The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

Directed by Peter Lord and Jeff Newitt.

2012. Rated PG, 88 minutes.

Cast:

Hugh Grant

Martin Freeman

Imelda Staunton

David Tennant

Jeremy Piven

Salma Hayek

Lenny Henry

Brian Blessed

The Pirate Captain (Grant) is feeling down in the dumps. All he wants is to be Pirate of the Year. Unfortunately, reality smacks him and he comes to grips with the fact that he’s not been very successful at his chosen vocation. He tightens up his crew a bit and doubles down on his effort, but even that doesn't go very well. However, he finds out that he may have had a treasure hidden right in his beard the whole time. He takes over a boat manned by the one and only Charles Darwin (Tennant), who has nothing of value. Still, Darwin realizes that the Pirate Captain’s parrot is actually not a parrot, but the only living dodo bird and informs him it is worth untold riches. The problem is to reap this benefit, the Pirate Captain and crew have to go to London which is ruled by the sworn enemy of pirates everywhere, Queen Victoria (Staunton).

Overall, this is a fun adventure filled with clever little jokes. The voice work by Hugh Grant is excellent and the story moves nicely along. Grant’s Captain is funny in a self-deprecating way, complemented well by both his dim-witted crew and the occasional appearance of other, more boisterous pirates. These include a really fun turn by Salma Hayek’s Cutlass Liz, the only woman up for Pirate of the Year. Imelda Staunton’s Queen Victoria is not to be outdone, either. Sight gags are also mixed in to great effect, especially the sudden costumes our heroes turn up in. Verbally, Pirates prefers subtly inserted punchlines to the obvious or crass. All of this comes together in a solid package.

Unfortunately, Pirates may be a victim of its own style. While there are plenty of action scenes, the whole thing comes off as a bit understated in comparison to most other kiddie flicks. The loud-mouthed sidekick is missing, as are the fart jokes and the prerequisite love story. Though not entirely original, it’s different enough to knock it down a notch in the eyes of its target audience, even as that may elevate it in the eyes of the parents. It is also at a visual disadvantage. It’s use of clay-mation gives it a bit of a dated look, especially to kids weaned on Pixar movies.

The end result seems to be a family movie more suited for the grownups than the children. That’s not to say that kids can’t or won’t enjoy it. It just feels as if us older folk will get more enjoyment out of this one. Many of the things we chuckle at may fly right over their heads. Honestly, this is perfectly fine by me. I feel I’m owed one after sitting through Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2, Journey 2, Yogi Bear, etc.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

Life of Pi

Directed by Ang Lee.

2012. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.

Cast:

Suraj Sharma

Irrfan Khan

Ayush Tandon

Gautam Belur

Rafe Spall

Tabu

Adil Hussain

Gérard Depardieu

James Saito

Pi, played by Irrfan Khan as an adult, has a story that will make you believe in God. At least, that’s what the (unnamed) writer (Spall) has been told. He’s sought out Pi to hear this tale for himself. It details the events of Pi’s survival of a shipwreck all alone on a lifeboat. Well, he’s all alone except for a zebra, a hyena, and most dangerously, a none too friendly tiger name Richard Parker.

The shipwreck happens when Pi is fifteen years old, then played by Suraj Sharma. Before this we get his life story up to that point. It’s a wonderful setup for what’s to follow. Relationships between he and his family, particularly his father, are established. Enveloped within this framework is the boy’s relationship with the tiger. There is both humor and pathos at work here, and very effectively at that. We feel we really know this young man and understand the thirst of his spirit.

When we get to Pi adrift on the ocean trying to figure out how to survive both the elements and his company, Sharma takes over the movie. If you’re going to be the only person on the screen for long stretches of time, you’d better be a compelling personality. He is indeed that. He’s also aided by Richard Parker. The dynamics of their circumstances is tremendously watchable and maintains a certain charm throughout.

