My Favorite Movies of 2012

I wrote this around Oscar season and never posted it. Shame to let it go to waste, I guess.

I saw a lot of movies last year, and here’s how I rank them …

31. “Snow White & the Huntsman”—Kristen Stewart (who I like very much) was miscast and laughable as a “warrior princess,” while Charlize Theron wildly overacted. The only redeeming part of this dreck was budding superstar Chris Hemsworth.

30. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting”—Yep, the Hollywood marketers put one over on me; the trailers made it look like this was gonna be a rom-com a guy could love, a la Judd Apatow, with the collection of male comedians stuck on babysitting duty. Instead, they were barely in it and all their scenes were in the trailer. Call it the “Inglorious Basterds” of chick flicks.

29. “Taken 2”—Awful. Just … awful.

28. “Lockout”—Guy Pearce was fun (nice mini-comeback year for him, by the way), but the rest was utterly forgettable.

27. “Dark Shadows”—All the best parts were in the trailer.

26. “Ted”—Like all Seth McFarlane humor, the same joke over and over again wears out quickly. And this was a lot longer than a 20-minute episode of “Family Guy.”

25. “21 Jump Street”—Could qualify for Pleasant Surprise of the Year. Much better than I’d ever thought possible.

24. “The Expendables 2”—As a whole, this was a better movie than the first one; but it was just missing that over-the-top, laugh-out-loud action factor. Jean-Claude van Damme was awesome, though.

23. “Pitch Perfect”—Fun movie that’s already gaining cult-status. How can you not love Anna Kendrick?

22. “This Is 40”—This is not Judd Apatow’s best work. It’s the type of movie where if you think about it afterward, you can come up with any number of little complaints. But it was never so annoying that I ever wanted to turn it off, and I was engaged all the way through.

21. “Moonrise Kingdom”—Perhaps Wes Anderson just isn’t for me. This movie was too cute and clever by half.

20. “The Hunger Games”—Up until the last 15 minutes of the movie (which were way too rushed), this was as good an adaptation of the book as I could’ve hoped for. Jennifer Lawrence … wow, what a great year she had.

19. “Wreck-It Ralph”—The first half was some of the best animated work I’ve seen in years; it was exactly what I hoped for out of a movie celebrating the history of videogames and hit all my tickle spots. Unfortunately, the second half drifted off into standard kid’s-movie fare. Still, overall a good experience.

18. “Skyfall”—Yeah, that’s right: I liked “Twilight” better than “Skyfall.” This movie is a train wreck compared to the other two Daniel Craig films. It drops everything the first two built and goes off on a tangent that goes nowhere. I don’t want to see a self-conscious, unconfident, mopey James Bond. This is the type of movie that gets worse and worse the more you think about it. Craig, Judi Dench, and Javier Bardem are so good they salvage it from being utter rubbish, but it’s nowhere near the level of the other two.

17. “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn—Part 2”—Snicker and snipe all you want, but these movies did exactly what they were supposed to, and they’re much better than anyone gives them credit for. Looking back on the series, the only one I didn’t like was “New Moon,” and that’s basically because that book is nearly un-adaptable. “Breaking Dawn—Part 2” was a perfectly enjoyable two hours at the movies, and the filmmakers did well by these characters in the end. Just like the rest of the films in this franchise, the beginning was a little shaky and stilted, but then it hit its stride and the conclusion was engaging and rewarding. Well done.

16. “Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike”—Everything about the second installment was better than the first, except perhaps Samantha Mathis as Dagny Taggert. But Jason Beghe more than made up for her with his sparkling turn as Hank Rearden.

15. “The Bourne Legacy”—Matt Damon, who? Jeremy Renner rules.

14. “The Amazing Spider-Man”—I couldn’t have been more down on this movie going in, but it won me over almost immediately almost purely through the remarkable work of star Andrew Garfield. He is a better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire, and the rest of the movie supported him nicely. Really, except for that cheesy crane scene and a bit of the been-there-done-that vibe, this was a fine entry in the franchise.

13. “Lawless”—Tom Hardy had himself a year, huh? He’s magnetic here as the elder brother in this clan of young moonshiners. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but two very specific things held it back: Guy Pearce’s character was just too over the top evil, and the climax was overdone and didn’t stay true to the rest of the movie. Otherwise, it’s a really good flick.

12. “Argo”—With this one Ben Affleck proved his great directing skills aren’t limited to movies set in Boston. Has there ever been a bigger surprise behind the camera than Affleck? I’d given him up for dead long ago, but now he’s debuted with three straight excellent directorial efforts. “Argo” is my least favorite of those, but it’s still a really good movie; it just never hit that “next level” for me for some reason. Bonus points, too, for the purely coincidental timing of “Argo” and the Benghazi disaster.

11. “Looper”—Every year needs a good, noir-ish, dystopian, sci-fi thriller, and that was “Looper” in 2012. Great performances by Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a smart script, and superb art direction mean this movie is built to last.

10. “Act of Valor”—I don’t want to hear about the acting. I just don’t. Of course the acting wasn’t great; those are freakin’ Navy SEALs up there on screen. This movie is all about the action sequences, and they are some of the best I’ve ever seen. That scene where the gunboat comes around the corner of the river … that alone was enough to put this in my top 10. “Act of Valor” is a movie college kids are gonna watch in their dorm rooms at 2 a.m. 10 years from now.

9. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”—The comparisons to Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy are inevitable, but perhaps unfair. The source material isn’t nearly as grand for this trilogy as the last; “Hobbit” is more whimsical, and Jackson captures that essence quite well. I thought the movie dragged a tad in the middle, but the first and final acts were everything I could hope for; the key scene between Gollum and Bilbo was as wonderful as any filmmaker could hope to accomplish. And Martin Freeman was the absolute right choice as Bilbo; he and Richard Armitage (as Thorin) carried the movie on their backs.

8. “Marvel’s The Avengers”—Though it gets off to a rocky start (stilted dialogue, etc.), Joss Whedon turns in what has to be considered one of the best superhero movies of all time with this massive ensemble extravaganza. Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark anchors the whole thing, but everyone else is good, too (particularly Scarlett Johannson). And the climactic battle was as thrilling a sequence as anything I saw all year. Plus, you know, Hulk smash.

7. “Silver Linings Playbook”—I was not prepared for what a hard-hitting, emotional punch this movie packs. All of the Oscar nods are more than deserved, as every actor in the film is brilliant. It is a remarkable examination of mental illness and what it takes to recover and heal.

6. “2016: Obama’s America”—This may have been a notch or two higher had it actually cost Obama the election, but credit Dinesh D’Souza for doing what the media still refuses to do—examine Barack Obama’s history to find out who he is and what he believes. D’Souza doesn’t go muckraking; he simply pores over Obama’s own written words and then puts them into true context, as opposed to the sleight-of-hand Obama used in the authoring of those books. Unfortunately, D’Souza’s work here went unfulfilled in 2012.

5. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”—This will be the movie from 2012 that everyone wonders, “How did I not see that?” Much more than just another coming-of-age teen drama, “Wallflower” is an insightful look at the damage done to innocent children. And yet, it is also filled with hope and love and humor, with brilliant performances by all the leads. Go watch this movie.

4. “End of Watch”—This is the most thrilling, captivating, intense cop movie since “Heat.” The documentary style lends immediacy to the experience, but that would’ve gone nowhere without the charisma between Michael Pena and Jake Gyllenhaal; I’ve never been a big fan of the latter, but he won me over here, and I’ll probably watch everything he does from now on. “End of Watch” is the anti-“Crash,” showing you the best and brightest of what police officers can and should be.

3. “Zero Dark Thirty”—I really wanted to hate this movie. I couldn’t have gone into it with more negative expectations. So it should tell you what an amazing piece of work this is that it beat all those pre-conceived notions and turned into one of the best movies of the year. Tremendous performances, incredible sustained tension, and a climactic action sequence I will never forget. Bigelow did our nation proud with this one.

2. “The Dark Knight Rises”—With the completion of his Batman trilogy, Christopher Nolan has set a new bar for what “superhero movies” can and should be. “Rises” has more layers than can possibly be detailed in this short space—from the redemption of Bruce Wayne to the arc of Selina Kyle’s character (and, wow, Anne Hathaway …), to the evisceration of Occupy Wall Street, to the thrilling action—but what I was struck most by was how effectively Nolan drew the character of Wayne. By the end of “Rises,” you almost forget that he dresses up as a bat; or, more appropriately, when he does don the cape and cowl, you think of him more as Bruce Wayne than as Batman. That is an amazing achievement.

1. “Django Unchained”—I went back and forth between this and “Rises,” trying to figure out which one I truly loved more. I ultimately settled on “Django” because I cannot find a single flaw, or come up with a single thing about it I don’t like. It is perhaps Quentin Tarantino’s perfect movie. The performances he draws out of the actors here you get the feeling only Tarantino could get. He takes the best of the revenge and spaghetti Western genres, mixes in his own flair for both gut-busting humor and gut-twisting sadism, and throws in a romance for good measure. And no one—and I mean no one—knows how to make a “hero shot” like Tarantino; Jamie Foxx just basically has to stand there, or walk through smoke, or reach for his gun, and Tarantino does the rest. Even the soundtrack is awesome (as per usual). “Django Unchained” has it all. 

‘Unknown’

Ah, I had such hopes for this movie. “Taken” is one of my favorite films of the past five years, so the idea of Liam Neeson stomping around Europe again in another leather jacket had me looking forward to another go-round. Heck, it even has an abrupt, one-word title!

This is why the marketing people at Warner Bros. make so much money, because I’m sure there were thousands and thousands just like me who went out to see this dreck based on those same warm, fuzzy “Taken” feelings. Unfortunately, the similarities end just about there.

“Unknown” is like a combination of “Taken,” “The Bourne Identity,” and “The Fugitive”—with all the bad clichés and none of the smarts and wit of those three far superior films. The story starts off quite well, with Neeson as a biologist in Berlin for a big conference who gets into a car accident and has his brain rattled (hello, Mr. Bourne). So he then tries to piece his life back together and prove he is who and what he says he is (hello, Dr. Kimble). All the while, he’s dodging shady people in dark SUVs trying to capture and/or kill him. Why on earth is this happening to him? That’s actually a very intriguing question that Neeson handles with the grace and charm you love him for.

It all starts to unravel, though, right around the time Neeson escapes his stalkers via an obligatory car chase through the streets of Berlin (not a cop car in sight!). There is no way a middle-aged scientist should be able to drive like that, and it’s the first hint all is not what it seems in “Unknown.”

Ever since “Taken” was so resoundingly embraced by conservatives for its strike-first-strike-hard-no-mercy-sir! attitude toward bad guys, I think Neeson’s been scrambling to resuscitate his liberal cred. First he said C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels weren’t strictly Christian stories (please!). And now he stars in a movie where a poor, plucky, working-two-jobs-to-get-by illegal immigrant plays a critical heroic role, all the while an American government/big business complex tries to steal an agricultural development that would, of course, feed the poor around the globe for free. Can't have that! Give me a break. It’s all so stereotypical, unoriginal, and, worst of all, boring.

It’s no surprise that “Unknown” veers dramatically off course as soon as these ideological elements begin to make themselves clear. The third act is so stupid—with dialogue to match (this movie even makes January Jones sound terrible)—people in my screening were laughing. And not in a good way. I just rolled my eyes and got the heck out of there.

At least I’ll always have “Taken.” Maybe I’ll go watch that again to get the taste of this disaster out of my mouth.

Grade: D+

‘The Social Network’: Defending Mark Zuckerberg

It’s been six days since I saw “The Social Network” … and I can’t stop thinking about it. That’s probably as good a reason as any to officially declare it my favorite movie of the year.

Jesse Eisenberg’s masterful portrayal of the (ironically) socially awkward Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is a fascinating examination of what it takes to literally change the world. Zuckerberg’s faults are also his strengths, and the filmmakers—director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin—deftly try not to make judgments one way or the other.

Did Zuckerberg steal the idea? The movie doesn’t tell you, but one of the best lines in the whole thing is from the main character: “If you’d invented Facebook … you’d have invented Facebook.” Did he screw over his one and only friend to get to the top? Or was his friend holding him back? Was the friend too timid for the big game Zuckerberg was playing, or did he have justifiable reasons for thinking along more practical terms? Again, it could be both.

And then there’s Sean Parker (played brilliantly by Justin Timberlake—you don’t know how hard it is for me to type that), the inventor of Napster, who swoops in during Facebook’s infancy and changes the course of all the lives involved, no matter how tangentially. He comes off as a reckless, arrogant blowhard, but would Facebook have reached the pinnacle of Internet domination without his connections, energy, and vision?

These are the tangled webs weaved by “The Social Network.” I will warn you: There are no answers (it reminds me of Fincher’s superb “Zodiac” in that way—minus all the dead bodies, of course). But that’s because there really aren’t any answers to be had yet. The real-life Zuckerberg is still just 26 years old and now one of the youngest billionaires on the planet; his story is probably far from over, and we certainly can’t have all that much perspective on his rise to power and fame while we’re still living in the moment he created one drunken night at Harvard.

In the end I liked Zuckerberg as portrayed here—how truthful a telling is obviously up for debate, but that’s rather beside my point. He was a Rand-ian visionary who wasn’t afraid of his own genius or putting it to work. His singleminded dedication to his craft is probably indicative of every successful entrepreneur. Does that make him a saint? No. Not even really a nice person. I’m sure there are certain decisions of interpersonal relations he’d rather take back (but maybe not). But one thing you can say about Zuckerberg is he never hid his ambitions, and it’s people like him who really do change the world. Those who weren’t fully committed to the grand goal he was chasing were eventually left behind … with millions and millions of dollars to comfort them.

