What kind of year has it been?

Well, any year in which The Campaign, The Help, The Watch and American Pie: Reunion don’t even make it on the ‘Flop 10′ list can’t have been a very good year, right? Or so you’d think…

2012 has been the year of the return of the hero. There was a new Spider-man (now toatz Amazing!) The dark knight rose, Bond was back and better than the last time around and the Hulk was not the lousiest Avenger on the assembly.

2012 was also the year of films about films and filmmaking. The Artist and Hugo scored big on Oscar night, while Argo – with its bonkers-but-real plot – is one of the favourites for the next big Academy ceremony. Meanwhile, Chronicle and The Cabin in the Woods were fresh efforts in the worn out genres of the superhero film and the slasher.

It was a mixed year for Charlize Theron. Young Adult – directed by Jason Reitman and penned by Diablo Cody – won over the critics, but not the audiences. Ridley Scott’s Prometheus must have earned its budget back, but was quite a disappointment – Despite the martketingf hype. Theron’s most succesful film was Snow White and the Huntsman, which she graced with a terrific menacing turn as the evil queen.

It was a year that proved that comedy is at its best when it is merciless. Despite the broad crudeness I laughed a lot during Ted, The Inbetweeners and A Few Best Men. More ‘family friendly’ comedy, like The Watch, was simply boring. And The Campaign was simply not pushing it far enough.

In the end, 2012 was the year of ‘finally…’ After all the troubles at MGM we finally had the new Bond, and finally the first part of The Hobbit. The Cabin in the Woods had been made years ago, but only saw its release this summer. And the Finnish makers of Iron Sky, finally, got the money together to finish their film.

But what I’ll remember most, is that any year in which Ted, Jagten, Skyfall, Chronicle and The Cabin in the Woods do not make it on the ‘Top 10′ list can’t have been a bad year…

Rest of the year agenda + nominations Jasper’s Take Awards 2012

Having survived Roland Emmerich’s 2012, it is now time to do some introspection. So the rest of this week of the year will be devoted to looking back on the ‘year of film’ that 2012 was. What have we got in store for you the next few days? Well, first of all – today – I will present the nominees for the Jasper’s Take Awards 2012. As introduced last year, the  Jasper’s Take Awards celebrate all those qualities films can possess that are generally overlooked by the Academy, the Hollywood Foreign Press Agency and the British Academy. The winners of the 2012 awards will be announced one week from now, on Sunday December 30th. Of course you are more than welcome to try and influence the outcome, by posting good arguments in favor or for candidates on this website, on twitter or on facebook.

Another yearly feature in the last week of the year are my Top 10 and Flop 10 of the year: lists of the ten best and worst films we’ve been presented in the last twelve months. Please do not that these lists only contain those films that I saw in the cinema and reviewed on this website in 2012. Michael Haneke’s Amour, for instance, wont be on any list, because I have not been in the mood for any Haneke film this month. The Flop 10 will be posted online on December 29th, and the Top 10 – appropriately, on the 29th.

A new last-week-of-the-year feature will be the little essay titled ‘What kind of year has it been?’ In this little post, which will be posted on December 27th, I will look back on the year, discern some trends and surprising developments, and also discuss those films which just did not make it into either the Flop or the Top 10. Inbetween all this looking back and introspecting I will try and deliver some reviews of Ang Lee’s Life of Pi and Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina.

But now: The nominations for the  Jasper’s Take Awards of 2012:

The Michael Bay Award for loudest action film: The Avengers, Dredd 3D, Wrath of the Titans, Prometheus, The Amazing Spider-Man

The Adam Sandler Award for least funny comedy: The Campaign, American Pie: Reunion, Dark Shadows, The Watch, The Inbetweeners

The Intelligent Design Award for worst case of history rewritten: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Iron Sky, The Help, Hugo, My Week With Marilyn

The Iron Man 2 Award for least inspired sequel/prequel/spin-off: Wrath of the Titans, American Pie: Reunion, Prometheus, Men in Black III, The Amazing Spider-Man

Finally then, a positive award:

The Martin McFly Award for best use of time travelling: Looper, Total Recall, Men in Black III, The Muppets (travel by map scene), Skyfall (look, it’s the car from Goldfinger! How did that get here?)

And last year’s favourite gets to make a comeback:

The Mind Heist Award for most enthusiasticating trailer: Skyfall, Cloud Atlas, Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da, Moonrise Kingdom, Argo

For inspiration, look up last year’s winners!

