It goes up to... thirteen?

My list of the best 13 films of 2012 in 2012. I write "of 2012 in 2012" because I feel that some of these titles might disappear and others shoot up the list in the coming months and years. I predict a good future for "Lincoln" "Silver Linings Playbook" and of course "Moonrise Kingdom" but this is all speculative (I will have to re-watch all of these several times) so, for now, I keep the list as it is.

1  Moonrise Kingdom- No doubt in my mind, this is the best film of the year, and  nothing else came close.  Yes, it is a film. It was shot in super 16mm. The grainy, yellowish look fits beautifully with the fictional 1960s New Penzance Island. Wes Anderson has always been great at showing grownups who act as kids, which he still manages to do here most noticeable in Edward Norton's Scout Master Ward, but this time Anderson's focus is on two actual kids, acting as grownups, and their romantic escapades. Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman are hilarious and brutally honest as Suzy and Sam playing two kids who are madly in love, and don't care what anyone thinks of it. The soundtrack is also perfect, as usual for a Wes Anderson film. 

2 Dark Knight Rises- what is one more voice in the endless debate? I loved it, just like I loved Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Batman Begins, Memento, and Following. The only disappointing element of this film was that Alfred leaves midway through it and is not seen until the end. 

3 Skyfall- basically the same movie as Dark Knight Rises? Hero spends the first hour of the movie recovering from major injuries. The film is the third installment of a new series trying to reboot an old series. The list goes on and on. They even gave James Bond the abandoned mansion of his parents and a butler! 

4 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey- it was everything I hoped it would be. I cannot stress enough how much Andy Serkis deserves an oscar specially for playing Gollum/Smeagol. I understand that some people found the first half a little too slow, but I cannot get enough of the Shire and the backstory of Tolkien's rich mythology. .

5. Silver Linings Playbook- a return of the screwball comedy, which presents us an even battle between  two smart, wickedly funny members of the opposite sexes. A romantic comedy instant classic. The montage with Bob Dylan's "Girl from the North Country" was probably my favorite scene of any movie this year, but I could say that about any well placed Bob Dylan song in any film. 

6 Brave + La Luna- Both films are a part of this list. "La Luna" is an amazing coming of age tale of a little boy going into the family business, which happens to be cleaning the moon. The sights of the moon and the tiny stars that give it light are wonderful. I also love the fact that there is no real dialogue, but the film is still able to communicate its plot and themes effectively through purely visual methods. As for Brave, Scotland is a magnificent setting for the Pixar team to show off. Its simple, "brother bear ripoff" story does not detract from its charm. It actually portrays accurately the way young girls interact with their mothers without dehumanizing either one. That is in no way simple. I also love all Scottish accents, as well as Merida's three little brothers who were hilarious (especially as tiny bears) without any dialogue! 

7 Lincoln- Steven Spielberg does not glorify Lincoln. He was a politician. He knew that if he passed the thirteenth amendment, he would crush the South's economy. The film focuses on that fact and does not try to portray Lincoln as an abolitionist who passed the amendment for any moral obligation. It was simply the smart thing to do. Daniel Day Lewis also refuses to make Lincoln into the hero he is seen as today. Lincoln loses patience and yells at his wife, ignores his oldest son, and goes behind the back of his trusted friend and Secretary of State. He is old, and weak, always hunched over with a warm drink in his hand and a warm coat or blanket over his shoulder. All of this is came as a brilliant shock. I should have trusted Spielberg had the courage to show Lincoln as what he was, human. 

8. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia... 

9 Cloud Atlas- I feel that I should have left this film with more questions. But despite my disagreements over certain philosophies the film clearly endorses, I still consider this a great film. It manages to tell 6 compelling stories in under three hours, jumping back and forth through space and time all without ever confusing me. The segments seem build up in action, then quiet down together. The relationship between stories is hard to grasp, but Omer Mozaffar explained it best: 

So, is there are a relationship between the scenes? The answer is of course yes, and of course no. We automatically get a sense of progression when we jump from scene to scene. But, we can, however, detect a series of waves, where a cluster of scenes do connect with each other structurally and thematically. Liberations take place simultaneously. Exposures to truth take place simultaneously. Transformations take place simultaneously. Love is lost and found simultaneously. On the flipside, perhaps there is no relationship between the scenes: it might be that I am sharing the themes as I have constructed them in my mind. I will not know, until I see the film again.

The film also has the best editing, score, and special effects of any film I have seen this year as well as six or seven amazing performances by Tom Hanks. It is marvelous storytelling, impeccable filmmaking.

10 The Grey- Liam Neeson was awesome. The wolves were scary. I jumped of fright several times. I was expecting those things. What I was not expecting was a thoughtful meditation on suicide, human nature, the indifference of nature, and the existence of God.  The film focuses as much on the conversations of men who are about to be eaten by wolves as… the actual eating of the men by the wolves. It also featured the scariest plane crash of any movie ever, including "Flight."

11 Looper- logically brilliant! those are two of the last words I thought I would use to describe a time traveling movie, but its finally here. The conclusion of the film is incredible, and flawless in tying up all loose ends. Joseph Gordon Levitt is not afraid to be an unlikable, selfish drug-addict-murderer, but we end up rooting for him anyway. The violent, crime infested  future portrayed in the film is too close to reality to take in comfortably. This film makes you ask some tough questions. where is the world heading? Do I really want communist China to be the best place to travel to in the future? What is wrong with Joseph Gordon Levitt's face?

 12. Side By Side- a documentary that has every right to be in the top of any list. Keanu Reeves conducts many interviews with famous directors and cinematographers to ask them, the experts, about the differences between the old photochemical film process, and the new fully digitized world of movies. There are diehard film fanatics, like Christopher Nolan, and forward thinking proponents of digital, most notably David Fincher. Still, the most eloquent, and thoughtful of all interviewed was Martin Scorsese. He knows more about film, digital, and movies overall than anyone else. He is the one of the few who has made movies both digitally and photochemically, and he is the only one who seems perfectly ok with both mediums, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each. A true master. 