Also charming are the visuals. Richard Parker is certainly included as he is mostly cgi. He, and the rest of what we see is splendid. There is never a moment when we doubt that our hero is face to face with this magnificent beast. The danger he represents is certainly palpable. This helps the movie turn a difficult trick. Despite our knowledge that the older version of the young man we’re watching is narrating, we still feel that his life is at risk. At least, it’s at risk enough to keep us engaged. The rest of the film is wonderful looking, as well. The storm scenes are especially spectacular as is the island scene, with ridiculously lush greens and meerkats as far as the eye can see.

Visuals alone do not make a great movie, Zack Snyder. They work best when in support of an intriguing story. Things work this way in Life of Pi. We’re often drawn to the edge of our seat. Then, at the end, our brain gets challenged a bit. Is what we've seen the truth or just a colorful metaphor? Does it really matter which? What proof does it offer of God’s existence? We can have fun with all of those questions after we've had fun watching Pi navigate difficult waters.

Including this one, I've only seen five of the twelve full-length features directed by Ang Lee. Until now, I’ve only liked one, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but I contend that it’s overrated. Even more overrated is Brokeback Mountain. It won Best Picture, but I don’t even think it was the best LGBT picture that year. Transamerica was a far superior movie and Mysterious Skin was ten times better than them both. Taking Woodstock was a ball of “meh” and don’t even get me started on that giant sleeping pill Hulk. If you shared my point of view, you’d understand why I wasn't really buying into the hype surrounding Life of Pi. However, I’ll admit that Mr. Lee has crafted a winner with this one.

Burlesque

Directed by Steve Antin.

2010. Rated PG-13, 119 minutes.

Cast:

Cher

Christina Aguilera

Stanley Tucci

Cam Gigandet

Eric Dane

Julianne Hough

Alan Cumming

Peter Gallagher

Kristen Bell

Glynn Turman

Terrence Jenkins

Chelsea Traille

Dainna Agron

Ali (Aguilera) flees her small hometown and dead-end job in search of fame and fortune in the big city. Once there, she stumbles into a burlesque bar owned by Tess (Cher) and just has to find a way to get on that stage. For you young’uns not sure what a burlesque bar is, I’ll (over) simplify. It’s a place where people go to watch women dance and get not quite naked. In this case, Cher has incorporated lip-syncing into all the routines and is pretty strict with the rule that no one sings live, but her. All of this is merely backdrop for the two real issues. The first, of course, is Ali's potential romance with barkeep turned roommate Jack (Gigandet). The other is that the club is going broke. You know how this works. They have x number of days to come up with x amount of money, or else.

It’s interesting that this movie uses lip-syncing as a focal point because it clearly imitates maybe a hundred musicals that came before it. Truth told, there is not one original bone in its body. Burlesque isn't just influenced by the movies of the past, it seems to have ingested them then jammed a finger down its own throat and regurgitated. We can predict the next event with alarming accuracy because we've seen this exact movie at least a few times before.

For the most part, the cast doesn't help. Cher brings the Cher persona and works just fine. Her less experienced co-star is not. Christina Aguilera isn't terrible, just boring. All that she really brings is that big voice to the numbers where she is eventually allowed to sing. Her love interest Cam Gigandet, as well as her fellow dancing girls (Kristen Bell and Julianne Hough among them) are all similarly vanilla, but don’t have any musical moments to elevate him. The one saving grace in this crowd is the remarkable Stanley Tucci. He continues to validate my belief that he’s one of the finest character actors of our time with another wonderful turn.

The scenes where girls are cavorting about on stage are truly the lifeblood of Burlesque. These, plus two other show-stopping moments make a valiant effort to save the film: the first time our heroine gets to sing and the powerful ballad Cher gets to belt out near the end. Unfortunately, they only prove to be brief reprieves from the movie trudging from one well-worn plot point to the next.

MY SCORE: 4.5/10

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Directed by Stephen Chbosky.

