REVIEW: The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games (2012): Dir. Gary Ross. Written by Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray. Based on the novel by Suzanne Collins. Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland and Wes Bentley. Rated PG-13 (Surprisingly gruesome violence). Running time: 142 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)
 

“May the odds be ever in your favor.” This sentence gets tossed around a lot (probably a few too many times) in The Hunger Games, an adaptation of the immensely popular young adult novel written by Suzanne Collins that is smarter than your average teen craze. The irony of this eloquent bit of well-wishing is that the odds are illusory. Very little is left to chance in the battle-to-the-death blood sport that gives the movie its title. The shadowy figures who host the gruesome Hunger Games, a hybrid of Battle Royale and American Idol, carefully tweak their tournament to appease the masses that watch it on live TV.

Katniss Everdeen (played with unflinching stoicism by Jennifer Lawrence) is a teenage resident of the dystopian world, Panem, which is made up of a dozen districts and controlled by aristocrats in the wealthy capital. Some years earlier, an uprising was quelled by the government and as part of the rebels’ punishment an annual tournament began. Every year, two children from each district between the ages of twelve and eighteen – a boy and a girl – are selected at random to participate in a televised fight to the death. What the winner receives for coming out alive is never entirely clear, though there are vague promises of riches and luxury and (presumably) food to bring back to their famished home district.

When Katniss’s young sister (Willow Shields) is chosen for this year’s Games, Katniss volunteers to go in her place, an unprecedented move. She departs on the next high-speed train to the capital, leaving behind a handsome, platonic pal, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), whose clean-shaven face and impeccable hair suggest a Herculean devotion to personal grooming in the coal-mining town of District 12.

Accompanying her is Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), a less dashing but no less sensitive young man and District 12’s male entry. On their way to the capital, Katniss and Peeta meet Effie (a wonderful Elizabeth Banks), an enthusiast of the Games who is apparently oblivious to their lethal consequences, and Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a whisky drinking former winner of the Games who mentors the kids on survival tactics.

Filling out an overcrowded supporting cast is Wes Bentley as Seneca Crane, the sinister producer of the Games; Donald Sutherland, the President of this Orwellian world to whom Crane answers; and a lively, blue-haired Stanley Tucci who provides commentary for the Games’ telecast. Lenny Kravitz also shows up in an extraneous role as the kids’ fashion designer.

There are a lot of characters in The Hunger Games and quite a few things to look at (including some beautiful photography from cinematographer Tom Stern), but it is Jennifer Lawrence who commands our attention. Ms. Lawrence, who has hop-skipped her way from obscurity to super stardom in less than two years, is a forceful actress who imbues Katniss with quiet intensity and dogged perseverance. She takes this character every bit as serious as her role in the 2010 indie noir Winter’s Bone, which earned her an Oscar nomination.

That is not to say The Hunger Games is a trivial tween fad. The fact that the violence (which we see in quick, suggestive cuts) is broadcast via hidden cameras for all of Panem to watch adds a fascinating, self-referential element to the film. Not only will Katniss need to be skilled with a knife and a bow, and be able to build a shelter and secure clean water; she will also have to win the affection of the viewers at home, some of whom are “sponsors” with the ability to send their favorite contestant valuable care packages of medicine and food.

So winning the tournament is less a testament to one’s strength and endurance than one’s ability to ham it up for the camera. Haymitch encourages Katniss and Peeta to play up a star-crossed romance between them in the hopes that this backstory may score a few sponsors.

The Hunger Games cherry-picks successful elements from other recent young adult fantasy novel adaptations – the tournament from the fourth Harry Potter, the love triangle from Twilight – but the live TV twist makes the movie more than another studio cash-grab vying for teen girl fandom.

In Twilight, a girl is torn between two young men and her decision takes four books (and five movies). In The Hunger Games, a girl who already has a thing for one guy falls for a second because her survival, both in context of the story and as a character in the franchise, depends on it. Author Suzanne Collins knows just as well as Haymitch the assured marketing power of a good teenage romance. The odds were in this movie’s favor the whole time.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/29/12

REVIEW: 21 Jump Street

21 Jump Street (2012): Directed by: Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Written by: Michael Bacall. Story by: Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall. Based on the TV show created by: Patrick Hasburgh and Stephen J. Cannell. Rated R (Non-stop vulgarities and some graphic, comic violence). Running time: 109 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

21 Jump Street has nothing to do with the late-1980s TV show, 21 Jump Street, except, of course, such trivial commonalities as their title and premise. Such is the state of Hollywood today. Stories are bought like brand names and sold anew to audiences. Sometimes these recycled ideas are marketed under the guise of an “update” or a “reimagining” and sometimes, as is the case here, they actually come clean about their motives.

In a self-referential speech early in 21 Jump Street (the movie, now), a police captain (Nick Offerman) informs two doofy, slacker bike cops that his superiors are talentless, uncreative hacks who have dusted off an old project from the 80s. They will go undercover as high school seniors and befriend student drug dealers in order to learn the identity of the supplier of a new synthetic drug.

A scene later, Ice Cube stomps onscreen playing the sting operation’s chief officer. He announces that, yes, he is an angry black man and that that is a stereotype and so what? He proceeds to point out to more stereotypes from the group of young officers who stand before him: the brawny, handsome dunce, Greg (Channing Tatum), and the short, insecure, brainy Morton (Jonah Hill).