Grade: A

‘Crazy Heart’

“Crazy Heart” is like a more uplifting, more satisfying version of 2008’s “The Wrestler.” Where Mickey Rourke played Randy “The Ram” Robinson, a broken down, washed up wrestler, in “Crazy Heart” Jeff Bridges plays a broken down, washed up country singer, Bad Blake. The two movies follow a remarkably similar path—until the end, anyway.

Bridges is outstanding as Blake, a 57-year-old former country star who, when he’s not playing ignominious venues like bowling alleys, divides his time between one-night stands, Spanish television, cigarettes, and bottles of whiskey. His only constant companions are his ’78 Chevy Suburban—about as junked out as he is—and his electric and acoustic guitars.

But, like Rourke’s “Ram,” Blake still loves what he does—he just wishes it paid more. He comes alive on stage, and honors requests for old favorites he’s played hundreds of times. And that’s where this movie really takes off: the music. T-Bone Burnett proves once again why he’s the go-to guy when it comes to soundtracks with a sparkling collection of country and blues choices, along with several fantastic originals he wrote for the film. Bridges is a revelation as a singer—who knew?—with a voice that sounds a little like a Southern version of Huey Lewis. He’s convincing at every musical turn (so's Colin Farrell, for that matter), and first-time director Scott Cooper makes the wise—and all-too rare—decision to let the actor sing live in the scene instead of lip-synching.

In an era where the term “sellout” is thrown around everywhere, “Crazy Heart” has a lot to say about music—how it’s produced and consumed—without making any high-handed judgments either way. Blake makes no bones about his desire to make money from playing and writing music, but he doesn’t want to whore himself out, either. He sticks to his own code of artistic integrity, and it’s fascinating to watch that play out over the course of the film. One of my favorite little scenes occurs when a music journalist (the ever-engaging Maggie Gyllenhaal) asks Blake if he ever gets sick of playing one of his hits. Blake’s response: No way. That song’s been good to him, and he’ll be loyal to it forever. That's just one of many, many more music-related moments to cherish in this film.

Though it mirrors “The Wrestler” in almost every aspect, “Crazy Heart” is different in one critical way: it provides closure. Where “The Wrestler” just sort of … ended, this movie concludes. Not that everything wraps up in a nice, neat little package; Blake’s done too much hard livin’ and made too many bad choices for that to happen. But the main characters have definite arcs. I left the theater supremely satisfied, something that couldn’t be said for my walk out of “The Wrestler.”

I guess having two such similar pictures arrive so close together is why “Crazy Heart” hasn’t earned the type of buzz of the former, and that’s a shame. Don’t miss this show.

Grade: A-

‘The Blind Side’

“The Blind Side” is a wonderful film, but don’t be fooled by the trailers—it’s not a football movie. The game may be a major part of the plot, but this isn’t “Remember the Titans” (thank goodness).

“The Blind Side” is the story of a Southern, Christian, Republican (gasp!) wife and mother of two who takes in a foster kid and gives him a chance for a better life. Notice I didn’t just say “gives him a better life,” because young Michael Oher (played with expressive understatement by Quinton Aaron) has to earn his success through plain ol’ hard work, both in the classroom and on the football field.

While writer/director John Lee Hancock occasionally allows the film to dip in a little cheese, for the most part this is barebones moviemaking—it doesn’t have the glowing sheen of the aforementioned “Titans” or so many other “heartwarming” tales. The football scenes are possibly the closest “The Blind Side” comes to gag-worthy, but making movies out of dramatic sporting events has never been easy, so I give “Blind Side” a pass for accomplishing them adequately. Besides, they only take up, I’d guess, 15 minutes of the entire film. One thing I like about this movie, though, is how it shines a spotlight on the unglamorous position of offensive lineman, which any Redskins fan can tell you is one of the most important positions on the field.

The rest of the film is all about character and family. Sandra Bullock is outstanding as the other lead role, Leigh Anne Tuohy, a fireball who knows what she wants and is not afraid to put herself on the line to get it. She’s portrayed warmly, to be sure, but not without depth; while rock solid in her determination to help Michael, we get glimpses behind her tough exterior to see the doubts and concerns she has about taking such a risk and the implications for her family. The trailers make Bullock seem like a scenery chewer, but there’s much more to what is probably the performance of her career (though, to be fair, I haven’t seen all her movies).

We’ve heard countless success stories about the Michael Ohers of the world before, but rarely has Hollywood given us such an honest and sympathetic look at the people who help those stories come true. I guess some might complain Tuohy seems too good to be true. To them I say: I’m sorry for you. Because people like the Leigh Anne Tuohy portrayed in “The Blind Side” really do exist. I’m fortunate enough to know and love one, and she and her husband quite literally changed the course of my life, not for anything I ever did for them, but just simply out of their boundless love for others. It’s so refreshing to see someone like Tuohy get a starring role in a well-made movie.

“The Blind Side” isn’t exceptional filmmaking, per se, but the movie is exceptional in its portrayal of people who live their lives according to conservative principles. When was the last time you saw a white, Southern, married, Christian couple who belong to the NRA as anything but the butt of a joke on “Saturday Night Live”? More where this came from, please.

Grade: B+

'Up,' Up, and Away …

When Pixar Animation Studios burst onto the scene in 1995 with “Toy Story,” the company’s claim to fame was producing the first feature-length film animated entirely via computer. What made the studio the gold standard in Hollywood, however, was not its sublime technical skill, but its storytelling. Subsequent films such as “Toy Story 2,” “Monsters, Inc.,” and “Finding Nemo” were meant for kids, certainly, but their exemplary craftsmanship appealed to adults through just the right amounts of wit, charm, and, most important, heart.

Over the past several years, however, Pixar has been inverting that relationship. Starting with 2004’s masterpiece “The Incredibles,” and then following in each successive film—2006’s “Cars,” 2007’s “Ratatouille,” and 2008’s “WALL*E”—the company’s outings have become increasingly adult-oriented, containing still enough thrills and laughs to hook the kids.

With “Up,” Pixar completes the transition. It may be an animated movie, but this latest gem skews decidedly older, and I guess the children can just deal with it and look at the pretty balloons, floating house, and talking dogs (yes, talking dogs). There may have been a lot of kids in my showing Sunday afternoon, but this certainly isn't for them.

But not for the typical reasons—there's no sex, drugs, extreme violence, etc.—just the simple maturity of its content. Ed Asner gives voice to its main character, Carl Fredricksen, an elderly, cantankerous widower who simply wants to be left alone in the house where he and his dearly departed Ellie shared so many cherished memories. If only the well-meaning little boy scout Russell would allow him to do that.

To give away more of the ingenious and inventive plot would be a disservice to anyone who has yet to experience this wonderful film, which deals with themes of growing old in a rapidly changing world, dreams lost and dreams rekindled, the dangers of obsession, and the pain and joy families provide. And all this set against the seemingly nonsensical backdrop of a cranky old man who ties a bunch of balloons to his house and floats away Wizard of Oz-style. Rest assured, Pixar delivers the visual goods, too, if a bit more subtle than previous outings; the animation here is exquisite and features heavy doses of the studio’s trademark sweeping vistas and “wow” moments.

