Looking Back: Batman

This is the first post in what will be an ongoing series in which I take an in-depth look at classic movies; a term I'm going to use pretty loosely. Obviously, spoilers abound. For a complete list of the movies, and their reviews, click here. 

Batman (1989): Starring Jack Nicholson, Michael Keaton, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Tim Burton. Screenplay by Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren. Produced by Peter Gruber and Jon Peters. Cinematography by Roger Pratt. Won 1 Oscar: Best Art Direction/Set Direction.

Tim Burton's Batman gets a lot of the credit (and blame) for the boom in comic book character popularity. Indeed, comic books themselves were something of a misunderstood phenomena up until the late 1980's, as they were dismissed by the general public as kids stuff. Batman as a character was nearing the end of his campy look and beginning to get back to his darker roots with stories like Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and A Death in the Family. It wasn't until the major success of Burton's film that comic books became a staple in American pop culture. Many people credit the graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns as the major contributor to Batman's return to being the "Dark Knight" rather than the "Caped Crusader". I disagree, and cite Burton's film as the major influence instead, simply because it had a much wider audience at the time of its release.

While Burton's film is dark in tone and narrative, it also pays homage to the first Batman comics ever. Many, if not all, of the set pieces and designs of Burton's two Batman films are very much straight out of the 1940's, with Burton's dystopian twist added to make the city all the more mysterious. The film's fictional newspaper, the Gotham Globe, bustles with the feel of a pre-World War II office. Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) even acts like one of those old reporters: a fast but smooth talker trying to get the "scoop", so to speak. However, the character's costumes are straight out of the 1980's. The fusion of these two styles are what I find most fascinating about Burton's two Batman films, as he would continue this style a few years later with Batman Returns, albeit heightened by a significant degree.

Watching the movie for the first time in many years, I can't help but feel as if it can be a bit confusing to someone who doesn't know much about Batman. I feel that the movie would have worked better as a sequel, because it begins with Bruce Wayne already as Batman, although early in his career. We don't really get the explanation for Wayne's reasoning to become Batman until very near the end of the film. Because of this, it makes it difficult to understand why he's doing what he's doing. Instead of this Batman being viewed by the audience as a watchful protector, he comes off as a brooding mystery. While that can really only work for Batman, it just doesn't feel right for a character with such a fascinating beginning. This does distinguish Burton's two Batman movies from the current wave of comic book movies, though; most of which follow the very formulaic trilogy idea of movie 1: origin, movie 2: heightened conflict, and movie 3: disaster/redemption. This idea dates back all the way to The Godfather trilogy, when it's viewed solely as Michael Corleone's story. With this being the first cinematic Batman movie, there really needed to be focus on the origin at some point. If the movie didn't want to waste time dealing with the character's beginnings, it could have worked it into the title sequence. Using graphic novel-like stills, similar to what Spider-Man 2 and 3 did, to tell the early days of Bruce Wayne and the murder of his parents could have been a gripping way to open the movie. It would have been a great compliment to the long time fans of the comic books, and a solid introduction for new fans.

It's important to note that at the time Batman was made, there weren't many guarantees of two to three movie deals. Burton and Keaton left the series after two movies, and some say neither was exactly keen on doing more than one movie. It's safe to say that Burton and company simply didn't want to waste time telling an origin story, and instead just wanted to get right down to business with the character. This would have worked if the movie left more time for the flashbacks it does give us about Wayne becoming Batman, and honestly if it had a more compelling actor in the title role. Like many others, I don't agree with the choice of having Joker being the person who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents. It makes Batman vengeful, which is a trait in him never seen in any iteration before or since. While I don't mind movies taking liberty with their source material, changing Batman's motivation for becoming Batman in the first place just doesn't work.

The highlight in the film is Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Batman's arch rival, the Joker. Just as Burton is to thank partially for the rise in popularity of these characters, Nicholson takes the credit for villains taking center stage in many comic book movies. During the time of the movie's release, Nicholson demanded top billing for Batman, while also getting the most lucrative contract out of all the actors. His attachment to the project, and in such a high profile role as Joker, is what I think really propelled Batman to the huge success it had at the box office, and it's place in pop culture. Because of Nicholson and the role, it seems like many comic book movies nowadays are more interested in colorful villains rather than a compelling hero. Even with Batman Forever, the Batman franchise itself quickly became The Two-Face/Riddler movie, with a special guest appearance by Batman and Robin.

This is not a means to downplay the work Nicholson did in Batman, though, which still holds up after more than two decades. Not only was he able to capture the ridiculous, campy side of the Joker, he also touched on the madness and psychopathic killer within the character. A side that, in my opinion, wouldn't be fully realized until Heath Ledger portrayed Joker in The Dark Knight. There truly is no other movie villain quite like the Joker, and Nicholson's performance feels fresh and new every viewing. It's a difficult task to choose whether Nicholson or Ledger's Joker is better, because they both did things completely different. In my book it's Ledger, but Ledger's performance wouldn't be possible without Nicholson's.

Lando Calris...I mean, Billy Dee Williams, is really underused as Harvey Dent. When he agreed to the movie, it was his understanding that, if there were going to be more movies, he would be there for Dent's transformation to Two-Face. When Tommy Lee Jones was cast as the character in Batman Forever, Williams was crushed, and the filmmakers were forced to buy him out of his contract. I think he would have made a great Two-Face, one much more in tone with the comic book character than Jones' campy portrayal. He's only really used as a nod to the comics in Batman, and it would have been nice to see some more development for his character.

