The 5 Best Films of 2012 You Didn't See

Since I cannot create a true top 10 of 2012 list quite yet (it will be available after screening Zero Dark Thirty and The Impossible the first weekend of January), I figured I would create a list to bide the time. When looking at the year that was 2012 I noticed that there were some fantastic smaller films that I wanted to give notice to. While a couple of these films will make the yearend top 10 list, leaving any of them completely off the radar just felt wrong. There were a couple films that I wanted to include, but felt that they became too big to be considered (Moonrise Kingdom, The Perks of Being a Wallflower and Beasts of the Southern Wild, all of which are fantastic and would have been in the running). I looked at box office business to narrow down the true indies and decided that my cutoff point would be movies that made less than $10 million.Without further ado here is my list of top 5 films that couldn’t even make $5 million at the box office.

5) Take This Waltz

After watching Michelle Williams steal the show I posed a question to some friends: What was the last movie with Michelle Williams where you walked out and weren’t depressed? The only answer that was given: Dick. In the last 13 years Williams has found many ways to break our hearts and Take This Waltz may be one of her better efforts. The Sarah Polley film is another love triangle, this time with Luke Kirby and Seth Rogen. What is interesting about this one is it isn’t about picking a new love (Kirby) or an old one (Rogen). Instead, it’s about love vs. passion and neither side really wins in a true “grass is always greener” film. There is so much to say for Williams’ on screen marriage to Rogen and how perfect it seems, yet just as much to say for the idea of what could occur between her and Kirby. Throw in an alcoholic, against-character supporting turn from Sarah Silverman and you have one of the best indie films of the year.

4) Ruby Sparks

This was a film that I desperately wanted to see when it came out, yet always ended up putting off for other things. I had read how much critics loved it and it was incredibly intriguing to me, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch it. Then I saw it and I hated myself for waiting. The film’s star and writer Zoe Kazaan created what seemed to be the ideal scenario of a lonely writer (Paul Dano, Kazaan’s real-life boyfriend) who wrote the perfect girl for him. Then she came to life. Nobody believes such a thing could happen until at a dinner party Dano and his brother (Chris Messina) test it out by writing instructions for Kazaan to unknowingly speak in French. Dano makes the honorable decision to no longer write and change her, but instead to let her live her life with him. That all works until she begins to be independent of him and he returns to his lonely state. The plot sounds ludicrous but feels so real in context. I was stunned by how heartbroken and happy this film made me.

3) Sleepwalk With Me

Mike Birbiglia has a sleepwalking problem. He decided to create a comedy show out of it. That was successful and turned into a comedy album. That worked out alright so he turned it into a book. It sold enough copies that he created a one man show on Broadway. The show was successful so he wrote a screenplay, direct, star and essentially just make a movie out of it. That movie placed number three on this list and if that is worth anything, maybe he will get a miniseries on HBO next or something. The first time I watched Sleepwalk With Me it all felt very familiar because I had seen/read the previous iterations of the story. It was the second viewing that destroyed me. Poignantly funny and such a great commentary on human interactions, this film is everything I could have hoped for. Lauren Ambrose plays Birbiglia’s girlfriend to absolute perfection, even as Birbiglia is busy kicking a laundry basket and claiming it to be a jackal.

2) Celeste & Jesse Forever

Rashida Jones and Andy Samberg are close friends who got together to create a doomed marriage onscreen. Written by Jones, the movie begins with showing the couple as separated and going through their divorce proceedings. Despite this they act completely married and in love. It turns out they married their best friend, which was perfect for a while. It fell apart for all of the reasons relationships tend to fail, but that isn’t what is so intriguing. Instead, it’s the act of watching two people both wanting to reconcile, just never at the same time. There becomes a point when Chris Messina shows up as a potential love interest for Jones and asks the cliché (but it doesn’t matter because it works) question of “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?” It gets to Jones’ Celeste as she realizes that she can’t have both. Watching two people who clearly love each other and just as clearly will never have each other fight is the most heartbreaking, yet justified thing I have seen on screen all year.

1) Safety Not Guaranteed

No surprise to those who know me, this is one of the films in the running for my top 10 of 2012 and there was no way it wouldn’t top the list of indie films. While the film combines some of my favorite things (Western Washington, Jake M. Johnson drunk go-karting, Aubrey Plaza’s no sense in nonsense vibe from her Parks and Recreation alter ego, a turtle, and of course Kristen Bell) it’s the storyline that keeps me coming back. I saw this film with multiple people and all had the same giddiness while walking out of the theater wanting to watch it again. The duration of the film you are trying to figure out if Mark Duplass’ character who put an ad in a newspaper looking for a companion to time travel is insane or just suffering from Asperger’s. In the end, it turns out it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is the effect he had on the people he knew. The film flirts with being hilarious (Lynn Shelton’s cameo especially), heart-warming, dramatic, and science-fictiony simultaneously and is just a marvel to watch again and again.

Honorable Mentions: Your Sister’s Sister and Compliance.

Film Review: Django Unchained

Twenty years ago a wunderkind filmmaker burst onto the scene with a movie about a jewel heist that managed to show both the events before and after, but never during the actual heist. Little did the world know them, that writer/director would go on to create seven (and counting) classic genre-based movies that would revolutionize cinema. Quentin Tarantino has become known for his pop-culture filled, fast-paced dialogue, time-jumping editing, fantastic soundtracks, women’s feet, and cartoonish violence and in Django Unchained (the D is silent, as Django will tell you himself) he does it all again, only this time as a Western. While now that we have grown wise to Tarantino’s style and tricks, there is something magical about watching it all fold out on screen. Perhaps it’s his choice to keep his films spread out (Inglourious Basterds was his last release in 2008) or maybe it’s just that it works. Regardless, Django Unchained came to theaters as one of the most anticipated original stories of the year.

The first shot is simple and perfect, a mountain range in the west as yellow title cards pop up. Combined with the score, the setting immediately gives you the feel of a 1960’s western. From there we are shown to be in rural Texas two years before the Civil War where we meet Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) and his horse Fritz, who will bow his head upon introduction as he pulls up to a couple of slave traders and their slaves looking for a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) to help him collect a bounty. The scene is everything you expect Tarantino to deliver: Funny, violent so over the top it is also funny, witty, and just plain fun. King buys Django, despite being very much opposed to slavery and offers him an agreement: Help him find the three Brittle brothers and he will earn $25 per brother as well as his freedom. King does not Treat Django as a slave and cares not for the typical rules. They ride into town together and use the town’s shock at a negro on his own horse to their advantage in collecting one of the many bounties King is trying to collect. While it would seem that a manhunt for three brothers could easily be the main plot for the movie, instead they are found rather quickly, killed, and taken for reward. Where the film really picks up is when Django talks about his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Immediately King is sympathetic to Django’s story of love and loss and due to their unique circumstances, is willing to help try reunite the pair. This decision brings us to Candieland, the plantation of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The film takes off from there and becomes more intense, funny, violent, and overall fun. Leonardo DiCaprio plays his part to perfection and gives one of Tarantino’s famous monologues so well that he completely steals the show from the marvelous Christoph Waltz. Samuel L. Jackson makes his obligatory appearance (having appeared in all but two of Tarantino’s films) as Stephen, the head house slave of Candieland and a man who looks out for his owner instead of his own race.

