Movies: Don Jon ('Best of 2013' List)

Don Jon, the writing-directing debut of actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is the age old tale: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, and mainly boy loses girl due to his unhealthy addiction to hardcore pornography. The boy is the titular Jon, a seemingly Jersey-Shore-esque meathead. The girl is Samantha, played in her best "marble columns" accent by Scarlett Johansson, who he meets on yet another Saturday night with his boys at the club trying to "pull tens". In Don's eyes, Samantha more than qualifies.

The film is partly about peoples expectations versus reality. In Don's case, his sexual experiences never match the specific features he lists that are unique to pornography, while Samantha has idealistic, unrealistic expectations of her own based in part on all the romantic comedies she's watched. He looks to lose himself in sex with the ladies, she thinks a man should lose himself in his devotion to his girlfriend.

The comedy in the film is all character driven, with frank talk about pornography and sex, along with related imagery (I wouldn't recommend it as a "first-date" movie, unless the two of you are fairly comfortable with one another). With the introduction of Julianne Moore's character Esther, and when the pricklier aspects of Don's relationship with Samantha come to the fore, the film makes a slow, organic shift to serious drama, and has more meaningful things to say about love and life. In the same way that Don's character moves from superficial to nuanced, so too does the film as a whole. That all the aforementioned actors are terrific in their roles certainly makes that transition work.

More great stuff:

• Joe's father, mother, and sister, played by Tony Danza (!), Glenne Headley and Brie Larson respectively. There's a sequence with Jon Sr. reacting a little too positively to his son's new girlfriend that is hilariously creepy.
• Couples-shopping that gradually throws up all kinds of red-flags about a character (I was impressed with the reality of the idiosyncrasy of the character in question and how effectively irritating that idiosyncratic behaviour was.)
• A character initially thought to be a bit of a throw-away ends up being a true friend.
• A scene where, due to a confluence of acting, direction, cinematography, and editing, Johansson manages to look both radiantly beautiful and batshit-crazy simultaneously.
• As usual, Moore knocks it out of the park.

Based on the strength of Don Jon, I look forward to seeing any future films that Gordon-Levitt cooks up. Dude is talented! (You know the orange text is always a link, right?)

Movies: Before Midnight ('Best of 2013' List)

"How long has it been since we've just been wandering around bullshitting?"

Too long!

Before Midnight is the third film in what is, to-date, a trilogy about the ongoing romantic relationship of Céline (played and co-written by Julie Delpy) and Jesse (played and co-written by Ethan Hawke). A chance meeting between strangers on a train in 1994 leading to a day spent in Vienna with a promise to meet again, and the actual reunion nine years later in Paris, were the stories of the the previous films, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, respectively.

Once again directed and co-written by Richard Linklater, this chapter takes place during a vacation to Greece nine years after Sunset. Céline and Jesse are now married with young twin daughters. The film opens with Jesse at an airport seeing off his son from his previous marriage back to the U.S. for the start of a new school year.

This film is a little older, and a little harsher, as reality and romance come into conflict. This couple has always been thoughtful, but Céline comes across as more pragmatic this time around (perhaps she always was). Relationships are delicate things, and as the story progresses, the characters and the audience worry that this bond is at a precarious juncture. Is this the inevitable nature of all romances over time?

Part of the resonance of the story for some of us viewers is that Céline and Jesse are contemporaries, and though the specifics of their relationship are not directly applicable to everyone (how often do you get to hash out your life with your significant other in exotic locales?), there is enough common ground and truth in their experience and the articulation of it that leads to us reflecting on our own relationships. It's one of the rare, powerful things that can happen with movies. That it's happened over the course of three films is rarer still.

Add to that: charming and witty leads, stellar naturalistic dialogue, filmed against beautiful European cities. What's not to like?

As long as the three principles are interested in expanding this tale, I would gladly visit these characters again in another nine years.

Other goodness:

• Delpy as Céline, acting like a theorectical bimbo during a lunch with friends to underscore a point.
• Lying to your kids.
• The ending, equal parts hopeful and sad.