2012. Rated PG-13, 2012.

Cast:

Logan Lerman

Emma Watson

Ezra Miller

Mae Whitman

Paul Rudd

Nina Dobrev

Johnny Simmon

Kate Walsh

Dylan McDermott

Melanie Lynskey

Joan Cusack

Nicholas Braun

Like most kids, Charlie (Lerman) is nervous about starting high school. He might actually be more afraid than most. After all, he couldn’t make any friends in middle school. He survives the first day, invisibly as ever. His only new friend is Mr. Anderson (Rudd), his English teacher who lets him borrow books whenever he likes. Things continue along that path until our hero accidentally finds himself hanging out with The Wallflowers, a tight-knit group of kids that certainly are not part of the in-crowd. He becomes bestest buds with Patrick (Miller), who happens to be carrying on a secret relationship with the school’s most popular athlete, and instantly develops a crush on Patrick’s sister Sam (Watson). Fun with drugs and alcohol, the pursuit of love, and other issues ensue.

In the lead role, Lerman gives us a kid that believably grows in confidence as he becomes comfortable in his own skin. However, he’s never fully comfortable and what confidence he has is fragile, at best. Lerman ably conveys this, makes his character easy to empathize with. He’s someone we want to see breaking out of his shell even though that means indulging in behavior that is less than exemplary.

The cast surrounding our hero is just as good. Each brings their own brand of pain to the screen, continuously proving themselves to be perfect complements to our hero. They’re tortured souls that shelter each other. Their fierce individualism is the facade through which they operate as a group. Whatever they can’t combat with smartassness is doused with the stuff pulled from their parents’ liquor cabinets and viewed hazily through constantly refilling glasses and laughter.

Even within such an idyllic dynamic, problems between them arise. Here, more than anywhere else, us older viewers are thrust back into thedays when there was turbulence amongst our own circle of friends. Younger viewers may be going through this now. We feel bad for Charlie, especially considering the tremendous difficulties this causes for him. As his entire situation crystallizes, our heart breaks for him. The movie does a great job of pacing our awareness, letting us learn a little at a time, just enough to keep us on our toes. The two halves of our protagonist’s life work in tandem to maintain a shroud of mystery around him until he bursts, throwing open the cloak we’ve only been getting peeks beneath.

On the minus side, I’m not sure what to make of Charlie’s parents. They seem to be nice caring people, but a clueless lot even when the obvious punches them in the face. I’m not talking about the big reveal late in the movie, but of the things we see all along – the drinking and the drugs. Even after their son lands in the hospital they just shrug their shoulders at the whole thing even though they know that he’s always been troubled. Now that I think about it, that big reveal only warrants a slightly more vehement reaction. Maybe it’s just the dad in me speaking, but even after our hero’s news is out in the open, they still aren’t as present as they should be.

Regardless of how Charlie is parented. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is an enthralling movie. It draws us into this young man’s life and lets us love it or loathe it as he does. Best of all, we realize that he is a work in progress. His problems aren’t solved in time for the closing credits. He has a lifetime of work ahead of him. This makes him much more real than most guys that save the day and get the girl.

Ink

Directed by Jamin Winans.

2009. Rated PG-13, 106 minutes.

Cast:

Chris Kelly

Quinn Hunchar

Jessica Duffy

Jennifer Batter

Eme Ikwuakor

Shelby Malone

Jeremy Make

John (Kelly) is a widower who has lost custody of his little girl Emma (Hunchar) to his in-laws due to some struggles with drugs and alcohol. They won’t even let him see her even though he’s overcome those obstacles and is a very successful businessman. Things change when Emma has a seizure and falls into a coma. That’s when the in-laws come calling for John, who may or may not go to his daughter’s side. What none of them understand is that the battle for her life is being waged by a group of warriors who exist outside of our awareness, but protect our souls. Emma’s soul has been kidnapped by Ink, a dark and morose creature looking to move up in the bad guy ranks.