The problem with how fun it is to watch Nicholson presents the movie's major issue: I found myself rooting for the Joker more than I did for Batman. The simple reason is that Jack Nicholson outperforms Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman in each and every scene. It's hard to root for a character when there's not that much there that someone can relate with. Obviously, it's quite the stretch to relate to a billionaire dressing up in a batsuit and fighting crime, but that's why the origin story to Batman is so vital to his character.

Many were unhappy with the choice of Keaton for the title role, and I don't disagree. Throughout the movie he looks lost; not quite sure what his mannerism is supposed to be, only that he needs to look brooding, or something to that effect. Granted, the batsuit made it impossible for him to see anything around him, and he had to come up with the idea of turning his entire body in order to see, so the limitations of the suit were no doubt a burden I don't think Keaton expected. However, even when he's portraying Bruce Wayne there's hardly any emotion from him at all, save the scene in Vicki Vale's (Kim Basinger) apartment, where he suddenly goes berserk holding a fireplace rod threatening the Joker. It's way out of character and is unsettling because there's this sudden burst of emotion when we haven't seen any, and there's no reasoning behind what he's doing.

Basinger's Vicki Vale isn't what I would call the most memorable female character in movie history. Vale does a fine enough job, but the character doesn't really have much of a purpose in the movie other than a means to motivate Batman to chase after Joker. However, this becomes a moot point when Batman realizes Joker killed his parents. Michael Gough does a great job as Bruce's trustworthy butler Alfred, but is sort of pushed aside, only showing up on occasion to kind of remind everyone he's there. In fact, almost all of the characters besides Batman and Joker are pushed to the side. This really is a movie more about Batman vs. Joker, but it would have been good for the movie to build up the secondary characters more.

Two of the classic concepts to come from Batman, besides Nicholson's Joker, were the score and the Batmobile. All credit to James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer for their terrific score in Nolan's trilogy, but I still consider Danny Elfman's the definitive Batman score. The score would go on to be used in the fantastic animated series of the 90's, and the three movie sequels. It's really hard to not think of the score when talking about the character. The Batmobile is arguably the most iconic car in movies as well. Burton and crew wanted to make sure this iteration of Batman was a complete opposite of the campy 1960's TV series, and the Batmobile was maybe the most drastic change.

To the movie's credit, much of it has aged pretty well. I think this is a testament to the fusion of the 40's and 80's styles. It's as if the movie is set in its own time frame, away from the real world. Even though some of the movie still feels very 80's (the Prince soundtrack for instance), it's not so bad that you notice it. The Blu-Ray disc, which I thought would hurt the darker cinematography of the movie, actually helps in bringing it out more. It enhances shots that were otherwise difficult to distinguish, rather than diminish them. I think the movie goes a bit too dark with killing Joker. Although bringing Nicholson back for a sequel would have been highly unlikely, it just seems wrong to kill the best comic book villain ever. Christopher Nolan understood this, even though Ledger's untimely death halted any chance of seeing Joker in the sequel to The Dark Knight. It would have at least been nice to know Joker was around somewhere during Batman Returns.

Despite my issues with it, Batman is still a pretty fun movie overall. It falls short in some areas, but it no doubt has an important place in the history of pop culture. If this movie would have failed, then I really don't think comic book movies would be as popular today as they are. Obviously the four Superman movies with Christopher Reeve were all released before Batman, but Superman IV: The Quest for Peace left such a terrible final note on the series that it was up to Batman to save the genre. It did, and still holds up more than twenty years after it first hit theaters.

2013 Oscar Preview

The day is finally here. Probably the tightest Oscar race in years concludes tonight, in perhaps a not so surprising way. Lincoln leads all nominees with twelve, followed by Life of Pi with eleven. There were so many great movies this year that I get the feeling many movies are going to go home tonight with at least one win, and there isn't going to be one movie that dominates most of the categories. I personally enjoy years like this. It shows that the Oscars recognize how great of a year it's been for movies, and while only one can walk away with Best Picture, many more are recognized throughout the night.

I'm personally very excited for the broadcast. The past few Oscar telecasts have been pretty boring, to say the least. I think the choice of Seth MacFarlane will not only bring a more modern vibe to the event, but also bring in younger viewers who may not have tuned in otherwise. There are also plenty of rumors surrounding various appearances at the show, with I think the most exciting being the rumor that all six men to play James Bond will appear. Adele is set to perform her song, "Skyfall", from the newest Bond movie of the same name, and there is also a planned tribute to the 50th anniversary of the character. Many people have speculated this would mean that the six men to play Bond on the big screen, Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig, will all appear together to kick off the tribute. It would be the first time ever all six men have appeared at a tribute for the character. However, early talk made it seem as if Connery was the lone man to not want to do it, but a part of me thinks he may have come around to the idea. Commercials for the Oscars have begun to focus on the Bond tribute, which makes me believe even more that something big is set to happen. I think if it were to happen, it would end up being one of the best moments in the history of the Oscars. Imagine the reaction if all six walk out on stage as Adele is wrapping up "Skyfall", with a montage of the character's best moments playing on the big screen.

Host Seth MacFarlane

However, the big reason we watch the show is to find out who will win. Like I said earlier, there are a lot of great movies up for awards tonight and it really could go in several different directions. Lincoln and Argo are the two frontrunners, but don't be surprised if smaller movies like Amour and Silver Linings Playbook walk away with some bigger prizes. Everyone has talked that, without Ben Affleck nominated for Best Director, it's a two way race between Steven Spielberg (Lincoln) and Ang Lee (Life of Pi). While these two are the most likely, don't be surprised if Michael Haneke sneaks in with a win for Amour, which is as much a lock as there is in the Best Foreign Language category. Anne Hathaway is pretty much a sure thing as well for Best Supporting Actress for her terrific performance in Les Misérables, but watch out for an upset from Sally Field in Lincoln. There's also the question of whether or not Pixar can still dominate the Best Animated Feature category. While I think Brave is one of their better movies, moviegoers seemed to enjoy Wreck-It-Ralph more. Pixar didn't even have a movie nominated last year (Cars 2 was really that bad), so it'll be interesting to see if they can reclaim their throne.