13. Argo- I knew the story coming in. 6 Americans hid in the Canadian ambassador's house in Iran during the revolution in 1979. The CIA produced a fake movie, pretended they were part of the crew, and got them out safely. I was not expecting to have sweaty palms, literally sitting at the edge of my seat during the final moments when it looks like they just might not make it past the final checkpoint. The 1970s, "All the President's Men" look is fanastic. John Goodman and Alan Arkin provide comedy gold as the real Hollywood producers of the fake movie. Ben Afleck is becoming one of my favorite directors. I urge you to watch "The Town," which is my favorite film of his.

Honorary Mention- Liberal Arts, The Avengers, The Intouchables, Friends With Kids, Smashed, Flight, Premium Rush, The Secret World of Arriety. 

I have not yet seen Amour, Zero Dark Thirty, Holy Motors, Django Unchained, or Les Miserables. From what I've read about them, they all seem like possible top 10 contenders. 

Little Women (1994)

Little Women is an extremely emotional film. But it never feels like a manipulative film. The movie earns its emotions, as Matt Zoller Seitz put it, "through dedication, intelligence, and love." I think the movie can be nicely explained through those three words. 

Dedication- Little Women is extremely dedicated to its source. In turn its source, Louisa May Alcott's novel of the same name, is dedicated to the lives of the March clan, a family living in Massachusetts in the late 1860s during the American Civil War. Because of the war, the father of the family, as well as many of the local men, are largely absent from the story. The film, however, shows in great detail the lives of the women they left behind. It is the film's dedication to both the pleasures and pains of the everyday life of the March women that makes it earn its emotions. "Because Little Women acknowledges suffering," writes Seitz "and how tough it is to endure without becoming embittered or cynical, it never crosses the line into outright sentimentality. It's a very emotional movie, but it isn't sappy. It's alternately tender and tough." 

The little women with their mother

The film is not afraid, for example, to show the ailments and demise of Beth, one of the young sisters. It is also not afraid to show the artistic compromises Jo (the writer, protagonist and second oldest sister) has to make in order to make a living and support her family. The film refuses to avoid some of the grim realities of these women who have "fallen on hard times." But this film also takes great pleasure in showing the marvelous theatrics of the March sisters. And, yes, it is particularly interested in their romantic endeavors. The film is dedicated to showing every detail, good or bad. 

Intelligence- the movie raises some pertinent and genuinely interesting questions such as what is the role of women in society? How can a woman follow both her unique path through life while at the same time, staying at harmony with a society of different values? One of my favorite moments of the film has the mother of the March family, played wonderfully by Susan Sarandon, writing a letter to the school of one of her daughters instructing the teacher as to why physical punishment and  humiliation are unacceptable tools for disciplining a child in a classroom. The mother offers some splendid advice to her daughters throughout the movie, here are some of my favorites: 

"Feminine weaknesses and fainting spells are the direct result of our confining young girls to the house, bent over their needlework, and restrictive corsets. "

"Oh, Jo. Jo, you have so many extraordinary gifts; how can you expect to lead an ordinary life? You're ready to go out and - and find a good use for your talent. Tho' I don't know what I shall do without my Jo. Go, and embrace your liberty. And see what wonderful things come of it. "

Trini Alvarado as Meg

"I would rather Meg marry for love and be a poor man's wife than marry for riches and lose her self-respect."

To Jo, after Amy burnt her manuscript she says  “It is a very great loss and you have every right to be  put out. But don't let the sun go down on your anger. Forgive each other, begin again tomorrow."

Finally, and most importantly, she offers that “If you feel your value lies only in being merely decorative, I fear that someday you might find yourself believing that's all you really are. Time erodes all such beauty, but what it cannot diminish is the wonderful workings of your mind."

Claire Danes as Beth

The daughters too, have some wisdom to share. Beth, as played by Claire Danes, seems like an old, wise soul confined in a young, frail body. Her warmth and kindness, which led her to bring food to a local family near starvation, also indirectly made her catch a disease which would eventually claim her life. But Danes never panics, and expertly controls her famous “cry face.” She is mostly calm and subdued.

 From her deathbed, Beth, who lived a quiet and peaceful life, counsels her sister Jo:

Beth- If God wants me with Him, there is none who will stop Him. I don't mind. I was never like the rest of you... making plans about the great things I'd do. I never saw myself as anything much. Not a great writer like you. 
Jo- Beth, I'm not a great writer. 
Beth-  But you will be. Oh, Jo, I've missed you so. Why does everyone want to go away? I love being home. But I don't like being left behind. Now I am the one going ahead. I am not afraid. I can be brave like you. 

Winona Ryder as Jo

Love- A surprisingly young Christian Bale plays Laurie, a man who falls helplessly in love with Jo. However, he slowly finds out, as I did while I watched the film, that he's hopelessly in love with all of these little women. In one scene, Laurie rescues Amy from drowning in a frozen pond. In another, he promises to care for her when unfortunate circumstances separate her from her family. In one sweet, amusing moment, he playfully tells Amy he will kiss her at least once before her death. Theirs is one of the loveliest love stories ever put on film. Kirsten Dunst, who plays the young Amy (there is another actress who plays the older Amy), is absolutely radiant. Out of an insanely talented cast, she shines brightest. The film also chronicles the dealings of the oldest sister, Meg, with a “higher” social class, as she wonders what life could be if she had money, as well as her unlikely relationship with an unattractive, penniless tutor. It is full of both love and romance.

