Top 10 Movies of 2012

Okay, folks. It's that wonderful time of year again, when any movie buff or film fanatic worth his salt looks back on a year's worth of going to the movie theater (or Redbox) and cobbles together a list of the top ten films that struck his or her fancy. Now, I must preface the dramatic unveiling of this list by saying that I have NOT seen every single film released in 2012, because, unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the cash flow to accomplish that. We are, after all, in an economic recession (and I'm also a college student), so cut me some slack. But I did put forth my best effort to see the films that most appealed to me and others that received either strong critical acclaim or positive word-of-mouth. I should also mention that these might not necessarily be the best movies of the year, so to speak, but they are the ones that I loved the most, and I don't expect everyone to agree with all of my choices. For example, Zero Dark Thirty has been receiving high praise from critics everywhere, but it didn't open at a local theater. So, I never had the chance to see it, and as such, you won't find it included on this list. But enough rambling. Have at it!

10. The Cabin In The Woods. You've seen one horror film, you've seen 'em all. Dumb teenagers engage in all sorts of lascivious activities involving sex, drugs, and alcohol before falling victim, one by one, to some type of murderous (and often times, supernatural) antagonist. The Cabin In The Woods takes this formula and turns it on its head, giving us a horror film that is both familiar and unlike anything you've ever seen before. Five college students spend the weekend at a remote cabin in the middle of the woods and find themselves fighting for their lives against a group of backwood zombies, unaware that there are people watching, controlling, and manipulating these horrific events. To say anything else about the plot would spoil the surprise, and this is certainly a film that is keen on keeping the viewer guessing by playing with audience expectations and genre conventions. There is a tongue-in-cheek quality to it that keeps the mood light - even with a gruesome climax that turns into an all-out bloodbath - and it never takes itself too seriously, with much of the humor coming from Fran Kranz's lovable pothead Marty. The Cabin In The Woods is smart, imaginative, and the perfect antidote for a genre that has grown stale after being inundated with endless installments of cheap and tasteless "torture porn" like Saw and Hostel.

9. Argo. With 2007's Gone Baby Gone, 2010's The Town, and now Argo under his belt, Ben Affleck can seemingly do no wrong from behind the camera. It is hard to believe that this is the same man whose career hit rock bottom after his much-publicized relationship with Jennifer Lopez culminated with 2003's Gigli, an undeniable stinker that went up in flames with both critics and audiences upon its release, but Affleck has risen from the ashes and Hollywood is much better for it. Argo is a dramatized version of an audacious rescue mission attempted by the CIA during the shocking 1979 crisis in Iran, when revolutionaries stormed the American Embassy and took hostages, with the exception of six Americans who were able to find refuge in the home of the Canadian Ambassador. Affleck, in addition to directing, is also the star of the film, giving an understated performance as Tony Mendez, the extraction expert tasked with getting the six fugitives out of Iran before the authorities can figure out where they're hiding and execute them. Argo benefits from a memorable supporting cast led by veteran actors John Goodman and Alan Arkin and the skilled direction of Affleck, whose obvious talent is most evident in the thrilling final half hour of the film, where he delivers a master class in tension and suspense.

8. The Avengers. This was never supposed to work. Bringing together the titular superheroes from four (albeit, second tier) comic book film franchises - Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America - and squeezing them into a single film should have been a logistical nightmare. But writer/director Joss Whedon was more than up to the daunting task, and the result is a stunning achievement and a landmark addition to the superhero genre. The Avengers are assembled by Samuel L. Jackson's dour Nick Fury to combat a threat from another world in a battle for the fate of mankind, but our heroes must first learn to set aside their egos and work together as a team before saving the world. It might not carry the same dramatic weight as The Dark Knight Rises, but what it lacks in strength of plot it makes up for in sheer execution, successfully spreading the wealth amongst its multiple leads and giving each hero his due in terms of action, dialogue, and character development. There isn't a weak link in the bunch and quite a bit of well-deserved praise has been heaped upon Mark Ruffalo for his performance as Bruce Banner, the mild-mannered scientist with an unfortunate anger problem. The Avengers is the impressive culmination of a monumental (but dubious) promise that has been in place since the release of 2008's Iron Man.

7. Seven Psychopaths. It took a couple viewings before I began to appreciate writer/director Martin McDonagh's debut film In Bruges (also starring the underrated Colin Farrell), but once I did, I couldn't wait to see what he had in store for us next. But Seven Psychopaths was not at all what I was expecting, and I mean that as a compliment. I was expecting more of a straightforward comedy, which was foolish of me considering McDonagh was at the helm, and what I got instead was a darkly comic deconstruction of the action genre through the eyes of Farrell's struggling screenwriter Marty. Helping Marty through a bout of writer's block as he attempts to pen a new film with nothing but the title Seven Psychopaths is his wily best friend Billy, played with manic brilliance by the always reliable Sam Rockwell. Now, I know what you're thinking. A film from Martin McDonagh called Seven Psychopaths about a screenwriter named Marty writing a film called Seven Psychopaths? Trust me, it only gets more bizarre from there - and you'll love every minute of it. Though Rockwell steals the show, Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken shore up the supporting cast as the volatile gangster Charlie and the non-violent Hans, respectively, and their inspired performances complete what might be one of the most entertaining ensembles of the year.

6. Silver Linings Playbook. I remember when Jennifer Lawrence first burst onto the scene with an impressive performance in 2010's Winter's Bone, displaying a maturity beyond her years that has been absent in generic performances from X-Men - First Class and The Hunger Games. Lawrence re-captures some of that gravitas in Silver Linings Playbook, portraying a tortured and emotionally damaged widow trying to regain some sense of control over her life. It isn't until she crosses paths with Bradley Cooper's bi-polar former school teacher - fresh off an eight-month stint in a mental institution after a violent incident - that she begins to find her footing again, and it is their mutual journey towards personal fulfillment that gives the film its heart and soul. Director David O. Russell, who received widespread critical acclaim for 2010's crowd-pleaser The Fighter, has brought us another film packing quite the emotional punch, and the performances are all top-notch, especially Robert De Niro in his best role in years. At its core, Silver Linings Playbook is an uplifting but heart-wrenching drama that will make you laugh as much you'll cry, as it tells the story of two people struggling to find happiness in a world more interested in sweeping their problems under the rug than helping them overcome the inner demons threatening to destroy them.

5. Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis is the greatest actor of our generation. There is no question about it. If it wasn't obvious enough after his mesmerizing turns as Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York and Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, it should be more than apparent now after his awe-inspiring portrayal of Abraham Lincoln, which will no doubt earn him another Best Actor Oscar come February. Day-Lewis, a method actor, spent a year researching and preparing for the role, and his hard work - both in his appearance and his performance - is evident every time he appears on the screen. But what makes this an exceptional film is the fact that Day-Lewis is supported by an all-star cast, with veteran actors Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field delivering powerhouse performances as Thaddeus Stevens and Mary Todd Lincoln, respectively. Jones almost steals the show in his crowd-pleasing role as the Radical Republican Congressional leader and fervent abolitionist who must go toe-to-toe with the Democrats who would love nothing more than to see the proposed Thirteenth Amendment (to abolish slavery) go up in flames. This is also somewhat of a return to form for acclaimed director Steven Spielberg, who, working off an outstanding screenplay from playwright Tony Kushner, appears to have re-captured some of the magic that helped him usher in modern classics such as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

4. The Dark Knight Rises. With 2008's The Dark Knight, writer/director Christopher Nolan delivered quite possibly the greatest comic book film of our time, re-defining what a filmmaker could accomplish in the modern superhero genre. You can imagine the impossible expectations audiences would have for a follow-up, and The Dark Knight Rises falls well short of them, due to some plot holes, a few ill-advised subplots, and a surprising lack of attention to detail. But it does succeed where other third installments have failed, bringing closure to the trilogy while also raising the stakes and turning the focus back to Bruce Wayne. The Joker took center stage and wreaked his havoc in The Dark Knight, and this film is all about Bruce picking up the pieces now that he is left broken and alone, "defeated by victory," to borrow the words of his formidable new foe Bane. Tom Hardy, saddled with the unenviable task of having to follow Heath Ledger as the antagonist, doesn't quite the capture the larger-than-life quality that made the Joker so unforgettable, but his turn as the cold and merciless Bane is one of the film's highlights. It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, but it does bring one of the most revered trilogies of our generation to a spectacular finish, even if we're not quite ready to say goodbye to these characters.

3. Skyfall. Shot in the chest and presumed dead (in the first 15 minutes, no less), this is James Bond like you've never seen him before. After setting the bar in terms of silly, over-the-top action with 2002's Die Another Day, Casino Royale saw Bond make a welcome return to his roots, with Daniel Craig taking the reins as a more grounded and realistic incarnation of the iconic 007. Quantum of Solace, with production handicapped by the writer's strike, was an unfortunate stumble for the franchise, but Craig and director Sam Mendes have more than made up for it with Skyfall, which might just be the best Bond yet. Here, we find Bond broken and defeated, living a meager existence on an unnamed island while his superiors, who believe him to be dead, are none the wiser. That is, until a threat that hits close to home emerges and Bond decides that the time has come for him to return to action, even if he might be a little worse for wear. For the first time in the franchise, Bond is rendered more human than ever, and Craig is well up to the task of bringing to life a haunted but driven Bond who is fast becoming an analog player in a digital world. But the true gem here is Javier Bardem, who, as the enigmatic Raoul Silva, continues to prove that he was born to be a villain and provides us with the kind of Bond baddie this franchise has been missing.

2. Looper. There is a scene in Looper where a character portrayed by Paul Dano allows his future self - whom he has been tasked with killing - to escape, prompting his employers to use a unique (and horrific) method of torture to lure him back. It was during this scene, this disturbing moment of ingenuity, that I realized I was going to love this movie. I had seen both The Brothers Bloom and Brick, the previous works of writer/director Rian Johnson, and, while I admired the technical brilliance of the films, neither of them struck me as special. Looper, on the other hand, is an amazing film, and I was completely engaged from start to finish. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, outfitted with make-up and facial prosthetics to mimic the appearance of a young Bruce Willis, is compelling as Joe, the apathetic looper who must elude his own employers and find his renegade future self before both of them end up dead. Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt, who both have had their share of recent misfires, more than hold their own, but I must reserve most of the praise for seven-year-old Pierce Gagnon, whose role (and I won't spoil it here) is key to the second half of the film. To put it simply, this is the most thrilling and inventive film of 2012, and you'll not want to miss it.

1. Django Unchained. What makes writer/director Quentin Tarantino such a unique and brilliant filmmaker is his talent for borrowing elements of the films that he loves - in this case, cult classic Spaghetti Westerns like 1966's Django, 1967's Day of Anger, and 1972's The Grand Duel - and repurposing and reconstituting them into something that feels fresh, entertaining, and original. Tarantino puts that talent to excellent use in Django Unchained, which, like his previous film Inglourious Basterds, is a revenge fantasy, this time centering around a slave liberated from his chains by a sympathetic bounty hunter who agrees to help him find his long lost wife in exchange for his help in tracking three wanted men. As much as Django is a shining example of his skills as a master storyteller, Tarantino also continues to have a brilliant eye for casting, with Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Samuel L. Jackson all delivering some of the best work of their respective careers. I could talk at length about each of their performances, but I'll reserve most of the praise for Foxx and DiCaprio. DiCaprio, in particular, appears to be having the time of his life as the despicable plantation owner Calvin Candie, whose Southern charisma masks an ugly and sadistic nature. More than anything, Django Unchained is the outstanding work of a master filmmaker whose love of cinema permeates every frame of this epic, good old-fashioned Western.

________________________________________________

Just A Bit Outside: 21 Jump Street, Chronicle, Cloud Atlas, Flight, The Hobbit: Part 1 - An Unexpected Journey, Moonrise Kingdom, ParaNorman, and Ruby Sparks

Biggest Surprise of the Year: Magic Mike. Yes, I saw a movie about male strippers. But if you go into it expecting nothing more and nothing less than that, you'll be disappointed, because this is a character drama, more than anything. Channing Tatum (who also impressed with his comedic chops in the underrated 21 Jump Street) gives his best performance to date in a semi-autobiographical role as Magic Mike, a stripper and self-proclaimed entrepreneur who has aspirations of owning his own business, but can't seem to find his exit from this self-indulgent lifestyle. It is, by no means, a great film, but I have to give a lot of credit to director Steven Soderbergh for taking what could have been a raunchy, laughable chick flick and producing an interesting study of a man forced to face the repercussions of living two different lives.

Biggest Disappointment of the Year: The Master. I have a great appreciation for the work of writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (with Magnolia and There Will Be Blood be among some of my favorite films), so you can imagine how I felt when The Master fell far short of lofty expectations. I'll admit, the performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman are more than deserving of praise and recognition, but the script is something of a mess, bordering on pretentious and tedious at times. I can understand that Anderson likes to leave a lot open to audience interpretation in his films, but I've never felt more frustrated or confounded than I was while watching The Master, especially in the latter half of the film. I'll have to watch it again and see if it improves on a second viewing, but the first time around left a lot to be desired.

And with that, we close the book on another year of movies. For a look back, please take a few minutes and check out the amazing video below:

The Dark Knight Trilogy (Part 3 of 3)

Eight years after the death of Harvey Dent, Batman is no more, hunted by the Gotham Police Department and condemned by the public when he assumed responsibility for the murders perpetrated by Two-Face. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a recluse, exiling himself to the re-built Wayne Mansion and leaving the day-to-day operations of Wayne Enterprises to his trusted CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), all the while still struggling to cope with the death of his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes at the hands of the Joker. Gotham City, as a result of new legislation enacted in the wake of Dent being murdered, has seen its crime rate plummet to an all-time low, with much of the credit going to Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), the man tasked with perpetuating the lie that has helped Harvey Dent become a symbol of hope for the people of Gotham. Bruce is drawn out of seclusion when, at a gala held at his house in honor of Harvey Dent, a cat burglar manages to abscond with one of his most precious possessions, leading him to track down the enigmatic Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a woman with a mysterious agenda who warns him of a coming storm. When the terrorist leader Bane (Tom Hardy) and his forces descend upon Gotham City, Bruce is forced to don the cape and cowl once again to defend his home, but it soon becomes clear that this might be a battle even Batman can't win.