To say “Up” is a great movie is like saying the sky Mr. Fredricksen's house floats through is blue. The only possible debate about this film is how great it is when compared to the rest of the Pixar canon. I’m not ready to answer that yet, but my guess is it floats pretty close to the top.

Grade: A

Side note: Interesting (astounding?) that two of the best movies I’ve seen this year both feature crotchety, gray-haired men and deal with almost the exact same premise: “Up” and “Gran Torino.” The academic paper I’ll never write would compare how these two masterworks deal with similar themes in such vastly divergent methods and mediums. I get the impression Mr. Fredricksen and Clint Eastwood’s Walt Kowalski would get along just fine.

‘Gran Torino’

If “The Dark Knight” is now one of the biggest Oscar snubs of all time, then “Gran Torino” is right there nipping at Batman’s cape.

Clint Eastwood’s new masterpiece is exactly the kind of story I love: It presents a situation and characters that appear to be a certain way, then spends its time turning those preconceptions inside out. It presents a complicated issue—in this case, immigration and its inherent racial relations/tensions—fairly and accurately, offering both the bad (Hollywood’s stock and trade) and the good (rare).

The trailer for “Gran Torino” was a bit deceiving, as it makes the film out to be a “Dirty Harry” for the geriatric crowd. Eastwood’s retired Korean War veteran certainly can handle himself, and, yes, there are a few scenes of violence, but that is far from the main point of the film. At its heart, “Gran Torino” is an examination of what makes America the greatest melting pot in the world, as well as what causes that melting pot to shatter.

As one of the few native-born Americans on my street, I can attest to the film’s veracity. Like Eastwood’s Walt Kowalski, what I’m really looking for in others—be they family, friends, coworkers, or just neighbors—are people who will work hard and respect one another. The two neighbors on either side of me are both immigrant families. One plays their stereo so loud it shakes my floors; the other I rarely hear a peep from, unless it’s from their two kids wanting to pet my cat. Guess which family we get along with better? Guess which family Walt wouldn’t like?

Walt’s not perfect, either, which is another reason to love this film—he’s not above the fray, he’s got things to learn, too. He utters innumerable Asian-related racial epithets, but that’s another strength of the script; Walt is presented as the stereotypical old white racist, but that perspective changes as you get to know him, much like his perspective on his new Asian neighbors changes as he gets to know them.

There are more issues packed into this film than just racial relations, too, all handled deftly and with fairness. Eastwood engages in a much deeper and more meaningful conversation about God and forgiveness than he did four years ago in his Oscar-winning “Million Dollar Baby.” Once again he has a long-running verbal battle with a priest, but this time the man of the cloth is a deeper character, not a proverbial punching bag like in the other film.

There’s also a lot of great stuff here about what it means to be a man, and how to take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Some of the film’s best—and funniest—scenes involve Walt teaching the young Asian boy next door how to talk, act, and fix things like a man. It’s heartwarming and charming without ever even glancing in the direction of melodrama or sap.

But, more than anything, this movie is about Eastwood, who, about to turn 80 in a few weeks, gives undoubtedly one of the best performances of his career. Walt is like an old, retired combination of all the tough guys Eastwood’s ever played, only little by little the curtain gets pulled back on what really makes him tick. He certainly has some tremendous scenes of bravado—Walt confronting three young black hoodlums on a street corner is an all-timer, including an iconic “You feelin’ lucky, punk?”-type line that I won’t spoil here (hint: It’s not “Get off my lawn!”). But those don’t come as often as you’d think from the trailer; just as compelling are the quieter, gentler, funnier moments, such as Walt’s first trip to his neighbors’ house for a barbecue.

If you want an accurate, and sad, picture of how Hollywood’s elite view America, then simply compare “Gran Torino”—completely shut out from this year’s Academy Awards—to 2005’s “Crash,” which didn’t just get nominated for Best Picture, it won the whole thing. As I wrote nearly three years ago, “Crash” does nothing but reinforce paranoid stereotypes and prop up a one-sided portrayal of racial tensions in this country. “Gran Torino,” on the other hand, takes the issue head-on. It’s not afraid to show, in equal measure, minority thugs acting like, well, thugs, as well as hard-working immigrants who want the same thing Walt does (or me, for that manner): respect and decency from their neighbors. Unlike “Crash,” the fully realized characters in “Gran Torino” are able to find common ground, which, from my own experience, is dead-on accurate. Eastwood is certainly no coward.

I’ve seen “Slumdog Millionaire.” It was a nice movie. I enjoyed it. I strongly recommend it, for that opening chase scene if nothing else. But it was just that—really good. I don’t feel an overwhelming desire to see it again, nor did it inspire enough in me to even feel a need to write about it. Faced with the other options on Oscar night, I’m glad it won, but it certainly was not the best film I saw last year.

“Gran Torino,” on the other hand, is a great movie. Not only is it better than “Slumdog” and “Crash,” it’s better than “Million Dollar Baby,” which also wasn’t just nominated, but won Best Picture in 2005.

So ask yourself this question: What does it say about Hollywood that this film, along with “The Dark Knight,” couldn’t even get nominated?

Grade: A

'Taken'

If the folks over at "24" are still contemplating a transition to the big screen, they'll have to work hard to give us something better than "Taken."

In this film, Liam Neeson plays Bryan Mills, a retired CIA operative whose daughter is kidnapped by sex traffickers while spending the summer in Paris. When she is … taken, he unleashes himself on the European underworld in a combination of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. Resourceful, brutally efficient, and relentless, Mills is like Bauer before he went all soft and PC.

A role like this could've been driven to excess by a lesser actor, but Neeson plays him with an intense understatement. Mills is not a bloodthirsty demon, but he is a man on a mission who does not suffer the dark denizens of society selling beautiful young women into slavery. If Mills has to torture and/or kill some of them to find his daughter, so be it.

Mills' interrogation techniques, of course, are part of what has liberal commentators in a tissy over this film, which has led to its overall mediocre reviews. But when even the local government is in on the take, I say, what's a superagent father to do? I don't mind seeing evil men killed.

Apparently, neither do a lot of other moviegoers. "Taken" is about to cross the $100 million mark, a total shock to the greater Hollywood community, I'm sure. But after a two-year presidential campaign full of navel gazing, maybe there are more of us out there than people think that are sick of hearing how horrible America is and are ready to see one of our guys go get some of these bastards. With his kid's life on the line, Mills certainly isn't about to spare a moment question whether these truly evil men deserve a day in court that will never come.

Look, "Taken" isn't some revelatory experience. The scenes that get us to the daughter's kidnapping are dull, and the dialogue in all non-action scenes is rather weak. There are some ridiculous action moments, of course—enough with the drive-against-traffic scenes, please!

But Neeson's performance seals the deal on this film. He's an instantly likable hero, with a clear mission and, as he says, a specific set of skills to reach his goal and save his child from a lifetime of slavery. It's a thrilling, engrossing, and breathless hour and a half at the movies.