Kirsten Dunst as young Amy

I hope that I have given you a glimpse at the magnificent  work of art that is this movie. I went into Little Women with low expectations,  thinking I would get an overtly manipulative movie. I was not prepared for such a deeply moving portrait of four fascinating little women, and their supporting cast, of course. I leave you with a word from the director. 

"I think the title [of Little Women] has been so off-putting for men over the generations. They feel this is a terribly 'girly' story. But it's actually a wonderful epic tale about family where men's roles are just as important and deeply involved in the story... It is... full of heartfelt emotion and such memorable characters whose lively appeal transcends the years." - Gillian Armstrong 

Verdict- 4/4 
Little Women (1994) PG 1h 55min. 

Random Thoughts
- the link to Matt Zoller Seitz's review http://www.dallasobserver.com/1994-12-22/film/natural-women/
- I was surprised to see Gabriel Byrne, the Irish actor, with a German accent. Although it threw me off, I think he gives a perfectly good performance.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit..." so begins J.R.R Tolkien's wonderful book, as well as Peter Jackson's glorious new movie. The film begins in the Shire, of course, around the same time as The Lord of the Rings, on the day of Bilbo Baggins' one hundred and eleventh birthday. From the opening moments, as a modified version of the familiar theme "Concerning Hobbits" began to play and the fantastic vistas of Peter Jackson's Bag End appeared on the screen,  I was absolutely absorbed. Within seconds, I was back in Middle Earth, the most amazing world ever put on film. I have heard that on 48fps (frames per second) the film looks eerily "realistic" as if the set was right in front of you, instead of the screen. However, I watched the film in 24fps, the industry standard, and in 2D. The film has a soft, almost dreamlike look. The hazy, orange, pink and blue sky took my breath away. I don’t know how exactly to describe it, but the way Middle Earth looks in this movie, the sky in particular, is mesmerizing. After The Fellowship of the Ring, this is the best looking Peter Jackson film, courtesy of cinematographer Andrew Lesnie.  My favorite shot of the film is close to the end. It comes when Bilbo, Gandalf, and the twelve dwarves look towards the Lonely Mountain as they prepare to face Smaug… But I'm getting ahead of myself. All of that will come in the second or third movie. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is concerned with setting up all of the pieces for the films to come. We start when Bilbo Baggins is recruited by Gandalf the wizard and a horde of dwarves to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the evil dragon Smaug. The film continues as the group encounters trolls, elves, and finally, goblins. All of this gets them about halfway to the Lonely Mountain. The film also takes a detour to check in on a largely forgotten character from Tolkien’s mythology, Radagast the Brown. Radagast is portrayed as a laid back, groovy little wizard with pet birds and porcupines. Some might find him irritating; I found him endearing. Plot-wise, Radagast serves the function of warning Gandalf of the Necromancer, a wizard with the power to bring back the dead who will most likely be the villain in the upcoming films. Here, Jackson takes certain liberties with the novel thus darkening the tone to resemble that of The Lord of the Rings (both the film and book.)

I think Jackson made an absolutely brilliant choice in taking elements from the appendix of The Lord of the Rings, adding them to The Hobbit, and expanding what was originally going to be one film into three. Many people will cry, saying that The Fellowship of The Ring, which is twice the length of The Hobbit, got about the same running time as only the first film of the new series (3 hours). Peter Jackson took a different approach to both series. The Fellowship of the Ring, and its two sequels, were approximately three hours each, but Jackson felt he had to take away or condense a lot of material to make the films feasible, and it worked. Instead, with the shorter The Hobbit, he thought he could show everything, plus a little more, and still make three successful films. If the first movie is of any indication, then I am convinced that the next two will turn out magnificently as well. Peter Jackson gave me no reason to doubt him with The Lord of the Rings, and he has given me no reason to doubt him with The Hobbit. I was never  bored, but instead I was enamored of every detail Jackson chose to depict. The cleanup song of the dwarves is comedic gold and the extended "riddles in the dark" sequence is as fine as film can get. It is time for the Academy to recognize Andy Serkis as one of the best actors of his generation. If it will not create a special "collaborative performance" oscar or something along those lines, then it should at least give him an honorary statuette. 

Gollum has never been so frightening. Smeagol has never been so sad. Together, they have never been so funny. There is something about Smeagol’s big blue eyes that almost brought tears to mine. I knew all along that the creature I was watching was made entirely with computers, but still the human performer behind the computers stood out. There is a moment when an invisible Bilbo, with his ring on, has the perfect opportunity to kill poor innocent Smeagol. For a few moments, the camera lingers on Bilbo as he recalls the words of the wise Gandalf who said that true courage is not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one. Had The Hobbit been just one film, I fear moments like this would have been cut or shortened. Such moments add depth to the characters, making the audience care more about the story. 

There is another, equally outstanding scene, when Gandalf reveals why he chose Bilbo, why he chose such a small and frightened creature for such an important mission. Ian McKellen delivers his lines quietly and powerfully. Overall, the acting is excellent. Casting Martin Freeman as Bilbo was one of the most inspired choices by Jackson.  Freeman expertly shows Bilbo's fear but also his bravery when thrust in unexpected circumstances. His performance will no doubt draw endless comparison to Elijah Wood's whiny and weak Frodo from The Lord of The Rings. I pity Elijah Wood. I think he did the best he could. What some audience members failed to understand is that it is in his characters nature to be weak so as to stand in contrast with Sam, the true hero of The Lord of the Rings. Anyway, I digress. Along with McKellen and Freeman is Richard Armitage who plays the great king of the dwarves, Thorin Oakenshield. He is ruthless, worn by constant battle and migration. Two of the strongest scenes of the film (and two of the key scenes for understanding the character) are the prologue, which shows how Thorin was driven out of his home by the dragon Smaug, and a flashback that shows how he became king of the dwarves during a war with the orcs. 