Where do I begin? I will admit, I have mixed feelings about THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, mere hours after leaving the midnight premiere. But, more than anything, I feel closure, and that is what Christopher Nolan set out to do when he began constructing this final chapter to his epic saga. While there are new characters added to the mix in Selina Kyle, Bane, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is all about Bruce Wayne. Here, eight years after taking the fall for Harvey Dent, Bruce is a man without a purpose, unable to move on with his life despite living under the belief that he sacrificed his alter ego for the greater good. Back in BATMAN BEGINS, Bruce decided to put on the cape and cowl because he wanted Batman to serve as a symbol for the people of Gotham and inspire them to believe in good. In THE DARK KNIGHT, Bruce believed he had accomplished that goal by positioning Harvey Dent as the white knight of Gotham, certain that he - not Batman - was the hero that could inspire the citizens to take action. But, as THE DARK KNIGHT RISES explores, the foundations of that success were tenuous at best, built on a lie that, if exposed, would cause Gotham to collapse on itself like a house of cards. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is about Bruce realizing that Batman is the hero that Gotham needs and coming to terms with the fact that, in order to be that hero, he must first confront his own personal demons, rather than let them continue to define him.

There are some flaws to be found in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, but a lot of them are forgivable. Most of the performances are top notch and the writing behind the characters works well enough, with the lone exception of Miranda Tate, whose character never seems to find her footing even as she takes on a more pivotal role towards the end of the film. I never expected to love Anne Hathaway as much as I did, having had some misgivings about her initial casting as Catwoman, and I am happy to report that my one complaint about her character is that she wasn't given more screen time, taking a backseat to Bane during the film's cataclysmic second half. Because much of the focus is on Bruce Wayne, Bane isn't given a whole lot to do here, unlike his predecessor the Joker, but Tom Hardy still owns the role nonetheless, functioning as a brutal force of nature the likes of which Batman has never faced before. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES struggles at times to find an equal balance of its characters, with regulars like Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and Jim Gordon assuming minimalized roles in favor of John Blake, an earnest beat cop who serves as a sobering reminder to Batman of the kind of good he once intended to inspire. But it never feels bloated or overcrowded, like what we saw from SPIDER-MAN 3, and the worst criticism I can give it is that I left the theater not quite ready to say goodbye yet to some of these characters.

Was it better than THE DARK KNIGHT? No. Was I at all disappointed? I'd be lying if I said I wasn't, but that doesn't detract from the quality of the film. I went into THE DARK KNIGHT RISES with unrealistic expectations, certain that Christopher Nolan was going to top THE DARK KNIGHT, but what I got instead was a final chapter that was more interested in providing closure than spectacle. The writing here isn't as tight as THE DARK KNIGHT, with a couple ill-advised plot twists that don't quite work as well on screen as they might have on paper, but this might be the most ambitious entry of the trilogy, tackling issues of class warfare, social injustice, and the difference between heroism and vigilantism. I'll need to watch it again one more time to see how well it holds the second time around, but this is without question the swan song that Bruce Wayne deserved and I tip my hat to Christopher Nolan, who managed to close out his trilogy with a spectacular final film that felt both necessary and cathartic. With crisp storytelling that brings everything to a satisfying finish and an all-star cast that leaves it all on the table in terms of performance, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a poignant end to a trilogy that has re-defined comic book films as we know them, and I will miss this version of the Caped Crusader more than any of his predecessors.

The Dark Knight Trilogy (Part 2 of 3)

Months after saving Gotham from Ra's Al Ghul and the League of Shadows, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has turned his focus to organized crime, working together with Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and ambitious district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) to bring down the mob. Bruce is aware that Batman cannot last forever and views Harvey as his true successor, the public hero that Gotham needs and one who is willing to fight crime without having to hide behind a mask, despite the fact that Harvey has been dating his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). Their plan to clean up the streets of Gotham is put to the test when the Joker (Heath Ledger) strolls into town and offers up his services to the mob, orchestrating a campaign of terror and destruction that pushes Batman to his limits. As the death toll begins to mount and chaos reigns throughout Gotham, Batman is forced to question how far he is willing to go to take this madman down - and what he is willing to sacrifice for the sake of the greater good.

I remember sitting in the movie theater during opening weekend of THE DARK KNIGHT and there was a moment during the film where I thought to myself, "I never want this to end." I went in with highest of expectations and, for the first time in a long time, I left the theater feeling like I had witnessed something special - a moviegoing experience that I would remember for the rest of my life. It was that good. It isn't without its flaws, like some will point out that Bruce Wayne takes a backseat to the Joker and Harvey Dent, but there is so much that Christopher Nolan gets right that his missteps are more than forgivable. And, to be quite honest, there is a reason Bruce gets lost in the shuffle at times, and its because the drama happening around him is so intelligent and compelling that the weight of the film didn't need to be on his shoulders. I'll get to the Joker in a minute, because I'd first like to talk about Harvey Dent, whose character arc provides the framework for THE DARK KNIGHT and brings the various plot strands together. Played with effortless charisma by Aaron Eckhart, Dent represents the kind of hope that Batman was meant to inspire, an ordinary citizen who believes that good can prevail over evil and is willing to fight the good fight to protect the people of Gotham. But, like the opposing sides of a coin, Dent also embodies the idea that even the most noble of men have a dark side and all it takes is the right push, as the Joker so aptly illustrates in his manipulations of Dent in the latter half of THE DARK KNIGHT. Like BATMAN BEGINS before it, THE DARK KNIGHT raises the question of whether or not the people of Gotham can be saved and explores the dichotic nature of mankind through Harvey Dent, whose tortured soul serves as the ultimate prize in the battle between Batman and the Joker.

But while I found the transformation of Harvey Dent to be the heart of THE DARK KNIGHT, what elevates this film to another level is the performance of the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. Simply put, it is one of the most iconic performances of our time, which makes his premature death all the more tragic. Almost unrecognizable behind the clown make-up, Ledger transformed himself into the Joker, so much so that you can't help but feel mesmerized every time he appears on the screen. From his nihilistic behavior to his lack of an origin, this is how the Joker was meant to be portrayed, and I give as much credit to Ledger as I do to the writers, who clearly understood the character and what makes him tick from the get-go. This kind of respect for the source material is what sets this franchise apart from other comic book films of the past, in this new era of fandom where filmmakers can win over a fan base by simply taking a serious approach to these characters and their storylines. By continuing to keep Batman grounded in the real world, Christopher Nolan has achieved something that no other comic book film could have even dreamed of, and it is the idea that these movies can reflect something about ourselves while also keeping us entertained. Which is why THE DARK KNIGHT functions not just as an exceptional comic book film, but also as a thrilling crime drama not seen since Michael Mann's HEAT. THE DARK KNIGHT addresses modern issues of justice, morality, and terrorism, hefty baggage for a superhero film, but it never feels forced because all of them are natural elements of this world the filmmakers have created.