Grade: B+

‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’

The most curious thing to me about “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is why it’s getting so much praise.

This is the type of movie that will make you think about it afterwards, but in all the wrong ways; the more you ponder it, the more it falls apart. Credit that nifty trick to screenwriter Eric Roth, who plagiarizes his own Oscar-winning material by essentially re-presenting “Forrest Gump” in a slightly different—and much lesser—format.

By now you’ve all heard in broad strokes what this film is about: Brad Pitt plays the title character, who is born with the characteristics of an old man (wrinkled skin, arthritis, etc.) while still a baby; his body ages in reverse as he grows, well, older. The story unfolds just like “Gump,” as we follow Benjamin through his life as a series of flashbacks told by a present-day narrator. Some of the experiences Benjamin encounters are straight out of Forrest’s box of chocolates:

—He’s raised by a single mother in a communal home
—He has trouble walking
—He falls in love with a girl when they’re just children, but she moves away to experience the world
—He hooks up with a surly older man who shows him the ropes while the two set out to sea on a boat; this includes his first sexual encounter (hello, Lt. Dan!)
—He becomes independently wealthy, through no real doing of his own
—And the woman he loved as a child comes back to him later in life—for awhile, anyway

I think I could even live with all this heavy Gump-lifting, but unfortunately the one element “Button” doesn’t borrow from Forrest is his heart. What made “Forrest Gump” such a triumphant film was not just the way Roth and director Robert Zemeckis worked the title character into so many historical events, but how much we ended up loving the man, and how all of his life’s events led him to what ended up mattering to him the most: his son. The best, most memorable scene in “Gump,” to me, is right at the end, when Forrest talks to his dead wife, his dearest Jenny, about their son; there is no such moment in “Benjamin Button.”

The film provides a fascinating-at-times tale that ultimately leads nowhere, other than a waterfall of tears—the final half hour is so depressingly sad, it’s like Roth wasn’t satisfied until he had exhausted every last option for twisting the knife in your heart. It comes off as all the more manipulative, though, because unlike Gump, Button leaves no legacy behind, other than pain and heartache. I got to the end of this film and wondered, “What was the point of all that?”

What props this “Curious Case” up, of course, is the exceedingly fine production, direction, and acting on display throughout from every corner. Leads Pitt and Cate Blanchett are excellent, and director David Fincher delivers the kind of arresting scenes that have defined his career and made him one of my favorite filmmakers. It is certainly an impressive feat of technical wizadry to watch Pitt age in reverse. The talent infused in this movie from everyone but the writing staff turns a deadweight D+ script into a somewhat likable film with enough high points to garner a C+ … just as long as you don't try and think too much about it along the way.

‘Hancock’

Why all the hatin’ on “Hancock”? I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it. Will Smith’s take on a half-drunk hero strikes the perfect balance between comedy, action, drama, and even a little sci-fi mixed in that all adds up to a thoroughly enjoyable 90 minutes at the multiplex.

The first half is downright hilarious, some of Smith’s best comedic work yet, and he’s been around that block a bunch of times. But unlike the moronic comedies from the likes of Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller—where they have to introduce some form of inane conflict just so their films can mercifully end—“Hancock” moves from shtick to drama so deftly you don't even notice how much you're sucked in until the movie reaches its climax. It wisely never attempts to go back to being funny, either, so the whole thing flows quite well. This works because the film’s three leads—Smith, Jason Bateman, and Charlize Theron—are so effective in making their respective characters real and relatable. Bateman especially shines, anchoring the entire operation in his droll wit and keeping the more fantastic elements you’d expect in any superhero movie somewhere in the realm of relative normalcy. And then there’s a doozy of a twist that I never saw coming, and the film takes off in a whole new direction that exposes at a deeper mythology to the whole storyline. Not all the questions are answered and the connections aren’t always exactly clear, but there’s really no need; the fact that such depth exists—if only in the filmmakers’ heads—adds credibility to the story.

So I must credit director Peter Berg (“The Kingdom,” “Friday Night Lights”) and especially screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan for keeping their film free of cheese. By establishing Hancock as such a jerk right from the get-go, they don’t have to go very far to start him on the path to redemption, and thus Smith gets to play the superanti-hero just about the entire time.

The only thing I can figure regarding the overwhelmingly negative critical reaction to this film is that they all went way too easy this time last year on “Transformers” and wanted to “redeem” themselves for Independence Day 2008 by cracking down on another surefire crowd-pleaser. The only thing is, they’re wrong again: “Hancock” is a delight. I enjoyed it every bit as much as “Iron Man”—in some ways, even more.

Grade: B+

The National: ‘A Skin, A Night’

Since I caught their set at Messiah College, I’ve been listening to The National obsessively for the better part of the past two months. The band’s most recent album, 2007’s “Boxer,” has been particularly high in the rotation, so imagine my excitement upon sitting down to watch “A Skin, A Night,” a documentary filmed during the recording of that instant classic.

I couldn’t help but have high expectations: I was thinking somewhere along the lines of the Wilco film “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart,” where filmmaker Sam Jones was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time as the band recorded its landmark “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot”; or at least I would get something akin to Pearl Jam’s 1998 mini-documentary “Single Video Theory,” which chronicled the writing process for their stellar 1998 effort, “Yield.”

“A Skin, A Night” is neither of those two things. Not even close. In short: It’s a stunning disappointment. First-time director Vincent Moon delivers the most clichéd piece of moody art-school trash you can imagine. Painfully long shots of musicians noodling aimlessly on their instruments with no context are broken up only by even more painful long shots of stereotypically mopey images of subway trains or cityscapes. You’d think it would be impossible for a film only an hour long to have any fluff, but “A Skin, A Night” is filled almost entirely with expendable scenes. The only rationale I can think of for this type of work is an attempt by Moon to capture in film what The National do with music: belying specifics in favor of weaving together pieces of images and letting the audience decide its meaning for themselves. It works for the band, but definitely not for the movie.

I learned almost nothing about The National or their process from this film. There are a few scattered scenes of frontman Matt Berninger working on and discussing the lyrics for “Green Gloves,” but even that storyline is never brought to a close. At one point, one of the band members mentions offscreen how sometimes they’ll work and work on a song and something will then just “click,” and will come together in a flash; you’d think a moment like that would find its way into the film, but, sadly, no. There’s not even any investigation into the motivations and inspirations behind “Boxer.” One member of the band mentions late in the going how this could be a landmark period in the group’s career; that statement obviously proved true after the album came out, but the film ignores it.

“A Skin, A Night” is a massive failure due to such a glaring missed opportunity. I gained much more insight on the band from this 20-minute NPR interview (which I highly recommend) than from this entire film. The only thing that remotely saved the movie was, of course, the music, but there’s not even that much live material included here, either. “A Skin, A Night” disappoints in basically every possible way.