The battles in the film are breathtaking, as good as anything on The Lord of the Rings. Most impressive is the underground escape from the goblins. It felt like a lighthearted version of the escape from Moria. Instead of a menacing Balrog, the last thing Gandalf encounters before exiting the mountain is the goblin king, a fat and nasty creature who... cracks a joke before falling dead. As a whole, The Hobbit felt like a much livelier, warmer version of The Lord of the Rings. It is not as urgent, and It’s villains rarely feel as life-threatening. I mean this as a compliment. I love The Lord of the Rings; I think it is the finest film ever made. Still, there are times (although few and far between) when I think it is slightly too dark to watch. Instead, I feel that I could watch The Hobbit anytime, anywhere. This lighter tone makes the film abundantly enjoyable. Whether or not it will stand repeated viewings, however, is still to be decided. Now, I think I’ll go find out. 

Verdict- 4/4
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) PG-13 2h 49min. 
Random Thoughts
- all screenshots taken from http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/
- best quote of the film "If Baggins loses, we eats it whole." Gollum
- I will be looking forward to the extended edition. The film earns its 3 hour running time. I wouldn't mind 30 minutes more.
- Cate Blanchett returns as Galadriel, and is incredible as usual.
- Also returning are Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Ian Holm as an older Bilbo and, unfortunately, Elijah Wood as Frodo.
- Fili, Kili, Dwalin, Balin, Oin, Gloin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, and of course, Thorin Oakenshield. Yes, I know them by heart.
-Peter Jackson always has a cameo. He is supposedly in the first five minutes of the film, but I could not find him.

Spy Kids

Spy Kids is one of a handful of films that I can watch over and over and never once get tired. It came out in 2001, when I was only seven years old. Perhaps that explains why I'm so attached to this special film. It simply has always been there, and I have always admired it. However, I have revisited countless films from my childhood and only a few feel as alive and exciting as Spy Kids.

The film is packed with energy from the very beginning, even before the first shot. Troublemaker Studios, Rodriguez company, made Spy Kids. Part of it's logo is a little animated rascal with a mischievous smile, playing an acoustic guitar. The character will go on to play a more memorable role in Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams, but for now he serves as a simple cue of the reckless, romantic adventure the viewer is about to embark on.

The film wastes no time, going straight into an aerial shot of a seaside cliff with a single house on top. The camera races towards the house as a fast acoustic guitar plays on the soundtrack, quickly building in pace until the camera reaches the house and focuses in on a window. There, a young girl looks out to the sea as the guitar slows,  reflecting her longing. Behind her mother tells her to get ready for bed. The girl, Carmen, is uninterested, not even looking back towards her mother, dreaming. She looks sad, but without overselling it like a lesser child actor might have done. Instead, Alexa Vega, who plays Carmen, looks genuinely lost without seeming to try. 

Parenthood!

It's a strange feeling, going into a movie called Spy Kids,  with those exhilarating opening moments, only to have all expectations immediately subverted while the movie transform into a family melodrama.The genius of Robert Rodriguez is how well he uses the spy, action flick cover story to tell an extraordinarily moving tale about a the importance of an ordinary family. 

From Carmen, the film cuts directly to her little brother, Juni (Daryl Sabara), applying some medicine on his tiny hands. "ok warts," he says in an exaggerated, low pitched voice, "prepare to meet your maker." It's another wonderful introduction that shows the capability of the child actor. What really sells the moment though, is that the instant he says the phrase and puts on the medicine, his hand twitches and he represses a scream.  

I love both introductions for the way they set up the main ambitions and struggles of the characters. Carmen, sitting at the edge of her window, seeks escape from her family and ordinary life. Juni is more innocent, still within the safe boundaries of the house, but still faced with seemingly huge problems. The closeup of his warts, and quick cutting while he puts on the medicine and bandaids suggest a monumental struggle staged as a miniature action sequence, one of many since the main action scenes involve mostly kids. Throughout the course of the film, Carmen will learn the value of family, while Juni learns how to handle the pressures of everyday life. 

Carmen asks her mother to tell her "the story of the two spies." It turns out, the two spies (of the kids' favorite story) who married and retired are none other than their mom and dad. The story is a very beautiful, concise sequence that previews some silly gadgets, characters who will see later, and most importantly the lifestyle they both parents abandoned to settle down and raise a family. "in a way they exchanged one life of adventure for another" she tells them. The only problem is that neither her, her husband nor the kids believe this is true. 

Ingrid (Carla Gugino) and Gregorio (Antonio Banderas) share a peaceful, secret lunch.

Soon, the old spies are back in business leaving their children with their "uncle" Felix played by Cheech Marin in a hilarious performance. Instantly, they are attacked. "I'm not you're uncle," he reveals  to them, taking off his fake mustache, irrevocably changing his identity. He tells them their parents were international spies and have been kidnapped. After giving them the location to a safe house, Felix is captured too, and it is now up to the kids rescue them. 

"I'm not your uncle."

Some of the film's best moments come right afterward as the kids learn to use the newfound spy technology. Among them: a spherical submarine, jet packs, instant  microwave hamburgers, and as a perk, currency "from every country!" 

All of these wonderful things, they later find out, are produced by an uncle (this time real) they didn't know they had. The other great performance of the movie comes from Danny Trejo as the kids' uncle, Machete. Once they meet him, they find out he is lonely and depressed. There's also a nice moment where it becomes painfully clear that Carmen could end up becoming like her uncle if she holds on to her current views on family. It again becomes clear how important a unified family is to Rodriguez. 

