December Movie Journal - Xanadon't

There's a good many critics out there that seem to have no idea what a good children's movie looks like these days. Many of these same people appear laughably sensitive to variations from what they think a Christmas movie "ought to be". These critics are foolish and likely beyond help in these matters.

Rise of the Guardians impresses on essentially every level- from the character design, to the rollicking action sequences, to the voice-acting, to the comic and touching script. Visually the movie is nothing less than a minor knockout. The story is not anything revolutionary, exactly, in the way it unfolds. But with character concepts as sharp and well-developed as those present, it's easy to forgive a children's movie for subscribing to one or two kid's movie cliches. And the script is peppered with enough humor and genuine heart as to make Rise of the Guardians a holiday treat that anyone can savor, so long as they check their "bah-humbugs" at the door.

*rewatch*

Yep, decided that since this movie stuck around at one of the local theaters far far longer than I ever would've guessed, I needed to go see it a second time, this time with my girlfriend.

She loved the movie, and I was every bit as impressed with it as I was back in October.

It had been quite a long day on very little sleep when I finally settled into my local movie theater to watch this so... the fact that I dozed off on two occasions shouldn't be read as a total knock against the movie. But yes, all in all I'd say I missed maybe 10 of its somewhat trying 169 minutes.

The first time, I woke up and, "Oh cool. Galadriel's in this movie. Sorry Galadriel. Didn't see you come in." And also, "Hey cool, there's a woman in this movie! I'd almost forgotten what those look like."

Anyways, I'd have an easier time with the preposterous idea of The Hobbit coming at us in 3 installments if each of these installments was a nice, tidy 115 minutes. Obviously that won't be the case. Instead we get dinner scenes, action scenes, exposition scenes, and journey across various landscapes scenes that all run longer than they need to. If you're as big a fan of middle earth as the director must be, I guess this is okay. I'm discovering that I am not.

Still, this is a largely entertaining movie at its core. Martin Freeman as Bilbo is probably it's single biggest strength. Getting Ian McKellan back as Gandalf, is certainly in its favor too. And the "Riddles in the Dark" scene lived up to my hopes, along with most all of the visual effects, wargs, etc.

But honestly, spending another two over-long films with three under-characterized dwarfs just doesn't sound that great. Smog better be fucking awesome.

I'm happy to report that this was quite a lot better than I feared after the unimpressive trailers came out. In fact, for me it's one of the most pleasant surprises of the year.

The movie's often playful tone works to its advantage in a bit way. But really, the movie is able to traverse an extremely broad range of tone very fluidly and effortlessly. The film moves at a brisk pace, each development and turn in story and characterization (whether concerning the story line dealing with Hitch and his wife Alma, or the struggle to get Psycho made) launching itself into the next in a swift and controlled manner.

Also, there's not a bad performance in the thing. And Helen Mirren ought to receive a Best Actress nomination. And while not given much screen time, James D'Arcy is a dead ringer for Anthony Perkins. It's almost creepy.

Oh. Oh no. This is what everyone is all worked up in a lather about?! What a disappointment.

If scene after scene marred by distractingly amateurish hand-held camera-work is your thing, then by all means. If you can get inspired by a "sense of community pride" that is evidently built around little more than alcoholism and child-abuse, well have at it. And if you think for a second that the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, and neighbors that populate this film would unanimously clamor to return to a life of poverty and environmental/mortal doom, well...

The movie does wise to spend a portion of its focus on its young protagonist and the way her fears and imagination shape her story and experience. More of this and less near-future/Hurricane Katrina-informed "noble savage" theory re-workings would've been far more interesting and far less frustrating.

I'm fairly certain I don't know just what to make of Cosmopolis to be honest. There are many aspects that I admired. And there are many that frustrated the shit out of me. I feel like there's a brilliant movie buried in there somewhere. But the material just didn't consistently engage me. And there's an odd manner in which the movie feels too abstract at times, and then too heavy-handed and obvious at others.

The technical aspects of the move are very strong. And I think that Robert Pattinson did a mostly good job with the material, which is something I was nervous about. And the overall idea and structure of the story intrigues me. Possibly more than the execution.

I hated it.

Grubby, monotone, and singularly un-clever "erotic who-dunnit thriller". It's a shame that Meg Ryan wastes a pretty darn good and pretty darn brave (especially for Meg Ryan- we're not talking about Nicole Kidman here) performance on this otherwise wholly unremarkable genre film.

Yes, Woody Allen is at least a decade (and that's being kind) too old for his role here. But if you can look past this immutable fact, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion works surprisingly well as a light, mischievous, and brazenly fun retro-comedy/romantic comedy. The script is crammed full of playful jokes and instant Woody-isms. And bottom-line: I laughed. Quite a lot.

This debut (and at this time only) feature-lenght directing credit to Scott Frank's name is impressive in a number of fundamental ways that allowed me to overlook a few of the more minor and awkward problems present in his first-time effort.

The Lookout succeeds most convincingly in the way its characters are written and fleshed out. The movie does not insist on plot without ensuring that the audience feels like they know these characters first. And I appreciated this fact.

Joseph Gordon Levitt is strong here (though he's done better work) and Jeff Daniels is particularly good. When we get to the "bad guy side" well, the performances aren't quite up to the same snuff as these two. Still, an engaging watch and certainly better than most films of its ilk.

Jane Russell is damn good in this movie. Almost everything else is damn mediocre.

If you're expecting a soft and fuzzy romance movie, you'd better think again. Leos Carax's The Lovers on the Bridge is every bit as abrasive as his newest film Holy Motors could be through stretches. But while the film can be a difficult watch, it also has an undeniable penchant for stark loveliness. In the end it's the unflinching humanity behind this range of territory that lifts the story and kept me engaged.

Not everything worked for me here, though. In fact, I still have serious misgivings about an entire lead character and this impeded me from really enjoying the film as much as I'd hoped.

It's an impressive and fun movie that doesn't quite measure up to its cinematic peers, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero. Partly due to characterization that simply isn't as compelling. But also it never quite achieves the same effective identity in tone as either of those movies do.

I'll be honest. I expected this movie to bore the hell out of me. Its whopping 191 minute runtime wasn't selling it to me. And bio-pics tend not to be my favorite form of cinematic storytelling. Far from it. So with these things stacked against me I'm happy to say that: Gandhi really is a damn good movie. And- I even liked it.

The sheer size and scope of the film works out to be more of a truly impressive and remarkable thing and not the dull and self-congratulatory thing that I'd feared. The story covers a good many years and a lot of ground in celebrating Mahatma Ghandi's life, struggles, and acheivements- and it moves surprisingly swiftly and powerfully through these proceedings. Many of the scenes have a self-contained arch of crescendo-ing energy that works fantastically on their own and also within the larger context of the film. I was quite pleased.

Now, that said, Ghandi does at certain times fall into stretches that too closely resemble straight-forward history lesson territory. Director Richard Attenborough envokes a directing style that I for the most part enjoyed for its lack of "fussiness" but one that also feels a bit languid now and then. Still, what he sets out to accomplish is very ambitious and indeed a work of passion and I would say that what he's done is pretty special.

Odd when a movie becomes slightly less interesting at a surface-narrative level, yet more fascinating at sub-textual levels. A third viewing someday down the road will help me sort out where the film fully stands with me.

Still holds a spot on my All Time Top 5 Comedies.