Tarantino has been quoted as saying that when he writes minor characters, he pretends that they are the star of their own movie, and we just get to see a small snapshot of it. This is definitely the case as all of the minor characters end up having their moments of complete brilliance. There is even a point where I couldn’t remember the last time Django, the film’s lead, had a line at one point. This gives the movie a much more rounded out feel void of flat characters. A lot of critics have been divisive on Django Unchained so far, often saying Tarantino is relying too much on style over substance. I think it is simply unfair to knock the movie down a few pegs simply because what he does works and he has become more natural. The last film that critics split on was Jackie Brown, which has since become his best reviewed movie not titled Pulp Fiction. While the film may not be his masterpiece, it is by no means a weak link in the chain of fantastic movies that make up his filmography. As long as you can stomach the violence and the liberal use of the N word (102 times by my count), then Django is a must see and one of the best films of 2012.

A

Film Review: This is 40

Five years ago Judd Apatow gave us the pregnancy-based rom-com Knocked Up. Two of the supporting characters admittedly stole the show so he decided to make a “sort-of sequel” revolving around them and titled it This is 40. The film is centered on record producer Pete (Paul Rudd) and clothing store owner Debbie (Leslie Mann, Apatow’s real life wife) as they both turn 40 the same week and try to cope. As with Apatow’s last film, Funny People, This is 40 attempts to take on a more serious approach to life. Unlike Funny People though, this film manages to pull it off.

While the film may be more serious at times, it still finds plenty of room for the patented Apatow brand of humor. The movie starts off with a fight over whether or not taking Viagra to have sex with your wife should be considered a present or an insult (Spoiler: you are probably not going to win the present argument with a woman). Pete’s record company is going through some tough times and they are having money troubles at home, not that Debbie is aware of them. As the family is driving (complete with daughter’s  Sadie and Charlotte, played by Maude and Iris Apatow) Pete is trying to get them to enjoy the “real music” of his newly signed act Graham Parker and The Roumer. The females are not having it and just want to listen to top 40 “happy” music, such as “Video Killed the Radio Star.” Pete’s inability to understand what the general public wants, let alone his own family is proving to be the downfall of his company. It also doesn’t help that he has loaned $80,000 to his father (Albert Brooks) recently. Debbie has a whole other problem at her clothing store: They are missing $12,000. The suspect is Jodi (Megan Fox) who has been caught having sex in the store before and consistently is coming in with new high-end clothes and recently bought a new Acura. Fox plays up her beauty for the character, but is also surprisingly funny in her supporting role.

These financial issues are just the background of the true issue of dealing with getting older and trying to figure out if you are living the life you wanted. The climax occurs at the birthday party where the film feels a little strange. Not because of anything that occurs on screen, although that is purposely strange. Instead it’s the omission of Knocked Up’s Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen that is questionable. Not only was Katherine Heigl’s character living with Pete and Debbie in the first film, but there are even kids at the party that would be approximately the same age as the couple’s child. Once you get over the fact that this has less to do with making sense in the film, and more to do with Heigl’s disparaging comments towards the film you see there is still a lot to love. This includes scene-stealing cameos from the Apatow regulars including Jason Segel, Charlyne Yi, Chris O’Dowd, Lena Dunham, and Melissa McCarthy and even the non-regular John Lithgow. If turning 40 is anything like This is 40, I think I will be ready for the ride. Spousal anus exams not included.

B

Film Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A member of the Baggins family is persuaded by Gandalf to join a crew on an adventure to a dangerous location out of sheer selflessness, then they encounter unexpected attacks from Orcs and other supernatural inhabitants of Middle Earth only to become battered, but intact. The film ends on an extremely long shot showing the desired destination, and that they are still quite a ways from reaching it. This is both the plotline to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. While this isn’t the worst scenario in the world, it certainly wasn’t the best either.

Can a prequel of a beloved series ever live up to the hype? I was asked a question shortly before seeing The Hobbit and I didn’t really have a definitive answer. I say yes because I truly feel that it is possible to do so, but I also say no because it hasn’t really worked out yet. Reboots have been successful (Star Trek, Batman Begins) but not prequels. With The Hobbit there was hope to break this chain. Peter Jackson was very hands on in the pre-production process even before he decided to come back and direct. Considering the last time Jackson entered Middle Earth he walked away with Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture this seemed to be a very promising sign. The pitfall, however, seems to be that this wasn’t something new for Jackson and the final product feels like he simply went through the motions.

The first scene of the film is an extended version of the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring, with Ian Holm reprising his role as Bilbo Baggins sitting down to write his memoir of the new trilogy we are about to embark on, and includes Elijah Wood’s very brief cameo as Frodo. The scene plays out to show that this is occurring right before Gandalf shows up at The Shire “precisely when he plans to.” The reason I bring up this scene is it’s completely unnecessary and only used to give the audience the feeling that these stories are connected. If Jackson would have simply shown some patience, he would have seen this to be completely redundant towards the rest of the movie. Looking back, I find Fellowship to be my least favorite of the Lord of the Rings trilogy due to its slower pacing and the fact that it is essentially just a set up for the other two. Before the remaining films came out though, I was enthralled with the movie. The reasoning for this is straightforward enough: this was a whole new world, something that had never been seen on the big screen before and there were dozens of major characters to become acquainted with. In this iteration of a new trilogy Jackson relies too strongly on the same tricks and structure but although the dwarves are new, Thorin Oakenshield (played brilliantly by Richard Armitage) is the only one who truly gets any sort of background or specific personality. Aside from him, too many of these characters are old news. It was exciting to see Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett back as Elrond and Galadriel respectfully, but it wasn’t enough to support a movie of characters we already know beginning on this journey.

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitive bright spots to the movie as well. The aforementioned Thorin, Martin Freeman was a fantastic choice for the young iteration of Bilbo, the music was improved on, there were shots that were absolutely gorgeous, and Ian McKellan’s Gandalf is always a welcome sight. I would even recommend seeing the movie in theaters due to its scope and spectrum, just don’t expect a reinvention of the wheel. This is definitely more of a retelling of the wheel. The real question is whether the movies can pick up steam like they did for The Lord of the Rings. Only time will tell if Jackson’s decision to turn the 300-something page book into a 3 movie, 9 hour experience will be the right call. Based on his previous trip to Middle Earth I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. One misstep of retread can be forgiven.

C+

Film Review: Killing Them Softly

I have previously mentioned Andrew Dominik is cynical of the American public. What I have not previously explored was just how much more cynical he is of the American dream as a whole. In Killing Them Softly he takes the time to make sure you understand that he doesn’t buy into what the politicians and the hopeful are trying to sell. The opening scene places the camera staring at a deserted urban street in the middle of the day with a voiceover of one of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign speeches. Before you can get settled in, the screen cuts to black with a loud, piercing note and title cards show. These two different styles repeat themselves but as soon as you think you have figured out the rhythm to these cuts, Dominik changes it up completely. This technique is used to both show the setting of the film as well as keep the audience off balance. It’s jarring and effective.