I consider THE DARK KNIGHT to be one of the best films that I've ever seen because it excels in all aspects of filmmaking, both behind the camera and in front it. The look of the film is crisp and stunning, the writing is brilliant and imaginative, the acting is all top notch and headlined by a performance well deserving of its Best Supporting Actor Oscar, and the soundtrack from Hans Zimmer, as usual, is nothing short of magnificent. This is the kind of film that will be remembered for years to come, reminding us of the greatness that Hollywood is capable of producing when its most talented people are allowed to come together and work their magic.

Check back on Friday for Part 3!

The Dark Knight Trilogy (Part 1 of 3)

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES hits theaters this Friday and, in a tribute to one of the greatest cinematic trilogies of our time, I will be revisiting each of the films and discussing what makes them so great, starting with BATMAN BEGINS, moving on to THE DARK KNIGHT on Wednesday, and finishing up with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES on Friday. Having spent countless hours of my childhood sitting in front of the television watching episodes of BATMAN - THE ANIMATED SERIES, Batman is a character that I hold very close to my heart, and I can't even begin to describe how amazing it has been to see him brought to life on the big screen. There are those who still hold 1989's BATMAN and its sequel BATMAN RETURN in high regard, but for me, this incarnation of Batman is the greatest that I've ever seen, largely because of how much respect it has for the source material, the skill with which its been adapted, and the care that has gone into preserving the themes that have come to define the world of Batman in comic books, television, and film.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a man haunted by the past, traumatized as a child after witnessing the murder of his beloved parents at the hands of a petty thief. Raised by his trusted family butler Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine), Bruce grew up with an uncontrollable rage burning away inside of him, an anger that refused to subside even when the man who murdered his parents was shot dead outside of a courtroom. Leaving behind his life in Gotham City, Bruce flees to a third world country in hopes of ingratiating himself into the criminal underworld, but ends up drawing the attention of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard reveals himself to be a member of the League of Shadows, an organization that answers to Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanbe) and seeks to fight injustice across the globe, and convinces Bruce to become a part of their cause, teaching him how to use fear against those who prey on the fearful. But when Ducard insists that he execute a common criminal, Bruce draws the line and, after escaping the League in an explosive confrontation, returns to Gotham a new man, now certain of his role as the sworn protector of the city. With the help of the idealistic Sergeant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and assistant district attorney Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), Bruce attempts to clean up the streets of Gotham under the mask of the caped crusader Batman, striking fear into the hearts of the criminals who have held a stranglehold over the city for decades. But when a plot to tear the city apart emerges, Batman is forced to put his abilities to the rest and the fight to save Gotham from total destruction begins.

Back in 1997, BATMAN AND ROBIN was released and the result was the death of Batman, or at least the death of his film career for the foreseeable future. It would be almost a decade before we would ever see Batman on the big screen but how could you blame them, what with Arnold Schwarzenegger forced to spout a slew of excruciating puns as Mr. Freeze, Batman committing the infamous fashion faux pas of adding nipples to his costume, and director Joel Schumacher obsessed with using as much neon as possible. It was a trainwreck, from start to finish. But, in hindsight, this disaster did have one redeeming trait, as it could be argued that it paved the road for the triumph of BATMAN BEGINS. This is the origin tale that Bruce Wayne deserved but never received, not even in Tim Burton's BATMAN. With two lesser known villains in Ra's Al Ghul and Dr. Jonathan "The Scarecrow" Crane (Cillian Murphy), much of the film is spent focusing on the psychological issues that drive Bruce, with Batman unseen until at least an hour into the running time. BATMAN BEGINS dares to ask the question "What kind of man chooses to spend his nights beating up criminals in a bat costume?" and exposes Bruce for the broken man that he is - a man so consumed with anger and grief that he needs to create an alter ego to exorcise his personal demons. What makes Batman so accessible is that, like the rest of us, Bruce has his own issues, but instead of letting them destroy him, he channels into them into a force for good.

What sets BATMAN BEGINS apart from the previous incarnations of the Caped Crusader is the decision to ground it in the real world, which makes sense given that Batman, unlike his comic book brethren, possesses no super powers. Just like the tagline of 1978's SUPERMAN promised that you'll believe a man can fly, BATMAN BEGINS braves the task of convincing the audience that a hero like Batman could exist in the real world, and does so with impressive skill. You see the bruises that Bruce wakes up with in the morning after a night out crusading, the constant struggles of a cop like Jim Gordon forced to operate in a police department rife with corruption, and the sufferings of the impoverished people who serve as the lower class of Gotham, and the audience is all the more invested as a result. None of the problems that Batman is attempting to combat are confined to Gotham City and that is what elevates BATMAN BEGINS above its peers in the comic book film genre, because it wants to use Batman to reflect the issues of fear, justice, and class that we encounter in our own lives. There are two conflicts presented in BATMAN BEGINS that become the driving forces of this trilogy, one being the battle between Bruce Wayne and his own personal demons and the other being the battle between Batman and those who believe that the people of Gotham City are beyond saving. We live in a brutal world full of violence, greed, and murder, and Batman represents the idea that mankind, with all of its flaws, is still worth fighting for.

Something else worth mentioning about BATMAN BEGINS is the impressive cast list, which, at the time of its release, was rare for a comic book film, but also a sign that we were entering a period where superhero films could be considered more than popcorn fare. There isn't a weak performance in the group, even though some will point to Katie Holmes at a weak spot, with much of the praise belonging to the terrific trio of Christian Bale, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman. While often overshadowed by the enormous popularity of its successor THE DARK KNIGHT, BATMAN BEGINS is quite an achievement on its own, providing a blueprint for how to deliver a proper origin story and ushering in a new era of superhero films that would aspire to be something more.

Be sure to check back for Part 2!

"What's Your Favorite Movie?"

X-MEN. DEATH TO SMOOCHY. BIG FISH. WEDDING CRASHERS. THE DEPARTED. And, for the past four years, THE DARK KNIGHT. At one point or another, these are the answers that I've produced when asked the question that every film buff dreads... "What's your favorite movie?" It all started back in 2000, when I walked out of the theater having just seen X-MEN, passing standees of some of the film's larger-than-life characters as I left, and realized that what I had just witnessed was awesome. From that moment on, I was obsessed with X-MEN, making multiple trips to Toys "R" Us with my dad to collect all of the action figures and even dressing up as Cyclops (my favorite member of the X-Men) on several occasions, doing battle with the various supervillains that frequented my house. And from that obsession with X-MEN, my love of movies was born.