So 21 Jump Street is quite upfront about its intentions, which suits me just fine, having never seen the TV show and feeling no particular reverence toward it. The movie preemptively dismisses criticisms that it is lazy or politically incorrect and sets out to make as many race and gay jokes, and score as many raunchy laughs as possible.

To the film’s credit, it is decently, if only intermittently, funny and I found it hard to hate its Will Do Anything For a Laugh attitude. The movie skips along as a series of just barely linked sketches and achieves its low ambitions.

Jonah Hill, who has convincingly transitioned from husky sidekick to the yammering, neurotic Michael Cera type he once played opposite to, is as good at physical comedy as he is fast-paced banter. But the movie’s secret weapon is Channing Tatum. Mr. Tatum wears his good looks with a shrug and believably embodies that charming high school jock who could get you to laugh at any joke, no matter how mean or dumb the punchline.

But his Greg, a former football captain, runs into trouble when he finds that high school cliques are not what they used to be and that the social hierarchy no longer rewards rowdy intolerance. The current batch of students is an eco-conscious bunch of Tweeters and their definition of “cool” is something more like “hip.”  This neat, little twist benefits the once-nerd Morton, and Greg finds himself on the outskirts of popularity.

The movie, directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, and written by Michael Bacall (he and Mr. Hill are credited with its story), relishes in subverting what expectations we may have of buddy cop movies, high school comedies or a decades-old TV show. For all its flaunting of the rules though, 21 Jump Street rarely does anything risky. Greg and Morton fall out of friendship so that they may fall back into it and their jobs are put at risk so that they may win them back again.

The movie loses steam as it plods through these weary clichés, though it does get another big laugh from a predictable (but still surprising) cameo late in the game. There are still twenty minutes after this irreverent jab but nothing else tops it, not even one last, disgusting gag that aims for the Gross-Out Hall of Fame but, for me, felt like it was trying too hard. Sometimes even the captain of the football team tells a joke that falls flat.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/20/12

Revisiting Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980): Dir. Irvin Kershner. Written by: Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kadan. Story by: George Lucas. Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Billy Dee Williams. Rated PG (A severed hand and some questionable father-son bonding). Running time: 124 minutes.

4 stars (out of four)

The Empire Strikes Back takes a good thing and makes it great. A select few sequels are able to pull this trick off. Whereas the first film is typically burdened by necessary but cumbersome tasks like introducing characters and establishing setting, a sequel has the opportunity to use its predecessor as a launching pad, a base with which the audience is already familiar, and take off in bold, new directions.

This particular sequel is fortunate enough to have been given a whole universe to play with and freely invents new worlds for its characters to visit and subsequently blast the heck out of. The planet-hopping begins on an ice world called Hoth where the film’s first act takes place. There, Luke (Mark Hamill), Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Han (Harrison Ford) hide from the Empire in a secret base with their Rebel Alliance buddies.

The opening sequence concludes with a spectacularly exciting ground battle in which the Rebels just barely escape extermination. (The Empire’s small army of four-legged, mechanical colossuses is a highlight.) The gang is forced to split up and from here the movie follows two main narrative threads. Luke looks to further his Jedi training by seeking out a wise, old master named Yoda in the remote swamps of Dagobah. Meanwhile, Han and Leia, along with furry first mate Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and C-3PO, the pesky cyborg with a British accent, navigate the dangers of deep space after a close call with Imperial ships.

In a number of scenes, the film adopts a dark, grungy sci-fi style reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s Alien, released in 1979, one year before Empire. The Rebel base on Hoth has the look of a hastily built safe house – stray wires and power generators are all over the place – and maintenance on Han Solo’s prized ship, the Millennium Falcon, involves tinkering behind wall panels with a rusty box of tools.

These sets – along with the perpetually overcast and bat-infested marshes of Dagobah; the cold, metallic interiors of the Imperial Star Destroyers; and the industrial inner workings of Cloud City where the climactic battle between Luke and Darth Vader takes place – flesh out the Star Wars universe and reveal it to be an expansive place that is not necessarily always pretty.

Director Irvin Kershner and cinematographer Peter Suschitzky shoot these locations in a way that suggests much more of these worlds exists beyond the frame. A number of the fancier set pieces are filmed with a large depth of field, which allows several layers of background activity to be seen in a single shot. What was likely a limited set becomes bustling with life and action. There is always something interesting to look at in this film.

The movie’s success does not rest solely on its visual style though. The script, written by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan from a story by George Lucas, is more sophisticated than the first Star Wars. There are gray areas between good and evil, and independent agents such as Han’s dashing pal Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), who picks neither side in the war and acts in his own best interest. But none of the darkness or complexity of the film dampens its sense of whimsy. Even in the face of the dark and ominous power of the Empire, the adventures of our plucky heroes remain lighthearted.

The romance between Han and Leia adds a new wrinkle of human interest. The flirtatious banter between Mr. Ford and Ms. Fisher could be from an old Hollywood romantic comedy; the wit and rhythm of their dialogue recalls that of Bogart and Bacall:

Han: “Come on, admit it, sometimes you think I’m all right.”

Leia: “Occasionally. Maybe. When you aren’t acting like a scoundrel.”

“Scoundrel? …Scoundrel? …I like the sound of that.”

“Stop that.”

“Stop what?”

“Stop that. My hands are dirty.”

“My hands are dirty too. What are you afraid of?”

“Afraid?”