Movies: Gravity ('Best of 2013' List)

Gravity concerns the first NASA mission of civilian medical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone, played by Sandra Bullock. She's responsible for a bit of tech that's normally used in hospitals, but that is now being tested as an augmentation for the Hubble Space Telescope, which is being serviced by the space shuttle. Dr. Stone is one of a team of five, the most senior member of that team being astronaut Matt Kowalski, played by George Clooney, who routinely jokes with Mission Control about having "a bad feeling about this mission", apparently on every mission he's ever been involved in. Coincidentally and unfortunately, his faux-premonition turns out to be correct this time.

Catastrophic events ensue.

Director and co-writer Alfonso Cuarón, whose 2006 dystopian film Children of Men is one of my favourites, continues here with a directorial audacity and assuredness, even more impressive considering it's been seven years since he made Children. As one of many noteworthy examples, the film opens with a single 18 minute shot that lays out the geography of the scene while retaining the openness and, seemingly paradoxically, the disorientation that being in space provides. More impressive is the organic nature of the presentation: I wasn't fully aware that it was one meticulously choreographed sequence for that length of time until it ended, and my brain caught up with that fact. "Wow!", it said.

I own a stereoscopic television, and also now work on projects that are stereoscopic, but I find myself mostly over the whole notion of "3D" entertainment, to the point that I rarely use the 3D capabilities of my set anymore, and will mostly actively seek out 2D presentations of films I see in theatres. I find that usually 3D adds nothing to the film-going experience, other than, ironically, an impediment to my immersion in the story being presented. There are very few films where I think it worked in the way it was intended and was successful: Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, and (although a flawed film otherwise) Prometheus.

Having said all that, I think Gravity is the best 3D film I've seen, and if you see it theatrically you should see it in 3D, and ideally on the biggest screen you can find (honest to goodness IMAX). The effectiveness of the 3D here had me experiencing that nervous, tingling sensation I've sometimes felt in real life when looking down from really tall buildings or airplanes, and that I've never experienced when watching a 3D film -- until now. Also, while I'm positive that the emotional resonance and visual splendour on view will still be as engrossing, I think that if you wait for home video that you will be missing out on an added level of immersion that makes the film so satisfying.

Thrilling and refreshingly efficient in a way that recalls, for me, Jaws (which is high-praise), Gravity would be one of my 'best-ofs' in any year it was released.

More goodness:

• Sandra Bullock: it's equally her film as it is Cuarón's, and possibly her best performance.
• Framestore et al, feel free to pick up your VFX Oscar now.
• I thought that was you, Ed.
• The fetal position.
• Unexpected bungee.
• Tears in space.
• A lullabye in a foreign language.

P.S. I you haven't seen Gravity yet, and you haven't seen the official trailer, avoid the trailer at all costs. I avoided it, then saw the film, then saw the trailer -- it gives away everything, and I was mighty happy I hadn't seen it before hand. For the most part, I think trailer editors these days (or whoever is directing them) need to be punched in the nards.

Movies: The Kings of Summer ('Best of 2013' List)

In The Kings of Summer, Joe, played by Nick Robinson, and his best friend Patrick, played by Gabriel Basso, are on the cusp of finishing high school, and are fed up with their mostly harmless but often annoying parents. This particular summer, the two of them decide to run away from home, off to live in woods indefinitely, doing whatever they want without the concerns of the adult world encroaching on their freedom. On their way, they encounter Biaggio, played by Moises Arias, a peculiar but endearing little weirdo who joins their ranks and becomes one of the three "kings of summer".

I've grown tired of big budget comedies that amount to little more than famous comedic actors getting together and lazily churning out whatever underwritten , high-concept, improvisational mishmash they can that will keep them employed and earn them a fat paycheque (and ultimately waste my time as a viewer -- This Is the End, for example). That they are mostly unfunny just underscores the problem.

The Kings of Summer knows that the funniest moments come from a combination of strong story and fleshed-out characters, and how those two things intersect in crazy and interesting ways. It also knows that often the funniest moments are the truest (shout out to The Untouchables). It doesn't avoid broader comedy (see Biaggio, or as a better example Patrick's parents, played by Megan Mullally and Marc Evan Jackson, who are just-this-side of cartoons, but not off-puttingly so), but it also doesn't pander.