And from that point forward, "What's your favorite movie?" went from short answer to essay question. Looking back on it, each of the movies that stood atop my favorites at one point or another said something about me at the time, and I find that to be a credit to the power that a film can hold. For me, X-MEN represented the idea that imagination wasn't reserved for childhood and that the cartoon heroes I watched on television after school could be more than just two-dimensional drawings. Seeing those characters brought to life on the big screen made them real and, after that, it dawned on me that the possibilities of what you could bring to life through film were endless and unimaginable. DEATH TO SMOOCHY, which would take the reins from X-MEN, was a little less grandiose in scope, but that didn't keep me from laughing every time that I watched it. I've revisited it a couple times and, while I still think it has quite a bit of dark comedic value, it isn't a great movie by any measure, lacking focus and logic. But for me, during the time that I first saw it, it had a cynicism to it that I found to be a refreshing change of pace from the cheeseball kiddie fare that I'd become accustomed to, and I came to appreciate humor that had some bite to it.

Then BIG FISH rolled into town and changed everything for me. I have no idea why, but I was more excited to see BIG FISH than I was for any other movie that came out during 2003. I can't explain it. It didn't have a big budget, wasn't a summer blockbuster, had no characters with super powers, and its biggest star was Ewan McGregor, someone I was only slightly familiar with at that point. But I went to see it and I loved it. I'm not sure I realized it at the time, but I think the reason it struck a chord with me was because I could relate to both main characters, Edward Bloom (Albert Finney) and Will Bloom (Billy Crudup), a father unsatisfied with the boring and mundane limitations of the real world and a frustrated son desperate to get to know a man obsessed with tall tales and half-truths. For the first time that I can remember, I was able to create a deep emotional connection with the characters and, as a result, I saw something in BIG FISH that was below the surface level. WEDDING CRASHERS, which came along a few years down the road, took the mantle from BIG FISH for the simple fact that it was the funniest movie that I had ever seen and, like a cherry on top of a delicious sundae, it was a raunchy comedy that had real heart and intelligence. It was a balanced mixture of clever, hilarious, and romantic, and it felt fresh and polished to boot, something that I had not seen in a modern comedy before. It showed me that you could make people laugh without having to throw common sense out the window, and that is a lesson I will never forget.

But THE DEPARTED was a different animal from WEDDING CRASHERS. When I first saw THE DEPARTED, I was enthralled in it from start to finish, which felt odd to me because I had expected more of a slown burn effort from director Martin Scorsese. And it had an all-star cast that included Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, and Martin Sheen, all of them combining their stellar efforts to bring a commanding presence to the film that I had never seen before. It was dark, gritty, and violent, and I ate it all up, from sitting on the edge of my seat as Bill Costigan (DiCaprio) races against time to prevent his dual identities from being exposed to watching Colin Sullivan (Damon) weasel his way through the police department with aims at self-preservation to sitting in awe as Nicholson took over each scene as the ruthless, homicidal and paranoid Frank Costello. It was mesmerizing to watch the fireworks as these men collided and a wave of collateral damage unfolded onscreen, leaving bullets, blood, and dead bodies in its wake.

All of these paled in comparison to THE DARK KNIGHT. I remember sitting in the theater on July 20th, 2008, watching the events of THE DARK KNIGHT unfold on the screen, and thinking to myself that I never wanted it to end. Everything was perfect. I wasn't watching Heath Ledger acting onscreen, I was watching the Joker terrorize Gotham City, the face of a former heartthrob buried beneath a layer of clown make-up that made him virtually unrecognizable. It was incredible to watch. On top of that, Aaron Eckhart almost stole the show from him with his turn as Harvey Dent, the ambitious district attorney who descends into madness when the Joker tears him down and transforms him into the vengeful Two-Face. It was a comic book film that strived to be more than that, incorporating modern elements of justice, terrorism, and herosim that elevated it to a level not seen before by a movie about a man in a cape and cowl. I saw it three times in theaters, the most times I've ever seen the same film more than once, and I've watched it countless times on DVD.

Looking back on this list, I can't help but notice how much my idea of "favorite movie" changed and evolved over time, from X-MEN to WEDDING CRASHERS to THE DARK KNIGHT. Does this mean these are the best movies that I've seen? I doubt that, given that DEATH TO SMOOCHY is among them. Part of it could be attributed to the fact that I was fickle when I was younger. But these were the movies that meant the most to me at the time that I saw them and, even now, they remain some of the most memorable of the hundreds of movies that I've seen to date. I challenge you to think of your own favorite movie, consider why you see it as your favorite, and think about what it meant to you at the time that you saw it. You might be surprised by what comes to mind.

So... "What's your favorite movie?"

How Audiences Broke Adam Sandler

We are responsible for the death of Adam Sandler.

Perhaps I should re-phrase that... We are responsible for the death of Adam Sandler as an actor. GROWN UPS, JACK AND JILL, THAT'S MY BOY... We brought these on ourselves. We can blame Adam Sandler all we want, but the truth is that three years ago, he gave the best performance of his career and no one seemed to notice. He gave us his best and, in return, we gave him a blank stare, because this was not the Sandler we had come to know and people weren't sure how to react.

FUNNY PEOPLE was not a perfect film. To be honest, it had a number of flaws, the most glaring being the fact that it didn't seem to know what kind of film it wanted to be. It was a schizophrenic movie, an unexpected failure given the fact that it was written and directed by Judd Apatow, the creative mind behind THE 40-YEAR-OLD-VIRGIN and KNOCKED UP whose name has become a genre all its own, adeptly balancing touching human drama with raunchy comedy. FUNNY PEOPLE begins with veteran comedian George Simmons (Adam Sandler) being diagnosed with leukemia, prompting him to make a return to stand-up comedy due to the belief that he doesn't have much life left. After he does a somber stand-up routine at a local club, George takes notice of young up-and-comer Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) and, in preparation for an upcoming gig at a corporate event, he hires Ira to write some jokes for him. Eventually, the two become friends and, after learning that George is dying, Ira pleads with him to start telling other people about his condition, the most important being his ex-fiancee Laura (Leslie Mann). But once George begins to re-connect with Laura, things become complicated and he begins to question the choices he has made in life.

This was the role of a lifetime for Adam Sandler. George Simmons is an actor who has made a career out of cheeseball comedies like MERMAN, MY BEST FRIEND IS A ROBOT, ASTRO-NOT, and RE-DO. You know, the cheap, generic kind of comedies that kids will find hilarious while their parents try not to gouge their own eyes out in horror. On the big screen, getting people to laugh seemed effortless for George, but in real life, his ability to create emotional connections with real people was almost non-existent, negated by his selfish nature and bitter attitude. The one woman that he did truly love was pushed out of his life and by his own doing, having cheated on her with another woman, and that rejection broke him, as he proceeded to insulate himself from heartbreak by keeping everyone else at a safe distance and resorted to working solely on kiddie movies that required him to invest as little of himself as possible. This was a role that, for the first time, required Sandler to show some real acting chops, rather than just acting like a goofy man child, and he knocked it out of the park, unlike his more artificial turn in the uncomfortable REIGN OVER ME.