“You’re trembling.”

“I’m not trembling.”

“You like me because I’m a scoundrel. There aren’t enough scoundrels in your life.”

“I happen to like nice men.”

“I’m a nice man.”

“No you’re not. You’re—”

They kiss.

The Empire Strikes Back is blockbuster filmmaking at its finest, full of explosions and excitement but also crafted with care. Far too many of today’s summer heavy-hitters seem to be going through the multi-million dollar motions only for the box office. What a shame. Here is a movie that does not take its profits for granted (and given the success of Star Wars, it most certainly could have) and instead sets a high water mark for quality in big budget action movies.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/20/12

REVIEW: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

Dr. Seuss' The Lorax (2012): Directed by: Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda. Written by: Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul. Featuring the voices of: Danny DeVito, Zac Efron, Taylor Swift and Ed Helms. Rated PG (Corporate greed in a town called Thneed). Running time: 95 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

The people of Thneed-Ville think they have it pretty good. They live in a bright, cheerful town where everything is plastic and, in all superficial ways, perfect. Plants are artificial and trees double as street lamps. Lawns appear to be impeccably manicured but are in fact as smooth as Tupperware. Skies are blue and neighbors skip along with smiles on their faces as the “O’Hare man” goes door-to-door delivering jugs of fresh, clean, O-Hare brand air to every home.

In Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, a computer-animated environmental parable based on the good doctor’s book, one young resident of Thneed-Ville begins to question the manufactured harmony of his hometown. The film is the second animated feature from Universal’s Illumination Entertainment following the 2010 hit, Despicable Me. Directed by Chris Renaud (who also co-directed Despicable Me) and Kyle Balda, The Lorax is a relentlessly energetic kids’ movie that claims a certain reverence for its source material but perhaps is more focused on other matters.

The young Ted (voiced by Zac Efron) never thought twice about the way things were until an older girl he has a crush on, Audrey (Taylor Swift), opens his eyes to a bygone era when things grew from the ground. More than anything in the world, Audrey, whose tall, slim figure resembles that of a tree, would like to see a real tree, which, in the drawings of Dr. Seuss, are long sticks topped with wispy, colorful cotton balls.

Ted, ever the romantic, sets out to find one and his search begins by paying a visit to the Once-Ler, a mythic recluse who lives in the gray, polluted countryside beyond the walls of Thneed-Ville. The Once-Ler (Ed Helms) tells Ted the story of how he destroyed what was once a beautiful forest in the name of industry and met an orange fuzzball named the Lorax (a well-cast Danny DeVito), who speaks on the trees’ behalf. Though his own past errors cannot be changed, the Once-Ler reminds young Ted that it may not be too late for him.

In a way, Thneedville is a sort of version of the synthetic bliss found on the spaceship that was home to many bloated, complacent humans in Pixar’s Wall-E. But if The Lorax is a thematic cousin to Wall-E’s environmentalism, it is also the absolute antithesis of that film’s patient, thoughtful approach. Illumination Entertainment has perfected the style of their first feature in this one, which is less concerned with storytelling than it is with making sure none of its young audience members get bored.

Their method is admittedly effective. I saw the movie in a packed house of mostly children and their parents, and the kids laughed at all the right times. A lot of grinning animals pop up onscreen (and sometimes at you in 3D), usually accompanied by a funny noise or musical cue and the unexpected excitement always got a big response. The movie pulls this trick a lot, though. There is a sudden or surprising change in tone – a low baritone at the end of a high-pitched chorus of singing fish, a goofy look among a line of straight faces – a very calculated approach to comedy that rarely got anything more than a begrudging smile out of this Grinch.

But overstimulation is not the same as wonder and sensory bombardment is not the same as imagination. If The Lorax preaches a positive message about preserving nature, it also misses another, crucial message: Change does not come quickly and people are not easily swayed from their ways, an idea that does not mesh well with this movie’s hyper-active, low attention span antics.

Maybe subtlety is not the best way to discuss saving the environment, though, especially if that moral is being targeted at children. And what better way to deliver a heavy-handed, didactic message than with a colorful, zippy piece of kids’ entertainment. Of course, there is another, better way to deliver that message: the book. But I must concede that this movie does what it sets out to do very well. Still, I can’t shake the feeling that somewhere in Thneed-Ville is a movie theater showing Despicable Me 3 to a wide-eyed and satisfied crowd of kids.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/7/12

Revisiting Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977): Written and directed by George Lucas. Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness. Rated PG (Mild scum and villainy). Running time: 121 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

Imagine reading the opening crawl of Star Wars for the first time. A strangely worded, yellow text drifts upward and fades into the stars. It references a war, a princess, an evil empire and a DEATH STAR (inexplicably capitalized) and the whole thing sounds like more than you’ve bargained for. But, really, how can you be expected to focus on flying words when music like this playing underneath them? Trumpets and strings and timpani! All that nonsense about a hidden base and stolen plans was a bit discouraging but it’s hard to resist the triumphant pomp of the score so, okay, for now, you bite.

The movie quickly recovers from a risky opening with a stunning first image and any hesitation you may have felt is rendered irrelevant. The camera pans downward to reveal a single planet floating among the stars. The camera continues to pan and you see a second, larger planet. Then another, the biggest yet, enters the frame and a spaceship soars, apparently from behind you, onto the screen. And just when you’re starting to think, “You know, maybe this movie will be kind of cool after all,” a second one, a real behemoth of a battleship, follows the first in hot pursuit, firing lasers at the little guy.