The first character we meet is Frankie played by Scoot McNairy who feels like he is trying to mimic Casey Affleck throughout the film. Throughout all of his scenes I got the feeling that Dominik tried to maintain the leading duo from his previous film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but instead found someone who could act as similarly as possible. Frankie is a young punk who teams up with his lifelong friend Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) to hold up a backroom casino, a job given to them by their small-time neighborhood mob boss Johnny Amato (Vincent Curatola). The job goes according to plan and of course the people who lost out on their money want answers. For that they turn to Jackie (Brad Pitt), a  hitman who only kills people he doesn’t know. He likes to kill people “soflty and from a distance.” It seems every killer has their “code (to steal a word from Dexter) these days, and if that’s how Jackie wants to do it he will need help with one of the men he just so happens to know. For this he convinces the nameless character played by Richard Jenkins to hire Mickey (James Gandolfini). Gandolfini is the star of this show as a down on his luck hitman who has two goals every day: drink and sleep with as many prostitutes as he can.

The rest of the plot is pretty straightforward and predictable, all happening with random cuts of both Senator Obama’s hopeful speeches and then-President George W. Bush’s confidence in the country’s ability to rebound from the financial collapse that we all remember so well. What sets the film apart with such a standard plot is the stylization and beauty of the cinematography. The scene where Jackie makes his first hit in particular is just fun to watch for the effects used and placement of the camera. As his previous films have shown, this is what Dominik excels at. His films will always look fantastic. More than that, the final monologue that Jackie gives to Richard Jenkins just does a complete stab, twist, pull action to the American dream that will have you thinking while the credits role. The biggest issue with the film is the running time. At 97 minutes it is almost a full hour shorter than the aforementioned Jesse James was and it manages to miss the details and nuances that make that film a masterpiece and leaves Killing Them Softly a simply above average film.

B-

The Deconstruction of The Assassinaiton of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck as Jesse James and Robert Ford

As the duo of Andrew Dominik and Brad Pitt prepare to release their second collaboration Killing Them Softly, the time has never seemed so perfect to get on my soap box and hail praises to one of the most underrated, under-discussed, and least appreciated films of all time. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford boasts a cast of the aforementioned Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck, Sam Rockwell, Jeremy Renner, Mary Louise-Parker, and Zooey Deschanel,, a title that, although long, is rather memorable, and is about one of the most famous bandits in American history. Despite this, the film wasn’t even able to break $4 million at the box office. Sometimes films like this are able to create a “cult” status among a fan base, this again, was not the case. Unfortunately, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford has been destined to carry on as a film seen by few, remembered by less, and known solely for its sentence of a title. With a title this descriptive it is hard to think that there is any mystery or interest at all in the plot, especially one that takes 160 minutes to unfold. The interesting part of this story is not that Robert Ford killed Jesse James, nor is it why, as Robert will say himself “He was going to kill me first… and the reward money.” What is interesting about this story is both watching how such an admirer of Jesse James could later turn into his killer and the most fascinating aspect is simply the use of the word “assassination” in the title.

The first scene for Robert “Bob” Ford (Casey Affleck) shows him a youthful man trying to woo Jesse’s brother Frank into allowing him into the James Gang. The beauty of these opening scenes is seeing Bob’s wide-eyed admiration for Jesse (Brad Pitt). He has his whole life ahead of him and all he wants to do is be just like the infamous Jesse James. After that first night’s train robbery there is an exchange that is incredibly telling of both Bob’s past and Jesse’s experience. While sitting in chairs on the porch, smoking cigars Bob pulls out a newspaper clipping he has describing the two James brothers to ensure that he wouldn’t get the two confused upon first meeting them. Jesse turns towards Bob and simply asks him “Do you want to be like me, or do you want to BE me.” The remainder of the film’s first two hours are spent dealing with the next two years of Bob and Jesse’s lives whilst they are together and apart trying to answer that very question. Where the movie gets creative is instead of relying on a betrayal ,specific act, or major epiphany that turns Jesse from Robert’s hero to enemy, there is instead a gradual buildup of realization that Jesse is not the hero the media has portrayed him to be. Charley Ford (Sam Rockwell) has tried to explain this to Bob since the beginning. His warnings are ignored, however, because Charley has never been the brightest person in the world. The slow buildup and the dynamic that forms between Robert Ford as he begins his quest to kill Jesse James is impossible to ignore and makes the film a worthwhile watch on its own.

It doesn’t spoil anything to say that Bob succeeds in his attempt to kill Jesse James as it is implied in the title. The only lie in the title is that he does not assassinate him. Assassinations are for Presidents, leaders, and heroes. Jesse James was none of these things. It was previously mentioned that the media once portrayed Jesse James as a hero or even as a modern day Robin Hood. The most intriguing aspect of this portrayal is how much it still applies. Jesse James was a member of the Confederate Army and because of this was thought to be a Southern Loyalist and would only rob to help fellow Southerners in need. There is no evidence to substantiate these claims as Jesse would kill or rob anyone as long as it helped out himself. The movie takes note of this fact and refuses to build him up as the hero the country so desperately needed. Instead, Pitt and Dominik portray Jesse James the way they felt he truly was; an outlaw trying to get rich. The portrayal was so accurate that descendants from the James family has called it the most accurate version of Jesse James on film. Unfortunately for Jesse, that means he was no hero and is unworthy of the praise and admiration he receives. The title of this movie is very precise and it is believed that is the reason Pitt had it written in his contract that it could not be changed. More than just showing an admirer and friend turn into a vengeful assassin, this movie is about what is wrong with society’s portrayal of an essentially evil man. Jesse James is not all bad. He seemed to be great with both his wife and his kids. His moral compass was clearly broken or ignored. The more disturbing portion of the movie’s portrayal of events occurs after Jesse’s death. Robert Ford should be considered a hero for his actions. He was able to take down a wanted man who was planning his next robbery. As the movie focuses on his life after the murder he is talking to his girlfriend Dorothy Evans (Zooey Deschanel) and he tells her “You know what I expected? Applause… They didn’t applaud.” There was a period of time where more people could correctly identify Robert Ford than the President of the United States, but that fame came with animosity. The public ended up taking Jesse’s side and considered Bob a coward for both murdering his friend and for doing so by shooting him in the back. What ends up being most bothersome is what the narrator says as the final minutes play out about Bob:

Even as he circulated his saloon he knew that the smiles disappeared when he passed by. He received so many menacing letters that he could read them without any reaction except curiosity. He kept to his apartment all day, flipping over playing cards, looking at his destiny in every King and Jack. Edward O'Kelley came up from Bachelor at 1 P.M. on the 8th. He had no grand scheme, no strategy, no agreement with higher authorities. Nothing but a vague longing for glory, and a generalized wish for revenge against Robert Ford. Edward O'Kelley would be ordered to serve a life sentence in the Colorado Penitentiary for second degree murder. Over seven thousand signatures would eventually be gathered in a petition asking for O'Kelley's release, and in 1902, Governor James B. Ullman would pardon the man. There would be no eulogies for Bob, no photographs of his body would be sold in sundries stores, no people would crowd the streets in the rain to see his funeral cortege, no biographies would be written about him, no children named after him, no one would ever pay twenty-five cents to stand in the rooms he grew up in.

