The FilmNerds Blog

Lamenting the departure of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy from area theaters last week, my friend and I took a consolation prize: the surprisingly well-regarded fifth feature film from director Joe Carnahan, The Grey.

I should say that if you haven’t seen The Grey, you should definitely see it before you read any further. Below are heavy spoilers for the film. Your question might be, “Should I see The Grey at all?” I think you probably should. It’s rare that a genre film of this type takes this kind of care with its emotional and thematic subtexts. All in all, I’m not much of a film critic, so I’ll let an actual one – new Filmspotting co-host Josh Larsen – state what I think is true:

“Doubt and anger are the twin themes of The Grey, yet the adventure movie hammers them home with all the obviousness of a fire-and-brimstone sermon.“

Again, though- The film is viscerally oppressive and legitimately gripping, kind of like Final Destination with wolves. It’s not the ballsy action film its trailers are selling, and there is no more obvious proof of that fact than the film’s ending.

I’ll give a brief rundown of what happens, in case you forgot or you just hate movies and are reading this without having seen the film. At the end of the story, all of Ottway’s (Neeson) fellow plane crash survivors have been somehow killed by nature, most of them by hungry wolves. After having a sort of breakdown, Ottway discovers himself in the wolves’ den, surrounded by the angry animals. While reciting a poem handed to him by his father, Ottway binds a knife and liquor bottles to his hands, ready to die a most glorious and wolf-hating death. As we grit our teeth and prepare to enter the fray, as it were, Carnahan cuts to black, and ends the film on a somewhat ambiguous note.

This move has been considered both ridiculous and brilliant by audiences, and I personally think it’s a fine ending. The film gives us plenty of clues as to the inevitable outcome of the story, and it ends on the emotionally important moment. Clearly, Ottway is going to die fighting, as his situation is just insurmountable. Now, there is a post-credits coda that shows a dying wolf and no sign of Ottway, but I read that as an allowance that Ottway did a bit of damage before traipsing into the woods to bleed to death. The coda makes the film’s ending no less ambiguous than if it didn’t exist.

So, with all the ambiguity, I can’t help but have some fun wondering “What happens next?”

 
1.) Ottway’s Wife To The Rescue
Just as the alpha wolf crouches to attack Ottway, we hear a rumbling. Both Ottway and the wolves look to the treetops. A helicopter roars into view. A rope ladder tumbles from the side of the chopper, as Ottway’s presumed-dead wife pops her head out. She shouts, “You left the hospital too early! I got better!”, before giving him a thumbs up. Ottway grabs the rope ladder, winks at the wolves as he ascends, and mirrors his wife’s gesture by giving a thumbs-up to camera. We freeze on that image as credits roll.

2.) Everyone Was Just In Wolf Suits
Just as the alpha wolf crouches to attack Ottway, it stops, rears back on his hind legs, and stands. It reaches below its neck, and pulls down a zipper, revealing its wolf facade to be a costume. Out of the costume steps Ottway’s presumed-dead wife. The surrounding wolves follow (wolf) suit, unzipping to reveal themselves as Ottway’s presumed-dead roughneck friends (as well as his presumed-dead Irish father). Everyone cries and hugs, as we learn that the entire film was an elaborate hoax to convince Ottway of the importance and preciousness of life.

3.) Dubstep-Laden Fight Scene In Which Liam Neeson Destroys All Wolves
Just as the alpha wolf crouches to attack Ottway, we cut to a full, side two-shot. Ottway jumps up, then freezes in time as Skrillex hits the soundtrack. What follows is a Zack Snyder-styled action scene set to crunchy industrial techno, in which Ottway uses high-flying kung fu on all the wolves, complete with a bullet-time back flip.

4.) Explicit 20-Minute Long Take Of Wolves Slowly Eating Liam Neeson
Just as the alpha wolf crouches to attack Ottway, he follows through and attacks Ottway. Our hero doesn’t get in a single strike, but is systematically and slowly eaten by the wolves, akin to raw footage from a National Geographic video.