That the opening shot of Star Wars is still effective testifies to the visual bravura of director George Lucas but it must have been all the more thrilling in 1977 when the idea of a summer blockbuster loaded with special effects was still sort of new.

The first line in the movie is stupendously underwhelming. Inside the ship, as two classes of soldiers shoot laser guns at each other, a gold-plated humanoid robot says to a rolling garbage can, “Did you hear that? They shut down the main reactor. We’ll be destroyed for sure. This is madness!” As if you are actually paying attention to dialogue at a time like this.

Okay, let’s take stock of what’s happened so far. There has been an awful lot of excitement but still not much of a sense of what’s at stake here. That robot just mentioned something about “being sent to the spice mines of Kessel,” whatever that means, but that seems a dubious premise for a movie so you decide to wait for the next piece of information.

And it comes quickly! A man in a black mask, black suit and black cape marches onscreen accompanied by more of that great music and he chokes a guy to death after a brief dispute over whether or not the ship has an ambassador. We have found our villain.

As the film continues, it eases us into its universe one step at a time. The robots, which are being called droids, land on a desolate planet with vast deserts and fall into the hands of a local farmer (Phil Brown). The farmer’s nephew is a pretty boy named Luke (Mark Hamill) whose idea of a good time hanging out with friends includes “picking up power converters” (we may assume that Luke and his buddies are intoxicated for such shenanigans and that this is way more fun than it sounds).

While cleaning the droids, Luke discovers a holographic message hidden inside the rolling garbage can. A beautiful girl (Carrie Fisher) begs for help from an “Obi-Wan Kenobi.” Perhaps a relative of old Ben Kenobi, a hermit who lives in the nearby caves? That hermit, played by Alec Guinness, who brings some much-needed thespian gravitas to the film, turns out to be the Obi-Wan from the message. He tells Luke all about the boy’s father, a warrior from back in the day slain by Darth Vader (the guy wearing all black from the opening scene). He invites Luke to leave his dull life as a farmer and join him in rescuing the girl, who, as it turns out, is a princess.

Star Wars is a classic adventure story, told with a sturdy, traditional structure that is effective in its simplicity. The film hops from one lavish set piece to another, each new place populated by fascinating creatures and characters from Mr. Lucas’s imagination.

In its quiet moments, Star Wars is not so nimble. The dialogue is often lead-footed and Mr. Lucas is less self-assured in the downtime between action sequences. There are some light-hearted moments in these passages, however, often thanks to the inclusion of Han Solo, a smuggler (played by the irrepressibly charming Harrison Ford) who begrudgingly joins our heroes because the price is right.

In spite of its flaws, Star Wars has a lovable scrappiness about it. In the decades that followed its release, studios have tried again and again to replicate its success. But few of their slam-bang summer action movies have been able to capture the essence of Star Wars. George Lucas made this movie with a simple goal in mind. To entertain audiences and craft a film that would thrill and delight them. He did and it still does.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/5/12

Oscar Predictions 2012

I can gripe all I want about them but the Oscars aren’t going anywhere so we might as well have some fun. Last year I was 12 for 24 guessing the winners so let’s see if I can’t do a little better this year.

Picture: The Artist

Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Actor: George Clooney, The Descendants

Actress: Viola Davis, The Help

Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help

Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants

Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris

Animated Film: Rango

Art Direction: The Artist

Cinematography: The Tree of Life

Costume Design: W.E.

Documentary Feature: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Documentary Short: The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Film Editing: The Artist

Foreign Film: A Separation (Iran)

Makeup: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Music (Original Score): The Artist

Music (Original Song): “Man or Muppet” from The Muppets

Short Film (Animated): Morning Stroll

Short Film (Live Action): Time Freak

Sound Editing: War Horse

Sound Mixing: Hugo

Visual Effects: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

- Steve Avigliano, 2/26/12

Best of 2011: My Top 10 Movies of 2011

The list below is of my favorite movies of 2011. I wrote the other day how determining the best movies in a given year can be tough because you can’t always tell whether or not a film will age well. Some movies get better and better the more you watch them. Others make a great first impression but might not hold up to multiple viewings. This list is a collection of first impressions. These are all movies that left a mark on me the first time I saw them. I’ll check back with them a few years down the road and see how they hold up.

In the meantime, most are on DVD or will be soon (and The Descendants is still in theaters now). So use the on demand/online streaming/DVD-in-the-mail service of your choice and check them out. (I’ll also share with you a well-kept secret of where to rent movies that I use all the time: the library. Most local libraries have large movie collections and get all the new DVDs. You might have to fight with the woman down the block who has a crush on Ryan Gosling in order to get your hands on a copy of The Ides of March but, hey, it’s free.)

Before we get to the Top 10, here are five films I admire that didn’t make the list: Another Earth, The Future, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Moneyball, Terri

10) Midnight in Paris (Original review)

Woody Allen’s globetrotting continues with Midnight in Paris, a breezy, time-traveling comedy starring Owen Wilson who, in a fine performance, splits the difference between his own comic persona and the neuroses of Mr. Allen. Those familiar with the major figures of art and literature in 1920s Paris (Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein and Salvador Dali, to name a few that appear here) will be delighted but you don’t have to get all the references to enjoy the film. Mr. Allen’s own love of these artists shines through every scene and Mr. Wilson is great fun to watch as he marvels at being transported to the bygone era he adores. A love letter to the city and a bittersweet (though mostly sweet) study of how nostalgia afflicts us all.