The rest of the plot involves thug thumb-thumbs, a madman called Minion, a kids TV. show number 2 at the ratings, evil kid clones, and tons of fake plastic brains. I won't try to explain since part of the fun in Spy Kids is just watching as the spectacle, in both story and visual terms, unfolds before your eyes. Spy Kids is a gem, and the best film Robert Rodriguez has ever made (along with Sin City, of course… more on that coming). Enjoy!

Verdict- 4/4 

Spy Kids (2001) PG 1h 28min.

Skyfall

Why do we return time after time to James Bond and the 007 series? It is a phenomenon that has been around for 50 years, and by the end of the latest film in the saga, it promises to come back yet again. Back to the question. I think it has something to do with the fact that James Bond is the ultimate male hero. He is  well dressed, good looking, physically fit, gets the girl, has the perfect  car, and even orders his drink precisely the way he wants it: shaken NOT stirred. James Bond is in command of every single aspect of his life. He is the guy every guy wants to be. Skyfall, I believe, is what happens when you take that character we all know so well and turn him inside out.

 This James Bond has a multitude of weaknesses which can be exploited. There is a scene in which Bond sneaks into M's apartment. It is dark when she comes in and finds him; all we can see is the perfect silhouette of a man in a suit. M turns on the light and Bond is revealed. Had he been bleeding, or with a gun to his head, or anything really would be more predictable than what we see: James Bond unshaven. Some closeups focus specifically on the detail that is Bond's white beard. 

The film starts off conventionally for a Bond picture, with a bang. A man has just stolen a list containing the names of all British secret agents. Bond's objective is to track him down and retrieve the list. On his way, he encounters a wounded British agent, who was shot trying to protect the list. Bond tries to take a minute to heal him, a rather humane act. The second he does this, M, who is listening in on the chase, cold-bloodedly tells Bond to abandon the agent and continue with his mission. Reluctantly, he agrees, but does not fail to remind M that the man will die. A shot of M shows that she is strangely unmoved. The chase continues and elaborately builds up into a car, then motorcycle, and finally a train chase (the best I have seen since Unstoppable.)From afar, another agent has been trailing Bond. She gets into a position where she can shoot down both the man with the list and Bond, but not just the target. M encourages her to "take the bloody shot." Miraculously, she hits only Bond. He falls into a river and is presumed dead. 

What an opening! High praise must be given to director Sam Mendes for the sequence but especially to the editor, Stuart Baird, for holding on to shots worth seeing, and for not chopping  up the scene into little pieces, something which made the action of Quantum of Solace unbearable. I was reminded of the chase in Casino Royale (which he also edited) and how I never felt lost or confused.  In his review of Casino Royale, Roger Ebert wrote:

the chases in Casino Royale take place in something vaguely approximating real space and time. Of course I know they used deceptive camera angles and edits to cover impossibilities, but the point is: They try to make it look real. Recently, with the advent of portable cameras and computerized editing action movies have substituted visual chaos for visual elegance." 

Visual chaos took over Quantum of Solace. Visual elegance returns triumphantly in Skyfall. 

 After spending some time off-radar, 007 comes back, with a beard. The fall affected him deeply. He runs out of breath during his physical evaluation, and falls down to the floor the second he is left alone. He also carries psychological wounds. During his shooting evaluation, he is unable to get a single shot on target. James Bond is always supposed to be cool. However, the instant he misses that target, he is enraged. Daniel Craig beautifully shows the pain it causes 007 to lose control, to be unable to protect his country. There is another similar moment in which Bond has to run across London to rescue M. He runs and runs, straight at the camera. It costs him dearly. Craig presents a Bond literally on the verge of collapse. What is so wonderful about him is his vulnerability. That perfect man that all men wish they could be is just a mortal man. I make the film sound morbid, when indeed it is a lot of fun. The movie has plenty of dark comedy, and Craig shows us plenty of Bond's dry wit. The funniest, most disturbing situation he's placed in prominently features a Chinese thug and a Komodo dragon. 

Still, the idea that James Bond could break frightens. A mirror image of a broken Bond is the villain Skyfall gives us. Raoul Silva was, or so he tells us, an agent just like 007. One day, he was betrayed by the MI6 and taken prisoner. He somehow survived and escaped, but not unchanged or unharmed. Javier Bardem (with a haircut almost as memorable as that of Anton Chigur in No Country for Old Men) is almost unrecognizable especially when he takes off his… never mind, I won't spoil it, it makes for a terrifying sight. What I can say is that Bardem makes Silva into the most dangerous villain our hero has ever encountered. Because he was like Bond, Silva knows how he works, what makes him tick. He threatens Bond in ways unimaginable. Thankfully, his main objective is not Bond, but M. 

Judi Dench deserves to be called the star of Skyfall. This is now her seventh time in the role, but it is the first time she is used properly. An actress of her caliber is not to be wasted. Dench fills M with dignity and humanity right when she is at her lowest point as a character, ready to be discarded by the nation she has worked so hard to protect. There is a public hearing in which M gets one last chance to prove that she is worth keeping. She quotes Alfred Tennyson's "Ulysses" 

Though much is taken, much abides; and though 

 We are not now that strength which in old days 

Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are-- 

One equal temper of heroic hearts, 

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will 

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.  

Such immortal lines, spoken so eloquently by one of the greatest actresses of our times. Judi Dench gave a performance that I will not soon forget. 

Finally, I must say that this is the best looking of all Bond films. It was shot by Roger Deakins, who is, in this reviewer's humble opinion, the greatest cinematographer that ever lived. There is a magnificent sequence in the film that takes place inside a dark Shanghai skyscraper. The way the light from giant screens outside bounce around the glass walls of the building is absolutely breathtaking. Also worth mentioning is the gorgeous, peaceful Scottish countryside that serves as background to the film's extended climax. 

Verdict- 4/4

Skyfall (2012) PG-13 2h 24min. 