5.) Ottwolf
Just as the alpha wolf crouches to attack Ottay, our hero HOWLS. He stops, looks down at himself. The wolves are as shocked as Ottway. They look at each other, troubled. Cut back to Ottway grasping at the wolf bite he received earlier in the film. He’s shocked to discover his hands are transforming into paws. His mouth shoots out and grows into a muzzle. He screams as his clothes rip off and he becomes Ottwolf, new alpha male and leader of the werewolf collective. (This actually makes perfect sense, as he was the only character to have actually lived through a wolf bite.) The wolves all bow before him as he stands and howls, as the camera cranes up and out into the treetops.

I’m going to go on a limb and say that these alternate endings are so feasible that Joe Carnahan might actually have them in the can already. Be sure to watch out for the blu ray release of The Grey.

-

In other news, Wonder Mill Films’ newest feature film The Nocturnal Third will soon be available to stream for free online for a very limited time. Be sure to keep an eye out on our official site. Also, Cinematrimony and Aspect Radio have combined their powers to create a new movie podcast for Al.com. Check it out here!

The Movie: Superman III (1983)

Spoiler Level: High (But it’s Superman III, so who cares?)

The Setup: You have three options here, in regards to what you need to know before watching the scene. You can take my plot summary, which will follow below. You could also watch Superman III. Or, you could go listen to Earwolf’s Superman III episode of “How Did This Get Made“, guest-hosted by Damon Lindelof. I’d highly recommend this podcast, and especially this episode. They sum up the folly of this movie, which was the humorous Richard Lester deconstructionist Superman take-down that nobody on planet Earth was asking for.

Basically, up to this point, the film has been a Richard Pryor comedy vehicle that takes place in Superman’s Metropolis. Being some sort of idiot savant computer genius, Pryor’s Gus is helping a megalomaniac corner the world’s coffee markets, and has discovered a way to keep Superman from meddling. By creating a synthetic black kryptonite and HANDING IT to Superman, they give the Man of Steel a kind of viral schizophrenia, as he begins to exhibit signs of a dark side. Succumbing to his evil side, Superman not only makes inappropriate sexual advances towards Lana Lang, but he successfully beds the villain’s girlfriend and gets hammered in a dingy bar.

In this scene, the evil and unshaven Dark Superman is having mental agitation, and escapes to a solitary junk yard to hash it out with… himself?!?

The Scene:  Click Here for Youtube (No Embedding Allowed)

Why It’s Great: Somehow, despite all attempts at letting broad comedy reign supreme in what is ostensibly a children’s film, Richard Lester managed to craft the most weighty, dark, and dramatic fight scene in the entire Superman  movie franchise. That’s right, I find this to be a more harrowing and high-stakes fight than the super-brawl at the end of Superman II. First off, the tone here is deadly serious. Dark Superman lands and gives a primal scream that empties the facility. A minimal score follows, never getting in the way of the creepy conflict at the center of the scene: Clark Kent materializes out from Dark Superman, and the fight begins immediately, with Dark Superman scoffing and beating the snot out of Clark. This might be Christopher Reeve’s high point in the series as well, as he gets the chance to play a cocky maniac and a scrappy underdog all in the same scene. Reeve evokes Michael Keaton’s “You wanna get nuts” freak-out from Batman, and his Dark Superman is unrelenting in his cruelty and malice here.

Full disclosure: I have watched Superman III more than any other Superman film. I suspect my dad got a kick out of the Richard Pryor stuff when I was a kid, so this was the Superman movie he rented most often. That, or it must have been super cheap to syndicate and was on television a lot. Regardless, the rest of the movie always confused and disturbed me, especially the aforementioned super-villainess tryst and a later moment in which a woman is violently turned into a cyborg.

This scene, however, was pure Superman goodness. About four minutes in, after using some creative practical effects and stuntwork to convey Clark’s beat-down, Lester brings things to a head as Clark is horribly crushed in a trash compactor. Everything is silent for a moment as the victorious Dark Superman stumbles away in a drunken haze, before the trash compactor BURSTS open as Clark bench presses the damn thing apart. This is only one of two great moments in which Clark bursts out of a trash compactor. Eventually, Clark overpowers Dark Superman and eventually CHOKES HIM TO DEATH WITH HIS BARE HANDS. The scene culminates at seven minutes as Dark Superman disappears and Clark reclaims his true identity: He stands up, the John Williams score begins, and he rips open his shirt, revealing a pristine Superman logo. With the theme soaring, Superman flies off to save the world.