The underlined portion is the most upsetting. A man who had never met Bob hated him so greatly that the only solution was murder and because he killed the man who lawfully killed Jesse James, the public sided with him. He committed murder against an unsuspecting man and was pardoned because that man shot the infallible Jesse James. While these events transpire over the last moments of the film, a case could easily be made that a better title could be The Assassination of Robert Ford, the Man Who Killed Jesse James, by the Coward Edward O’Kelley.

One of the most beautiful films ever made from story, to cinematography and from acting to score, deserves a watch despite the title explaining the end of the story. The movie doesn’t care about what happened nearly as much as why it happened and how society hasn’t changed as much as we would like to think. No, the public’s memories of Robert Ford will never be as fond as Jesse James and he will not be memorialized or idolized by the masses. That doesn’t matter because Andrew Dominik has swayed one man’s opinion of Bob. Mine.

When Your Favorite Actors Become Stars

Tomorrow I will be able to say "I have been watching Jennifer Lawrence since Winter's Bone and it will make me sound like a snob because The Hunger Games will be making massive amounts of money and the next tween sensation will take off along with Lawrence's career and popularity. There is both an upside and downside to the actors you love becoming mainstream. The upside is they are more likely to do more films, they may get offered bigger roles, people won't look at you as though you're insane for being able to rattle off eight films that they have been in because they still have no idea who you're talking about. The downside is they will have more commercial film opportunities, which can lead to worse films, they may get typecast, and it takes a little bit of the thunder out of it when the whole world loves someone you have loved for so long.

Take Zooey Deschanel for instance. She has been an indie queen for as long as she has been around. Many people loved her as the rebellious sister in Almost Famous or as the smart ass in The Good Girl but the world has finally fallen for her as the "adorkable" Jess in Fox's TV show New Girl. There used to be almost a club for Zooey fans. When you found someone who got it you had plenty to talk about because you didn't just enjoy her movies, but the types of movies she was in. Now you have to work to find someone who doesn't know who she is. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, and her career will only blossom because of it, but it is a little disheartening to know that your little secret is a world wide celebrity.

Perhaps a more interesting example would be Twilight's Kristen Stewart. Before the film came out people were saying they didn't like the casting choice and I just assumed it's because they were jealous. I would try to defend her by saying that I liked her in In the Land of Women, which opened the year before. Little did I know that she can play one type of character and apparently that isn't what Bella is supposed to be. I went from thinking I had found an up and coming exciting actress only to find out she isn't even an okay actress without ever seeing Twilight. Now it feels almost wrong to enjoy a Kristen Stewart film, let alone two (Adventureland) all because she got too famous.

Sometimes roles that seem like a surefire hit don't end up sending an actor or actress into super stardom. Before last summer I posted on my Facebook "For the record I've liked Rose Byrne since Sunshine." I posted this after she had starred in Get Him to the Greek in the funniest role not belonging to P. Diddy and Insidious. I knew that she had both Bridesmaids and X-Men: First Class (with the aforementioned Jennifer Lawrence) coming out and wanted people to be on the lookout for her. Instead people mentioned how great Melissa McCarthy and Michael Fassbender were in the roles in those films. I still kind of enjoy finding Byrne in movies and knowing that she isn't yet the star she is almost certain to become.

Essentially all I am trying to get to is this: I liked Jennifer Lawrence before it was trendy and Jessica Chastain better stick with her artsy films and avoid the blockbusters because it's more fun to have favorite actors that make me unique rather than claiming I love the same person as the rest of the world. Plus, I really like helping people discover these actors before the world does it for them. So go watch every Andrew Garfield movie before The Amazing Spider-Man. It's worth it because they are all fantastic and you will have the ability to say "I have been watching him since I first saw Boy A."

Film Review: Like Crazy

 

I once read a comment about Sundance that grasps the essence of Like Crazy: Indie filmmakers spend 10 years writing the perfect screenplay and don't spend 10 seconds thinking about how it is going to be shot. And thus we have Like Crazy, a film with a well thought out storyline with some poor cinematography. The film itself is about the love between Jacob (Star Trek's Anton Yelchin) and Anna (Brideshead Rivisted's Felicity Jones). Anna is a Brit living in LA on an education visa studying to become a writer when she meets Jacob. Their first date is remarkable for its simplicity and honesty. So many romance movies make grand gestures and make the romance seem artificial and over amplified. Here they don't downplay the importance of having fun and enjoying the sweet moments that real relationships are all about in the beginning. The date involves coffee, awkward silences, nervous laughter, gradually giving way to better conversation and real laughter. At one point Anna invites him up to her room and he sits in a chair and mocks it for being uncomfortable. It's the type of moment that is unnecessary but so telling about their personalities.
The relationship is going very well when Anna has to return home for the summer before she can return to LA and Jacob. They are dealing with the pressure of saying goodbye and spending the next few months apart when Anna, impulsively, decides the day before she leaves that she won't go. They spend the next two and a half months together and fall hopelessly in love with each other. The realism of their relationship makes you fall in love with them. Since Jacob doesn't have a whole lot of money, for Anna's birthday he makes her a new chair at his carpentry job and carves the bottom with the words "LIKE CRAZY." Again, it's these little things that make the characters so likable.
When Anna does go home for a week she comes back stateside and sends Jacob a text saying she is going through customs and to head to the airport. I mention the text message because unlike Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, this film uses electronic communication effectively and accurately. Jacob arrives at the airport with flowers only to learn that by breaking her education visa, she is unable to enter the country on her work visa and is immediately escorted back to England. This is the first real trouble the relationship hits and the rest of the film is about the characters trying to overcome the obstacle of being forced apart over a span of a few years.
Jennifer Lawrence (X-Men: First Class) makes a somewhat brief, but memorable appearance in an otherwise minimal cast that includes three other characters that have equally brief roles. For a film completely centered on two people, the pacing is never too slow and the characters are likable and behave believably enough to make it work. Although the movie doesn't always look the best, there are certainly some scenes that rely almost entirely on some interesting, inventive camera work. The appeal of this movie lies almost entirely on its raw and accurate portrayal of two people who love each other, like crazy.

B.