One unfortunate coincidence about the movie is that it has a climactic event that is almost identical to the climactic event that happens in another, better movie that I'm also listing as one of the 'Best of 2013' entries. A minor quibble. I won't mention what the event is or which other film uses it, to avoid spoilers.

Other greatness:

• The opening scene, pictured above. You had me at hello, basically.
• Eugene Cordero as Colin, Joe's older-sister's super-nice boyfriend, and his eager-to-please interactions with Joe's dad Frank, played by Nick Offerman, who frankly couldn't give a shit.
• The post-credits scene. It shows one character in a different light, and if ever there were to be a sequel, this scene indicates that it might be in a different genre of films entirely. It got a big, deserved laugh from me.

Movies: Mud ('Best of 2013' List)

Last year I finally got around to watching a film by writer/director Jeff Nichols called Take Shelter. The tone was pitch perfect, with an escalating sense of dread surrounding a paranoid protagonist that may or may not be reliable, or even sane. That film was such a pleasant surprise that upon finishing it I thought, "I must make sure to see what this Nichols fella does next".

Mud is what's next, and Nichols is the real deal. A true talent.

Houseboat residents on the Arkansas banks of the Mississippi River, Ellis, played by Tye Sheridan, and Neckbone (Neckbone!), played by Jacob Lofland, are two boys on the younger end of teenaged, sometimes helping out their financially strapped families by working (Ellis with his dad, Neckbone with his uncle), but otherwise getting up to mischief during the type of lazy summer most of us have experienced in our youth.

"Borrowing" Ellis father's motorboat, they sneak off for a day to muck about on an island down-river. While there, they come across Mud, a homeless man living on the island, played by Matthew McConaughey. As with the lead character in Take Shelter, Mud is a man who may or may not be a danger to himself and to those around him, and it's to McConaughey's credit that he pulls off equal parts charming and potentially-threatening in his performance, often simultaneously. Mud may or may not have a full grasp of reality, as he tells the boys elaborate tales of why he's on the island, and what might possibly be his life's complicated, criminal history. Or not. As I say, unreliable! But engrossing and inspiring for two 14 year old boys looking for summer adventure. The dangerous undercurrent is part of the appeal.

Part of the inspiration for Ellis is Mud's chivalrous side, which echoes his own philosophy. Ellis believes that if you love a girl (or a woman), that is The Most Important Thing, and you do everything in your power to protect that love, and be with her. Some of Mud's tales reflect that same world-view. The film smartly presents two sides of romantic love: as expressed by 14 year old boy it's naive but endearing, as lived by a forty-something emotionally fraught drifter, it's something else entirely.

Sheridan and Lofland give completely believable performances. Ellis is earnest and good hearted, but wounded, while Neckbone is an intensely loyal friend, but also has this pragmatic, "what's in it for me?" attitude that provides the film's natural comedy. These two young actors are going places.

In a recent interview, McConaughey said that in his forties he's realized life now is not about avoiding what you don't want to do (as he might have in his thirties), but about seeking out and doing what you really want to do. With the streak of, among others, The Lincoln Lawyer, Killer Joe (which I disliked, but he was great in), The Wolf of Wall Street, and Mud, this new career path is paying off, for him and for audiences. Those terrible romantic comedies he was churning out in the past can die a quick death, as far as I'm concerned.

More greatness:

• Again, it has a character in it named Neckbone. Neckbone!
• Reese Witherspoon finally has a character and film worthy of her last truly good work, Election (to be clear though, her character here is worlds apart from that one). She gives a terrific delivery of a line that gives you an insight Mud's character that effectively and poignantly cuts to the truth of the matter, all romanticized notions aside.
• Sarah Paulson, in a supporting but pivotal role as Ellis mom Mary Lee, sets someone straight. My reaction to that scene: "you're goddamn right!"
• Michael Shannon plays Neckbone's uncle.

Keep 'em coming, Nichols. I'm right there with you.

