10)
Chronicle:
A
fairly recent development in movies is the concept of found footage films. This
development has unfortunately led to the existence of such (god forbid I call
them) movies such as The Blair Witch
Project, and the Paranormal Activity series.
Then in early February came Chronicle,
the story of three friends in high school who inexplicably develop telekinetic
abilities, all of which is depicted through the main character’s camcorder as
well as security footage from various locations.
Was
it groundbreaking? No. Was it a fresh take on the sci-fi/ superhero genre? Not
nearly as much as it seems to think. Was the use of found footage more than
just a little gimmicky? Absolutely. So why did this make my cut? Because the
fact that someone made a found footage film that was actually watchable is
something I was not prepared for. The acting wasn't great, but its characters
are ordinary people who only realize their being filmed upon their
introductions, so any weak acting performances are actually deliberate. In
short, the film boasts a talented cast of actors who know how not to act. And
in a "great power, great responsibility" story such as this, that
only works to the films advantage.
9)
Hunger Games:
This
is another film that doesn't register as one of my all time favorites, or comes
that close. Based on the first installment of a series of young adult novels of
the same name, Hunger Games depicts
an alternate dystopian future in which a totalitarian government rules over 12
colonies that had unsuccessfully attempted a rebellion some time before the
events of the film. To instill a sense of fear into the colonies as well as
allay any future possibility of rebellion, a tournament is held in which 2
children from each colony are randomly selected to compete in a televised
battle to the death (the eponymous Hunger Games). When young Primrose Everdeen
is chosen as a contestant, her older sister, Katniss, volunteers to compete in
her place.
This
is another film that doesn't register as one of my all time favorites, or comes
that close. But I'm not part of its target audience. The movie actually pitches
itself to the 12-16 demographic, which considering its rather dark premise is
pretty risky. But it does exactly what anything based on young adult material
should set out to do. It serves as what I like to call a "segue
series", meaning that it helps to ease the transition between material
made for children and material made for adults. Though it is slightly
manipulative, it doesn't pander to its audience, and doesn't pull any punches
in terms of content, which is more than can be said for a lot of series aimed
at that demographic. I do think pathos wasn't evenly distributed between
characters, but again, not part of the target audience. Now that the Harry Potter and Twilight series are over, residual fans of those series will likely
look to another series, and if they should choose Hunger Games, then it's a
step in the right direction.
8)
Looper:
In
the future, time travel is finally discovered, and immediately outlawed. But
does that stop people from using it? Hell no. Looper depicts an alternate future in which the mafia uses time
travel as a method of disposing of “undesirables”. Once sent through time,
these undesirables are executed by agents recruited from the relative past (the
movie's present, try to keep up!). Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrays one such
agent, who is one day tasked with executing his future self, played by Bruce
Willis. When he fails, both versions of the character must fight for their
survival, as well as their now respective futures.
I
really had to flip a coin on whether or not to include this one. For the first
two acts, the film does everything right. The plot is interesting, the
performances are top notch, and the chemistry between Levitt and Willis is
great. Then comes the third act of the film, in which it gradually turns into a
completely different, less interesting film. If not for that, this may well
have made my all time favorites. But as it stands, the first two acts more than
qualify it for eighth place.
7)
The Avengers:
Set
in the Marvel Film Universe, when the demigod Loki returns from exile to take
over the world, The Strategic Homeland Intelligence, Enforcement, and Logistics
Division (S.H.I.E.L.D.), assembles a team of some of the Marvel Universes
greatest heroes and anti-heroes. Among this team are Captain America, Iron Man,
Thor, The Hulk, Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Hawkeye.
Four
years ago at the conclusion of Iron Man,
the possibility of The Avengers was
hinted at, but being unable to choose between optimism and pessimism, I
dismissed it as a rumor. Yet the subsequent marvel movies continued to hint at
it, and eventually, unlike many other instances, the hype paid off. Nearly
everything about the film comes together. It utilizes the best elements of its
nearly 50-year-old source material and almost effortlessly brings out the best
in its colorful cast of characters. It doesn’t do for the comic book movie
genre what The Dark Knight did, but
it didn’t try and it didn’t have to. In essence, this is everything that a
Michael Bay movie should be: a
fast-paced escapist thrill ride with an impressive usage of CGI without the
mediocrity over which you could start a drinking game. Hopefully this film is
an indicator of what we can expect from Joss Whedon in the near future.
6)
Skyfall:
When
James Bond is left for dead following a failed attempt to stop a mercenary from
releasing vital information on undercover operatives placed in terrorist
organizations by NATO states, he uses it as an excuse to retire. But when MI6
comes under attack from a former operative, he comes out of retirement to
eliminate the threat.
It
says a lot when the 23rd installment of a franchise manages to not
only live up to its predecessors, but quite frankly manages to surpass many of
them. Daniel Craig has, in my opinion, firmly established himself as the second
best James Bond (cause no one beats Connery. They just don’t). It reintroduces
several classic elements from Bonds past that are sure to strike a nostalgic chord
or two, as well as new elements that serve as welcome additions to the canon of
the franchise. With an intelligent, if somewhat confusing plot, and well
directed action sequences, Skyfall does great justice to its franchise, and
lays down the foundation for many more installments to come.
5)
Les Misérables:
Based
on the classic novel and musical by Victor Hugo, Les Misérables takes place at various points during the French
revolution, and follows Jean Valjean,
a recently paroled prisoner who violates his parole and forges a new identity
for himself to find work. Eventually he is recognized by his former guard
turned police officer, Javert, and is forced into hiding, setting in motion a
series of events far beyond themselves.
