothes. Also, why the demon ghost thing did no haunting before the cameras were set up is weird. And if Katie and Kristi were haunted as kids, why are they so scared in the first two movies? But I digress. The acting is cheesy, there's too much special effects, people are idiots, and the ending is even more out of left field than The Last Exorcism's.

There's no good reason to see Paranormal Activity 3, but it's not horrible. It is kind of fun at moments and it's competently directed, I guess. The only reason this film exists is to squeeze as much cash from fans as possible, and it succeeded I guess. But who cares? This is my review, and I say it's bad. It's boring, doesn't make any sense, and is NOT scary, proven by the fact that the people my theater started talking to each other and laughing at the scares. Nuff said.

The Skin I Live In

Rating: 4.5/5

I am a big fan of surrealist filmmaking. I love to watch movies that don't necessarily have narratives so much as a general theme. Some of my favorites include Pink Floyd: The Wall, Nobuhiko Obayashi's House, and Eraserhead. I also like foreign films, especially Japanese and Spanish-language ones. This year has been a really good year for foreign film with movies like 13 Assassins and TrollHunter outdoing most of our blockbusters. The Skin I Live In continues this with surrealism by being the best not-Drive movie out in theaters.

In 2012 Spain, brilliant and insane plastic surgeon Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas) lives isolated, obsessed with his invention: a skin that resists all damage. He is accompanied only by his servants and Vera (Elena Anaya), a beautiful young woman Robert keeps prisoner as a test subject. Vera is Robert's creation, to the extremity that her skin is his experimental design and her face is that of his late wife. Vera always wears a full-body "skin suit" and is given everything she wants but her freedom. After a break-in at the house, Robert's mental state further unravels and Vera's origins are slowly revealed.

Like most of Almodovar's other films, The Skin I Live In explores the Freudian insanity of human sexuality. One of this film's main themes is the use of sex as a tool for mental control and manipulation rather than love. Throughout most of the film, we know nothing about Vera except that that Robert wants total control of her, which he gets through what is basically rape. Almodovar never shies from the intensity, and does a magnificent job of inducing uneasiness and sometimes revulsion. This is the good kind of disturbing film, the kind where you want to keep watching.

Needless to say The Skin I Live In is strange. Every single scene is constructed and presented in crazy and surreal ways, but it all pays off. The second half of the film brings all the strangeness into an incredible and insane conclusion. Trust me, a lot of it seems pointless and boring, but The Skin I Live In. Almodovar has said that this is his Frankenstein, and it is. A mad doctor seeking perfection in a flawed creature that only desires freedom and independence. I can't talk anymore without spoiling the whole thing, so let me conclude.

The Skin I Live In isn't for everyone. Certain moments are very disturbing, and some may be bored. But if you can stick it out you won't be disappointed. The final act is brilliant, and will definitely leave an impact. Almodovar has given us a modern prometheus that lifts the mad scientist genre to a new level. The Skin I Live In is truly a work of art. So if you want some intelligence in your thriller, go see it.