9) Take Shelter

Take Shelter is an absorbing psychological thriller about a blue collar Midwesterner, Curtis LaForche (Michael Shannon), on the cusp of a schizophrenic breakdown. Or is he? He begins having horribly realistic nightmares of an apocalyptic storm but are the dreams premonitions of some rapture to come, or is his mind descending into madness? Neither option bodes well for him and his family. The film, written and directed by Jeff Nichols, is engrossing because Curtis’s supernatural fears have real world consequences. When he becomes obsessed with renovating an old tornado shelter in the backyard, the expenditure puts a significant financial burden on his family. This is a beautifully shot, gradually paced and absolutely gripping movie.

8) A Dangerous Method (Original review) 

A Dangerous Method follows the professional and personal relationship of psychologists Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) but this is not a typical historical biopic. This is an exceptionally talky film; Jung and Freud’s discussions on the subtleties of psychoanalysis are only occasionally broken up by scenes of kinky sex between Jung and his patient-turned-student-turned-lover, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). Despite the dry nature of the material though, there is a current of excitement running through A Dangerous Method. These were intellectual innovators on the verge of changing the way the world thought about the human mind and director David Cronenberg elegantly captures that moment in this fascinating film.

7) The Descendants (Original review)

Alexander Payne’s films tell wonderful, human stories. Like previous Payne features Sideways and About Schmidt, The Descendants depicts a man facing a personal crisis, and does so with compassion and humor. After a boating accident puts his wife in a permanent coma, Matt King (George Clooney) is left alone to father his two daughters. Meanwhile, as the lone trustee to a huge estate, he faces pressure from the other side of his family to find a buyer for the property. The movie, set against a gorgeous, Hawaiian backdrop, has a keen sense of culture and history. It also ends on what might be my favorite final shot in a movie this year.

6) Attack the Block

The definition of what is cool is always changing and often we can look back and identify what sparked certain trends in coolness. Attack the Block is the sort of movie we’ll look back on and say, “Oh, yeah. That’s cool because Attack the Block did it first.” The movie follows a teen gang in inner city London who unwittingly find themselves fighting off an alien invasion. What’s kind of brilliant about it is that they react to this extraterrestrial contact precisely how you’d expect a bunch of fifteen-year-old boys to. When they kill their first alien, what do they do? They drag its carcass through the streets and show it off to a few girls before bringing it to the guy they buy weed from. Fast-paced, funny, sometimes gory, and featuring impressive creature effects. A promising debut from writer/director Joe Cornish.

5) Margin Call

An analyst for a powerful financial investment firm is laid off but before he leaves the building he hands a flash drive to one of his employees. “I think you should take a look at this,” he says. “Be careful.” That’s the set-up of Margin Call, which mostly takes place over one night as the gravity of the information on that drive sinks in – it contains calculations that predict the firm’s doom – and news travels up the ranks to the CEO. This is a tense film inspired by the 2008 financial crisis and successfully makes complex concepts accessible without dumbing them down. Writer/director J.C. Chandor seeks to do nothing less than question the morality of capitalism but never demonizes his characters. Instead, he invites us to ask ourselves: What would I do in this situation? Is jumping ship and saving myself the right thing to do? Characters in the film are always asking this but the notion of what is “right” turns out to be a very murky concept indeed.

4) Warrior

This is a powerful story about two estranged brothers – tormented Iraq War veteran Tommy (Tom Hardy) and Brendan (Joel Edgarton), a physics teacher and father of two – who return to their roots as mixed martial arts fighters. Tommy enlists the help of his father (Nick Nolte), a reformed alcoholic and Tommy’s former trainer, to prepare for an upcoming tournament. Brendan, meanwhile, starts participating in pickup matches to make quick cash and stall foreclosure on his house. You might be able to guess where this is going but Warrior is impressive in the way it does not simplify its characters’ complex relationships while still adhering to the crowd-pleasing formula of the fight genre. Audiences largely dismissed Warrior because of seeming similarities to The Fighter, an unfair fate considering it is even better than that film. This one blew me away.

3) Higher Ground

Higher Ground chronicles one southern woman’s relationship with religion, from her tenuous beginnings with evangelicalism and following her as she is born again and subsequently questions her faith. Though it features a fair amount of preaching, the movie itself never preaches. It approaches its characters with a critical eye and its subject matter with an open mind. Vera Farmiga, who stars in the film and makes her directorial debut, is careful not to condescend. Some members of the congregation are naive and old-fashioned but all of them are complex individuals, not stereotypes. The film shoulders big topics – sex, marriage, family, church and the role women play in all of those – but does so gracefully and without passing judgment. This is a quiet movie about the process of self-discovery; there are few grand, dramatic moments in it. Yet, in its subtle way, the film uncovers something true and leaves a lasting impression.