Unlike some of the roles that made him famous, this was a damaged character who didn't know how to repair himself or if he was even capable of doing so, whereas in a movie like BILLY MADISON all it took was an attractive teacher and some hard core studying. I'm not knocking the likes of BILLY MADISON or HAPPY GILMORE or THE WEDDING SINGER, because I enjoyed those films and still do, but FUNNY PEOPLE represented a mature career move for Sandler, where he was challenging himself rather than falling back on what came easy to him. But then, FUNNY PEOPLE hit theaters and flopped, garnering mixed reviews from critics and receiving little box office success. Most called it a failed experiment, but others saw it as a brave and bold dramatic performance from a man who built a successful career on poop jokes. I was certainly one of them.

But, three years later, we have had to endure both the atrocities of GROWN UPS and JACK AND JILL, and with THAT'S MY BOY being released this weekend and GROWNS UP 2 in the works, the future doesn't look bright. I know that GROWN UPS has amassed its own fan base and I'm sure there will be those who will find pleasure in the gross-out raunch of THAT'S MY BOY, but there is no denying that JACK AND JILL is one of the worst movies of our generation, if not all time. It has zero redeeming qualities, and I often find myself wondering if the man who greenlit its production is still employed. But Sandler will continue to makes these "movies" because this is what he thinks audiences want from him. We reject him for taking risks like FUNNY PEOPLE, but we'll go see YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN in theaters and even buy the DVD because Silly Sandler is the one we love. I grew up loving movies like HAPPY GILMORE, THE WEDDING SINGER, and even THE WATERBOY, but what we're seeing from today's Sandler doesn't even compare to those movies. Those movies had heart, something that seems lost on Sandler now, and they were actually pretty funny, which amazingly does wonders for the repeat value of a comedy. I'm sure there will be those who defend the modern Sandler and his latest slew of movies, but I am not one of them and I know that I'm not alone. All I can do is wait for the day when he decides to start trying again.

Woody Allen (Part 1 of 3)

"If my film makes one more person miserable, I'll feel like I've done my job." - Woody Allen

Welcome back for another installment of Filmmaker of the Week! I must admit, I've never been a big fan of Woody Allen, even though I had never seen a single one of his films, until recently. I don't know what it was, but something about the style and substance of films just didn't seem like something that appealed to me. But, if I'm going claim that I'm a serious student of film, I couldn't ignore him forever. He has, after all, written over sixty films during his career. Just try and wrap your head around that. Sixty films. Some people struggle to write just one film while this guy seems to churn them out like clockwork. Obviously, Woody Allen is doing something right and it's about time that I took notice. So, after scouring the Internet, I have assembled what I believe to be his top five films to date, according to his fans, at least. In Part 1, I will be talking about LOVE AND DEATH and ANNIE HALL, Part 2 will focus on MANHATTAN and HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, and we'll finish up in Part 3 with CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and, as an added bonus, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, the one Woody Allen movie that I've already seen and one that I really liked a lot. Now, time to find out what makes Woody Allen one of the greatest living filmmakers!

During the Napoleonic Wars, Boris Grushenko (Woody Allen) is forced to enlist in the Russian Army despite the fact that he is both a pacifist and a coward, unlike his two older brothers who are eager to go to war to defend Russia from Napoleon Bonparte (James Tolkan) and his forces. The one thing that Boris seems to want more than anything in life is the love of his cousin Sonja (Diane Keaton), who desires to wed his brother Ivan Grushenko (Henry Czarniak) until he spurns her and she decides to marry a herring merchant to spite him. Deemed by his superiors to be one of the worst soldiers in all of Russia, Boris manages to elude any sort of combat out on the battlefield, until he makes the mistake of hiding out in a cannon that fires and launches him into enemy territory, inadvertently landing on and killing a group of the opposing force's generals. Returning home to a hero's welcome, Boris beds the beautiful Countess Alexandrovna (Olga Georges-Picot) and is challenged to a duel to the death for her honor by Anton Lebedokov (Harold Gould). Certain that he is to die, Boris convinces the recently widowed Sonja to marry him should he survive the impending duel, which does not go as expected for either of the men involved.

As the first of the movies for this installment of Filmmaker of the Week, LOVE AND DEATH was not at all what I expected from Woody Allen, but in a way that was pleasantly surprising. I was expecting a lot of dry humor, which there was an ample amount of, but I was taken aback by the goofy comedy that seemed to overtake the film as the plot descended further and further into absurdity, capped by a ridiculous plot to assassinate Napoleon. Some of the humor that was aimed at parodying Russian literature was lost on me due to my being unfamiliar with the source material, but LOVE AND DEATH still has a lot to offer to the casual viewer, satirizing the arbitrary nature of war and the vanity of traditional marriage. I'm particularly fond of the sequences depicting Boris out in the battlefield, where he manages to botch his basic training, turns and runs when faced with the prospect of hand-to-hand combat, and at one point even masquerades as a cheerleader to support his comrades. Two interesting elements of LOVE AND DEATH that I'm sure will pop up again in future films are his use of anachronisms and philosophical debates, both of which are played for laughs and contribute to the tongue-in-cheek tone that permeates the entire film. It is a goofy, light-hearted, and sometimes silly film, but one that drew a lot of laughs from me.

One year after their break-up, Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) attempts to figure out why his relationship with Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) ended, with much of their story unfolding through flashback. Having suffered through two failed and unfulfilling marriages, Alvy receives an unexpected surprise when he meets Annie for the first time while playing tennis with a friend, the two of them later ending up at her apartment for a glass of wine and some casual flirtation. Despite obvious personal differences, the two of them begin to date and their initial love is very passionate, until Alvy begins to grow increasingly paranoid and begins to question both her and their relationship. Even as they fight to stay together, Alvy continues to push her away with his self-destructive behavior and Annie starts to slowly pull away from him, certain that no woman in the world can make Alvy Singer happy.

I'm going to be honest here and admit that I struggled with ANNIE HALL. I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't connect with it for a number of reasons. For starters, I had problems with how the film was structured, how it jumped back and forth in time with reckless abandon and at one point even depicted a scene where two families, separated by several decades of time, appear to share a dinner table and even interact with each other. It made it difficult to grasp what was going on with the characters when I couldn't distinguish what period of their relationship I was watching, making it even harder to find some sense of plot. I liked both Woody Allen and Diane Keaton enough, but I never felt particularly attached to their characters or their relationship, which consisted of arguments, sex, a few tender moments, and more arguments. Maybe that was the point though, and I'm too young to understand the nature of relationships during the 70's. I've heard at least one fan refer to ANNIE HALL as the movie about relationships in the 70's, so perhaps it was capturing a cultural zeitgeist that I was never part of or had a chance to experience for myself. Woody Allen is a very intelligent man and his writing is evidence of that, but I often wonder if too much of his humor is based in culture, because I'll admit that a lot of his jokes and references go way over my head. I'll probably end up revisiting ANNIE HALL again in the future to see if my perceptions of it change, but for a first viewing, I felt very underwhelmed and strangely unaffected by it.