Random Thoughts

- The return of Q is amazing, as well as that of Miss Moneypenny.

- Every time I see Ralph Fiennes I expect him to play a bad guy. Skyfall seemed to anticipate it. It uses his image to its advantage. 

- I don't recall the name of the bond girl, which is a shame. They're usually more memorable

- All hail the return of the Aston Martin DB5!!!

- For more Roger Deakins see No Country for Old Men, Fargo, or The Shawshank Redemtion. 

- Link to the whole poem "Ulysses" which, not unlike Skyfall, is all about a legendary character's encounter with mortality http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/Ulysses.html 

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind

My first Miyazaki was Howl's Moving Castle. Instantly, I was hooked and went out to find the rest. They all sounded wonderful. Kiki's Delivery Service, My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away. However, one title stuck out, and that was Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. Simply wonderful. A good title makes the viewer focus his attention, hinting at something important, before seeing a single frame. Sin City is about the nasty world it's characters inhabit. The Dark Knight is about the seemingly hopeless dilemmas Bruce Wayne/Batman is thrown into. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is about... well I don't know what it's about, really. Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (no abbreviations, I love to write that title) is first of all a character study, then an environmental morality tale.

Nausicaa is a fascinating character. She's a young woman (slightly older than the usual Miyazaki heroine) and beloved princes of the valley of the wind. When the film starts, we see her out in her glider, searching for supplies for her little kingdom. From this scene onward, Nausicaa is always seen helping others, putting herself second. She brings back valuable goods to her town, where she immediately starts work on a broken windmill. At one point, she takes off her mask in a toxic forest so that her people can see her reassuring face and be calm. An old knight half heartedly jokes that he would like to see Nausicaa take a break from such dangerous activities so that he could have a good night without worrying about his princess. Her whole kingdom adores her, and would do anything for her. Something that surprises and delights me every time I watch any Miyazaki film is the goodness of the people that inhabit his worlds. I tire of thiefs, lawyers, killers, tyrants, and "morally complex" protagonists that populate most films. Not even superheroes are saved from this dark trend. It's refreshing to see how the community of the valley, under the direction of Nausicaa operates in unison for the good of all. Idealistic? Perhaps, but, if I may borrow from a great artist, "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." Audiences, I suspect, love Miyazaki because he shows that humanity is inherently good natured. For that alone I hold dear all of his films.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind is the portrait of a young revolutionary pacifist who opposes the forces of war and destruction. Nausicaa loses her temper once, near the beginning of the film when her father is assassinated. She kills three people. Instantly, she notices the atrocity she herself committed. Nausicaa knows the value of life.In contrast to her is Lord Yupa. He's a veteran soldier, and the best swordsman of that magical world. He's a good man who will use violence only as a last resort, but he is desensitize and shows little regret at killing. Nausicaa spends some time quietly pondering her act. Then, she cries. This, alongside a moment of desperation, when Nausicaa cries again for the violence to stop, are two of the most touching scenes I've ever seen in any movie animated or otherwise. Recently,  I saw that the number of people killed in 2012surpassed that of 2011. Lately, I've grown tired of wars both civil and foreign, of murders, drone strikes, and paranoid fears of nuclear apocalypse. I sympathize with Nausicaa and wish to cry out too for the violence to stop. 

The violence in this film is that of humans who want to wipe away a toxic forest, and all creatures living within it. The people of the valley would listen to Nausicaa when she warns that these creatures are beneficial to humans. However, she doesn't get the chance. The valley is besieged by warring nations who carry with them one giant warrior who will bring destruction to the forest, and world domination to whomever controls it. Through Nausicaa, Miyazaki pushes the idea of peaceful cohabitation with our natural environment. Too overt? Let me explain why it doesn't bother me. Miyazaki first stresses the importance of human life, later, that of the environment. Even Nausicaa gets supplies from the forest and defends herself when its creatures attack her. I was reminded of Princes Mononoke, when the main character is forced to kill a wild boar to protect his people. Again, human life is of the utmost importance according to Miyazaki. 

Nausicaa is best suited to carry Miyazakis's message because  is blessed with a special ability to relate to animals deeply. She understands them, and can live with them peacefully. One of my favorite moments has Nausicaa taming a small cat/squirrel-like little animal. It will bring a smile to your face. This little monster is just one of many lovely animals that spring from the imagination of the master. Most in this film are giant insects, but they are stunning to behold. Every frame of this film contains a magnificent sight. Nausicaa with bright red hair and blue dress gliding over the deep green valley, all draped  in golden sunlight is but one of the sights I wanted to keep forever, to hang up as a painting. Not even the words of the best poets (let alone those of a mediocre writer such as myself) would do justice in describing the wonderful visuals of Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. Reader, I urge you to go watch this film, to be reminded that people are good and that the world is a beautiful place. 

Verdict- 4/4

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (1984) PG 1h 58min. 

Random Thoughts

-Shia LaBoeuf does some surprisingly good voice acting in the English version.

-Normally, I try to watch films exactly the way they were made to be seen. However, Disney normally does a fine job with translations. I like to leave the whole image unblemished when I watch a Miyazaki. Subtitles get in the way.

- Director's trademark- flying. Every great Miyazaki contains at least one breathtaking flight.

- I love how the big, supposedly indestructible giant warrior melts. He looks like he's made out of mud.

-Miyazaki tells the story he wants to tell and that's it. No half hour farewell, no wasted shots. Still, his films take their time when it's important such as when Nausicaa lies down to watch the gorgeous snowflake-like spores that, as she remarks, could easily kill her.