New Releases: March 20 Edition

Today is a very exciting day for fans of all types of films. Literally. Suspense? Check Mystery? Check. Dramedy? Check. Comedy? Check. Family? Biggest check of the year (until Pixar's Brave comes out). For the second week in a row I have been eagerly awaiting Tuesday and keep in mind with my four day work week Tuesday is technically Monday.
 Let's start with The Muppets. Not only was this the best children's movie of 2011, far better than the dreadful crop of animated films, it was one of the best films of the year period. For children you have muppets, massive amounts of color, music, laughs, and more muppets. More importantly, for the adult there is the nostalgia that accompanies The Muppets, cameos and pop culture references to-boot, humor, a comprehensible storyline, and a movie that is aware of what it is supposed to be. The moment Oscar winning song "Man or Muppet" written by Bret McKenzie of Flight of the Conchords is over you will know exactly what you're in for and you'll be excited to continue the ride. If that doesn't get you than Chris Cooper playing the villain with his historic maniacal laugh will.
The only film that can rival my excitement for The Muppets release is that of the David Fincher version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The title sequence of which sets up the rest of the film brilliantly. Karen O. and Trent Reznor of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Nine Inch Nails respectively composed a fantastic rendition of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" plays scenes of a black liquid metal form different objects and a torch sets fire to different things (in a nod to the sequel The Girl Who Played With Fire) and show you Fincher's vision for the film. It will be dirty, gretty, dark, and abrasive. Rooney Mara has gone from an unknown to a highly buzzed and Oscar nominated actress over the last two years and her performance in this film will explain why. It is not for everyone, but those who can stomach the brutality of it all will be in for a treat.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy earned Gary Oldman into an Academy Award nominee after decades of mind blowing performances. The film itself is confusing, elaborate, smart, very British, and very well put together. The confusion is done on purpose as the director wants you to feel the confusion that George Smiley (Oldman) is suffering through while trying to figure out who the spy in his department is. You will learn who the spy is by the film's end but you won't see it coming.
Other releases include the Roman Polanski film Carnage that got mixed reviews but has a talented cast and interesting enough premise to warrant a rental and the raunchy comedy The Sitter starring Jonah Hill. Neither film got much promotion and were hardly in theaters, even in major cities so now there's finally a chance for the masses to see them.

Film Review: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. The title alone is intriguing. Yes, the film is very aware that they are discussing fishing in a desert. In fact Dr. Alfred Jones (played by Ewan McGregor in a full Irish accent) mocks the idea in his first scene of the film. The film starts off a little strangely. Enter Harriet (Emily Blunt) typing an email to Dr. Jones explaining that Sheikh Muhammed (Amr Waked) would like to bring the sport of fishing to his homeland. As she is typing and doing a voice over the words are popping up on screen like those really annoying Denis Leary Ford F-150 commercials. Dr. Jones reads and replies to said email with the words again showing up on screen. Only this time, he is reading aloud whilst typing and his wife throws in an adjective he agrees with, backspaces and replaces. These are the only times that either voice overs or out of nowhere text appear in the film. While I am happy they got rid of the technique I question why it was ever there to begin with as it seemed unnecessary. Really, how often do you speak aloud as you type?
The film hits a stride after it's rocky opening and is fairly fast paced. Well, as fast paced as a film about trying to build a river in Yemen with salmon so the Sheikh can fish at home can be. Harriet has a soldier boyfriend, Robert (Tom Milson), who she knows for all of three weeks before he is shipped off to Afghanistan. He asks her to wait for him, a move that strangely doesn't feel strange or forced at all. It's when Harriet gets alarming news about Robert the film really picks up emotionally. You finally get a connection to the characters, Dr. Jones especially. The three main characters of Harriet, Dr. Jones, and Sheikh Muhammed are all remarkably likeable, which is a surprise for most films these days.
The issue is, the films flaws are too big and too many to overlook. Just when I was thinking how interesting it was to watch one relationship grow stronger as another one is failing, they throw a curve ball and turn what seemed to be a great friendship with no romantic chemistry into a love story that felt out of place. There was no "aha!" moment that made you feel that Dr. Jones and Harriet were falling in love. There was no gradual build up towards it either. It was simply a writer who felt that the characters needed something to drive them. I am a firm believer that a movie should be about characters that react to a situation or event that happens to them. Not about characters who have interesting things happen to them to drive a plot. I get that it's hard not to fall in love with Emily Blunt, especially with her native accent, but this storyline was unnecessary and the film suffered because of it.
Another flaw is the first couple scenes with Sheikh Mohammed. His character starts off as an all-knowing insight to everything. He has a philosophy and can pinpoint the thoughts in everyone's head without them saying a word. They back off of this as the film continues to make his character much more entertaining and enjoyable. Being a Sheikh and dealing with the English is a good way to get yourself noticed by people trying to keep the Western world out of the Middle East. This turns into two separate assassination attempts that have little impact on the story and surprisingly little impact on the Sheikh himself.
The other main issue I had with the film was Kristen Scott Thomas' character Patricia Maxwell is the press secretary for the Prime Minister and is an absolute waste of screen time. The worst part is when they have her iChatting (Do people still use iChat?) with the Prime Minister trying to get laughs. The attempt comes up dull and her political presence is off putting regardless of your political standpoint.
These flaws aside the film is what I like to consider a Sunday afternoon movie. It is nowhere near a great film. Maybe not even a good one. However, when I see it come on TBS on a lazy Sunday I won't be in a rush to turn it off and won't regret spending my two hours watching it. Just as long as I'm not paying for it
C+.

The Doldrums of Winter

Winter starts off with such promise. It's awards season time! Movies are flying in like crazy and my money is going straight to theaters everywhere. Then February hits and all the artsy films have been released over the last 3 months and all the blockbusters are being held off until May. I was seeing as many as five movies a week in a theater in December and early January. Now I can't find one worth my time. That's not to say that nothing has looked interesting, just that nothing has looked worth the $10. I will end up seeing Safe House, Chronicle, Wanderlust, and The Lorax in due time thanks to Redbox or Netflix. Maybe they will even be cheap enough on release day to warrant me making a rare film purchase of something I haven't yet seen.

Normally during these dry spells at the theater there are plenty of movies in disc form that I am excited for. I tend to make the trip to Target or Best Buy every Tuesday to pick up at least one new release. Just not in February where Hugo was the only movie I bought over the 29 day span. Sure a couple of other films I was somewhat interested in came out like Take Shelter and Like Crazy but nothing that was screaming "BUY ME!" Luckily this all comes to an end tomorrow when finally the floodgates start to open with Young Adult, Melancholia, The Descendants, and My Week With Marilyn all deciding to drain my wallet the same day. Maybe I will start having something to write about every night again.

What's most interesting to me is that while I have found very little to see so far this year, the box office is outpacing last year's sales by far. A bunch of movies have opened to far bigger numbers than predicted. The Lorax, for instance, was always going to make money because of the source material combined with being a family film. But $70 million when industry insiders were looking for $50? Where did all of this excess business come from? Most intriguing about this uptick in sales is the potential for The Hunger Games. With the end of Harry Potter and the Twilight Saga and Batman franchises ending later this year Hollywood is looking for the next big franchise. The Hunger Games has a lot going for it: Wildly popular books, extremely passionate fan base, an A-List cast, and hype. Lots of hype. A movie that was already going to make money could gain a considerable bump from the extra film goers this year. I just hope it's a good enough film to break the dry spell I have been feeling for the last two months.

Pacing and debates

There I am, sitting at work, when the person next to me turns and says “I watched Drive last night.” Those five words sparked a giant debate amongst the six people in our area about their opinion on the movie. There were three categories the people fell into: Those who loved it, those who hated it, and those who liked it but preferred Ryan Gosling as a romantic lead. The last group was really just the person who watched it last night and I would have explained that it was a very romantic role for Gosling if not for being busy discussing the movie more with those whom hated the film. The idea of hating such a brilliant film seemed so unnatural until I was told the reason they didn’t like the film was its pace. Suddenly it made sense; people are very rarely a huge fan of anything they think moves along slowly. I proudly claim to not be a part of that group but I also am aware that I am in the vast minority in this discussion.