Movies: The Way Way Back ('Best of 2013' List)

The Way Way Back opens with a question addressed to quiet, introverted, 14-year-old Duncan (played by Liam James), posed by his divorced mother's new-ish boyfriend, Trent (played by Steve Carrell), while they're on the drive to a summer vacation beach house, and most of the occupants of the car are asleep.

The question: "On a scale of one to ten, what do you think you are?", with the follow-up, "I'm asking you how you see yourself". When Duncan half-heartedly gives a middling response, Trent opines: "I think you're a three".

Thus the stage is set for this unconventional coming-of-age story, which is funny and prickly and honest about how it sometimes sucks to be a teenager, and how it sometimes also sucks to be a divorced middle-aged mom, and how you have to figure out what's actually important in life in order to reduce the suckage. If "coming-of-age" stories normally make your teeth ache (as they often do mine, what with their typically being saccharine, clichéd crapfests), don't worry, this film respects your intelligence more than that.

Once at the beach house, we meet next door neighbours: hippie-cougar Betty (played by Allison Janney, clearly having a blast in the role), and her daughter Susanna (played by Anna Sophia Robb), who seems a little more grounded than her mom. The developing friendship between Duncan and Susanna is subtle, organic, and is one of the film's many strengths. In fact, all of the male-female relationships in the film, excepting those of Trent's, are shown to be wonderful, complex things (Trent's are complex, but they clearly aren't wonderful except possibly in the short-term, especially for the women).

Duncan finds a respite from his problems when during his explorations of the town he comes across the local water-park and its senior employee Owen (played by Sam Rockwell, who always gives terrific performances, seriously), who becomes Duncan's friend and roundabout mentor. Owen's relationship with his supervisor Caitlin (played by Maya Rudolph) is a realistic romantic portrayal: he knows he's lucky to have her, she has a higher opinion of him than he probably has of himself, and she respects him and herself enough not to put up with his puckish bullshit when it occurs.

For me, the surprise here is Carrell, who plays a pretty nuanced villain. "Villain" is probably too melodramatic a phrase for the realism of the character -- perhaps it's better to say "asshole". Trent has picked this vacation house because it's familiar old haunt for him, but the surrounding town is also a place where, in his circles, he is viewed both as the life-of-the-party and also the alpha-male (such as it is), and clearly he enjoys his status there (perhaps because it reflects his own opinion of himself). Carrell uses his own natural likeability and charm in the part, but for Trent it's a mercenary pursuit, in that he uses that charisma as a tool to get what he wants out of a given situation. Trent's often casually cruel to those around him, even those he professes to care about. There's even a moment later in the film where Trent loses patience when provoked, and a more threatening person emerges. Given all that, there are other moments where Trent is obviously trying to do what he thinks is the right thing, it's that his approach is all wrong, and that unfortunately for him it's probably too late to change who he is. It's unlike anything I've seen from Carrell in the past, and he handles the performance expertly.

As Duncan's mom Pam, Toni Collette is also superb, in the role of a woman who is brittle but not broken, and who as perfomed by Collete is sympathetic, not pathetic. We see how Pam could find herself with Trent, and how she wants to make it work considering her past failures, but we also see her become more and more aware of her situation as it actually is, rather than what she'd like it to be, which is difficult thing to portray and a tribute to Colette's skills as an actress that she does so seamlessly.

Other best bits:

• The aforementioned opening scene between James and Carrell. The writing/acting/directing trifecta of opening scenes - it's like a master class of all three.
• The writing and direction by writer-directors Nat Faxon and Jim Rash (not to say that their previous screenwriting effort, The Descendants, was bad, I just found this work to be so much more satisfying, perhaps because they also directed this time).
• The acting by all parties (not mentioned previously, Rob Corddry and Amanda Peet in their roles as Trent's old friends)

"On a scale of one to ten...". I think you already know what I think.

Movies: Prisoners ('Best of 2013' List)

The blog has been neglected for the better part of a year(!), so in an attempt to rectify that, I'm going to throw up a number of 'Best of 2013' capsule reviews in the coming days. I've seen hundreds of films this year, but not all of them -- especially since there are still two weeks left before 2014 arrives -- so expect some obvious omissions (I still haven't seen Gravity yet, for instance). Also, not all of the films I've seen this year have been 2013 releases. That said...