Below are my predictions for tonight's winners. I've also included my personal picks on who should win, and for the bigger categories, highlight some movies and performances that the Oscars missed out on nominating. Be sure to watch the telecast tonight at 8:30 on ABC!

Best Picture
Will Win: Argo
Should Win: Argo
Left Out: Moonrise Kingdom, Skyfall

Best Director
Will Win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Should Win: Ben Affleck, Argo (not nominated)
Left Out: Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow Zero Dark Thirty, Quentin Tarantino Django Unchained

Best Actor
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Should Win: Day-Lewis
Left Out: John Hawkes, The Sessions




Best Actress
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
Should Win: Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Left Out: Marion Cotillard, Rust and Bone

Best Supporting Actor 
Will Win: Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
Should Win: Honestly, any of them are deserving.
Left Out: Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained

Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway in Les Misérables

Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Anne Hathaway, Les Misérables
Should Win: Hathaway
Left Out: Judi Dench, Skyfall

Best Original Screenplay
Will Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Should Win: Django Unchained
Left Out: Looper

Best Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Argo
Should Win: Argo
Left Out: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

These predictions for the "lesser" categories will just include my winner predictions:

Best Animated Feature
Brave

Best Animated Short
Paperman

Best Foreign Language Film
Amour

Best Feature Documentary
Searching for Sugar Man

Best Documentary Short 
Open Heart

Best Cinematography
Skyfall

Best Production Design
Anna Karenina

Best Costume Design
Anna Karenina

Best Original Score
Life of Pi

Best Original Song
Skyfall

Best Editing
Argo

Best Sound Editing
Skyfall

Best Sound Mixing
Les Misérables

Best Visual Effects
Life of Pi

Best Live Action Short
Curfew

Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Les Misérables

A Good Day to Die Hard Review

Fans of the Die Hard series were begging for an R-rated movie after Live Free or Die Hard was rated PG-13. It was blasphemous! How can you have a movie with John McClane be PG-13?! Well, the fans got what they wanted, but like Linkin Park sang, in the end it doesn't really matter.

A Good Day to Die Hard is the fifth film in the franchise, and hopefully it's the last one, at least for awhile. Bruce Willis  is back as NYPD Cop John McClane, and he fits into the character as well as he can after 20+ years in the series. He's about the only highlight in an otherwise awful, awful movie. The movie focuses on him heading to Russia to find his son, Jack, played by Jai Courtney, who he thinks is a drug dealer or something. Yeah, because in order for Jack to be a successful drug dealer, he had to travel all the way to Russia. Anyway, John finds out his son is working for the CIA on a top-secret nuclear weapons case, and the two team up like the father-son duo they are and head out to stop the bad guys.

Ugh. What's happened to this series? Honestly, I mean, the original Die Hard is probably one of, if not the best action movies of all time. What makes it so great is that it doesn't resort itself to mindless action and car chases, but builds tension and gives great payoffs because of it. It's the perfect mix of a being a great action movie that you don't have to think about in order to enjoy, but if you pay attention, it's even better. This movie is the complete opposite. A movie that is straight-up action for 97 minutes can be really great if it's done the right way. Director John Moore's action sequences are such a jumbled mess that you can't even enjoy them, and a five minute car chase feels like it takes hours to slog through. There's far too much cutting and editing in the movie that we can't even begin to understand what we're watching or why.

One of the great things about the original movie (and the third, Die Hard with a Vengeance) is that the villains are just as entertaining, if not more so, than McClane. Yeah, we know we're rooting for McClane, and know he's going to win, but having a great villain testing him throughout the movie adds to how fun and exciting it can be to watch. With A Good Day, the villains are just there as a means to move the movie towards its conclusion. Granted, this movie is more about the relationship between McClane and his son, but there needs to be real danger there; there needs to be a sense that the villain's have a chance at winning, or at least be enjoyable when they're on screen. Another major issue is that there's too many villains for one movie; just another example of the movie trying top itself, and the series, again and again.

I understand that action movies aren't going to make much sense in terms of real world scenarios. I get it: the more ridiculous the action, the more fun it can be. But a movie shouldn't treat it's audience like complete idiots. Without giving much away, I'll say that the final action scenes of the movie take place in Chernobyl. Yeah, that Chernobyl, the one devastated by nuclear fallout and has been abandoned for years; where the radiation level is so high that it may never be livable again. Minor characters walk around in HAZMAT suits so as not to be affected by the radiation levels. What do John and Jack do? They drive to Chernobyl, and just start shooting the place up in their street clothes. No need for radiation suits here! The McClane's are invisible! I can understand that you can't have a climatic action sequence while not being able to see the faces of your stars if they're hidden under a HAZMAT suit, but seriously, they couldn't have put the scene in another city in Russia? I'm not expecting the movie to be as accurate as can be, but ridiculous things like this made me hate the movie even more than I already did.