Too bad everything after that is baffling. However, for one scene, Superman was at his very best: Fighting not only the injustices of the world around him, but his own demons and identity issues. I’m sure Lester was trying to get at some deeper truth here, but assumedly the script, the intent of the producers, and his own disinterest in the material were working against the film. Let’s hope that some day, we’ll get a cinematic Superman that matches the grit and gravitas that Reeves showed us here.

Like any self-respecting Film Nerd, I spend far too much of November and December considering my favorite films from a given year. For 2011, I decided to do things a bit differently. I did not get a chance to watch an awful lot of movies this year, as I spent most of 2011 finishing up The Nocturnal Third. Despite this, I did decide to cut off qualification for my “official” list on December 31st, as this list takes stock of only the films I watched this year.

After experiencing the “other side” of film criticism this year with the release of my first feature film, I more than ever consider myself a filmmaker and film enthusiast rather than a film critic. This allows me to revel in the lack of expectations usually attributed to a serious critical analysis of a film year. I’ve decided to do away with letter grades this time around, as they tend to become more and more arbitrary as I see more and more movies. Another by-product of making my own film is that I’m more in love with movies than ever. When I say “movies”, I mean cinematic stories – best viewed as encapsulated pieces of art in a controlled environment. This does not include serialized television, video games, or transmedia. These things are not bad things. In fact, they are amazing, sometimes cinematic things. But, I’ve resigned myself to leave these out of my area of passion, because they are not cinema. 2011 has taught me a lot about my own perception about movies, my own gravitation towards the craft of directing, my lack of interest in obviously “socially conscious” films, and my formalist leanings. I look forward to a juicier experience as a film fan going forward due to these discoveries.

Wow, can you tell this is going to be a long post? All that said, I’ll probably revise this top ten list around Oscar time, in late February. I will, however, be watching movies less aggressively now that the holidays are over.

There are plenty of good-looking movies from 2011 that I missed, and here are the ones I really wished I could have seen: The Artist, Carnage, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Cold Weather, A Dangerous Method, The Descendants, Detective Dee, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Into the Abyss, A Separation, Shame, The Skin I Live In, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (the biggest shame, as it gets a wider release next weekend), Tyrannosaur, Warrior, and Winnie the Pooh.

So, let’s get started. Here’s a full list of all the 2011 U.S. releases that I did see:

13 Assassins
The Adjustment Bureau
The Adventures of Tintin
Another Earth
Attack the Block
Bridesmaids
Captain America: The First Avenger
Contagion
Drive
Fast Five
Green Lantern
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Hugo
Horrible Bosses
Limitless
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Meek’s Cutoff
Midnight in Paris
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Moneyball
The Muppets
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Rango
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8
Take Shelter
Thor
Tree of Life
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse
X-Men: First Class

What follows are, as of 01/01/2012, my ten favorite movies of 2011. There is a bit of theme here, and I’ll expound on that on the south end of the list. Enjoy!

 

10.) Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
Man, this number ten spot was hard to decide on. This pick is somewhat representative of the entire accomplishment that is the Harry Potter franchise, but I don’t want that comment to betray the phenomenal film that this is. A fast-paced, singularly-minded adventure film, Deathly Hallows Part II is a perfect mirror image of its predecessor, which was a slow-burn set-up of a character piece. The conflict between Voldemort and Harry had been extremely well established by the time this film begins, and their eventual clash is the stuff of great, well-earned cinema. Bravo to Steve Kloves, Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, David Yates, JK Rowling, the cast, and – quite possibly, above all – producer David Heyman for shepherding this story in an amazingly conscientious and focused way.

 

9.) Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Let the record show that in 2011, the year of widely publicized social upheaval, the first movie to comment (perhaps accidentally), was the best Planet of the Apes movie since the Charlton Heston original. Reducing the imaginary tension between man and ape to a simple story of the misperception of “ape rights”, writers Amanda Silver and Rick Jaffa hit on a wonderful perspective. Limiting the story to the experience of eventual ape leader Caesar gives this wonderful canvas of socially-conscious science fiction the spark it needs to speak to our time. This is the purpose of science fiction and, by extension, all fiction: To comment, from a safe and speculative distance, on where we are and where we’re going. I shouldn’t leave out the fantastic job that director Rupert Wyatt did in guiding the film through its three forms: a coming-of-age story, a prison movie, and a gripping war film.