Grade: D


On a side note, the saving grace of this DVD is that it comes packaged with a new batch of material from The National. Dubbed “The Virginia EP,” it’s actually no EP at all, clocking in at 45 minutes. It has several new songs, several more excellent demos (including an early version of one of my faves, “Slow Show”), and a few great live cuts. The best of the latter is the band’s amazing cover of Bruce Springsteen’s “Mansion On the Hill” (I like their version better than Bruce’s!). The DVD/CD combo is only $15 on Amazon, so the CD alone is worth the price. And, who knows, maybe you go in for the art-school schlock this film offers.

‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’

The new “Indiana Jones” installment (no, I’m not typing that unwieldy title again), is the kind of movie I need to see twice before making final judgment. Much like George Lucas’ other long-awaited project, 1999’s “Star Wars: Episode 1—The Phantom Menace” (what is it with this guy and bad monikers?), “Indy 4” has a veritable Molotov cocktail of insanely high expectations and longstanding goodwill. As a result, there’s no way after a nearly two-decade wait this movie could possibly live up to the hype; and, by the same token, Indy fans (like me) are probably willing—on first viewing—to overlook various disappointments because they (and I) are so glad to have their beloved haymaker-throwing archaeologist back in action.

I remember walking out of “The Phantom Menace” almost exactly nine years ago to the day and thinking I liked it, having been dazzled by all that updated lightsaber technique and what not. It wasn’t until the third viewing (yes, I’m ashamed to have seen it thrice in the theaters) that all the excitement finally ebbed and I realized what an awful train-wreck of a movie “Menace” truly is.

I don’t think the same will happen with “Indy 4,” but I doubt I’ll come back to this movie very often, either, the way I do its three predecessors. There were definitely highlights, but most of those were—like “Phantom Menace”—action driven. To be sure, director Steven Spielberg hasn’t lost his touch for delivering the goods on a good ol’ fashioned chase sequence. There are plenty in “Indy 4,” and they’re all basically spectacular.

But it’s the stuff in between and around those romps that leaves me wanting more. Spielberg and Lucas made absolutely the right choice by not trying to fake Indy’s age; the plot of “Crystal Skull” takes place 19 years after the events in the franchise’s last installment, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.” But the showrunners don’t take that premise far enough—Jones’ age is only dealt with in sidelong glances. Early in the film, young co-star Shia LeBeouf’s Mutt asks Indy: “What are you, 80?” It’s a good line, and it gets a good laugh, but all is seemingly forgotten a few minutes later when Jones delivers a few nice punches and jumps from a moving motorcycle into a moving car. And even though Harrison Ford more than holds his own in these action scenes, the gutsier and more satisfying choice would have examined what it’s like for a fading hero to face his own physical limitations. That's a movie I'll watch more than once.

Matter of fact, it’s ironic that for a character so beloved, “Crystal Skull” doesn’t focus on him much at all. The central plot is so convoluted, Indy is forced to basically float from place to place so the script can do its heavy lifting and unravel the knot of a mystery that never really makes much sense. As a result, there are at times long stretches between action sequences with little more going on than characters standing around delivering expository dialogue—more precious character-developing screen time wasted. For his part, Ford seems torn between two ways of portraying Indy: he vacillates between the cynical world-weary stud who’s seen and done it all, and the old guy who doesn’t understand what the next generation of young whipper-snappers is all about.

All this is not to say I didn’t like “Indy 4,” because I did. LeBeouf is downright terrific in his role of a young greaser who enlists Jones’ help to find his kidnapped mother; the budding star injects some needed energy into the film, and he and Ford work quite well together. Despite his struggles in search of the correct Indy tone, Ford in spots reminds us all over again why we love Indiana Jones with his wisecracks and whip smacks. It’s a fun day out at the movies, with some laughs, some gasps, and some moments to cheer.

It’s just a shame that after so many years and so much wrangling over a story, somewhere along the line Lucas and Spielberg cut the heart out of their hero.

Grade: B-

'Iron Man'

For awhile there, I was ready to declare “Iron Man” one of the best comic-book-to-film adaptations of all time. Up until the last 15 minutes or so, that is, when apparently director Jon Favreau had his brain momentarily replaced by Michael Bay’s.

See, what makes this movie great is exactly what you’ve heard—and exactly what continues to push the movie’s box office receipts higher than anyone anticipated: Robert Downey Jr. gives a splendidly refreshing performance, anchoring a film that’s witty, funny, sarcastic, emotional, and thrilling. All that goes out the window, though, in the climax as Downey’s Tony Stark (dressed in the metal duds of the title character) fights the film’s villain (to give that away here would be spoiling too much); the battle royale is schlocky, chunky, cheesy, mindless, witless, and so filled with clichés and awful dialogue, I wondered how the same people who crafted such a wonderful movie to that point could have produced such drivel.

The ability to close a film with style and class is one of the characteristics that defines greatness in this genre (along with picking the right actor for the hero). Anybody can have two heavyweights go at it and blow a bunch of holes in each other and their surroundings. But the two prime examples of how to do it right begin and end with two sequels, “Superman II” and “Spider-Man 2,” where the heroes had to use as much brains as brawn to defeat their enemies; these two films had the guts to turn the action down a bit at the end, rather than ramping it up to ridiculous levels. “Iron Man” is without question a cut above the rest, but it's rather ironic that a story with one of the smartest superheroes in the canon could get so stupid so quickly.

But all that's not to say there isn't plenty to love about this movie. Like most of the genre’s biggest hits of the past decade, “Iron Man” is an origin story, and all credit goes to Favreau and crew for doing essentially the same movie we’ve seen over and over again (“Spider-Man,” “Batman Begins,” “Daredevil,” etc.), and still making it look and feel fresh. Of course, so much of that is keyed off the casting of Downey, who brings as much of his wit and roguish charm to this big-budget actioner as he has to so many of his more subtle roles in the past. He’s funny and heroic, yet not entirely likeable in all the right ways.

And much credit also should go to the special-effects folks at Industrial Light & Magic; though I was a bit wary of the footage released in the trailers, when Iron Man’s movements are put into context of the overall film, his presence is downright flawless. Downey’s first forays into the suit’s abilities are some of the most exciting moments in any comic-book movie I’ve seen, certainly rivaling Tobey Maguire’s work as Peter Parker and Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne in similar plots/films.

So, in the end, “Iron Man” is one of those increasingly rare treats: An action/adventure flick actually deserving of the term "blockbuster."

Grade: B+

I’ve Been Watching a Lot of DVDs Lately …

… what with the writers’ strike and all. I’m surprised to realize I haven’t missed TV at all, but then again it’s only January. We don’t typically get a lot of new material until February, anyway, so thus far the hiatus feels rather normal. A few more months of this could get really old, especially if we only get eight episodes of “Lost” instead of the originally scheduled 16.