Yippee Ki-Yuck

The only real redeeming thing about A Good Day is that Bruce Willis is still fun to watch as this character. He still has great timing and is just as spry of an action hero as his younger counterpart. But the rest of the movie is just downright shit. There really is no other way to say it. I really can't see there being a sixth Die Hard after this. Even though the fourth movie wasn't exactly terrific, I thought it was decent enough to warrant a fifth movie, just to see how it would go. This movie could have been so much more than it is. The idea of having McClane team up with his son is actually a really good idea. It could have taken a similar route as Skyfall did with James Bond, and realize that John McClane is getting old, and he can't do this kind of stuff too much longer. It could have been the beginning of passing the series onto his son; maybe a sixth movie is where John finally calls it quits, and movie seven follows his son exclusively, starting a reboot for the franchise of sorts. It would still honor the roots of the series, while updating itself for a new generation. 

Instead, it's as if the writers just couldn't think of a way to get John McClane into Russia on his own, so they had to send his son over there. By the way, one of the things I don't get is that John keeps yelling, "I'm on vacation!" throughout the movie. I thought he was coming to Russia to get his son, so technically he's not on vacation? 

It's really upsetting to see this franchise fall so flat on its face. Die Hard spawned so many knock offs that it was refreshing to see it stay true to itself with most of the movies in its series. A Good Day to Die Hard, though, is just as bad of a parody of the original as anything that came after it. As much as I can't see another movie being made, there's a big part of me that sees that as inevitable. The movie is tops at the box office right now, and as long as Bruce Willis continues to be willing to return to the role, I don't see them shutting the series down anytime soon. I just hope that the right director can be found who will be willing to bring the franchise back to its roots and remember what made this series so successful in the first place. Until then, A Good Day to Die Hard leaves a very bad lasting memory of a once great series.

Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Movie

Safe Haven Review

There's a part of me that says I shouldn't have enjoyed this movie as much as I did. I'm not trying to say I thought the movie was fantastic or anything, but that it kind of exceeded my expectations. Granted, judging from the early reviews I read and just the overall experience with movies like this (sappy romances), I didn't expect hardly anything, and came away from it pleasantly surprised.

Julianne Hough is being hunted down for murder, and so to escape, she catches a bus ride down to Southport, North Carolina, where she quickly makes friends with Josh Duhamel and his two kids. Of course the two fall instantly in love and neither really seems to question why just about everyone they interact with in this town is so god damn good looking. In any case, Hough tries to make a new life. She gets a job at the local restaurant, and buys a shack in the woods to live in, which seems kind of odd considering she's frightened almost every night that there's someone outside trying to break in. Isn't there another house in the actual city of Southport? Also, the town doesn't seem to worry about trivial matters such as credit history or bank accounts when it comes to purchasing a home, even if it is a cabin in the woods. Anyway, while Hough is playing house in North Carolina, a detective is looking for her back in her hometown, who, despite his good looks (seriously! Is there not one ugly person in Nicholas Sparks' world??), has some hidden demons that may compromise his ability to find her. Or something like that.

They're trying desperately to make a movie star out of Julianne Hough, who starred in last year's Rock of Ages, but she just doesn't quite deliver a memorable performance here. It's just pretty meh. I get the feeling she'll get a few more starring roles in movies like this, but I don't see her becoming another Rachel McAdams or someone to that effect who's a bankable romance star. She does, however, have a starring role in Diablo Cody's directorial debut, Paradise, which is set for a release later this year. Cody wrote the screenplays for great movies focusing on female leads like Juno and Young Adult, so that is maybe Hough's best chance at showing that she has what it takes to be a star in Hollywood.

It irks me that in all of these kinds of movies lately the female star is a tall, borderline unhealthily-thin blonde, and the male lead is a rugged-looking outcast. It's what I call The Notebook effect. There really isn't two more prototypical stereotypes in romance movies, and I wish that more of these movies would step out of that element into something different. Would it make the movie significantly better? Probably not, but it'd be nice to see a variety in the stars of these movies. After awhile, it becomes impossible to separate the Julianne Hough's from the Taylor Schilling's of movie world.

I felt like the whole plotline of the detective searching for Hough really made the movie drag in the middle. Again, this is the kind of movie that could have been cut by 20 minutes and not really lost much in terms of its overall story. The scenes with the detective really took me out of the romance between Duhamel and Hough's characters, which is kind of the point of the movie in the first place. I guess I can see why that storyline is there (it builds for the inevitable climatic ending), but it just weighed the movie down. There's a twist towards the end of the movie that isn't really all that shocking to begin with (careful watchers will be able to pick up the clues as the movie goes along), which gives the ending that little extra Nicholas Sparks sappy ending we've seen before.

Even the kids are adorable!

Probably the best thing about Safe Haven is the scenery. It's set in a coastal North Carolina town, and it makes for some really nice looking shots, particularly towards the end of the movie, set on July 4th evening. Duhamel has some really great moments with the two kids in the movie, and he gives a really convincing performance as a father to them. It's not anything forced or that seems fake. There are a few storylines with the kids that I kind of wish the movie would have focused on more, but then again the movie isn't really about them.

People have said that the twist is ludicrous and insulting, but I disagree. It wasn't something that came as a shock, and, while I don't really think the movie benefited enough from the twist in order to warrant it being in there, it kind of makes sense in the context of the movie. I didn't find it all that shocking; I had it mostly figured out about thirty minutes in, but the movie could have done more with it. I think it would have been interesting to learn the twist earlier in the movie. While it probably makes early scenes more intriguing on a second viewing, I feel a movie should base itself around the idea that people are only going to see it once. Safe Haven isn't the kind of movie that needs to end with a surprising twist.

I've never read a Nicholas Sparks book. I probably will at some point just to get an idea of his writing style, but I can't imagine all his books being as cookie cutter as the adaptions that have come from them. Even though I highlighted a few things I liked in Safe Haven, there's far too much here that we've seen before in other romantic dramas recently. There are scenes in Safe Haven taken almost directly from other movies based off his books like The Lucky One and The Notebook. I think that is the main problem critics tend to have with these movies. Although they're different on some levels, most of the plot is the same as the last movie. The Lucky One and Safe Haven are in many ways the same movie, with just a reversal of gender for the main characters. Also, can I just ask, why is there so much rain in all his movies? And why is it always during a big dramatic scene? There are other forms of weather, people!