2) Beginners

Tone can be a delicate thing. Mike Mills’s Beginners finds just the right one though; it has an emotional frankness that does not soften its more tragic moments but also has a certain whimsy and love for life that is infectious. We meet Oliver (Ewan McGregor) at the start of a new relationship with Anna (Mélanie Laurent), a French actress he meets at a party. This is intercut with remembrances of his late father (Christopher Plummer) who, in the last years of his life, was diagnosed with cancer and came out of the closet, living as an openly gay man for the first time. The tender relationship between father and son is at the heart of the film but its best moments are in the embellishments Mr. Mills adds. Oliver has conversations with his father’s dog (who talks back through subtitles), recalls childhood memories of his mother (­­­­­Mary Page Keller) and reflects on the differences between his father’s time and the present. A loose, almost free associative structure helps to avoid melodrama. The film opens with the father’s death and moves backward, retracing the end of his life while also moving forward with Oliver’s developing romance and ending on a thoroughly optimistic note. This is a film with style and wit that left on me an imprint of its uniquely pleasant mood.

1) The Tree of Life (Original review)

Terrence Malick is one of the few filmmakers today making great literary art. His latest, The Tree of Life, has a poetic style, chasing moods, emotions and ideas rather than following a straightforward, linear narrative. The film is a major achievement, which is also to say it is not the most accessible or traditionally entertaining of films but here’s my advice if you are interested: Brace yourself for the abstractions of the extended cosmic prologue, which dramatizes the beginnings of the Universe. Know that the domestic scenes set in 1950s Texas suburbia that follow are rich in emotion and feature compassionate performances from Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and newcomer Hunter McCracken. Let the mosaic of imagery and music wash over you. Don’t expect a conventional plot but look instead at the small, familial moments Mr. Malick creates and find parallels in your own life. The Tree of Life can be a profoundly moving experience if you’re in the right frame of mind for it. Terrence Malick has crafted a landmark in contemporary American cinema and, for my money, the year’s best film.

- Steve Avigliano, 2/25/12 

Best of 2011: My Favorite Performances

The following are my favorite performances of 2011. They are the men and women* who stood out to me, who were vital to the success of the films they were in, who I thought about weeks and months after seeing. They are presented in alphabetical order by last name except one that I have chosen as my absolute favorite of the year.

Joel Edgarton, Tom Hardy and Nick Nolte – Warrior

There is a lot to love about the rousing fight drama Warrior but its cast is especially impressive. Tom Hardy and Joel Edgarton give understated performances as estranged brothers, one an angry Iraq War veteran (Hardy); the other, a devoted father (Edgarton). Together, with Nick Nolte, who plays their recovering alcoholic father, they form a fractured – and believable – family whose complex relationships elevate the film beyond the ring.

Michael Fassbender – X-Men: First Class, A Dangerous Method

Michael Fassbender had a great year. He starred in a new Jane Eyre as Rochester, a plum role for any brooding actor, and got a lot of attention playing a sex addict in Shame (both films unseen by me). His intensity was a standout of X-Men: First Class where he played the young, Nazi-hunting Magneto, and he gave a more nuanced performance as psychologist Carl Jung in David Cronenberg’s A Dangerous Method. I don’t doubt we will continue to see strong work from him in the future.

Ryan Gosling – Drive, The Ides of March

Speaking of great years, how about that Ryan Gosling? After the romantic comedy Crazy Stupid Love, he had two killer leading roles. I wasn’t as wowed by Drive as some were but I admired Mr. Gosling’s work as the nameless protagonist whose silence hints at a deeply troubled past. And in The Ides of March, he held his own sharing scenes with Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. I’d be hard pressed to name a better young star.

Jeremy Irons – Margin Call

The financial thriller Margin Call boasts an exceptional ensemble cast (including Simon Baker, Paul Bettany, Demi Moore, Zachary Quinto, Kevin Spacey and Stanley Tucci) but I want to single out Jeremy Irons who plays John Tuld, the CEO of an investment firm facing certain doom. Mr. Irons has a voice well suited to villainy (his voice will still be familiar to many as that of Scar from The Lion King) but his portrayal of this cold, calculating billionaire is not one-dimensional. Tuld conveys the gravity of their dire situation without wavering from his brutal, capitalist morals, and Mr. Irons delivers some potentially heavy-handed monologues forcefully and convincingly. He is a compelling, absorbing presence in every scene.

Hunter McCracken – The Tree of Life

So few children in movies actually act like children but Hunter McCracken’s performance as Jack, the young protagonist of Terrence Malick’s cosmic opus, The Tree of Life, has astonishing depth and complexity. The film is, among other things, about a boy’s transition from carefree, childhood innocence to the emotional burdens of adulthood. Since the film has minimal dialogue, Jack does not feel like the artificial construction of a screenwriter but, rather, a living, breathing kid. He throws angry fits, is dependent on his mother’s love, and runs through the quiet, suburban streets of his home, unaware of the impossible hugeness of the universe he lives in.

Viggo Mortensen – A Dangerous Method

Viggo Mortensen takes on the weighty role of Sigmund Freud and makes it his own with characteristic ease. His Freud is a highly intelligent man who knows full well the scope of his influence and intellect. He exacts his powerful, analytic mind not only on his patients but also his peers and even himself. He speaks with absolute certainty and clarity. This is Mr. Mortensen’s third collaboration and in each film he has turned in a strong (and very different) performance – a rural family man with a past, a Russian mobster. Few actors are so adventurous in their selection of roles and so consistent.

Christopher Plummer – Beginners

The heart of Mike Mills’s warm, autobiographical Beginners rests in Christopher Plummer’s performance as Hal, a feisty old man who responds to his cancer diagnosis with a continued, unflinching zeal for life. Having only recently come out of the closet, Hal is enjoying a newfound freedom in the lifestyle and Mr. Plummer expresses a wealth of happiness behind the smallest of smiles. The last act of life need not be a bittersweet goodbye and Hal’s optimism is contagious, both to his son, Oliver (Ewan McGregor), and to us.