Check back soon for Part 2!

The Trouble With Threequels

Never have I felt more disappointed leaving the movie theater than when I was walking out of SPIDER-MAN 3 on May 5th, 2007. X-MEN was the film that broke through the cinematic wall for comic book films, but SPIDER-MAN was the one that opened the floodgates, garnering both critical and box office success and offering up a succesful blueprint for how to bring a comic book character to the big screen. Even when the market for comic book films began to explode, director Sam Raimi continued to outdo the rest with SPIDER-MAN 2, which blew its predecessor out of the water and dared to present the idea that being a superhero wasn't all it was cracked up to be. With two impressive first installments under his belt, there was little reason to doubt that Raimi would bring the trilogy to a spectacular end with SPIDER-MAN 3, and I was more than willing to buy into the hype. I would watch and re-watch each trailer hoping to snag a few hidden plot details, scour the Internet in search of articles or interviews with the cast and crew, and waited with anticipation to see how Raimi would transform Topher Grace into the iconic villain Venom.

Then I saw SPIDER-MAN 3, and it all came crashing down. Harry Osborn finally took up his father's mantle as the Green Goblin... and then took a blow to the head and got amnesia. Escaped convict Flint Marko is transformed into the Sandman... after falling into an unexplained sand experiment at a conveniently located particle physics test facility. Gwen Stacy makes her first appearance in the franchise... but only shows up randomly to act as an oblivious homewrecker to Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. Sleazy new photographer Eddie Brock arrives to bring Venom to the big screen... but never receives anything resembling character development and seems shoehorned into the film just so fans could have Venom for the final half hour of the movie. Peter is overcome by a black symbiote suit from outer space... and ignores several blatant warning signs as it turns him into an emo hipster with a serious attitude problem. And then it hit rock bottom:

I couldn't believe it, I couldn't understand how Raimi could have let this happen after exceeding expectations with both SPIDER-MAN and SPIDER-MAN 2. Some were concerned before its release that it seemed like SPIDER-MAN 3 had too much going on - with new Green Goblin, the Sandman, and Venom all serving as  villains - and that it was going to be a challenge for Raimi to bring these all together in a cohesive storyline, but I gave Raimi the benefit of the doubt because I was so certain that he was infallible. Alas, I was wrong. Instead of a film that seamlessly weaved these different storylines together to form a single narrative, we got a movie that was all ideas and no execution. Like a kid at the candy store, Raimi was trying to cram everything he could into his bag, and then proceeded to try and throw it all together in a two-hour film. It appeared that Raimi had forgotten what made the first two movies great, instead subscribing to the idea that bigger is better and that that meant more characters and more action, with little room for character development. SPIDER-MAN 3 went on to smash box office records, outgrossing both of its predecessors, but it went down as a black mark on an otherwise pristine franchise to most critics and fans.

I can't help but relive this disappointment as anticipation continues to build for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, the final chapter in the trilogy that has made director Christopher Nolan a household name and breathed new life into a Batman franchise that seemed all but dead after the abomination known as BATMAN AND ROBIN. For me, BATMAN BEGINS is the definitive Batman film because it put the spotlight on Bruce Wayne and gave him the origin tale that he deserved, focusing on the psychological reasons for why a man would spend his nights fighting crime while dressed up like a bat. THE DARK KNIGHT, on the other hand, is considered by quite a few people (myself included) to be the best comic book movie ever made because of it how well it functions as both a thrilling crime drama and a chilling portrait of the times, incorporating contemporary questions about terrorism, justice, and morality. And then there is the unforgettable performance of the late Heath Ledger as the Joker, for which he won the Oscar of Best Supporting Actor, a much deserved accolade for a talented actor taken before his time. So what we have here is the final installment in a trilogy that has re-defined comic book films as we have come to know them. Sound familiar?

I await THE DARK KNIGHT RISES with cautious optimism, confident that Christopher Nolan (who has yet to make a bad film) will not botch the final act of a character he seems to know so well, while the bitter memory of SPIDER-MAN 3 sits in the back of my mind as a constant reminder of what happened the last time I got my hopes up for the last entry in a comic book movie trilogy. But SPIDER-MAN 3 isn't the only the example of a botched threequel. SUPERMAN III? X-MEN - THE LAST STAND? THE GODFATHER - PART III? THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS? Why is it so hard to make a successful threequel? I believe it's because filmmakers try too hard to top the previous film and tend to cram too much into a single film, rather than focusing on expanding the development of the storyline and introducing characters who will complement the story that you're trying to tell. When I was a kid, I would always try to think of what villain would be the coolest for a given sequel. Like a lot of people, I was too focused on what character I most wanted to see, not what character would present the most significant threat to the protagonist, both creatively and dramatically. You look at how you left the characters at the end of the previous film, figure out what lies ahead for each of them, and develop a narrative that will challenge them but also feel like a natural progression of their storylines. Never sacrificing character for spectacle seems to be the most important lesson here. I have faith that that is a concept not unfamiliar to Christopher Nolan.

Now In Theaters - PROMETHEUS

I went into PROMETHEUS with high expectations, and what I found was something of a mixed bag. Director Ridley Scott had not ventured into the science fiction arena since 1979's ALIEN and  1982's BLADE RUNNER, both of which are now considered to be genre classics, so I was eager to see his latest contribution. But, after taking a day to consider and contemplate all that PROMETHEUS had to offer, I fear that Scott may have bitten off more than he chew here, with the most glaring flaws being traced back to a sloppy and choppy script that raises a number of philosophical questions but offers few answers. Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) is the central protagonist of PROMETHEUS, convincing billionaire industrialist Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) to fund an interstellar expedition to a distant planet that she and her colleague Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) believe to be the home of "the Engineers." The Engineers are an extraterrestrial race whose existence has been hinted at in crave drawings from various civilizations throughout history, leading Shaw to believe that they could be responsible for the creation of the human race. Two years of cryostasis aboard the vessel Prometheus and both Shaw and Holloway are eager to scour the planet in search of answers, albeit under the watchful eye of corporate rep Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron). But, as the tagline goes, what they find could, in fact, lead to the death of all mankind.

Not only do the secrets unearthed on this planet portend the extermination of the human race, but they also succeed in confounding and disorienting the audience. Who created us? What is our purpose? What happens after death? These are the questions that serve as the foundations of PROMETHEUS, but the events of the film suggest that maybe we shouldn't have even been asking them in the first place. This is an ambitious film that aspires to be much more than just popcorn entertainment, but it loses sight of that goal in a third act jam-packed with death, destruction, and mayhem. It wants to be an intelligent and thought-provoking science fiction film, but the elements of horror that take over at about the halfway point seem more appropriate for a slasher film, as some of the twists and turns don't seem to serve any purpose other than to add shock value. To make matters worse, these twists are the result of poor or inexplicable decisions from the main characters, who don't seem driven at all by their own motivations, but instead appear to be acting solely on behalf of the screenwriter trying to move the plot from set piece to set piece. And, because of this shift, the questions raised in the first act of the film are thrown to wind, left up to the audience to decipher and interpret. Some will criticize this as lazy writing and others will praise it for treating the audience as intelligent, but I tend to agree with the former.