Prisoners begins on Thanksgiving Day in the U.S., where the Birch family (played in part by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis) are getting together for holiday dinner with the Dover family (played in part by Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello). During the festivities, each family has a young daughter go missing while the two of them are off playing together, each later thought to have been abducted while the remaining family members were otherwise preoccupied.

Paul Dano plays Alex Jones, a peculiar young man who is the right type at the wrong place and the wrong time when potential criminals are being sought out.

Child abduction (and murder, potentially) is a hard subject, especially for an entertainment. Here, the talented Canadian director Denis Villeneuve and his cast work with a high level of skill, consideration, and grace, such that the result doesn't feel exploitative. Take note, however, that the film is a thriller first and foremost -- my expectaions of what I was about to see prior to seeing it were that it might fall more squarely in the pocket of pure arthouse-meditation based on it's pedigree. That's not a criticism by the way, as I like all kinds of films on the spectrum between arthouse and popcorn, and Villaneuve's previous films that I've seen have been first rate. What's most compelling about Prisoners is that it effectively works to contain aspects of both kinds of films at once: an edge-of-your-seat "whodunit" coupled with broader implications and discussions of morality.

Villaneuve has said he is influenced in part by the works of David Fincher. There are echoes here of Fincher's true-crime-drama Zodiac (including the casting of Gyllenhaal in a very different role), which I make as a complimentary comparison. Like Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake, the skill of everyone involved sometimes shows that the underlying material (the script and some of the thriller-tropes it tries to roll into the mix) is not quite at the same level as the other ingredients, but it's a mild criticism of an otherwise excellent film.

In the past, I've often felt that Jackman has struck false notes in his performances, where he seems to be acting-with-a-capital-A (which may be a reflection of his song-and-dance-man theatre training), but here there's none of that. It's his best, most naturalistic performance to date.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Detective Loki, who has been assigned to the case of the missing girls. Gyllenhaal gives Loki a facial tick: heavy-lidded blinking which he seems to do with more of his face than is necessary. As described here it might seem cartoonish, but it works surprisingly well in context, and becomes a tell for when Loki is agitated or uncomfortable, and sometimes as an indication that he's very motivated to crack anyone who would try to be a tough-nut in preventing him from solving the case and finding the girls (whatever their condition). Loki takes his cases as personally as he does professionally at times, especially here (linked to an excellent heightened scene in a car parked at an abandoned lot across from a liquor store, between Gyllenhaal and Jackman).

I understand that the central theme of the film will be off-putting for some at first glance, but if you find yourself in the mood for an intelligent adult thriller, Prisoners is definitely worth your time.

Best moments, no spoilers:

• Davis in her one scene with Dano.
• The aforementioned parked-car scene between Gyllenhaal and Jackman. (A few excellent "parked car" scenes in general).
• That ending. Perfect ending.

Movies: Oblivion

Oblivion is the second science fiction epic directed (and in this instance co-written) by Joseph Kosinski, whose previous work was the sequel Tron: Legacy. While both films are beautifully art directed and meticulously designed, Oblivion has a stronger story and more of an emotional connection to the characters from the audience, with crackerjack VFX to boot. Overall it's solid, if not spectacular, and Kosinski does need to keep working on those story skills, but he has improved picture-to-picture.

In 2077, we meet Tom Cruise as Jack, a drone retrieval and repair specialist. Andrea Riseborough plays Victoria, a communications officer. They are a professional and personal partnership (living in the most impressive bit of impossible architecture you'll never have the pleasure of inhabiting), acting as the 'clean up crew' before the remaining members of the human race gather up all the converted ocean hydrogen they can get and leave for Titan in a giant orbiting ship called 'The Tet' (short for tetrahedron). Years previous, Earth was attacked by an alien race (called 'Scavs', possibly short for scavengers) who, as their first offensive, smashed the Moon to smithereens, creating all sorts of earthbound collateral damage. They followed with an invasion that was stopped by humanity going nuclear. The migration to Titan is borne of necessity, as much of the Earth is uninhabitable for one reason or another. The drones are a necessity to protect the giant hydrogen processing plants from attack by the remnants of the failed 'Scav' invasion.