-quote of the film "why does everything that's good for you taste so bad?" a widespread sentiment, not voiced often enough in films.
- images from bluray.com

Casino Royale (2006)

Originally, James Bond was meant to be camp. The situations 007 was placed in were often ridiculous. The series was perfect mass entertainment anyone could enjoy. The creative names of the Bond girls (Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp) serve  usually as a great pleasure and indicator of the light tone  of the series. However, after almost twenty films, the series became repetitive. Watching the films in chronological order, I have to admit by the time they get to Timothy Dalton, I just about had it with the mediocrity. Pierce Brosnan is enjoyable, but never had my full attention. Then, in 2006, James Bond was rebooted, and the results are spectacular.

Casino Royale stands alone as the best of all Bond films. It took them to a whole other level. Daniel Craig is a big part of it. Rarely, if ever, has James Bond been as raw, violent, and vulnerable as he is here. When he needs to, Craig kicks ass (plenty of it) and delivers the usual one liners with a twist, but his Bond is a real character, not a mere caricature. By taking us to his origins, the director is able to explore how James Bond became the detached killer who sees all women as disposable objects. Not that Casino Royale lacks disposable women, but this femme fatale seems different than all the rest. Vesper Lynn (still a wonderful name, though in a different vein) has to be the only woman James Bond really falls in love with. I won't give too many spoilers, but results are devastating. I also especially enjoyed Bond's first kill shown to us in messy, grainy black and white. He struggles. Killing does not come naturally. Still, after this, his "considerably" easier second kill comes in as a dark comic relief. 

M returns, again played by Dame Judi Dench. Oddly, she's colder and nastier than Bond without ever holding a weapon. Skyfall, the upcoming Bond film, looks into M's past. I really can't wait. My only real complaint with this film is that I would have liked to see more of her, and Q would have been nice too. Apart from that, Dench is just wonderful, specially when she shares the screen with Craig. The tension and the sarcasm are almost unbearable.

After the credits, which is a wonderful sequence of animated playing cards, the films takes us to Madagascar, where Bond is trailing a lead. The foot chase that follows must be of the best I've ever seen. The target takes Bond across an animal fighting ring, into a construction site, through a half finished building, and finally an embassy where the chase concludes with a shoot out. I was never lost in time or space, and often amazed at what the director made me believe actually happened. All movies are fabrications, the best are the ones that make you believe in them anyway. I have seen this film five or more times, and every time I watch it, I forget what I am now telling you. It captivates me.

Bond was chasing a man associated with the main villain, Le Chiffre, a financial genius and professional poker player who serves as the investor of a group of global terrorists. Le Chifre has a tick of sorts. That, as well as his, peculiar,  method of torture, make him a truly unforgettable villain. The torture scene of Casino Royale shows its mastery of both horror and comedy simultaneously. High praise to the art designers and cinematographer for creating such dreadful scenery. 

The main event of the film  is a high stakes poker game in which Bond and Le Chiffre face off. Vesper serves as James' accountant, chaperone, and escort, courtesy of the British government. Bond, a notorious poker player, holds his own amongst the masters, but the directors draws the game out, making Bond bleed and the audience sweat in the process. The epilogue is unexpected and utterly devastating.

Verdict- 4/4

Casino Royale (2006) PG-13 2h. 24min.

Random Thoughts

- not to be confused with Casino Royale (1964) a spoof of the Bond series.

- For films most resembling other Bond films watch "Dr. No", the first,  or "The Spy Who Loved Me" which was the first I recall watching and also happens to be one of the best.

- 2 Aston Martins! what a shame for the second one.

- the train scene serves as a wonderful introduction to Vesper. It's extremely funny and shows that Vesper (as well as Eva Green) can hold her own. However, after seeing "North by Northwest" nothing set on a train will ever be the same. It is the standard by which all train scenes are judged, but I'm sure the film makers knew that. I would like to watch them side by side to see if I find any deliberate references.

- Idris Elba might be the next Bond. Black Bond? At first it might seem odd, but there is absolutely no reason against it. Race is insignificant to James Bond. Plus, it's Stinger Bell!!! Watch "The Wire" if you haven't.

- It struck me how little screen time Jeffrey Wright gets as a CIA agent who's also after Le Chiffre. He's quite memorable.

- Le Chiffre "the number" in French? appropriate name for an evil mathematical genius, no? 

Miller's Crossing

What is the motivation of the main character?

At the start of Miller's Crossing, Tom thinks that everyone has clear motives. He tells his friend Leo "Friendship's got nothing to do with it… you do things for a reason." 

Tom is suicidal, but he's also too afraid to kill himself. He drinks (1st shot of the movie) and smokes more than anyone, maybe that will kill him, but he's too afraid to kill himself in a more direct way, so all of his actions are meant to provoke people who could kill him without hesitation. Repeatedly he makes bad bets, hoping that someday Lazarre, his bookie, will get fed up with him and kill him. He even tells one of Lazarre's men to "send someone by to break my legs. I won't squawk." He wants to be beaten, broken and killed. He could easily get money from Leo or Caspar to pay off Lazarre, but he doesn't. Also, Tom continually switches sides in a gang war, but no side kills him.

Throughout the movie, Tom gets beaten up, and not once does he try to defend himself. No one seems to hurt him either. The indestructibility of the film noir hero then becomes a curse Tom has to live with. No matter what he does, he cannot die. In gangster films, the main character usually dies at the end, not Tom. The Coen's put their signature dark twist to the gangster genre by giving us a gangster who wants to die all along, but survives the whole movie without even a scratch.

Tom is the best friend and consiglieri of Leo, the head of a criminal organization in an unnamed American city in 1929. From the beginning of the film, Tom tells Leo that he should let Caspar, the leader of the prominent italian mafia in the city, kill Bernie because he has been selling information on fixed fights. Caspar explains Bernie "is a horse of a different color ethics-wise. As in, he ain't got any." Miller's Crossing is about ethics. Tom's with Leo, and that means he can't be with anybody else. All he does is for the benefit Leo. At first Tom counsels Leo to avoid war. The whole movie can then be seen as a complicated game Tom plays for Leo. Leo and Tom meet to discuss what they should do.