The best example of this scenario played out with the western The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. I talk about this film more than most because of how much it moved me and how well it holds up on a second (and fifteenth) watch. A guy I have known for over ten years and truly respect his opinion when it comes to movies was talking to me about how he considers it a great movie but it isn’t in his top ten because of its snails-are-running-laps-around-you pace. My immediate response, in full Mean Girls fashion, was to say that it was in my top ten BECAUSE of that pace. If a director feels they have a purpose to slow a movie down and fills it appropriately, I am completely down for the ride. In this case Andrew Dominik did just that. The title of the movie tells you exactly what is going to happen and yet it still takes until close to the two hour mark to get to the aforementioned assassination, then has another thirty minutes of film left to deal with the aftermath. The reason this works is a combination of a musical score that is second to none, the landscape and establishing shots are a true piece of artwork, and most importantly, it takes the full run time to feel the weight of the situation and to understand the hypocrisy in our society the film is trying to show us.

Another prime example here would be The American. Chances are if you saw the trailers and the poster of George Clooney running while carrying a gun you were expecting a fast paced action film and instead received an almost silent, slow film with the dialogue only occurring in your own head. This turned a lot of people off from the film. I had the good fortune of renting the movie months later and being told ahead of time that it was slow and awful. Going into the film with lowered expectations made it incredibly easy to enjoy a film that was very poorly received.

On the other side is it possible for a movie to move too quickly? Yes, but normally that depends on the type of film. You can easily make the argument that comedies cannot move too quickly and I would agree with you. Horrible Bosses is a prime example of a film that fits a whole lot of jokes and plot (for a comedy) in an 98 minute run time. However, for a drama that is not always the case. You need time to process the emotion behind what is happening. Friday Night Lights (the film) suffered from this problem in the original cut. The studio felt the pace was too quick and asked Peter Berg to go back and add a scene to let everything sink in for the audience. The result ended up being the perfect scene. The scene in question is when a few of the players are eating burgers at a local hang out. They are not only able to slow the pace but add the weight of expectations by showing the owner giving these high school students free food just for playing football and a dad getting a picture of his newborn with the team’s quarterback while telling him to enjoy this year because after this it’s “nothing but babies and memories.” Take the scene away and who knows if you will ever get the sense of celebrity and pressure this town has put on 16-18 year old kids.

I have had a movie’s pace ruin my opinion on a film too. If you do decide to run at a slow pace there better be a reason for it. If an action film is going to have lengthy monologues the character should be saying something very important and worth the break in pace. Avatar, for example, spends so much time focusing on being imaginative and beautiful it forgot to have a plot. I remember sitting in the theater and spending minutes spacing out multiple times only to realize there is a film going on, and that I missed absolutely nothing. Pacing can work for or against a film, but being slow should not leave you disliking a film.

Songs Synonymous with Movies

The other night I was driving around with a couple of people in the car and almost every song that came on I could tell you what movie or TV show the song was from, then describe the scene and it got me thinking about what songs go hand in hand with their films. Not just because they play at some point during the movie, but because when you hear the song playing at the store or on the radio your first instinct is to think of the film. There's always the obvious ones like "My Heart Will Go On" or "Hakuna Matata" that were written specifically for the movie, but I'm talking about the films that take a song that was already popular and redefine it.

The list has to start with Quintin Tarantino. The man has a skill for shooting films with lengthy scenes of dialogue, showing far more bare feet than necessary, long takes, filming from a trunk, and finding the perfect song for the perfect moment. The most obvious choice from his films is Reservoir Dogs and "Stuck in the Middle With You by Stealers Wheal. The song plays on the radio and Michael Madsen starts singing along and dancing all while torturing a man he has tied to a chair. The gruesome scene would quite possibly be too much to bear if not for the happy, upbeat song playing in the background. In Tarantino's next film, Pulp Fiction, he decides to take Chuck Berry's "You Can Never Tell" and makes Uma Thurman and John Travolta dance to it in a competition. The song is the perfect choice to show the uneasiness of the situation and helps bond the characters together. The lesser-seen Jackie Brown probably plays its theme song, "Across 110th Street" by Bobby Womack, more times than any of his other films. The film starts off with a reference to The Graduate having the titular Pam Grier standing on a moving walkway while the song plays and ends with her singing the song in her car. It fits the blaxploitation element perfectly and is a nice frame for an underrated film. Tarantino does this countless more times but I want to point out other films too.

Cameron Crowe is another director with a penchant for finding that one song to make a movie. This is less surprising when you realize he was a rock journalist for Rolling Stone at the age of 18. Say Anything, his directorial debut included one of the most iconic shots of the 80's: John Cusack, brown trench coat, boom box overhead, and Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes." Even mention the song in a room of people and it is all but guaranteed to get a conversation about the film, the moment, or Lloyd Dobbler (Cusack's character). In Crowe's most critically acclaimed film, Almost Famous, he takes a tour bus full of a band, band-aides (see: a half-step above groupies), and a reporter and plays Elton John's ballad "Tiny Dancer." The entire bus is in complete silence from a combination of anger and awkwardness only to end up singing along to the song and realizing that everything is magically better. It isn't corny like it sounds in print, just real. In Elizabethtown Crowe picks the most common redneck song and turns it into something special. Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Freebird" is an eight minute epic of a song with a fantastic guitar solo. In the film it is used to combine sadness and love in an unforgettable scene including sprinklers and a bird on fire.

Ironically, the next film on this list was written by Crowe but handed over to Amy Heckerling to direct. Fast Times at Ridgemont High is famous for Sean Penn as stoner Spicoli, Phoebe Cates' finest hour, and Tom Petty's "American Girl." The reason this song will stick with you for so long is it fits the tone and feel of the movie perfectly. Normally it's a rule to not allow the lyrics of a song to influence its selection, but in this case it was just a perfect fit.

The Frances Williams song "As Time Goes By" is forever linked to Casablanca for the oft (mis)quoted "Play it again Sam" line supposedly spoken by Humphrey Bogart. The song was clearly the theme for Bogart and Ingrid Bergman's characters before they separated and it killed Bogart's character Rick to hear it, especially at Ilsa's (Bergman) request years later. The song became a benchmark for Rick and allowed us to feel the pain he had been living with for years.

While Simon and Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson" was written partially for The Graduate, their "Sound of Silence" was already a #1 hit four years before the film was made. The entire movie is essentially a Simon and Garfunkel music video but again it's the opening scene that seals it. Dustin Hoffman on a moving walkway staring into his future while the haunting song written about the aftermath of the JFK assassination is playing leaves an impression, along the rest of the movie, that you aren't going to shake off easily.

Movies would be nothing without the music that backs them. It's the reason I love movie scores and soundtracks sell so well. Songs are able to take you back to the exact moment in the film and give you the same feeling you originally had while watching. These were just some of the more famous renditions.

Quick! Name a Tim Burton Movie not starring Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter.