John C. Reilly – Cedar Rapids, Terri, Carnage

John C. Reilly continues to prove how versatile his skills are. He is a gifted comedic actor whose lovable schmo persona was a joy to watch in Carnage, Roman Polanski’s comedy about bickering couples, and his insurance salesman with a rockstar-sized ego was a highlight of Cedar Rapids. He also gave the high school coming-of-age story Terri some laugh out loud moments as a jovial assistant principal. He is the rare actor who is as comfortable in a Will Ferrell comedy as he is in more “serious” fare, stealing scenes wherever he goes.

My Favorite Performance of the Year:

Vera Farmiga – Higher Ground

Faith is a very personal thing and though it is often celebrated in the company of others, such as in the evangelical community in Higher Ground, the process of exploring and discovering one’s faith must first happen internally. Vera Farmiga has the difficult task of playing a woman, Corinne Briggs, who wrestles with her faith, believing at first that she has found it only to question the role the Lord truly plays in her life. These are delicate feelings that are rarely displayed externally and yet, in the film, there is never a moment when we are unsure what is on Corinne’s mind. Mrs. Farmiga expresses Corinne’s hopeful optimism, her disappointment when her marriage and her church let her down, and her unflagging desire and willingness to open her heart to religion. This is a breakthrough performance from an immensely talented actress and is not to be missed.

* Looking over the eleven names above I notice there is only one woman. A sexist oversight on my part? Perhaps. Worth noting, however, is how few substantial roles there are for women in movies today. The majority of movies I saw this year were absent of female leading roles that were not romantic interests to a more heavily featured male character or sexualized. Also worth noting is that the one woman on my list, Vera Farmiga in Higher Ground, also directed the film. Whether or not women need to be behind the camera in order to get quality parts in front of it is a discussion for another time but these are issues worth thinking about.

(Two notable exceptions from this year are the box office hits Bridesmaids and The Help, both directed by men and featuring female ensembles. I wasn’t a fan of either film but in neither case do their faults lie in the acting, which is strong across the board. And I am happy the popularity of Bridesmaids may open doors for more female-centric comedies.)

- Steve Avigliano, 2/23/12

Awards Season Blues

When did “awards season” become a phrase? It is certainly an accurate descriptor – the avalanche of end-of-the-year movie awards has become as interminable and seemingly unending as a Northeast winter (which has actually been rather mild this year in Jersey) – but has this time of year always been flooded with so much self-congratulatory nonsense? The Oscars have long been a staple of the industry’s love for itself but now we also have the Golden Globes, the Critics’ Choice Awards, the People’s Choice Awards, the SAG Awards, etc., ad nauseam. The airwaves are positively saturated with three-plus hour broadcasts praising the Hollywood elite!

There is nothing wrong with recognizing the year’s best films and performances, and I understand these shows’ appeal. They are fun. Today’s media does not paint a flattering picture of celebrity and these red carpet spectacles offer a certain image of Hollywood glitz and glamour that has otherwise been long lost to paparazzi photos.

Maybe you enjoy seeing who Michelle Williams is wearing or watching Ryan Seacrest pretend to care about how honored Jonah Hill is to be there (Mr. Seacrest has made an art out of vapid celebrity chit-chat). I have no beef with any of that. What frustrates me is how repetitive the actual awards have become.

Each award show's nominees are culled from the same small batch of films and we hear their titles repeated again and again – The Artist, The Descendants, Hugo, The Artist, The Descendants, Hugo – until they are ingrained in our heads as the Chosen Films for this year. Rather than using the end of the year as an opportunity to praise different styles or recommend lesser seen films, December through February has become a time when a select few movies battle for entry into the contemporary cinematic canon whether they deserve it or not.

Awards season begins a little earlier than this though and many of the nominated films are released in the last quarter of the year. Beginning in the fall and chugging along into the early winter, a new batch of historical biopics and stuffy dramas reach theaters, each trying to generate some buzz. Studios do not want their Oscar prospects to be forgotten when the nominees are chosen so they release them as close to the telecast as possible.

This scheduling choice has a wearying effect on audiences. A handful of movies you have only just heard about are being praised as the must-sees of the season and even though the movies range in their subjects, there is a feeling of sameness to them. They all arrive with the label, “Oscar-worthy,” which can have a damaging effect on them. The Artist, The Descendants, and Hugo are all interesting films worth seeing but when these award shows lump them together and pit them against one another, they suddenly feel a lot less interesting. And it can be difficult to give each one a fair shake when their releases are piled on top of each other.

I argue that this idea of seasons is hurting movies on a whole. Is awards season really the only time when thoughtful, well-acted movies can be released? Can’t we see something besides action blockbusters and raunchy comedies in the summertime? The most common complaint I hear about movies today is that they’re all the same. There are no new ideas left, people say. Surely this can’t be true but evidence that suggests otherwise is hard to find.

The reason for this is that studios all have the same goals in mind. Superheroes and men trapped in their adolescence are popular. They’re safe bets. Studios can rest easy knowing they’ll turn a profit as long as the marketing is relentless. A similar business model applies to the “Oscar-worthy.” They are often made on lower budgets and appeal to smaller demographics but studios still want to make money off them. So they wait until awards season to release them and hope that critics and Academy voters will usher them through the various award shows leading up to Oscar night.