Review: The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey (dir. Peter Jackson)

Story: 13 dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) set out on a quest to reclaim the mountain under which they lived (and the gold in it) from the dragon Smaug. The wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) insists that the hobbit Bilbo Bagins (Martin Freeman) joins them. Bilbo is not directly that keen for an adventure, but joins the dwarves nonetheless. Meanwhile, dark powers seem to awaken in Middle Earth.

The Hobbit did nothing but confirm to me that, when it concerns everything Tolkien, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong. I’ve made this argument several times, so in this review I will not mention the plodding storytelling, the painfully dull and slow dialogues and the bloated self-importance that characterized the Lord of the Rings movies and also this new franchise outing. Nor will I go on and on about the fetishistic, alsmost fascist escapism these fantasy epics offer to the deluded masses.

So let’s get past all that and discuss elements of The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey in their own light.

First of all, I must say that I disliked it less than I did The Return of the King. Most important is that The Hobbit has a lighter tone. The book on which it is based is a children’s book, and that is clear from the film adaptation as well. Even though this is clearly a 12+ film (don’t bring little children!)  The story is still a bit too serious for my tastes – I do not think that any film featuring dwarves, elves, ‘wargs’ and albino orcs should take itself serious at all – but there is definitely a move in the right direction.

Of course the film looks gorgeous again. This is the one quality of the LOTR films that I recognize as well. Unfortunately, due to the 3D and the 48fps technology (by which the number of still images you see in one second of film is doubled) the sets and even the gorgeous natural backdrops have a slightly artificial shine on them. Also, whenever there are quick movements in the frame or sweeping camera moves it seems as if the film is projected too fast.

Actually, that might have been an idea! For with 2 hours and 45 minutes The Hobbit is much, much too long. Entire sequences could easily have been scrapped. Especially in the painfully dragging first hour-and-a-half. Only in the action-packed last hour the film picks up pace. Crucially, this is also the hour in which the single outstanding scene takes place: the fateful meeting between Bilbo and the creature Gollem (Andy Serkis).

With Bilbo we arrive on a plus for The Hobbit. Martin Freeman is one of my favourite television and film actors, and his Bilbo Bagins is a nice bloke. Much more so than Elijah Wood’s Frodo (who makes an entirely unnecessary cameo appearance together with Ian Holm). I actually like watching Bilbo doing stuff. Whatever that stuff might be.

The dwarves are with too many. Even Gandalf, on several moments in the film, has to count to find out whether or not they are all still there. They could have had slightly more outspoken and specific characters as well. Onle Armitage’s Thorin and Ken Stott’s Balin stand out. The others are nothing but ‘the fat one’ or ‘the young one’.

Finally (BIG SPOILER): it is entirely impossible to put a group of fifteen characters through so many perils and come out on the other hand without a single casualty. What is the point of having thousands of goblins attacking our company if they can simply be pushed from a bridge?

Final verdict: Jackson’s Tolkien movies will never win me over. I’ll just have to get used to the fact that they do enchant most of the global audience nonetheless. The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey does nothing to change that. It has its pluses and its minuses, but in the end it leaves me entirely cold. The only good thing is that it will make a global super star out of Martin Freeman.

Review: Seven Psychopaths (dir. Martin McDonaugh)

Story: Irish screenwriter Marty (Colin Farrell) struggles with his new script. He has a title – Seven Psychopaths – but no psychopaths. Luckily, his best friend is a dog-napping failed actor (Sam Rockwell). And he and his partner (Christopher Walken) bring plenty psychopaths into Marty’s life. If only he’d be willing to write a violent action film, rather than a peace-loving Gandhi-quoting French flick.

There is much wrong with Martin McDonaugh’s Seven Psychopaths. The director of the simply brilliant In Bruges has a traditionally difficult ‘second album’. It is self-referential to the point of being self-obsessed. It has too many characters, too complicated a story line and in general, it is much, much too long.

Individual actors shine (Christopher Walken, Tom Waits, Linda Bright Clay) while others falter (Sam Rockwell’s Billy is funny but without substance; Colin Farrell isn’t even acting). Dialogues are stunningly funny, but the storytelling is plodding. Monological flashbacks are fascinating, but they seem to exist in a different universe from the main story.

Comparisons are easily drawn with the Charlie Kauffman-written and Spike Jonze-directed Adaptation. But added to that must the influence of a later-career Quentin Tarantino. You know, the Tarantino of Kill Bill, Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds, who simply lacked any discipline to tell a simple, proper story.