This is an intriguing tale, not least of all because it keeps us busy trying to figure out what one half of the story has to do with the other. We’re introduced to the more fantastic side of things first. It’s a Matrix inspired take on the concept of guardian angels. As a result, we get fight scenes bolstered by the use of some interesting special fx. Mostly, it’s things coming back together after having been broken in the heat of battle. Between the action sequences we see the good guys prepare to face the bad guys, early on. Later, it becomes a war of wills between Ink and Liev (Duffy), our last hope to save Emma. The more traditional side of things is fairly simple, but helped along by the same folks trying to help the little girl. It is when these people, whom John has no idea of, intervene most directly in his life that the movie sizzles. The tension bubbles to the surface and we really feel the struggle between the various factions.

The problems with this movie are mostly superficial, but easily noticeable. Chiefly, the ambitions of the story seem to exceed the budget. Effects, costuming and even fight choreography all work individually. When pulled together, some of those binding elements are lacking. For one, the haze often around the edges of the frame is meant to give things a dreamy feel but comes across as a cheap, and cheaply employed trick. Similarly, the score inspires annoyance more than the somberness it seems to be going for. The pace is also a bit clunky. Most bothersome is that the acting leaves much to be desired. In the lead, Chris Kelly is fine and, surprisingly, so is Quinn Hunchar as his daughter. Even the bad guys are pretty good, in a creepy emotionless way. Unfortunately, our heroes are a mostly wooden lot.

Due to the fact that the movie is very well written by Jamin Winans, who also directed, Ink manages to survive its faults. More than that, it goes about it’s business in a manner different enough that it deserves to be seen. As proof of this, it has developed a cult following since it’s release. People who praise it are hooked by the wonderful story-telling. And it all leads to an ending that works as an intriguing revelation, giving us something to discuss which is always good.

Zero Dark Thirty

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow.

2012. Rated R, 157 minutes.

Cast:

Jessica Chastain

Jason Clarke

Kyle Chandler

Joel Edgerton

Jennifer Ehle

Mark Strong

James Gandolfini

Edgar Ramirez

Frank Grillo

Harold Perrineau

It’s quite simple, really. This is all about the almost decade long hunt for Osama bin Laden after the events of 9/11. Maya (Chastain) joins the CIA’s effort early on and eventually comes to spearhead it. We see her and her colleagues feverishly gathering intelligence and note the differences in how this is done before and after the general public found out about waterboarding. We see Maya persevere in the face of waning support from her superiors. Finally, we see…well, you know how this ends.

Movies based on true stories generally have to contend with the audience already knowing the outcome. Here, the problem is multiplied because a) it is more well-known than most and b) it’s still pretty fresh in our collective memory. The devil has to be in the details, and so it is. To that end, we get a procedural chronicling Maya’s difficult path to victory. It’s an atypical war movie in that it’s all about a chess match on the grandest scale, not an all out depiction of battle. However, there are bursts of violence sprinkled throughout and the culmination of all of our heroine’s work is the operation performed by Seal Team Six. By the way, this is done with great accuracy, according to everything I've heard or read about it.

Before we get to that finale, it’s all about war waged on multiple fronts. Most obviously, there is the overall war on terrorism. Within that broader scope, there is the war between the CIA and the White House over what procedures are acceptable and which are not. Then there is the war between Maya and her own bosses over whether or not to keep her pursuit alive. Speaking of alive, there is also the war to keep her that way once her identity becomes known to her enemies. As Maya, Jessica Chastain is nothing, if not fierce. Her ferocity is drawn from unwavering conviction. She is the type of person we viewers might not like if we had to work with/for her, but we’d appreciate her and be glad she’s on our side. It’s not that she’s mean or even inaccessible. It’s that to call her dedicated to the mission is like saying that Oprah has a little money tucked away.

Through Chastain’s performance, an excellent script and supporting cast, and the gravity of the situation, director Kathryn Bigelow crafts an engrossing film. It grabs hold of us as it explains the hows of the whats we already know. We’re intrigued by the process. When we get to the last scene, we do as Maya does. We exhale.

MY SCORE: 9/10