That's the setup, and the setup, as we learn the particulars of the world and the relationships of the characters within it, is the most enjoyable part of the picture. After a certain point Olga Kurylenko is along for the ride, as is Morgan Freeman. There are some man-versus-machine moments that are awesome and terrifying in their fury (those drones!). Interesting twists occur which could have been mind-blowing in the hands of a more skilled director. Toward the end of the film, the story settles into some sci-fi clichés that evolve to their forgone conclusions, and Oblivion loses some steam along the way (for example, reminding the audience of the cheesy film Independence Day during your climax is never a good thing). In retrospect, some of the internal logic (including the twists) doesn't exactly hold up to scrutiny.

One strength Kosinski exercises is his choice in music, again hiring a famed French electronic band to do the score. Where Legacy had Daft Punk making their first go at a motion picture score, here it's music by M83. You can officially stream the whole album from this site. I have to admit that one of the only reasons I went to see Legacy was to hear the Daft Punk score, and M83 is one of my favourite bands. The soundtrack was a little disappointing in that I found it had a little less of the M83 sound I love, and more of the generic Hollywood synth score that I'm mostly indifferent about. Not that the score is bad, but if you've heard their other work, you know how epic it could've been. That's sort of how I feel about the film as a whole.

Recommended to see on the big screen because of its beauty, but with reservations. As I said, it's solid, not spectacular.

Now bring on Elysium!

Movies: Upstream Color

Upstream Color is the second feature film by Shane Carruth, here working as writer, director, composer, and starring in a lead role (as the character Jeff). Carruth's first feature, Primer, was a low budget science fiction tale about a couple of engineers who accidentally invent a time travel device, and the consequences of inventing such a thing. Primer is perhaps the only time-travel film that has a flawlessly mapped out internal logic (and it's no wonder he later acted as a consultant on the film Looper). That first film made a big impression on a lot of people, who anxiously awaited Carruth's next project. Nine years (!) later, we have Upstream Color.

Amy Seimetz stars as Kris, a young professional that works at what appears to be a media company, who one night at a club is tasered, abducted, and subsequently infected (via airway transmission) with a parasite by a man listed in the credits only as 'Thief' (Thiago Martins). The parasite contains (or rather, may actually be) a plant-derived chemical that makes Kris highly suggestible, among other things. The Thief uses Kris' mental state to put her through a series of routines, deprives her of food, and ultimately has her sign away all of her savings to him. When he's done with her, he leaves. The parasite grows within her. The story is just beginning.

Did I mention the film is also deeply concerned about love, loss, identity, memory, and sound?

Here's where I'm going to stop with the plot description because at a certain point it's just going to be a laundry list of strange characters and bizarre occurrences intermingled with ordinary lives and truthful moments, and it will give away the entire film but not make much sense as a synopsis. It makes more sense as you're experiencing it than it does to read about it. It is not a conventional narrative.

Parasites and such might make you think of David Cronenberg's earlier work, but that's not really the tone here. Upstream Color is more dreamily melancholy than nightmarish. If it's reminiscent of the work of any other directors, I would say perhaps a subtle mash-up of Terrence Malick and Steven Soderbergh.

There's poetry to be found, visually (where the similarities between the composition of film frames and their content creates a sort of "rhyming"), and literally (Henry Thoreau's "Walden" plays an important role).

As someone who has a keen interest in the prospects of indie filmmaking but hasn't yet taken the plunge, I should note that the film was shot on a freeware-hacked, $900-ish Panasonic GH2 DSLR. While the image was likely enhanced before its release to theatres, it was slightly soft, especially during the opening. I still find it exciting that you can make a feature for theatrical release using equipment you can buy at Best Buy. The future is now!