Safe Haven pretty much boils down to being just a more well-funded Lifetime movie. I don't necessarily mean that as an insult, but that's basically what we're dealing with here. There's nothing new that stands out or makes it memorable from the countless other romantic dramas we've seen since The Notebook started this Nicholas Sparks type of romance drama back in 2004. That being said, it's not a terrible movie, it's just kind of there. It's merely a means to get couples into the seats for a date night on a weekend.

Has its Moments

Identity Thief Movie Review

Trying to make an identity thief a likable character? Probably something that sounds really impossible, and at times I didn't think Identity Thief would be able to pull it off, but somehow it did. Maybe that's more credit to how funny and just downright lovable Melissa McCarthy is than the movie itself. Identity Thief stars McCarthy and Jason Bateman, and to make a long story short McCarthy steals Bateman's identity and is living it up down in Florida. She's buying way too much stuff for one person and is having way too good a time doing it that you almost begin to kind of envy her a little. Only a little bit. I mean, she is a criminal, right? Who would want to buy anything they ever wanted and get away with it, most of the time? Anyway, in order for him to get his job and financial name back, he has to go down to Florida and bring her back to his home in Colorado.  It really doesn't make all that much sense if this were a real world situation, but, it's a stupid-comedy. We just go with it. It sets the movie up as another road trip comedy with two people who don't want anything to do with one another, and we get all of the obligatory road trip type jokes that we've seen before, yet they're still pretty funny no matter how many times we've seen them.

The great thing about Identity Thief is that both Bateman and McCarthy are both really, really funny in pretty much everything that they do. Also, both are really likable as well. The only problem is that they both play pretty much the same characters in all of their movies. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, (if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?) but what if the roles were reversed? We've seen McCarthy as this outspoken, sassy do-it-all-myself woman before in movies like Bridesmaids, and Bateman's hard working family man in stuff like Horrible Bosses. But what if this time McCarthy was the victim and Bateman was the con? I think it could have been great to see these two kind of step out of their element a little bit into a role they're not all that familiar with. It's not to say that the movie isn't funny enough as is, but it could have made it a little more unique if the roles were reversed. 

If I'm thinking correctly, other than the TV show Mike & Molly this is McCarthy's first starring role in a movie. She has another movie coming out in April co-starring Sandra Bullock titled The Heat, which looks pretty funny as well. The success or failure of these two movies will kind of be a good indication of if McCarthy has what it takes to be a leading lady in movies, or is going to be the type of actress destined for supporting roles her whole career. I think she could be a great comedy star as long as she picks the right movies, and doesn't just do any comedy where she's getting the lead role.

Like I said before we've seen this kind of road trip comedy before, but the movie tries to make it different by bringing in a plot point of having several hit men after McCarthy. I guess it makes sense in the context of the movie, seeing that she's stolen other people's identities and probably pissed off a lot of people. But, to be honest there's no reason for it to be in the movie, and it just makes Identity Thief drag on in a few spots. You can have an enjoyable road trip movie without someone chasing someone. The movie is two hours long, and I honestly can't think of a reason why it couldn't be thirty minutes shorter. When I come to see a movie like Identity Thief, I'm not seeing it for its aesthetic quality or for it to make me think. I'm coming to see it because I want to laugh and have an enjoyable time. While there are some really funny moments in the movie, the sub plot with the hit men really makes the movie drag. There should be a requirement that stupid but enjoyable comedies like Identity Thief are no more than 90 minutes long, unless you can prove that you can keep the pace of the movie going without much of a hiccup along the way. 

Even though this is mostly designed as a straight up comedy, there are some really touching moments towards the end where McCarthy and Bateman bond and you think okay, I guess I can kind of see why this woman would feel the need to steal people's identities and ruin their entire lives for her own benefit. The movie ends with some pretty touching scenes that almost don't feel like they belong in this type of movie, but they work because McCarthy and Bateman do a good job of making them seem true to the characters that they're playing. 

Even though there's some plot issues and it's not exactly a rip-roaring comedy that will have you falling out of your seat, Identity Thief is a good time. This is the type of movie that you just sit back and enjoy and try not to think about too much. It's pretty forgettable, but it it's enjoyable enough while you're watching it. McCarthy is great, Bateman is good, and they work really well together. It's just not quite good enough for me to say that you need to go see this movie right now. It is what it is, and that's pretty much all we want it to be. 

Has Its Moments

The Best Movies of 2012

Opinions are a scary thing. If one person loves a movie and another hates it, it can make for quite the conversation, in both a good and bad way. Around this time of year people can get very opinionated about what they think are the best movies of the year. Arguments start, egos are shattered, riots begin. Okay, maybe not all of that happens, but it can get pretty heated. I'm putting this here as a heed to everyone who reads this. This is what I think are the best movies of 2012. My top ten movies are the ones I enjoyed the most, and stood out for me as the movies that will define 2012. There are a few movies here that I really connected with, that other people hated beyond belief. Some movies a lot of people have at the top of their lists, but aren't on mine. I just wanted to take those couple of seconds to remind everyone this is just my humble opinion, and mine alone. Although I didn't see as many movies this year as I have in past years, I feel  I've seen enough to give a concise list of my favorites for the year.