However, Seven Psychopaths does leave me with satisfaction. ‘Cause all things taken together, I believe it. I believe that a writer-director who was succesfull with a European flick has difficulties adjusting to Hollywood. And to the expectations Hollywood has of him. I believe that McDonaugh, like Marty, did not want to make another bloody gangster movie (however enjoyable In Bruges was). I believe that this is a genuine argument against the inherently hypocritical attitude to violence in American cinema.

As it turns out in the end, it is the story of the fourth psychopath – the Vietcong priest – that is the most important. Event though it seems, for a long time, that his story has nothing to do with the rest of the film. Is his quest for revenge on the American agressors simply that – a quest for revenge – or is there more to his story? I believe that it can very well be understood as a metaphor for Seven Psychopaths itself: A film that is terribly violent exactly in order to question the violence.

Final verdict: Funny, violent, well acted but also unbalanced, plodding and self-obsessed. Seven Psychopaths will not fail to entertain you, but if the central message does not get through (which might very well happen with so much other stuff going on) this may be quite a disappointment after In Bruges.

Review: Cloud Atlas (dir. Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski & Tom Tykwer)

Story: A mosaique of six interrelated stories, set in different times and places. A journal written by a dying American lawyer (Jim Sturgess) is the inspiration for a young composer (Ben Whishaw). His letters to a lover are found and read by an ambitious journalist (Halle Berry), whose neighbour kid will later write a book that inspires a British publisher (Jim Broadbent) to write his own memoirs. The film adaptation of these inspire a clone (Doona Bae) to start a revolution and she becomes a divine figure to a post-apocalyptic society in which Tom Hanks is a goat herder.

Based on David Mitchell’s presumably unfilmable book, Cloud Atlas is a treatise more than that it is a film. It has a point, rather than a climax or a confrontation: Society is rotten. People do the utmost terrible things to each other. “The weak are the meat that the strong eat” is a line repeated by the malicious doctor Henry Goose (also Tom Hanks). Yet in all this cruelty there is still space for kindness, friendship and love. Oh, and everything is connected.

Supposedly unfilmable then. But brother and sister Wachowski (who wrote and directed the Matrix trilogy) and the German director Tom Tykwer (Lola Rennt, Perfume) decided to take a gamble and try an adaptation. Especially for the Wachowskis this was quite a risk. They’re more ‘high profile’ than Tykwer, their Matrix sequels were (not entirely justifiable) derided by critics and their last film, Speed Racer (2008) was a complete flop. Which should only make them more satisfied with the end result of Cloud Atlas. The film is by no means perfect, but it is a success.

Not perfect? No. The episode about Jim Broadbent’s publisher, who is locked up against his will in an abusive old-age pensioner’s home is farcical, slightly ridiculous and tonally out of touch with the other episodes. And while it is completely sensible to have a limited number of actors play a large number of roles (Hanks, Berry, Sturgess, Hugo Weaving and Bae have six roles, Whishaw and Broadbent have five) – in the context of this movie and its point – it does feel strange to see Hugo Weaving in drag.

But a success? Certainly! First of all, the film is almost three hours long, and although one of my most repeated criticism is that a films are too long, Cloud Atlas by no means is. It definitely does not feel like three hours. Second, the overarching philosophy of the film could easily be mocked or derided as ‘Hinduism for dummies’ or ‘esoteric claptrap’. And some reviewers have done exactly that. But in my opinion, the movie has a heart and a genuine point and it is made with enough bravoura and skill to withstand such accusations. Cloud Atlas is most of all a labour of and about love, and only a cynical, cold-hearted bastard would not recognize this.

And it is so beautiful. Especially the episode about the clone, set in a futuristic New Seoul (an episode directed by the Wachowskis) is gorgeous. Considering a relatively modest buddget for a film this scale (estimated at 100 million dollars), the directors and their crew have done a wonderful job.

Final verdict: Cloud Atlas is not a guaranteed blockbuster. It would do well if it breaks even. It is probably to weird and different for large audiences, and for award nominations. But the film is a gorgeous labour of love. By no means perfect, but a delight to watch and one of the absolute highlights of the film year 2012.

Review: Looper (dir. Rian Johnson)

Story: Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a ‘looper’: he assasinates people who are sent back, by criminals, from the future. He is pretty happy with this until one day, the person being sent back is his older self (Bruce Willis). Joe fails to make the kill, and subsequently both Joe’s are on the run from their criminal employers. But old Joe has a plan to make sure that all of this will actually never happen…

Time travel films are tricky. They are necessarily filled with inconsistencies. Take for example this scenario. Person A travels back in time to prevent disaster X from happening. However, if he succeeds, then there will be no need, in the future, for person A to travel back and prevent disaster X from happening. So it will happen, prompting person A, in the future, to travel back in time and prevent it from happening. The big question is always, if someone from the future travels back in time, is his past (the future) than past or future? And what is that that you are changing? The past or the future?