8.) Meek’s Cutoff
I think it’s safe to say that, in addition to being in a third Golden Age of Animation, we’re also in a kind of second Golden Age of Revisionist Westerns. Kelly Riechardt continues her impressive run of simultaneously personal, regionally-specific, and thematically loaded feature films. Is this film subtle? Some of the time, yes. I’d say that Michelle Williams gives one of the most understated performances of the year. Can the same be said for Paul Dano’s performance, or the writing of Bruce Greenwood’s Meek character? No, not at all. However, the arch approach that screenwriter Jonathan Raymond and director Reichardt take to tell this story runs parallel to the film’s clear-cut stakes and sparse visual style.

7.) The Adventures of Tintin
Right, so you remember that third Golden Age of Animation I mentioned? I think, at this point, to the chagrin of many detractors, we can add motion-captured CGI features to that growing showcase. With this adaptation of the Herge comic books, Steven Spielberg enters the animation fray, and gives us a case study in the merits of motion capture for fully computer-animated movies. Yes, we lose a level of tactile interaction and tangible texture, but we gain a broader potential for performance and camera movement. Here, with a story that has one foot in comics and one foot in adventure serials, Spielberg stages some of the most amazing action sequences we’ve seen in years, coupled with a pace and overall aesthetic that wouldn’t have been possible in any other medium. “Fun” Spielberg is back at the top of his game, and we can probably attribute a lot of this verve to a measure of competition with one of his screenwriters: quite possibly one of the most dynamic and fun filmmakers working today, Edgar Wright.

6.) Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
I was not expecting to love this movie. In fact, I was adamantly opposed to enjoying it, feeling that its action-heavy and poppy trailers communicated a betrayal of the Mission: Impossible series’ Cold War roots. I wanted a more cerebral, paranoid spy thriller, not another bad John Woo rip-off. Add to that the fact that the film featured a great director in Brad Bird, seemingly paying the necessary dues to pass into the world of live-action filmmaking. It all felt like a transparent grab at cheap publicity for the series and its star. With all that said, I eat my words. Not only is this a loving ode to the original series, and an apt modern adaptation of the essential idea behind the 1960’s Bruce Geller creation, but Ghost Protocol is also the best pure action movie since Casino Royale, and – gulp – quite possibly even better. Here, Brad Bird takes the Thirty-Nine Steps approach and makes things very simple: “We need to go here, and do this, or else that happens.” Then, he tips over the dominoes and watches everything fall apart while our characters scramble to make things right. This is a movie about embracing and overcoming failure, in a genre and an industry and a culture that loathes the stench of failure. It also positions this series as a worthy American answer to James Bond, with a bright future and unlimited potential for future installments and characters. This movie is also a great encouragement that audiences will still respond to practically-produced big screen extravaganzas; just look at the past few weekends’ box offices grosses to see how people are flocking to see stunts and excitement they just can’t witness anywhere else.

5.) Take Shelter
Here we have one of the best – and most frightening – character studies of the year. In his sophomore effort as writer/director, Shotgun Stories auteur Jeff Nichols tells a gripping and empathetic story about a man in deep psychological turmoil, and the toll it takes on his young family. Michael Shannon appears to be making a career out of this sort of thing, building on his great performances in Revolutionary Road and My Son My Son What Have Ye Done? The difference here is that Shannon’s character is as empathetic as Nichols’ screenplay and camera. This film never beats up on the family at its center, but rather uses perceived insanity as a lens through which it observes a middle American familial unit. Nichols proves his prowess with a superbly strategic approach to shot selection and editing, combined with a focused script that features a gut-punch of an ending.

4.) Attack the Block / Super 8
Man, don’t you hate a cheat? I’ll qualify this ranking by saying that this spot is not reserved for two films, but for one amazing double feature idea; not one 112 minute-long movie tied with an 88 minute-long movie, but one 200 minute-long cinematic look at the alien invasion genre through the eyes of pre-teens. The similarities between the two films are impossible to ignore, and yet they offer two enthusiastically divergent experiences. One is a loving homage to the 1980’s films of Amblin Entertainment, shot in that specific house style. The other is a loving homage to John Carpenter films from the same era, shot in a wholly modern style. It’s the kids of the suburbs and of the city, looking up at the sky and watching intruders pay us back for our own sins. Super 8 falls in line with the predominant preoccupation of many 2011 films, in that it explores the roots of cinema – albeit in a personal sense. Attack the Block is more concerned with the predominant preoccupation of 2011 headlines, tackling the idea of global social responsibility versus regional social responsibility. Both films are touching, responsible, and at times, terrifying… and then, at other times, just kind of badass.