About two months ago, I wasn't too excited about the quality of movies released in 2012. There were some great summer blockbusters, and other movies that stood out early in the year, but I just wasn't really connecting with too many films. Then I started to watch a lot of the movies I had missed in theaters, and was amazed at what I had missed. So many quality movies were made in 2012, and were spread out so well throughout the year. I think 2012 is one of the best years we've had in a long time for movies. There are so many films that I want to recognize that didn't make it to my final list, and so I'm going to point out a few of them now, before getting to the really good ones.

Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master is a fine work, although it doesn't quite stand on the same stature as his last film, There Will Be Blood. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Joaquin Phoenix are as good as ever, and the movie delves into a lot of different ideas and themes, which causes some overcrowding. Life of Pi was one of the most touching and moving stories of the year, even though there was far too much CGI for my liking. Beasts of the Southern Wild is the perfect example of a movie far exceeding the low expectations I had for it. It's one of, if not the most emotionally moving films of the year. Lincoln was not as memorable as I was hoping, but it has arguably Daniel Day-Lewis' finest performance ever. Given his track record, that is quite the accomplishment.

Comedies were once again great this year. The Five-Year Engagement, although about 20 minutes too long, is probably the best date-night movie of 2012, as it has a great balance of romance story and raunchy comedy. Seth MacFarlane's first feature, Ted, is my pick for the funniest movie of 2012, even though it's pretty much a two-hour episode of Family Guy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Campaign gave us all the laughs we'd expect when Will Ferrell and Zack Galifianakis share the screen together. Wanderlust flew very much under the radar, but still had some hilarious moments that makes it worth the watch.

There were the quirky yet intelligent comedies like Safety Not Guaranteed, and smaller indie flicks like The Perks of Being a Wallflower and Liberal Arts, that were very well done.

Although romantic dramas aren't exactly my favorite kind of movie, I can still appreciate what movies like The Vow brought to cinemas this year. These are movies made for a specific target audience; yet when done right, they're entertaining enough to those of us that aren't quite into the genre.

Although The Hunger Games didn't quite live up to the expectations I had for it, it was still a worthy adaptation and, hopefully, the next movie will be able to build upon the success of this one. Hitchcock tried a little too hard to be serious toward its conclusion, instead of relying more on its fun moments, which were the highlight. The Raid: Redemption had some of the finest and more brutal action sequences of the year.

Those are movies that I enjoyed or appreciated this year, but for any number of reasons, I didn't include them on my final best of the year list. These 17 movies are the best ones I saw this year. I'll start with the seven that just missed my top ten, in alphabetical order. If you haven't seen some or any of the movies I mentioned above or below, definitely seek them out when you get the chance.

21 Jump Street

Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller
Written by Michael Bacall
Produced by Stephen J. Cannell and Neal H. Moritz

The Avengers

Written and Directed by Joss Whedon
Produced by Kevin Feige

Brave

Directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman
Written by Mark Andrews, Steve Purcell, Brenda Chapman, and Irene Mecci
Produced by Katherine Sarafin

The Dark Knight Rises

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan
Produced by Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, and Emma Thomas

Flight

Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by John Gatins
Produced by Laurie MacDonald, Walter F. Parkes, Jack Rapke, Steve Starkey, and Robert Zemeckis

Indie Game: The Movie

Directed and Produced by Lisanne Pajot and James Swirsky

Silver Linings Playbook

Written and Directed by David O. Russell
Produced by Bruce Cohen, Donna Gigliotti, and Jonathan Gordon

Many of those movies I hated leaving off my top ten list, because they all had terrific qualities that I really connected with. My top ten movies are ones that stood out more to me when I looked back on the year as a whole, and I truly believe that these are the ten finest movies that were released in 2012.

10) Les Misérables

Directed by Tom Hooper
Written by William Nicholson
Produced by Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, and Cameron Mackintosh

I'm going to be honest and say that I didn't have very high expectations for Les Misérables. Tom Hooper seemed like an odd choice for director to me, and just the concept of another adaptation of a successful Broadway play seemed forced. Needless to say, the movie really exceeded my expectations, and I found the entire movie wonderfully well done. The idea of the actors signing their parts while being filmed was probably the best part of the movie, and I thought Hooper's choice to film much of the singing in close-ups brought a lot more emotion to the movie than there could have been with a more ordinary style of filming. The movie is perfectly cast (except for Russell Crowe; that dude shouldn't be allowed near a musical ever again), and does a great job of keeping the audience engaged for the almost three hour run time.

9) Zero Dark Thirty

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Written by Mark Boal
Produced by Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, and Megan Ellison

It's amazing to think of all the changes this movie went through between its initial announcement and the final product. Much like The Hurt Locker, Bigelow is able to build a lot of tension around scenes where not all that much happens. I didn't find it to be as solid of a movie as The Hurt Locker, but in a way it's a much different movie. Bigelow shows that she doesn't have to make specifically a war movie in order for it to be great. Jessica Chastain absolutely kills it as the CIA Operative in charge of hunting down bin Laden. The final thirty minutes of this movie are probably the most tension filled minutes in any movie this year, even though we already know how it ends.

8) Looper

Written and Directed by Rian Johnson
Produced by Ram Bergman and James D. Stern

Looper may very well take the prize as the most original movie of the year. I've always been a sucker for time travel movies, and Looper is able to bring some of the conventions associated with those types of movies, but also do things differently than what we're used to seeing. This is easily Rian Johnson's best work, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a terrific job. The prosthetics that he wears to look like a young Bruce Willis could have been really distracting and/or bad, but it's so well done and barely takes anything away from the movie. There's enough twists and turns to keep the movie interesting beyond its opening premise. It's highly stylized while also having a lot to say about the way its world works and the people who inhabit it.