I bet you either said Beetlejuice or came up empty. (Other answers were Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Batman, Batman Returns, and Mars Attacks!) Let me preface the rest of this article by saying I still find Tim Burton extremely talented and creative. I have a poster of his artwork hanging in my room. That being said, once upon a time Tim Burton was one of my favorite directors. He had so much going for him. He wasn't just creative with his stories but the way he was able to visualize them. He had such an influence that you probably think he directed The Nightmare Before Christmas. Henry Selick of Coraline and James and the Giant Peach fame was also the man behind the camera for that one. The reason nobody knows this (aside from the promotional material saying "Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas") is because it feels and looks like a Burton movie. He is no longer a favorite because he became predictable. The news of a new Burton movie is immediately paired with "starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, with music by Danny Elfman." All four of these artists are brilliant on their own so bringing them together should make them stronger right? Well, at first yes. It's no secret that one of Burton's best films is Edward Scissorhands. It is a little bit of a secret that another one of his best is Ed Wood. The reason these films are great is there was a creative process clearly forming between Depp and Burton. This process only worked in the short term because after a while they got too comfortable with each other and the ideas were more obvious and predictable.

It's no coincidence that my favorite Burton film is Big Fish, the only film since 2002 to not star Depp. It isn't because I dislike Depp. It's because Burton had to work with Ewan McGregor and challenge him instead of letting Depp phone it in with his normal quirkiness. It may be pointed out that Big Fish stars Bonham Carter, who I had previously mentioned, but this was only their second collaboration together and still were able to work the creative process in their favor. The free flowing creative juices turned a corny idea into a beautiful story.

Since Big Fish every movie Burton has directed starred Depp and Bonham Carter. Every movie Burton has ever made aside from Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (which already had music written) and Ed Wood has been scored by Danny Elfman. Although Elfman is less of a hindrance because of his sheer talent, I would love to see what type of work another composer could create for Burton's work. The results produced by these four haven't been all awful by any means. Corpse Bride has some merit and Sweeney Todd, although a little overrated, was nominated for three Oscars. Overall, the films have lost their oomph and excitement because of the lack of extra creativity brought to the table. Four of the most imaginative people in show business should be considered a lot of things, but predictable is one nobody saw coming in the early 90's

Alice in Wonderland is a perfect example of everything working against them. I was very excited when this movie first came out because it seemed perfect for Burton's mind. Although it is much better than the animated version, it left a bitter taste in my mouth. Depp should have never been cast as the Mad Hatter. It was too obvious and he was too over the top in his performance. There was no pushing, no pressure to turn the most memorable character of the film into an exciting one. What was most concerning about the film that a standout performance by both Mia Wasikowska and Bonham Carter were wasted by an over emphasis on Depp. The post-production 3D didn't help the cause either.

This being said, I still think Burton has immense talent and I root for him to succeed. This includes the upcoming Dark Shadows that will keep the four artists together. It also especially includes the updated version of Frankenweenie who's trailer premiered this weekend. The excitement behind Frankenweenie is for multiple reasons. It's already a story Burton did on a small scale and has wanted to extend ever since. Old Burton regulars from the late 80's and early 90's Catherine O'Hara and Winona Ryder will be back to collaborate with Burton. Oh, and it won't star Depp or Bonham Carter. Can the man who makes the most impressive title sequences ever (expect a full post on those another time) and who made Batman Returns the best Christmas movie that has little to do with Christmas come back to full form or will he leave me disappointed again?

How can you not be romantic about baseball?

Tomorrow marks the start of spring training games and it seemed only appropriate to talk about my favorite part of America's past time: The baseball movie. As you have probably heard me say I am going to try and love baseball this year. My main reason for wanting to care about the game so much, aside from having something to do between the NBA finals in June and the kick off of college football in September, is baseball movies are just so good. They have a way of romanticizing the game in ways I can't even understand. Even if you don't care, or want to care, for baseball, you can appreciate the game through these movies (all of which are much shorter than a true baseball game, I promise).

Moneyball was just nominated for Best Picture and is no doubt one of the influences on my decision. The reason Moneyball worked was they spent such a little amount of time showing the baseball itself, and instead focused on the team and general manager with everything working against them trying to change the sport forever. In fact, most of the baseball scenes in the film are of a single player in a blackened stadium taking pitches while the announcer is discussing the rest of the game. The movie's moral "He hit a home run and you didn't realize it" is something that speaks to everyone.

On the other end of the spectrum is The Natural, which spent almost the entire run time on the diamond. This helps the movie feel that it's going at a much faster pace than it really is. While it is a movie with many flaws, they are all forgiven because of an incredibly pure and well executed ending. There is just so much hope for the one who was supposed to be the best ever to succeed so late in life with his trusty Wonder Boy bat.

Want a baseball movie that is very little about baseball? Well that just happens to be the story of a minor league team called Bull Durham. (For the record it took a lot of work to not name a Kevin Costner movie about baseball until now.) The story of a washed up catcher and an up-and coming pitcher who's lives cross as they both fall in love with the same woman (played by Susan Surandon). A highly entertaining dramedy that very well may be the best on this list.

in 1998 Mark McGwire broke the home run record of 61 set by Roger Maris in 1961. During the race to 62 between McGwire and Sammy Sosa HBO decided to cash in and produced a movie about the season Maris set the record called 61*. A more accurate film than those previously mentioned, the plot centers on Maris and his Yankee teammate trying to both break a record considered unbeatable at the time set by Babe Ruth. The most interesting take on the story is seeing the New York public take sides and root against Maris even though he plays for the right team.

Back to Kevin Costner, this time in For Love of the Game as a major league pitcher who has had a storied career that is now coming to a close as he turns 40. The film is probably the weakest of his baseball movies but the end has always stuck with me. Costner is pitching his final game of his career and it just so happens to be a potential perfect game. Sam Raimi, who also directed the Evil Dead and Spider-Man trilogies, puts his touch on the film in the moment when he continuously shows Costner standing on the mound in deep thought and allows us to hear his inner thoughts (I don't remember if it's voice over or Costner talking to himself) as he is throwing against a rookie who is dangerous because he is too dumb to know what he's up against.

Sticking with old pitchers, The Rookie is about Dennis Quad coaching an inner city high school team that never wins. He ends up making a deal with the team if they go to the playoffs, he will try out for the expansion Tampa Bay Devil Rays. As luck would have it, the unlikely scenario played out on screen just as it did in real life allowing him to not only try out, but make the team. He has limited playing time but the story is still inspiring and impressive.

To end the list it has to be Field of Dreams. Was there ever any doubt? The story of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the 1919 Chicago White Sox where if you build it, he (not they) will come. The reason I point out that it isn't they is two-fold. One is it is one of the most misquoted lines of all time and two, the movie doesn't make sense unless the line is he. The reason this movie is the epitome of a great baseball movie is that it's about a dream and a longing for a past that you don't think you can ever get back. Sure, seeing Shoeless Joe play was important to Ray Kinsella (Costner) but the true climax of the film is the moment Ray gets to reconnect with his deceased father over a game of catch that will send the strongest of men reaching for the tissues.