3.) The Tree of Life
There might not have been a more divisive film in 2011 than Terrance Malick’s latest “tone poem”. The Tree of Life is a kind of Malickian demo reel, encompassing many of his favorite themes: those of grace, shared memory and psalmic introspection. It’s impossible for me to approach this movie with any measure of critical objectivity. It speaks to my personal beliefs, and to what I believe is our consistent human struggle. 2011 was a year in which I found it was time for me to let go of screenwriting for a while. I’m in the midst of a kind of spiritual re-awakening that will do nothing but propagandize any fiction I lay my hand to, so I’ve focused in on what has always been my biggest goal and, in my own opinion, my greatest skill: directing. The Tree of Life, in addition to showing off an extremely measured and sage approach to the struggles of faith, played a small part in this personal renewal of mine, and I encourage other Christians to approach it with an open mind. It’s rare that a film strives for any kind of transcendence and actually succeeds. Typically, they tumble and crumble, revealing a series of hollow, murky priorities. In this case, it worked for me. The Tree of Life is not an ultimate thing, it shouldn’t be treated as a hoity toity, untouchable movie unable to be scrutinized – but that doesn’t mean it’s not extremely important and wonderful.

2.) Martha Marcy May Marlene
Speaking of spiritual awakenings… how ‘bout some cults? Sean Durkin’s first feature film is, again, one that I went into with arms crossed. A “Sundance darling” is not something a struggling independent filmmaker is going to go out of his way to praise, but the precision and deftness of Martha Marcy May Marlene pierces any and all jealousy I may have been harboring. This film has affixed itself to my brain, in the way that any great psychological horror film should. Durkin has made a thriller in the vein of Roeg and Polanski, with a minimalist approach that allows tension to grow like a bacteria. The performances, especially the magnificent one by Elizabeth Olson, are as quiet and subtle as the script’s tone. The way Durkin and cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes control their focal planes and camera movement is an encouraging sign of a smart, sharp partnership. This is, in some ways, the smallest movie on this list, but it is also one of the richest and most thematically loaded.

1.) War Horse
Over the past few years, while the rest of Hollywood and the industry media were prattling on about the proliferation of branding, the dangers or merits of 3D, and the anxiety over theatrical exhibition giving way to online streaming, Steven Spielberg was busy keeping his down and making a movie. A real movie. A real, physically tangible, visually poetic, humane, and essentially moving movie. A classical Hollywood production that embraces its roots and its setting. People will rub up against War Horse for its suspiciously earnest tone and full-hearted sentiment, but that friction is a symptom of our culture, rather than a problem with this movie, which earns every moment. I will fully admit that it took me most of the film to get over the fact that we are given little to no reason why the young man at the center of the film loves his horse so much. When the realization hit me that this is not just another time and culture – in which irony and boredom did not exist – but also a type of cinematic fairy tale of the Night of the Hunter or Searchers ilk, I was in for the ride. War Horse is essentially a series of episodic vignettes in which the humanity of various characters is reflected against the helpless experience of a scrappy horse, and yet the movie never loses its pace. Some characters are more involving than others, but the film is structured in a brilliant way. The story brings back earlier thread as soon as its current thread threatens to run thin. Here, Steven Spielberg has crafted a movie that does not take the last two decades or so of cinematic grammar into consideration, and that kind of brazen anachronism is fascinating. I hope these points don’t sound like empty justifications, but if they do, so be it. As Spielberg tossed our generation’s hopeless “quest for cool” to the wayside, I’ll gladly do the same: At this point, I can gladly say that War Horse is a great movie, quite possibly the greatest I’ve seen since something like Children of Men or The Dark Knight or No Country for Old Men. We’ll see if that opinion still stands over time.