7) Skyfall

Directed by Sam Mendes
Written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan
Produced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson

It's rare for a James Bond movie to have so much to say and do such a good job at doing it. The movie isn't afraid to question the need for a character like Bond in a world where people are found and wars are fought with computers and hackers, instead of by a lone man and a gun. It realizes the "golden-age" of espionage is long gone, but in the end makes us realize that we still need men like Bond to do the job when it's necessary. Javier Bardem is easily one of the best Bond villains ever. The only real issue I have with the movie is that this isn't the type of Bond film you can sit back and enjoy whenever you want. That's also its best feature, because it's more than just an action movie.

6)  Prometheus

Directed by Ridley Scott
Written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof
Produced by David Giler, Walter Hill, and Ridley Scott

Prometheus had a huge amount of buzz surrounding it from the moment it was announced. It was Ridley Scott diving back into the world he created with Alien, and although it brought back big box office numbers, many people found it disappointing and lacking in any depth. I couldn't disagree more. I feel that Prometheus shouldn't be viewed as a standalone movie, but as the beginning of a bigger series that could be launched. There are many questions left unanswered, but I didn't feel like that took away from the experience. It only made me want to watch it again immediately, and begin to speculate on what could be in the sequel. 

5) Django Unchained

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Produced by Reginald Hudlin, Pilar Savone, and Stacey Sher

There's always a few guarantees with a new Tarantino movie. There's going to be over-the-top violence, villains that are far more interesting than the heroes, and a script that can make talking scenes really, really enjoyable. Django Unchained has everything you want and expect from a Tarantino film. Leonardo DiCaprio gives what is probably his best performance outside of The Aviator. Christoph Waltz proves that his role in Inglourious Basterds wasn't just a fluke. It's refreshing to see a director step out of his element and into a genre he's never tackled, and be able to add his own unique twist on it, while also paying homage to the best movies of the genre. All the characters are perfectly cast, and the Spaghetti Western style that Tarantino honors is done in the best way possible.

4) The Cabin in the Woods

Directed by Drew Goddard
Written by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard
Produced by Joss Whedon

The Cabin in the Woods is the type of movie where the less you know about it before you see it, the better experience you're going to have watching it. It does a terrific job of breaking down all the clichés we're used to in horror movies (well, movies in general, but horror movies as well) and throws so many twists and turns that it becomes the most unpredictable movie of the year, but also the most fun. Although many of the references will go right over the heads of casual moviegoers, it's the kind of movie you'll be able to pick up on new references everytime you watch it. It's over-the-top but not overdone. It's bloody but not grotesque. The ending is one you'll be talking about months after you see it. 

3) The Grey

Directed by Joe Carnahan
Written by Joe Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Produced by Joe Carnahan, Jules Daly, Mickey Liddell, and Ridley Scott

No other movie hit me as deeply as The Grey did this year. Liam Neeson may get top billing, but the real star of the movie is the setting. Carnahan does a terrific job of setting up the deserted, snow covered wasteland that can be both haunting and beautiful at the same time. The movie has so much to say about life, death, and survival that one viewing isn't enough to do it justice. It reminded me very much of Alien, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say The Grey borrows many elements from the classic horror movie. The characters of The Grey feel as real as possible, and it makes the events that much more emotionally driven.

2) Moonrise Kingdom

Directed by Wes Anderson
Written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola
Produced by Wes Anderson, Jeremy Dawson, Steven M. Roybal, and Scott Rudin

I will admit I am not a huge Wes Anderson fan. His style of comedy is one that is truly not for everyone. This isn't to say I don't enjoy or appreciate his movies, but sometimes I don't get what all the fuss is about. Moonrise Kingdom changed all that. I think it's the most accessible movie Anderson has in his lineup. I really don't think there's anything more fun than seeing Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, and Frances McDormand all share screen time together. It's touching, romantic, fun, nostalgic, and absolutely hilarious. I guess you could say it's just like all his other movies.

1) Argo

Directed by Ben Affleck
Screenplay by Chris Terrio
Produced by Ben Affleck, George Clooney, and Grant Heslov

For me, this choice was almost a no-brainer from the moment I walked out of it way back in October. It's the only movie on this list that I wouldn't change a single thing about. Everything works perfectly here, the acting, direction, and the story. It's a flawless two hours where not a single moment or frame is wasted. It's set in the late '70's/early '80's, and yet doesn't weigh itself down by forcing the style of the decade onto the audience. Affleck shows that good old fashioned thrillers can still be made without someone being killed or something being grotesque. There's no other way to say it, but that it's just a damn good movie. Right now, it's my pick for the best movie of the decade.

So there you have it. Agree? Disagree? Like I said earlier, I think 2012 is one of the better years we've had for movies in a long time, and any of the movies that I mentioned here are good enough to at least give a shot. Many of them are already available on DVD/Blu-Ray, so be sure to seek them out whenever you get a chance. 

13 Most Anticipated Movies of 2013

Okay, so I realize I technically haven't wrapped up my coverage of 2012 movies, but isn't it always fun to look into the future and see what lies ahead? I say it every year, but 2013 looks like it could be a pretty solid year in movies. There are a lot of great titles coming out this year, and hopefully most of them will be able to live up to expectations. I hope that in 2013 I can review and stay current with movies much more than I did in 2012, but we shall see. Anyway, I've narrowed my list down to 13 movies that I'll be anticipating the most this year.

Here's a few movies that I'm excited about but didn't make it onto the main list: Thor: The Dark World, Kick-Ass 2: Balls to the Wall, Gangster Squad, Gravity, 42, Much Ado About Nothing.