But PROMETHEUS does have its merits, and I have to point to the performances of Michael Fassbender and Noomi Rapace as two of the highlights. I thought Fassbender came into his own last year with a show-stealing turn as the villainous Magneto in X-MEN - FIRST CLASS, and he doesn't disappoint here as David, the ship's android crew member who is highly intelligent and incapable of emotion, making it all the more difficult to determine if he is operating under a sinister agenda. Rapace, who wasn't given much to do in SHERLOCK HOLMES - A GAME OF SHADOWS, is handed the most difficult role in PROMETHEUS and more than holds her own, inviting comparisons to Sigourney Weaver's iconic turn as Ellen Ripley in ALIEN. There is one particular scene in the film (and you'll know it when you see it) where she is forced to take drastic action to save her own life, putting her acting chops on full display and keeping you on the edge of your seat the entire time. I also have to give special mention to Idris Elba, who seems to be enjoying himself quite a bit as Janek, the ship's captain and the closest thing PROMETHEUS has to an actual action hero. His presence keeps things from getting too grim, providing a few laughs in between the film's frequent outbursts of violence, and his scenes with Charlize Theron's icy corporate watchdog are some of the best. The look of PROMETHEUS is also something to behold, but I'm not surprised given that Ridley Scott has always had an eye for visual spectacle, BLADE RUNNER being a prime example.

Nevertheless, the performances, ambitious ideas, and the amazing visuals aren't enough to overcome a flawed script. I'm not someone who wants to have it all spelled out for me, as I appreciate it when a film asks me to do a little of the leg work, but there is a breaking point where I feel the writer is putting too much on the audience's shoulders, and PROMETHEUS felt like it crossed that line for me. I will no doubt be reading through the message boards for the next week or so trying to piece it all together, but even then, it will all be conjecture, because the movie refused to give us definitive answers. I just wish PROMETHEUS had spent more time focusing on the questions it raised than on how to best shock the audience with a gruesome death, because those were scenes in the film that came off as the most contrived, at least for me. It's a decent two hours of entertainment that asks some interesting questions and offers up a few memorable, stomach-churning scenes, but it's not the great sci-film film that we've come to expect from Ridley Scott.

Coming Attractions - DJANGO UNCHAINED

Quentin Tarantino ranks right up there with Christopher Nolan and J.J. Abrams as one of the most influential filmmakers in Hollywood, at least for me, because his films are some of the best that I've ever seen and I have made sure to watch them all multiple times, hoping to glean something new about the art of filmmaking with each viewing. RESERVOIR DOGS is one of the most impressive debut films that I've ever seen from a first-time feature director and I consider both PULP FICTION and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS to be his masterpieces, with honorable mention going to his throwback to blaxploitation films JACKIE BROWN and his two-part revenge epic KILL BILL. Tarantino is a self-admitted film buff who grew up working in a video rental store where he amassed an unrivaled knowledge of all things film, a knowledge he now puts to use in crafting films that pay homage to the movies (some more obscure than others) that he loves. I believe him to be more talented as a writer than a director, with a knack for writing skillful exchanges of dialogue that are fascinating and absorbing, vivid and memorable characters re-created from the recycled remains of old stock characters, and the ability to tell a story that feels both fresh and fondly familiar.

But, as is the case with a lot of great filmmakers, Tarantino likes to take his time between movies, the longest of which being the six-year gap separating 1997's JACKIE BROWN and 2003's KILL BILL: VOL. 1, and often talks about several different future projects to the press, making it unclear exactly what he intends to do next. So you can imagine my excitement when it was announced that DJANGO UNCHAINED, the latest film from the mind of Quentin Tarantino, was to be released on December 25th, 2012, a welcome Christmas present to fans of all things Tarantino. DJANGO UNCHAINED is set in the Deep South, where Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave desperate to be reunited with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who has fallen under the ownership of the sadistic slave owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Living in Mississippi, Candie owns and operates a plantation that he affectionately refers to as "Candyland," where female slaves are used for sex and male slaves are pitted against each other in death matches for sport. Django finds unexpected hope in the form of Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a former dentist turned bounty hunter, who frees Django from his captors and offers to help rescue Broomhilda from Candie in exchange for his help in tracking down the elusive Brittle Brothers (M.C. Gainey, Cooper Huckabee, and Doc Duhame), wanted men with rewards out for their capture that Schultz intends to collect.

Why am I so excited for DJANGO UNCHAINED? For starters, I'll flat out see anything that Quentin Tarantino writes and directs because he has yet to let me down, and nothing I've heard about DJANGO has convinced me that this latest work will be the exception. I'm also a huge fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, who has managed to shed the teen heartthrob image he earned with TITANIC and become one of the best leading men working in Hollywood today with acclaimed films like INCEPTION and THE DEPARTED under his belt. But I have a feeling that here in DJANGO UNCHAINED we'll be seeing DiCaprio like we've never seen him before as he steps into the villainous shoes of Calvin Candie, the antithesis of the protagonist roles that have become his bread and butter, and I can't wait to see what kind of performance he has in store for us. Christoph Waltz, since winning Best Supporting Actor for his turn as Colonel Hans Landa in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, has seen his talents in wasted in dull fare like THE GREEN HORNET and WATER FOR ELEPHANTS, so I'm looking forward to seeing him re-team with Tarantino, who wrote the part of Dr. King Schultz specifically with Waltz in mind for the role. Don't forget Jamie Foxx, and Tarantino has again assembled a top notch cast here, and I'm excited to see what he does with it.

I'm also excited for DJANGO UNCHAINED because Tarantino uses a lot of classic elements from Spaghetti Westerns in his films and the thought of him making an actual Western set in the Deep South is an enticing one, to say the least. What makes his films so good is that he himself loves movies and each of his own films, at their core, are love letters to the films of the past that have influenced him. He has credited three films in particular, DAY OF ANGER, THE GRAND DUEL, and DJANGO, as the driving forces behind DJANGO UNCHAINED, and I intend to see all three of them in the hope that I'll be able to recognize their DNA at work once I finally get to glimpse UNCHAINED. Some consider this proof that Tarantino is unoriginal, but I think it takes considerable talent to re-work something that has been done so many times before into something fresh and new, retrofitted with the trademark style that has become so recognizable to Tarantino fans everywhere.

And if nothing that I've said up to this point has convinced you that DJANGO UNCHAINED is one of the must-see films of 2012, I leave you with the teaser trailer below, which was released earlier today. It's going to be a long wait until December 25th, so I encourage you to check out some of the other films that Quentin Tarantino has to offer, because the man hasn't made a bad film, plain and simple. Thanks for reading and enjoy the trailer --- I know I did!