-

Honorable Mentions: It pains me to have not included Hugo, Contagion, and Drive on my list, but I think that only goes to show how strong of a year 2011 was.
So, if you haven’t noticed a theme in my list – especially in entries 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 – I’ll go ahead and blurt it out: Naturalism. What I’m encouraged by in the filmmaking of 2011 releases is not so much naturalism in plot or performance, but a kind of technical naturalism. Even as things become more and more digital, our greater filmmakers seem to be going out of their way to give their movies a tactile, real texture. Whether it be the real wrangling and stunts of Fast Five, War Horse, and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, or the long takes of Martha Marcy May Marlene and Meek’s Cutoff, or the natural, expressive lighting of Tree of Life and Drive, it really feels like cinema will continue to thrive through sensory experiences that cannot be matched on television or in video games.

I’ll add a re-assertion that the overall thematic through-line of 2011 film overall seems to be “Memory and Nostalgia”, the way 2010 films all seemed to look at “Preferred Realities”. Many films this year dealt with either a blur between dreams, memories, and present realities (Martha Marcy May Marlene, The Adventures of Tintin, Take Shelter), or spent much of their time inside memory, via nostalgia – be it cultural or personal (Midnight in Paris, Hugo, Super 8, Captain America: The First Avenger, War Horse).

Other movies I saw that I would really recommend are, in order of preference, as follows: Captain America: The First Avenger, Midnight in Paris, Bridesmaids, The Muppets, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Fast Five, 13 Assassins, Moneyball, Rango, Thor, and X-Men: First Class.

Alright, now that the fake heady analysis is over with, let’s get to the fun part… POINTLESS RANKING!!! These are, of course, my personal favorites in any given category.

Favorite 10 Movies
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Meek’s Cutoff
The Adventures of Tintin
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Take Shelter
Super 8 / Attack the Block
The Tree of Life
Martha Marcy May Marlene
War Horse

Best Theatrical Experiences
5. Martha Marcy May Marlene – 35mm Arthouse Theater
4. Super 8 – IMAX
3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon – IMAX 3D
2. The Dark Knight Rises Prologue – 70mm IMAX Dome
1. The Adventures of Tintin – IMAX 3D

Special Effects
5. The Tree of Life
4. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
3. Fast Five
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
1. Attack the Block

Soundtracks
5. Patrick Doyle, Thor & Rise of the Planet of the Apes
4. Alvin Silvestri, Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Price / Buxton / Ratcliffe, Attack the Block
2. Henry Jackman, X-Men: First Class
1. John Williams, War Horse

Overall Design
5. Meek’s Cutoff
4. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Rango
2. The Tree of Life
1. War Horse

Cinematography
5. Hugo
4. Martha Marcy May Marlene
3. Drive
2. The Tree of Life
1. War Horse

Supporting Performances
5. Paula Patton, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
4. Corey Stoll, Midnight in Paris
3. Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
2. John Hawkes, Martha Marcy May Marlene
1. Peter Mullan, War Horse

Male Performances
5. Ryan Gosling, Drive
4. Michael Fassbender, X-Men: First Class
3. Chris Evans, Captain America: The First Avenger
2. Andy Serkis, The Adventures of Tintin / Rise of the Planet of the Apes
1. Michael Shannon, Take Shelter

Female Performances
5. Elle Fanning, Super 8
4. Jessica Chastain, Take Shelter
3. Kristen Wiig, Bridesmaids
2. Michelle Williams, Meek’s Cutoff
1. Elizabeth Olsen, Martha Marcy May Marlene

Directing
5. Steven Soderbergh, Contagion
4. Sean Durkin, Martha Marcy May Marlene
3. Brad Bird, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
2. Jeff Nichols, Take Shelter
1. Steven Spielberg, War Horse & The Adventures of Tintin

Favorite Scenes or Sequences
10. Prom – Contagion
9. “I want him to owe me something” – Meek’s Cutoff
8. “No” – Rise of the Planet of the Apes
7. Jack’s early childhood – The Tree of Life
6. Moses versus the monsters, Attack the Block
5. Opening the shelter door – Take Shelter
4. Pursuing the falcon – The Adventures of Tintin
3. From the Burj Khalifa climb to the Dust storm car chase – Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
2. Argentina – X-Men: First Class
1. Reunion – War Horse