The only film I ever saw getting it right was Back to the Future. And that film took two guys three years to write! So, considering that we quite enjoy time travel films, we must necessarily accept that there are often loopholes in them. Plotholes. Inconsistencies. Mistakes. Actually, part of the fun of the time travel film is trying to figure out where they went wrong…

Of course, not too much time doing that must be spent while the film is still playing. It is best if you only start puzzling after the end credits roll. As was for instance the case with last year’s Source Code. This film certainly wasn’t flawless in its time-travelling logic, but I only noticed that after the film. While it was playing I was completely involved in the action and the story.

Unfortunately, Looper had me puzzling throughout the film. Which is not to say that it is more inconsistent or illogical than other time travelling films. It is just too complex. Too tricky. Back in the middle ages an English monk called William of Ockham proposed the following: if two explanations of the same phenomenon explain that phenomenon well, than the simplest explanation must be right. ‘Ockham’s Razor’ this is called. And Looper would benefit from a close shave by old William. Why, for instance, must future loopers always be killed by their past selves? Isn’t that unnecessarily complex, and asking for problems?

All of which is, again, not to say that Looper isn’t a good film. Quite the contrary. It is well acted. Joseph Gordon-Levitt carries the film, proving himself as a confident and grown-up lead actor. Bruce Willis does a good job, especially in a devastating scene with a little kid that will have you on the tip of your seat. And Emily Blunt, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels have interesting supporting roles.

Director Rian Johnson previously made equally stylish (if not equally succesfull) films with Brick and The Brothers Bloom. Johnson is a bit of an oddball director. His earlier films had an air of cold detachment to them. This worked very well for Brick, but less so for The Brothers Bloom. In Looper, there is hardly any detachment. In the shocking finale, there is no lack of engagement. You are there, with the characters, in their world and their story. And yet you do keep puzzling: “Wait, if he does this now, than what will yet to have been happening in the future…?”

Final verdict: Although a bit too complex for its own good, Looper is an engaging and thrilling action adventure. A plot like a Moebius strip does not get in the way of caring for the characters, which is central to making a succesfull film.

The Movies of This Winter…

The Big’uns:

 Jack Reacher (dir. Christopher McQuarrie) stars Tom Cruise (oversized smurf) as a former military man who is described, in Lee Child’s novels about him, as a blonde giant of a man. Little that can go wrong there then. Wreck-it-Ralph (dir. Rich Moore) is a Disney feature about the bad guy in an arcade game, who decides that he does not want to be the bad guy anymore and sets out on a journey to other games. Very promising indeed, if only for the appearance of beloved characters from games that were played by people who were kids in the 1990s. Django Unchained will see Quentin Tarantino tastelessly screwing up (movie) history once more, now with the help of Jamie Foxx, Christopher Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio. Get your act together Quentin, and go make another Jackie Brown. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters could be real fun, or it could be the next Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. But it is directed by Norwegian horror prodigy Tommy Wirkola, and stars Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton, so the odds are reasonable. Finally, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey sees Peter Jackson (and everybody else involved in the LOTR madness) revisiting Middle Earth. I expect abolutely nothing from this mind-numbingly boring property, so I won’t be disappointed in any way. On the plus side: the 48 fps images look good in the trailer, and in Martin Freeman it does star a personal favourite of mine.

 

The Award Darlings

You’d think that a book about a boy and a tiger in a little boat would be unfilmable, but Ang Lee decided to give Life of Pi a chance. In 3D. Also considered unfilmable was David Mitchell’s book Cloud Atlas, but Andy and Lana Wachowski, together with Tom Tykwer, decided to give it a try. However good the film may turn out to be, it won’t win prizes. It’s too weird probably. Much more conventional is Hyde Park on Hudson (dir. Roger Michell), about president Roosevelt (Bill Murray gunning for a career Oscar) receiving the King and Queen of England as his guests. Speaking of American presidents: Steven Spielberg’s biopic Lincoln stars Daniel Day-Lewis, so Bill Murray may have to wait for his Oscar a little longer. Another biopic that may score big is Hitchcock (dir. Sacha Gervasi), starring Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. Already a favourite is Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest, the Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman starring The Master. Argo (dir. Ben Affleck) will be a contender, as will Les Miserables. The latest one is directed by Tom Hooper, who dug up quite some gold for The King’s Speech two years ago. And if the director is anything to go by, look out for Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. A new The Hurt Locker? We’ll have to wait and see.