As
I’ve yet to read the book or see the musical, I can only judge this movie as a
stand-alone effort, as opposed to a faithful or even accurate adaptation. As it
stands, it definitely works. The production values are incredible, and the
performances were top notch. Setting aside a few forgivable problems with the
pacing, my primary issue with this film is not necessarily that it’s a musical,
but that the cast constantly sings throughout the entire movie. This is a story
that conveys brutality meant to evoke strong reactions from an audience, and I
feel that plain spoken dialogue during its more intense scenes would’ve been
much more appropriate and effective. This wouldn’t be an issue with a stage
production, but with film there’s more of an emotional disconnect with an
audience, and I just feel that the characters should be allowed to actually
feel what they’re singing about without having to narrate how they feel in song
throughout the whole film. I’ve been called anal for citing this as a
criticism, and perhaps I am a bit, but that doesn’t mean I have any contempt
for the film. On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for it. Anyone
can see that a great deal of effort went into making it as good as it was, and
the results more than paid off.
4)
Moonrise Kingdom:
Set
in 1965 on an island in New England, Moonrise Kingdom is the story of Sam
Shakusky, a recently orphaned, 12-year-old “khaki scout,” and Suzie Bishop, the
oldest of four children brought up in a troubled marriage. After maintaining a
pen pal relationship, they finally agree to run away from their respective
homes to meet in secret. Not too far behind them are the island’s local police
captain, Suzie’s parents, and Sam’s scoutmaster and troop.
I
wouldn’t have know of this movie had a friend of mine not casually suggested it.
I tried to look up the plot online beforehand, but turned up no results.
Looking back, I count that as a blessing, because honestly, no one should know
what this movie is about before seeing it. It can’t be accurately summarized in
a few minutes and it can’t really be sold to a target demographic. I can
usually form an opinion about a movie within a short period of having seen it,
but after having first seen Moonrise Kingdom, I had to think long and hard
before I had a fully articulate opinion. And it dawned on me that for the first
time in a long time, I’d seen something that was actually original. I mean it.
I can only think to compare it to Wes Anderson’s other works, and that’s a very
loose association. I can’t say that this film appeals to everyone’s tastes, and
I think it’s because it’s confusing. Not that it’s hard to follow, but it’s
capable of evoking nearly every emotion from an audience. It’s funny, it’s
dark, it’s touching, it’s shocking, yet somehow it never becomes uneven. How?
Because that’s life. It’s not always idyllic, and it’s not always dystopian. It
just is what it is, and I can’t think of any other film to have pulled that off
with such finesse.
3)
Lincoln:
I
don’t really feel it necessary to go into much detail about the plot of this
film since pretty much everyone knows the context to some degree. Lincoln
follows the eponymous president during the last four months of his life as he
tries to persuade Congress to pass the 13th amendment in order to outlaw
slavery. I’m just going to address the elephant in the room here, Abraham
Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. That was an actual thing that happened and it was
awful. Which makes it all the more fortunate that this film came out a few
months later to undo every bit of damage done by Vampire Hunter. It marks a
surprising directorial return to form for Steven Spielberg, it utilizes the
talents of a wide variety of character actors that you don’t always see on the
big screen, and it gives yet another in a long line of superb performances from
Daniel Day-Lewis. But when it comes right down to it, I think its greatest
strength is also its greatest flaw. It’s essentially 150 minutes watching a
bill get passed that manages to be exciting. But that’s where I think it also
suffers a bit. I don’t think I’m giving anything away when I say that the bill
gets passed and slavery is abolished. This might just be me being anal again,
but when most of the suspense generated by the film depends on whether or not
the bill will be passed, the effect is somewhat diminished. I’m well aware that
this movie isn’t trying to have a surprise ending, and it certainly shouldn’t
deter anyone from seeing it by any means. Its many strengths more than make up
for this one flaw that most likely only bothers me personally, and it’s not
enough to keep me from seeing it again.
2)
Argo:
Based
on the 2007 account of the “Canadian Caper,” Argo follows Tony Mendez, a CIA
operative charged with rescuing six U.S. diplomats from Tehran, Iran, during
the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. To do so, he joins the diplomats and has them
pose as a film crew scouting a location for the fake film, Argo.
I
was torn between Argo and Lincoln for the #2 spot, but I decided to go with
Argo. As much as I hate to admit it, Ben Affleck is a great director, and it
really shows in Argo. Part biopic, part caper, Argo is a subtle, intelligent,
funny, and suspenseful film with flaws that are very few and very far between.
I only wish I had more to say about it.
1)
Life of Pi:
Based
on the 2001 novel of the same name by Yann Martel, Life of Pi follows a
16-year-old Indian boy named Piscine Molitor "Pi" Patel who becomes
stranded in the middle of the ocean following a shipwreck, of which he was the
only survivor. That is until he discovers that an adult Bengal tiger that was
also on the ship managed to survive. With the tiger, “Richard Parker,” as his
only companion, Pi not only has to defend himself, but also has to form an
uneasy alliance so as to survive and maintain his sanity during his isolation.
I
can’t really think of anyone this film wouldn’t appeal to. Its acting is
superb, its visuals, both live-action and CG, are spectacular, and its plot
never ceases to intrigue. What caught me off guard was how it raised so many
interesting questions about faith, religion, and whether or not humans and
animals are capable of overcoming their respective natures, yet it never once
settled for any easy answers. Rather, it allowed for the audience to come to
their own conclusions. While it presents a familiar premise, it effortlessly
avoids cliché at every turn. With more than enough action to satisfy younger
audiences and enough heart and intelligence to fascinate adults, Life of Pi
easily deserves its place as my favorite film of 2012.