-

For posterity, here’s a quick look at my list from last year. And here are my revised top tens for the past two years…

Top 10 of 2009, as of late 2011
1.) A Serious Man
2.) Star Trek
3.) The Fantastic Mr. Fox
4.) Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
5.) Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince
6.) Moon
7.) Up
8.) Inglourious Basterds
9.) Watchmen: Director’s Cut
10.) The Girlfriend Experience
Honorable Mentions: The Informant!, The Hurt Locker

Top 10 of 2010, as of late 2011
1.) Inception
2.) True Grit
3.) The Social Network
4.) How to Train Your Dragon
5.) Mother
6.) Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part I
7.) Toy Story 3
8.) Scott Pilgrim vs The World
9.) My Son My Son What Have Ye Done?
10.) Shutter Island
Honorable Mention: Black Swan

And, for comparison, a list of my most anticipated movies of 2011, as of late 2010:
10. TIE: Thor / Cold Weather
9. Contagion
8. A Dangerous Method
7. The Adjustment Bureau
6. Super 8
5. Captain America: The First Avenger
4. Cave of Forgotten Dreams
3. TIE: Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn / War Horse
2. Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
1. Tree of Life

-

That’s it! Why are you still reading?!?!

Oh, to find out about my movies? Check out A Genesis Found and The Nocturnal Third and find us on Facebook and on Twitter, @WonderMillFilms.

Warning #1 – The article below contains heavy spoilers for The Adventures of Tintin and, quite possibly, Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Many film critics – like Russell Hainline, of the Jacksonville Movie Examiner  – have hailed the new Steven Spielberg film The Adventures of Tintin as the movie we SHOULD have gotten as the fourth chapter in the Indiana Jones series. Although it boasts a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes, Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is widely derided among fans (hence a 59% “audience” rating). I, myself, am infamous among my Film Nerds brethren as admitting that I really liked the movie. Granted, I’m a blind fanboy when it comes to the character and to Steven Spielberg action films, but I will admit that I’d rather the franchise go out on a more unanimously positive note.

Let’s go back to that statement, though. There is plenty of thematic and narrative crossover between Herge’s Tintin books and Spielberg’s Indiana Jones movies, but what if we follow that question to its logical conclusion: What if the new Tintin film WAS the fourth Indiana Jones film?

Warning #2 – I am about to drop to the most depressing depths of film nerd culture – fan fiction. The only reason I’m affording myself this indulgance is because I think this is a discussion worth having. I don’t mean to reduce the effort that goes into making any kind of movie, and I certainly can’t compare a lunch hour of armchair screenwriting to the incredible time and effort that goes into crafting even the most rudimentary script. That said – if you’re with me, let’s go:

First we have to play with the timeline a bit. Let’s say that the development of The Adventures of Tintin happened a bit earlier. What if Spielberg looked at the story that had been broken by himself, Peter Jackson, Stephen Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish, and realized it could be easily transposed into the long-gestating fourth Indy film? What if, instead of using all of George Lucas’s rejected ideas and David Koepp’s final script, Spielberg just pulled a Die Hard with a Vengeance and converted The Adventures of Tintin into Indiana Jones & The Secret of the Unicorn?

Well, stay with me. Let’s get beyond that title. Think about it. The movie would still take place in the 50’s. Just take the basic arc of The Adventures of Tintin and replace Tintin with Mutt Williams and Captain Haddock with Indiana Jones. In this imaginary movie, Mutt would be our entry point into the story – an intrepid, young anti-establishment student reporter. You could keep the greaser look, and add a greater disrespect for the past and for tradition, with a knack for uncovering social injustice.

Follow me here. You could swap the great animated opening credits sequence of Tintin with an introductory scene of student reporter Mutt Williams busting up a commie spy ring on his campus. That could transition into Mutt taking a boring assignment to cover the auction of the Unicorn, part of the defaulted the estate of the late Henry Jones, Sr. – who, as far as Mutt knows, is a researcher who mysteriously died during World War II. The movie continues with Mutt finding the scrolls of the Unicorn, being approached by FBI agents and a mysterious villain, say a Russian professor. Before you know it, Mutt gets kidnapped for unclear reasons and thrown onto a boat that also houses another kidnapping victim – the drunk, bearded Indiana Jones.