The strike has allowed me to catch up on some movies, at least, so here’s a roundup of what’s been in my DVD player recently:

“The Game Plan”
I absolutely loved Dwayne Johnson when he was layin’ the smack down in the WWE as The Rock—he’s my favorite (and best) professional wrestler of all time. All that goodwill and Johnson’s natural charisma are the only things that got me through this clunker. There are a few funny scenes, but overall it’s as painful as a quarterback sack. I cannot believe it took three people to write this. It’s like “Three Men and a Baby” with about 3 percent of the laughs.
Grade: C-
(If you want a movie from the same genre that gets everything right, I recommend “Enchanted,” especially for a glowing performance from Amy Adams that will leave you smiling long after the credits roll.)

“Hellboy”
Finally got around to seeing what has been called one of the best comic book adaptations of all time. I certainly wouldn’t agree with that assessment, but it’s an enjoyable ride for the most part. Ron Perlman is amazing as the big red title character, but writer/director Guillermo del Toro loses his way in the oversized final act; “Hellboy” gets away from the wit and sarcasm it does best while trying to wrap up the nearly incomprehensible plot.
Grade: B

“Knocked Up”
The rare movie that lives up to the hype. Basically a pitch-perfect comedy, but too many raunchy elements to recommend to any and all. Still, Katherine Heigl made a fan out of me, and writer/director Judd Apatow manages to deliver a heartfelt message (and even somewhat wholesome, from a certain point of view) without succumbing to cliché.
Grade: A-

“Pan’s Labyrinth”
Once again, Guillermo del Toro doesn’t quite live up to the hype. One of the best reviewed movies of 2006 didn’t bowl me over the way I was expecting (I remember hearing phrases bandied about like “a reimagining of the fairy tale” or some such thing). “Labyrinth” is really good, but it didn’t leave me pinned to my seat or even that emotionally engaged. A nice story, to be sure, and well done, just not the monumental experience I was hoping for. Perhaps that’s not del Toro’s fault, but such are the times.
Grade: B+

“Reign Over Me”
An interesting premise makes for a better trailer than an actual movie in this case. Don Cheadle and especially Adam Sandler make much more out of their roles than what’s on the page in a wandering and over-sentimental script. Sandler gives his best performance since “Punch-Drunk Love,” but his good work goes to waste by the time we enter one of the worst courtroom scenes you’re likely to see. Throw in some pat personal revelations for Cheadle’s character and a failed attempt at import via a forced impassioned soundtrack, and “Reign Over Me” comes up feeling more scattershot than Sandler’s character.
Grade: C+

“Superbad”
Knockdown hysterical for the first half-hour or so, but this one wore out its welcome pretty fast. Jonah Hill maintains only the same squealing pitch throughout, and he begins to grate soon after the convenience store gets robbed. And it just so happens that scene ushers in Seth Rogen and Bill Hader as two bumbling police officers who also have way too much screen time. Thank goodness for Michael Cera.
Grade: B-

“Waitress”
Quirky, funny, and generally heartwarming, with great performances all around, especially from Andy Griffith in an Oscar-worthy turn as a curmudgeon with a soft heart. The only thing that kept me from loving this movie is the fact that it centers around two otherwise lovable characters engaging in an extra-marital affair; it’s hard to root for adultery. Overall, though, “Waitress” was the first in a trilogy of excellent I’m-keeping-the-baby movies in 2007.
Grade: A-

'No Country for Old Men'

Your reaction to the Coen brothers’ latest movie, “No Country for Old Men,” will probably depend on what type of movie watcher you are.

If you’re the type that watches primarily for aesthetic reasons, you’ll absolutely love this film. The Coens have delivered a work that’s beautifully done in all the major categories: acting, directing, writing, and cinematography. Most critics fall into this first group, of course, which is why “No Country” has received such high praise; they watch so, so many movies, anything that’s made this well will always strike a chord, no matter if it’s missing little things like resolution or satisfactory conclusion (that actually helps get good reviews—the weirder the better, typically).

See, those last two are what your average moviegoer wants, and they’ll find none of it in “No Country for Old Men.” It’s impossible to tell why without spoiling the story, but I’ll just say that this movie does an exceedingly good job of building tension to an almost unbearable level, and then that tension is released off screen. It’s a complete letdown that leaves the remainder of Act 3 a complete wandering mess.

As a viewer, I’m somewhere between the above two categories. For the first two-thirds of this movie, I was in awe of how well it was done and excited to be seeing another good Western this fall (albeit a modern version) where even the sounds of footfalls in the dirt feel significant. Every major character is portrayed with quiet, flawless precision by a roster of actors that could legitimately earn multiple Oscar nods: Tommy Lee Jones has never looked more weatherworn than he does here as a small-town Texas sheriff; Josh Brolin (you remember him, the older brother from “The Goonies”?) is pitch-perfect as a Vietnam vet taking a desperate shot at the brass ring when a drug deal goes bad and leaves $2 million up for grabs; Javier Bardem (pictured above) is magnetic and terrifying as the mercenary hired to hunt down Brolin; and Woody Harrelson saunters onscreen for a casually cool cameo not to be missed.

But all this pristinely captured sound and fury ends up signifying nothing. I get what the Coens are trying to say—that this is a brutal, violent world that beats you down the older you get, and that brutal violence can come from anywhere, especially when you’re not looking for it. That message isn’t strong enough, though, to make up for an ending so unsatisfying it probably makes David Chase jealous.

Grade: B-

‘American Gangster’

Since seeing this movie last weekend, I’ve been through one of the toughest work weeks of my life. Thus, I’m a little worse for wear and severely lacking in the eloquence this fabulous film deserves.

So let me just say this is the best movie I’ve seen this year. Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe are absolutely phenomenal; both play their characters down a bit, an excellent choice in a genre that lends itself to excess (it would have been easy for Washington to go into “Scarface” territory). Director Ridley Scott takes his time in letting his epic’s deep and complicated storylines play out. This movie never rushes, and yet it never drags, even at 157 minutes long.

“American Gangster” doesn’t make the crime life look sexy, nor does it lionize law enforcement officers. Both sides of the drug war are treated fairly and with depth. Oh, and the music is fabulous.

It’s a shame this film comes on the heels of last year’s Oscar-winning “The Departed,” because “Gangster” is actually better but probably won’t get the recognition it deserves due to stupid Academy politics.