There's a great POV shot of Tom looking at Leo. Leo is in a huge office, and he's visually trapped with lamps to his right and left, a chair in front of him, and one at his back. He also has his desk right behind him. In front of him, huge, barred windows. Leo has his back turned to Tom, looking out. And where one would imagine there to be a beautiful view (this being the great office of a powerful man) there is a big, forbidding, grey building. Leo is deprived of both freedom, and the simple pleasure of a nice view. As I said, this is Tom's POV shot. Tom, and everyone else in the movie recognize that he is the smartest man playing that he "knows all the angles." It is he who sees everything. He sees the terrible shape that his friend is in, and how he can get him out. The next thing he does is to put on his hat (his symbol of power and great intellect) and goes to betray his friend.

So he switches sides to Caspar, to see if he can destroy him from the inside. Slowly, he turns Caspar's crew against him, and they end up collapsing, leaving Leo the last standing after the war. 

Either of these two readings of the movie could be correct. Every time I see the movie, I come up with a different reason for why Tom does what he does. But part of the brilliance of the movie is that there is no clear answer because Tom himself, by the end of the film, does not know.

 Leo- "I guess you picked that fight with me just to tuck yourself in with Caspar"

Tom- "I don't know. Do you always know why you do things, Leo?"

Verdict- 4/4

Miller's Crossing (1990) 1h 55min. 

Liberal Arts

Liberal Arts made me laugh out loud (and often), something that doesn't happen to me a lot while I watch a movie. Don't get me wrong, I love great comedy, but rarely do I laugh. For me, that would be enough to proclaim Liberal Arts a great movie. However, it also made me think. In fact, I think I will need a second viewing to process all of the ideas this movie has to offer.

Liberal Arts is about Jesse, an English major who found out the hard way that there are simply no good jobs in his field of expertise. Jesse works at a college admissions office. The film starts by showing us how bored he is with his life. Interview after interview he is shown asking routine questions in the same dull, monotonous manner until the last question, which he seems surprised to be asking. "You don't want to go to college?"

He thinks to himself, how could anyone not want to go to college? He has an idealized picture in his head of "college" being a time and place where young, free individuals get to read whatever they want, and talk for hours about matters ranging from philosophy to classical music to pop culture. This we find out a little later in the film when he visits his alma mater to attend an old professor's retirement party.

While there, he meets Zibby, a sophomore who shares the same enthusiasm about college. They start a relationship, not sexual, but truly romantic. Elizabeth Olsen plays Zibby. Olsen is a marvel, someone with exceeding beauty, incredible talent, and abounding joyful energy. Thanks to her,  Liberal Arts has been one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had at the movies this year. I was a little let down by the final 30 minutes of this movie, but only because it shifted focus away from her.

Jesse meets his mentor, a teacher he once admired, a student who sees college as a nightmare, and a young hippie who just seems be around to give advice and then disappear again. A series of conversations with them reshape the way Jesse sees life and send him back to his regular life a little wiser and a lot happier with an enthusiasm about life that he had about college.

This is a splendid movie directed and written by the likable Josh Radnor, also starring him as Jesse. Is he the next Zach Braff? maybe, but he has not yet made anything in the level of Garden State. Liberal Arts comes close though. They would make a great double feature.

Verdict- 3.5/4
Liberal Arts (2012) 1h 37min. It's unrated but should be PG-13. High school students will be able to appreciate it.

Bonnie and Clyde

During the 1960s Hollywood, along with the rest of the United States, underwent a radical transformation. The grand epics and good old fashioned genre films such as Westerns and Musicals,  became unpopular, and Hollywood started losing millions. In a desperate attempt to make some money, studios started to green-light risky projects they would never have considered in the golden age. One of the greatest of these films was Bonnie and Clyde.

Bonnie and Clyde tells the story of  a couple of sympathetic thieves, sometime lovers who go from state to state robbing banks, and having great fun at it. They send  pictures and poems of themselves (written by Bonnie) to the papers, and become celebrities of the common people who, at the time of the Great Depression, were disillusioned enough with banks to cheer for the people standing against them. In fact, one of the best scenes of the movie happens when Clyde helps a poor farmer shoot-up his former home which "the bank took."

 I love that "The Bank" is never given a specific name. It's just an abstract enemy that can stand for the economic system that failed the country during the Great Depression, and the government that failed the filmmakers of 1967. Bonnie, Clyde, and everyone else they meet fight against

Bonnie and Clyde is an explicit, violent movie. The filmmakers, as well as the characters, had the guts to go against what was accepted at the time. It had no problem showing skin and blood, being grim as well as perversely funny at the same time. For example, there is one bloody shootout in the film (it usually gets big laughs) where a character drops everything she's doing and runs around screaming, while the fight rages on around her. That juxtaposition of comedy and violence is one of the movie's biggest strengths. Something critics and studio executives did not understand was that something could be both funny and violent, effectively providing both shock and laughter simultaneously.

In their journey, Bonnie and Clyde encounter a C.W, a dimwitted mechanic who provides some of the films best jokes. In my favorite, C.W parks the getaway car while Bonnie and Clyde are robbing a bank.  They also meet Buck, Clyde's brother, played by Gene Hackman, who gives one of the most interesting, thought-provoking, and of course funny performances of his career.

One thing I must add is that this film is a beauty. The wardrobes, set designs and its graphic realism truly transport you to rural 1930s U.S and that makes the whole film much more enjoyable and the ending much more powerful.

Verdict- 4/4

Bonnie and Clyde (1967) 1h 51min.