Here's the rest of the list, in a rough order of how much I'm anticipating the movies. Perhaps at the end of the year, I'll look back and see if any of these movies lived up to the expectations I'm giving them.

13) Anchorman: The Legend Continues
The first Anchorman is probably the funniest movie of the last decade. It's endlessly quotable and has a huge re-watchable value. I am a little nervous about the sequel though. Comedy sequels are often far inferior to their predecessor (Hangover II, Ghostbusters II, American Pie 2; you get the idea), but I think there's hope that it'll at least be halfway decent. The entire original cast is back, which, considering the star power they've all acquired since the first one, makes the movie a must see in its own right.

12) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
I wasn't exactly the biggest fan of the first Hunger Games movie. It was a decent enough adaptation, and a lot more care was given to the source material than the Twilight novels and even some of the Harry Potter books, but it still didn't quite "wow" me as much as I was hoping it would. Still, it was a huge hit and the sequel was announced almost immediately. Catching Fire is, I think, the best book of the three, so here's hoping I enjoy it more than the first movie.

11) This is The End
Even though there's no footage of it yet, this could very well end up being my pick for the funniest movie of 2013. It has some of the best young actors today playing themselves at a party, when they find out the apocalypse is happening. How could I not be excited for it? James Franco, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, Michael Cera, Mindy Kaling, and so many others, all play themselves. 

10) The Wolverine
X-Men Origins: Wolverine sucked. Plain and simple. It's probably one of the worst comic book movies of the past few years. However, The Wolverine sounds like it will be a great redeemer for the character.When Darren Aronofsky was attached to direct, I was a lot more excited about it. However, Aronofsky didn't leave the project on creative terms, which makes me believe this could still be great. It will set a nice bridge to X-Men: Days of Future Past in 2014 as well.

9) Pacific Rim
It's giant robots versus giant aliens! Plus, it's directed by Guillermo Del Toro, which is by far the coolest name to say. Go ahead, say it. I know, right? Part of me is worried that this is going to turn out to be just another Battle: Los Angeles, but Del Toro has some great movies to his credit and this could be a big franchise starter. The footage shown at Comic Con this year blew the audience away, and really got the hype started for the movie. It's getting released in the middle of the summer, the prime time for a movie like this.





8) The Wolf of Wall Street
I'm not even sure if this will even be released in 2013, but I'm putting it here just in case. According to the IMDb page, it's still filming, but expectations for this movie have been extremely high since it was first announced. Directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, and Matthew McConaughey, this one is already an Oscar contender no matter what year it's released.


7) Star Trek: Into Darkness
It's been four years since we last saw Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise crew on the big screen. That much of a gap between movies can either be a great or terrible indication. The worry I have here is that the excitement for another Star Trek movie has worn off in the wake of the comic book movie frenzy of the past few years. Nevertheless, this will (probably) be a hit, and if it's any bit as good as the first one, could be the movie of the summer.

6) Man of Steel
I'm not a fan of director Zack Snyder. Like, at all. To me, his movies are all style and no substance. He's not a bad filmmaker; 300 and Watchmen are fairly good flicks, but he just doesn't really have much to say in his movies. To give him a job as big as the Superman reboot without any sort of a credible movie to his name is quite the risk to take, considering that this is supposedly going to launch the road to the Justice League movie. The footage shown in the trailers so far has me hopeful that Man of Steel is the movie where Zack Snyder finally grows up.

5) Monsters University
I think Monsters, Inc. is in the top five of Pixar movies. To me, Toy Story started the phenomenon with Pixar, but Monsters, Inc. proved that they were here to stay, and that their movies were great for both kids and adults. Having the second movie being a prequel is a fantastic idea. Taking Mike and Sully back to college sounds like just as original of an idea as the first movie. I haven't been this excited for a Pixar movie since Toy Story 3.

4) Only God Forgives
Again, I'm not even sure if this is slated for a 2013 release. I loved Drive, and this second team up between Ryan Gosling and director Nicolas Winding Refn sounds like it could be just as good. Set around a boxing match, it makes me think this could be done in the same style as Raging Bull, which I wouldn't mind in the least.

3) Iron Man 3
Even though this is technically the third Iron Man movie, I don't really count it as a threequel. To me, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to be judged in a different manner than other movie franchises because of how unique it is. The way I see it, Iron Man 2 is the threequel, which explains why it's arguably the most disappointing movie in the series. 3 kicks off "Phase 2" for the Marvel Universe. It will be interesting to see which characters from the Universe make it into this movie, or if it's going to be a standalone Iron Man story. I'm interested to see that dynamic with all the Marvel movies from now on, honestly. I said after The Avengers I didn't really know where Marvel could go with their franchises next, but I really can't wait to find out.




2) Elysium
Neill Blomkamp's first feature was the Oscar nominated District 9. The movie was a huge success and I couldn't wait to see what he planned next. Elysium sounds like it's cut from the same cloth as District 9, which is not a bad thing. Matt Damon stars in a role that doesn't really seem like his type, but that adds to the intrigue for me. It's slated for a late summer release, so hopefully it can be a good way to kick off the awards season for 2013. It will be a good test to see if District 9 was a fluke or the real thing.






1) The Great Gatsby
I've been waiting far too long to see this movie. I was at first skeptical of the choice of Baz Luhrmann to direct this adaptation, but after seeing the trailer, I realized his style was the perfect fit for this 1920's era classic. There really hasn't been a terrific adaptation of the novel (which is odd, considering its place in American history), so perhaps this can be the one to really give justice to Fitzgerald's novel. The cast seems perfect for the roles they play. It looks like it will have the Luhrmann style we've become all too familiar with. It could be a hell of a ride, or an awful disaster.