So are the nine movies nominated for Best Picture truly representative of the best that 2011 had to offer? Of course not. The Academy has specific (and pretentious) tastes and this year’s nominees run the gamut of typical Oscar fare. You have your sentimental weepies (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help), some cinephile pandering (The Artist, Hugo), and the requisite period drama from Steven Spielberg (War Horse).

The remaining four (The Descendants, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life) are harder to label and, perhaps not coincidentally, are my favorites of the bunch. These are the films I predict will survive the season and maybe even get better with time. The other five, I’m not so convinced about (though I did like Hugo and War Horse). Years from now, which film had a strong showing during awards season will not matter. The Oscars’ history is full of misplaced praise and overlooked classics; they hardly have the final word.

Tomorrow and Friday, in preparation for and as an alternative to the Academy Awards, I’m going to discuss my favorite performances of the year and my personal Top 10 favorite movies of 2011. Will they stand the test of time? I think they will but, of course, who can say for sure? This is later than most critics release their picks for the year’s best but anytime is a good time to talk about great movies. Not just one season.

- Steve Avigliano, 2/22/12

Revisiting Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005): Written and directed by George Lucas. Starring: Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid and Samuel L. Jackson. Rated PG-13 (Slain younglings and a charred body). Running time: 140 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

What a relief Episode III is. Where the previous Star Wars movie, Attack of the Clones, often seemed hesitant to do anything but belabor political exposition, Revenge of the Sith lets loose, unafraid to go over the top. This is a film that revels in its grandeur and embraces its eccentricities. For the first time since the original trilogy, we are reminded why George Lucas became such a revered name in blockbuster entertainment.  He swings for the fences and delivers a thrilling, unabashed space opera.

The Clone War is nearing its end and Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) continues to rally support and gain power in the Senate. He has taken Anakin (Hayden Christensen) under his wing, a relationship the Jedi Council fears. While there is little doubt the Republic is winning the war, the Jedi express concern that Palpatine may be priming himself for a dictatorship once the fighting is over. Anakin becomes caught in the middle, asked by both Palpatine and the Jedi Council to spy on the other.

Though the plot relies on politics established by the previous two films, Revenge of the Sith wisely brings its characters to the forefront and uses the politics as a backdrop for the action. Anakin’s transformation has precedence in the story and we see how Palpatine poisons his mind with tantalizing stories of Sith Lords who have conquered death. This possibility excites Anakin, who grows increasingly fearful that he will lose his wife, Amidala (Natalie Portman). By giving Anakin a clear motivation to turn to the Dark Side, Mr. Lucas brings some much-needed focus to the film.

Perhaps because of this newfound focus, the acting, which was a weak point in both of the earlier prequels, is stronger. Hayden Christensen lacked the subtlety to make Anakin’s initial steps toward the Dark Side believable in Episode II, but his weaknesses as an actor are less of an issue in Episode III, a film with few subtleties. Here, his cheesy line delivery is almost well suited to the film’s tone.

Natalie Portman isn’t given much to do other than look distraught and weep (both are things she excels at), and Ewan McGregor continues his strong work as Obi-Wan. Even Samuel L. Jackson gets some memorable scenes in a part specifically tailored to his strengths – looking cool and delivering passionate monologues. Mr. Jackson has a way of making even the blandest of exposition sound like a sharp one-liner.

The true scene-stealer of Revenge of the Sith, however, is Ian McDiarmid. He is a thrill to watch in his scenes with Mr. Christensen as he gains Anakin’s trust before luring him to the Dark Side. Mr. McDiarmid has the quiet, screen-commanding presence typical of a British thespian but is equally convincing when called upon to shout at the top of his lungs and shoot lighting bolts from his fingers. As the central villain of the entire saga, both qualities are essential.

Mr. Lucas allows a number of scenes to enter over the top territory, a choice that works because of the film’s operatic grandeur. Where else should the climactic battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan take place but on a volcanic planet where lava explodes around them? And while Palpatine bides his time revealing his true motivations, the wonderfully named General Grievous (voiced by the film’s sound editor, Matthew Wood), a caped, asthmatic robot, serves as the antagonist.

Visually, the film is as stunning as we have come to expect from the new Star Wars films but Episode III is also vibrant and colorful in a way its predecessors were not. The sets and costumes are imbued with an almost expressionistic style, making it perhaps the most visually interesting Star Wars. Even a relatively simple set such as the Chancellor’s office is painted lavish hues of purple. Take also, for example, the scene when Anakin and Palpatine converse in a balcony seat at an opera. The scene, which is exquisitely shot, offers occasional glimpses of the performance – ribbons streaking through a watery sphere – and we are reminded that the Star Wars films take place in a richly detailed and fully realized world. Even in his final (to date) film, Mr. Lucas finds room to continue exploring and inventing in his fictional universe.

When watching Revenge of the Sith, one gets the impression that George Lucas is giving it everything he’s got. His energy and enthusiasm can be felt in every scene. Many viewers will likely continue to put the original trilogy on an untouchable pedestal but with Episode III, Mr. Lucas has created an extravagant and supremely entertaining movie, as wild and exciting as one can ever hope for from a Star Wars film.

- Steve Avigliano, 2/21/12