Grade: A

‘3:10 to Yuma’

“3:10 to Yuma” is just about everything you could hope for in a movie.
It’s a throwback Western of the best kind, without any of the “modernization” or “reinvention” or any of the other buzzwords Hollywood likes to throw around. And, most importantly, it’s apparently one of the rare dramas this fall not steeped in political statements.
It’s simply the story of two men trying to make the best of the bad cards they’ve been dealt by a hard, cruel world. Dan Evans (Christian Bale)—a Civil War veteran, rancher, husband, and father of two boys—went the way of the straight and narrow, working his small tract of Arizona farmland for all he’s worth (which, apparently, isn’t much). And then there’s Ben Wade (Russell Crowe): A gunslinging robber of stage coaches and killer of men whose wit is just as fast as his draw. In short: A legendary outlaw.
The movie pits these two archetypes against one another in a struggle for freedom—Wade fighting the quite real manacles of the law, Evans fighting for financial independence. See, it’s Evans’ job to get Wade on the 3:10 train to Yuma so the latter can rejoin his fellow cons in prison. If Evans succeeds, he’ll be paid a handsome sum that will ease his financial woes and give his beloved family a big boost toward a better life. The only thing standing between him and that train, of course, is Wade’s gang, a half dozen of the most dangerous and deadly animals in the West.
The best part about this movie is its two leading men. I can think of no better marquee actors working today than Crowe and Bale; both utterly disappear into their characters, a rare ability for stars of their stature. The great thing about “Yuma” is that the two are on screen together almost the entire time, and the way they work off each other is something to behold. I hope there are more projects involving Crowe and Bale in the future—for once the rambunctious Aussie may have met his match.
“3:10 to Yuma” hit theaters almost 50 years to the day of the original 1957 film, which was based on a story by legendary crime novelist Elmore Leonard. This masterful update is directed by James Mangold, who is on some kinda roll after 2005’s spectacular Johnny Cash biopic “Walk the Line.” Like he showed in that film, Mangold knows how to get out of the way and let his actors work. His direction in “Yuma” is simple yet elegant, with sweeping scenescapes that establish the film’s dusty, wide-open feel without trying too hard. He and screenwriter Michael Brandt strike just the right balance between gunfights and character development. There’s plenty of action to keep you on the edge of your seat, but the movie unfolds at a perfect pace allowing multiple revelations about its characters. Evans and Wade certainly don’t end this movie in the same place they started—and I’m not talking about all the Southwestern terrain they cover on horseback.
I don’t really have any objections to speak of with this film, other than maybe the lead characters dodge a few too many bullets to be believed (but, hey, this is a Western, after all). My only other “problem” with it isn’t really a problem at all as much as an unfulfilled expectation, as “Yuma” never quite hit that extra gear the way I hoped it would—it didn’t bewitch me body and soul, to quote one of my favorite films of the past couple years.
Still, I can’t recommend “3:10 to Yuma” highly enough, especially for anyone longing for a good ol’ fashioned Western. This is one of the best movies I’ve seen all year.
Grade: A-

Armchair Box Office Quarterbacking Isn’t for Everyone

Including me. Back in January I took a stab at predicting this summer’s box office totals and came up almost completely wrong through and through. In review, here are a few things I learned:

1. “Spider-Man 3” benefited more than I expected from being first out of the gate.
2. It seems ridiculous that $300 million-plus is somewhat disappointing for “Pirates 3,” but Disney might have been better served leaving the final (?) installment on the shelf for another year to let demand build a bit.
3. Michael Bay is the luckiest director in Hollywood. I gave “Transformers” a B- right after I saw it, but upon further reflection that was probably too high. Bay really trashed those characters and the movie was a C+ at best (yes, in my mind there’s a big difference between those two grades). He did, however, manage to ride Gen-X nostalgia, good trailers, a midweek Fourth of July holiday (which basically meant a full week that acted like a weekend), and generally positive we’re-just-glad-it’s-not-a-sequel reviews like mine to a monster payday. No one—and I mean NO ONE—thought just four months ago that this movie would best “At World’s End” by summer’s end. It’s still a mystery to me.
4. Even Pixar can’t make rats that cute. I’m still a bit stunned, though, that “Ratatouille” is having to scratch and claw its way to $200 million—the studio's lowest domestic gross in nearly a decade (1998's "A Bug's Life" made $162 million). It will be interesting to see if Pixar changes course at all in the future because of this.
5. People will come. Sequel fatigue and a crowded schedule may have hampered the end runs of several movies, but the opening weekends were still gigantic right through to the end. The fact that “Simpsons” and “Bourne” both raked in $70 million to open was surprising; I thought the moviegoing public might be worn out by then, but the films were good and people love the respective characters.

All in all, summer 2007 was excellent as summers go. I went to the theater more in the past four months than I probably had in the previous year and a half—and not out of some sort of pop-cultural obligation, but because I actually—shockingly—wanted to see these flicks (well, except for “Fantastic Four,” but even that was still a fun 90 minutes). And I didn’t even get to “Die Hard” or “Rescue Dawn”!

So here’s how my summer shook out, in order of preference (click on the titles to read my reviews):

1. “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”—This movie had it all.
2. “The Bourne Ultimatum”—James Bond may be reinventing himself, but he can’t hold a candle to Jason Bourne. Paul Greengrass delivered yet another excellent film that cements the Bourne trilogy as one of the best in movie history—forget limiting it to just the spy genre. The car chases got all the hype, but my favorite scene was the close-quarters fight in the Tangiers hotel; it’s arguably the best combat sequence I’ve ever seen. Damon was once again perfect (and Oscar-worthy, even though that will never happen) and the script kept me leaned forward and engaged all the way through as it seamlessly weaved the conclusion in and around the first two movies (impressive considering it was composed almost on the fly). I had two complaints: David Strathaim’s CIA administrator was too much of a cliché (with some painful lines of dialogue, to boot), and the conclusion was a tad underwhelming and politically jingoistic after three movies’ worth of buildup. It’s not that I didn’t like the final reveal (even if it does make America look like the bad guy—what else is new?), but it wasn’t handled with the same deft dexterity as the rest of the film. What a shock: A message overwhelming the craft. Still, “Ultimatum” is the epitome of what an action thriller can and should be. Grade: A-
3. “Ratatouille”—Brad Bird rules. Much funnier and eye-popping than even I expected.
4. “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”—Screw the whiny critics who couldn’t follow along. This movie was gutsy and glam all at the same time.
5. “Spider-Man 3”—The rare occasion where superb action sequences make up for a wordy script.
6. “The Simpsons Movie”—The fact that this movie even made it to the big screen amidst the enormous pressure put on the writers is an achievement in and of itself. The fact that it’s flat-out hysterical is truly something. I guess those who haven’t seen it by now aren’t likely to anytime soon, but I still don’t want to give anything away—there’s even a laugh-out-loud joke before the movie even begins. The movie’s sizeable central flaw was the lack of screen time for key supporting characters. I realize Springfield is populated with literally dozens of fan-favorites, but you have to figure out a way to get Mr. Burns and Ralph Wiggum more than one or two lines apiece. You just have to. Still, there are so many jokes packed into this film’s 90 minutes I’ll probably have to watch it two or three more times to catch even most of them. Grade: B+
7. “Ocean’s Thirteen”—Matt Damon had a great summer. Thankfully he and his boys seemed to do more actual work this time around than partying.
8. “Transformers”—See above. Please let someone else direct the sequel. Michael Bay doesn’t even like these characters.
9. “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer”—Better and funnier than I expected.

It’s sure going to be hard for Hollywood to top itself next summer, but hopefully the studios will space tent poles out a little more to give us all a little breathing room. Then again, this summer is probably going to be the most lucrative on record and next year we’re due for the return of Indy, Batman, and the kids from Narnia, so you can always count on Hollywood to run something into the ground—this time it may be the ticket-buying public.