Expectations Vs. Reality

When a major film is being made there is a certain amount of hype behind the project. For instance, let's take a look at this summer's upcoming The Avengers. The first news about the film came in 2008 with a 30-second scene after the end credits of Iron Man. A few days later, as the box office totals for Iron Man grew, Marvel announced that they would be releasing not just Iron Man 2, as expected, but also a movie for The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. Then once those films all made them massive amounts of money they would all team up together to make the aforementioned epic The Avengers. Time passed and more hints about the film were placed within the releases and a writer/director was announced; Buffy The Vampire Slayer's Joss Weedon. Time continues to elapse and more news slowly leaks to the press. Suddenly the cast is confirmed including Robert Downey Jr. Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, and Jeremy Renner. Skip a few months and pictures from the set surface. Captain America: The First Avenger is released and there is a mini trailer for The Avengers attached to the end. This is followed by TV spots, more trailers, new posters, you name it and it's out there. The whole system is a hype machine building the movie up so when it is released in May the only thought in your ("your" being the beloved 18-35 year old male) head is that you must see this film. You go, you spend your money, the film makes over $100 million opening weekend and everyone is happy right? The real question is did you enjoy the film? Hopefully, but really how could you? You have spent FOUR YEARS thinking about how amazing The Avengers will be. Four years thinking of plot lines and story arcs. Four years of building expectations. That is an impossibly high bar that you have set. I understand why studios do it, they make more money this way. Heck, I even fueled the beast in December when I spent $20 to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol just because the first six minutes of The Dark Knight Rises was playing in front of it. And we all know I have been reading every bit of information that has been released about it both before and since the viewing. This type of marketing is effective and will continue to be as long as there is an internet.

How much do expectations really alter your outlook on a film? Back in 2002 plenty of movies came out over the summer that I wanted to see. Two in particular were Minority Report and The Bourne Identity. I wasn't driving yet and I made minimal money so the easiest way to see a movie was to talk my mom into going with me. This wasn't a hard task as long as she wanted to see the movie. When I mentioned my want to see both of these films she decided on Minority Report because she had heard a great review of it on her beloved, trusty NPR. She came into the film with some pretty hefty expectations. She was a Tom Cruise fan (remember this is before the couch jumping incident when most of the world liked Cruise), Steven Spielberg was the director, and she trusted a review that claimed it to be a great watch. I personally would have preferred to see The Bourne Identity but was getting a free movie and wasn't about to complain. Afterwards, I was able to admit that she made a good choice. What a moving piece of art. Is this what our world could be headed towards? I was enthralled. My mom was not. She didn't care for it at all. A few weeks later I was able to wear her down and we saw The Bourne Identity, although she wasn't looking forward to it at all. We walk out of the theater and were both very happy with what we saw. In the ten years since these films were originally released I have caught my mom watching The Bourne Identity numerous times. She hasn't watched Minority Report since. I have watched both films countless times and find them to be very good films.

The easy thing to say was high expectations led to a poor experience and low expectations led to a quality experience. While true for my mother, not so much for me. How much of a role does having expectations really play on a person's opinion of a movie? I have overheard people in a theater telling themselves the movie won't be funny or entertaining and the attractive actor will look horrible just to enjoy it more. One of these times was before Leatherheads so needless to say, it didn't work. Can these pep talks actually influence your opinion on a movie?

What about when an expectation has been directly given to you? It has recently come to my attention that a person very close to me has never seen The Shawshank Redemption. I have since been trying to balance the pressure to watch it with a nonchalant approach so as to not give the impression that it's one of the best films ever made. This may end up not mattering at all. I mean, really, who dislikes Shawshank? But changing the scope a little bit, someone else has never seen any of the Back to the Future trilogy. I find this to be an abomination and a huge disappointment but I also wonder if at this point in their life they could even enjoy it. In Back to the Future Michael J. Fox goes to a future that we have already passed (2011). The effects in the film are cheesy and very clearly from the 80's. Overall, the movie is by no means a masterpiece. It doesn't make me love it any less, in fact, it may help me love it more. It was a perfect film to be watching at a young age and I can watch it now and appreciate the nostalgia it brings. If someone were to be forced into watching the films in their mid to late-20s for the first time it may not be as enjoyable. Especially when the person asking you to watch, considers the series to be one of their personal favorites. There is pressure to enjoy, making the enjoyment even less likely.

Instead of giving my opinion in this post, I leave you with my vague advice: You are going to dislike a bad movie regardless of how much you expect out of it but you may dislike a good movie because you did expect too much. Try to have a blank slate for yourself and leave a blank slate for others. Not that it's easy.

It Was the Worst of Times

In late 2008 this country was headed for it's impending doom. The stock market was falling, the wars had no end in sight, unemployment was on the rise. It was 1929 all over again. People turned to the movies for entertainment, and more importantly an escape. People enjoyed turning their minds off for 100+ minutes and forgetting their problems. I fully endorse this idea to an extent. There is plenty to be said about movies that you like even if they aren't any good. Heck, Ryan Reynolds has made a career out of these films. Think about it for a second, how many Reynolds movies can you name that you enjoyed? How many of them were actually good? I found ten I like and one that I consider a good movie (Adventureland where he was a supporting player, at most). So before I get into the actual point of this post I want to make this point very clear: I don't condemn mindless entertainment and I never will. That being said people are missing out on a major opportunity of finding great films. The best movies I watch involve characters I can relate to. What better time to relate to people in pain than when in pain yourself?

It's no coincidence that I watched a good portion of my favorite films around 2009. Two factors heavily influenced this phenomena: I watched more movies that year than maybe any other year and it was an awful year for me personally. Even films I had seen previously made a much bigger impact on my life if I watched them in this year. In fact, five of my ten favorite films were because of viewings in 2009 and two of those were second or third viewings. I remember at the time I didn't want to watch certain movies because I didn't want to forever associate them with the pain I was feeling. Looking back on it I wish I had watched more. Very few people understand why Vanilla Sky is my favorite movie and I can argue its greatness for days straight. That being said, I also understand the reason I love it so much has a lot to do with the films themes lining up with my personal life at that moment. It's what makes Cameron Crowe such a phenomenal and underrated director. He gets it. He has felt pain, or at least knows enough about it to make films centered around it but more on that another time. What I'm trying to say is watching someone go through similar and often worse circumstances than you is both humbling and helpful.

They say misery loves company, yet when it comes to movies people go the opposite route far more than they should. Is the love of your life dating someone else? Watch Casablanca. Maybe Humphrey Bogart can show you how to handle things. No you won't have nearly as great sounding of a voice and it won't give you any idea about how to break them up and win your love back. Instead it can give you perspective and hope. Feel lonely? Watch A Single Man. Maybe Colin Firth can show you just how lonely life can get. He can also show that it does get better. Feel betrayed? Watch The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The title alone tells you what's going to happen and maybe you'll think; "At least they didn't kill me." Or maybe you'll realize karma will get them in the end. Want to erase someone from your memory? Watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Maybe Jim Carrey can make you reconsider. And when you're done with these? Watch a Ryan Reynolds movie. Maybe he can take your mind off of the situation for a little while. Just don't forget that your pain leaves you vulnerable to recognizing and appreciating cinema at its finest.