While engaging for the most part, the languid, hallucinatory quality of parts of the film did actually put me to sleep at times. It happened mostly towards the very end; I was tired to begin with; and it was those "microsleep" experiences where you wake up, realize you were asleep, but then surmise from where you are in the film that you only missed a few seconds at most. I include this note only to suggest that, while I enjoyed it, I think the film is definitely not for everyone (especially, say, if you like your films with a little more action, and a little less parasitic infection).

I saw it at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto. For other cities, here are the film's North American theatrical release dates.

EDIT 04/16/2013

The film's score can be streamed via Soundcloud here.

Also, here's an interesting interview: Shane Carruth on Control and the Self-Distribution of UPSTREAM COLOR.

Movies: Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty, in its simplest terms, is about the decade long pursuit and eventual assassination of Osama Bin Laden. It's written by journalist and screenwriter Mark Boal and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, partnered again after their successful collaboration on the excellent Academy Award winning 2010 feature The Hurt Locker, which dealt with bomb squads in Iraq. Between the two, Zero Dark Thirty is the superior film. While it may not actually be any more realistic in comparison, it certainly feels that way (that said, it is clearly a movie, not a documentary).

Jessica Chastain expertly plays Maya, whose first, and we come to learn only, case in her CIA career is the manhunt for the Al-Queda leader. Perhaps having a female protagonist helped Bigelow more effectively connect with the material. As acted and directed, Maya is a compelling character. Some complain that she's perhaps too cerebral, and somewhat emotionally distant, but I found it believable under the circumstances of her job and of "the war". Even so, she's plenty emotional. The final scene, a simple long, mostly silent closeup of her face, is ample evidence.

There are those who feel that the film is controversial in that, for them, it promotes the use of torture as a valuable tool to extract information. Instead, I found that the torture was presented straightforwardly as a matter of fact, leaving the audience to draw and discuss their own conclusions as to its usefulness and morality (personally, I can't imagine an audience member having a positive or perhaps jingoistic reaction to any of the torture scenes).

Both Maya and Maya's initial entry point into CIA interrogation procedures, Dan (a nicely understated perfomance by Jason Clarke) are ultimately affected by the grislier side of their work (Dan's is grislier, in that he is more "hands-on"). Perhaps it's the quality of universal workplace banality during the torture scenes, that sense in the room of "just another day at the office" for the interrogators, that some of the film's harsher critics see as an endorsement of certain interrogation tactics. I found it enhanced the horror of the entire situation.

The opening of the film starts with only white, Courier text on black, reading "September 11, 2001", then a sustained number of minutes with just that black screen and overlapping audio recordings of 9/11 emergency calls and news commentary. It's equally harrowing and effective.

The climax of the film comes when the military infiltration unit, colloquially called "The Canaries", make their attempt at breaching the Pakistan located compound where Osama Bin Laden finally met his end. The surprise of this group is Chris Pratt as squad member Justin. Where audiences are mostly familiar with him for his work as the goofy Andy on television's sitcom Parks and Recreation (and perhaps his fine dramatic turn in the feature baseball drama Moneyball), here he is a ripped, imposing soldier. His reaction to the outcome of a particular moment during the raid is intentionally almost washed away by the pressure of the time sensitive and potentially deadly nature of the raid, but he communicates it mostly with his eyes and voice, and it's stellar. A small moment, but stellar.

The film is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to supporting players. If you watch a lot of films you'll recognize a ton of exceptional character actors. Kyle Chandler (who also plays a CIA executive in Argo, coincidentally), Mark Duplass, Joel Edgerton, and Mark Strong are among them.

I think that the Academy Awards, having upped their Best Feature category to potentially 10 films, will have to do the same with the Directing category. This is Bigelow's best work to date, and it's a shame she's been overlooked (though I wouldn't necessarily bump someone else for her; it's an impressive list of directors as is, 2012 a good year).

Recommended.

Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Back on Boxing Day in 2012, I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at the Scotiabank Theatre in Toronto, in a cinema that was showing it at 48 frames-per-second or "fps" (which has been dubbed "HFR" for "High Frame Rate" by the dubious Hollywood marketing wags), in stereoscopic 3D (which I'll dub "S3D", so I don't go mad from typing). The glasses were passive, meaning that they are the recycled polarized version, rather than the large, powered, alternating, active shutter glasses that some stereoscopic presentations are afforded. I was almost exact centre seat-wise, and two rows closer to screen row-wise, so it was almost ideal seating (two rows back and my resting eyeline would've been exactly centre to the screen).

I must say that my viewing of the film was mostly for research purposes, as I work in the animation and visual effects industry. I'm not a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings films. In fact by the last one I was mostly done with them, though I do have them on DVD, again mainly as work reference. I've never read any J.R.R. Tolkien works, and have no desire to do so. My main previous experience with Tolkien was though the Rankin/Bass animated musical versions I saw on TV as a child. Other than the Lloyd Alexander books I read in my pre-teen years, straight up fantasy fiction with wizards and the like has never really been my bag.

The first strange thing I noticed was that when the "Wingnut" title card came up, it was severely aliased, which was very noticeable as white text on a black background. Then the main Hobbit title came up, and the image was fine with no aliasing, banding, or noise of any kind, and I wouldn't see that problem again until the the very end, with the film's white-on-black closing credits.

I had heard complaints that the film looked like a videotaped stage play, so I was braced for that look. When the film's prologue began, what I was not prepared for was the experience of the majority of the footage looking as though it was fast-fowarded, as though someone was zinging through old VHS tapes on a VCR. That the prologue was mostly manically choreographed and edited only exacerbated the issue. It was such an onslaught of visual ugliness that I seriously considered leaving the theatre for a refund. I stayed, but I continued to notice this phenomenon repeatedly throughout the film, mostly when either characters and objects in frame or the camera did any fast movements, whether subtle or broad. Natural things like running, fighting, or falling just looked strange at times.

I have yet to read a satisfactory explanation of the so-called "Benny Hill Effect".

Where the 48 fps frame rate really benefits the film is in its improvement of the S3D experience. Where stereoscopic films at 24 fps often suffer from a View-Master look, where the scale of subjects often looks miniaturized and the depth somewhat shallow, I found the scale, heft, and depth of subjects at 48 fps with S3D seemed closer to reality. In particular, wide, slow arcing shots of landscapes with characters moving through them had a deep, epic quality. S3D at 48fps was also much more comfortable on my eyes, as I could shift my focus around the frame without experiencing the usual eyestrain that occurs with S3D at 24fps.

In general with 48 fps, I found that scenes with subtler, dimmer lighting were preferable to those with more stylized, direct lighting. Scenes at Bag End mostly looked awful, and scenes at dwindling campfires or in caves looked quite nice, for example.

Most of the VFX work is of the highest calibre, but there are a few rushed effects here and there, the worst of which is the sequence when Radagast the Brown on his sleigh driven by rabbits is pursued by orcs on wargs, which visually is exceptionally phony. Many sub-par vfx shots are also in the terrible prologue, and there is an dwarf-orc war in multiple flashbacks that might have worked better if it weren't so visually stylized with haze and blooms.

Aside from all this talk about technique, as far as the actual content of the film goes...

Martin Freeman is charming as Bilbo Baggins, the title character, and his comic timing well serves the light nature of the original narrative. Unfortunately writer/director Peter Jackson works against this tone by trying to shoehorn in as many connections to his previous Rings trilogy as possible, with all the portentous bloviating that entails. A 200 page light-hearted adventure romp for kids shouldn't be turned into a three film, nine hour drag, methinks.

I wasn't bored, but it was overlong, and the only two characters that held any interest for me were Bilbo, and when he shows up, Gollum (again acted by Andy Serkis - and - a boatload of Weta character animators, despite anything you hear or read to the contrary). Their sequence together, which I think is known as the "Cave of Riddles", is likely the best of the film.

It was a bit of fun to see Bret McKenzie from Flight of the Conchords in a small speaking role.

In summary: the film content-wise is mediocre but not terrible, and technique-wise it's often off-putting, and will continue to be for subsequent films until they get the kinks sorted out (and there are a lot of kinks to sort thus far). It is the first of its kind, though, so I guess that's something.