The Russian professor and the FBI agents are both searching for the scrolls inside the Unicorn, just like Sakharine and Interpol are in Tintin, but the secret is different – we’d have to lose the whole pirate flashback. The problem for our villain is that the secret died with Henry Jones, Sr. Let’s ALSO say that the professor knows about the secret because he was researching with Henry Jones, Sr. for the US government during World War II, and was double-crossed by – not again – commie spies! Maybe that’s why Indy is soused, and has been for the last fifteen years – he knew about an espionage plot to bump off his dad, but couldn’t stop it because he was overseas in the war.

Whatever the case, the villain is a jerk, has ties to Sean Connery’s character from Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade, needs Mutt’s scroll, and needs Indy’s knowledge to get what he wants, but Indy is too lost in booze to be useful. It should be said here that while Indy is a drunk at this point, he’s still the same character we’ve known – prone to fight, spontaneous, and dogged. He’s still an archaeologist, just not a very tidy one. When we meet him as the Haddock analog, he would be less pitiful than Andy Serkis’ quasi-suicidal bumbler.

The rest of the film would proceed similarly to The Adventures of Tintin – Through Mutt’s nagging and the sobering dehydration of the Sahara, Indiana Jones slowly returns to being himself. He not only wants to remain stable and become the clear thinker he used to be, but to get ahold of the MacGuffin and – most importantly – get revenge for his dad’s murder. Mutt, like Tintin, pushes to break the story of wartime espionage, and is surprisingly enraptured by the history behind whatever the MacGuffin is.

While the first half of the movie would be all set-up for Mutt and the mystery, the second would be just what Tintin is – a rollicking succession of mind-blowing action sequences. Yes, shooting much of these sequences in the real world would be impossible, so they would have to be logistically tweaked and brought into the reality of the great action scenes of the Indy franchise. No one can argue that the motorcycle chase in Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was anything but a marvelous throw-back to the series’ earlier movies, and a high point in that film. (It should be said that this whole fictional scenario presupposes that Spielberg is going in avoiding CGI, as he seems to have done in his other 2011 release, War Horse.)

What’s exciting about this idea is that it strays from Indiana Jones formula, only to find its way back. It also gives a more dramatic backstory to the character we all love, and raises the stakes by taking us to a dramatic place we might not want to go – the murder of The Last Crusade’s lovable sidekick. I think one of Crystal Skull‘s greatest crimes was its devotion to fan service, having to include quick and shallow references to the Ark, Jones, Sr., and Marion. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the existence of the film in general is a symptom of today’s reliance on fan service. Lucas and Spielberg gave us what we asked for 12 years. The problem is that they didn’t go far enough to give us something new. Yes, this Tintindiana Jones idea would put a lot of the weight on the shoulders of the Mutt Williams character, but how much more satisfying would that character have been if he was a fully formed character outside of his relationship to Indy? Since we are completely inhabiting a world of fantasy here, what if we recast the role? How would you feel about a Tintin-inspired, jaw-socking Mutt Williams played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt?

On the flipside, Indiana Jones would almost start as a supporting character, before we realize his journey – just like Captain Haddock’s – is actually the heart of the movie. He goes from a bitter old codger to a re-invigorated version of the young archaeologist we knew so long ago. What a perfect arc it would be for both characters to learn from the other; for Indy, he stops regretting the past and becomes aware of current situations. Meanwhile, Mutt realizes the past has value and informs the present. Honestly, you could still even throw in the father/son revelation, and tie that to the villain’s motivation for getting Mutt involved. Hell, maybe Marion Ravenwood owns the campus pub, and makes a brief (BRIEF) cameo in the first act.

Regardless of whatever shameless fantasy I blather on about, I’m encouraged by The Adventures of Tintin. It’s a fantastic film in its own right, despite lacking the kind of depth we got with Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade (which, to be fair, might be the greatest buddy action movie of all time). That said, its characters do give us plenty to chew on, and the adventure clips along so quickly that the characters’ actions speak just as loudly as any bits of exposition or bloated dialogue. Again, I still enjoy Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but I certainly can’t begrudge everyone that hates it. It was a Spielberg homework assignment rather than a Spielberg field trip, and it shows. I’m still optimistically holding out hope that Spielberg makes his patented “apology” film (re: Raiders, Saving Private Ryan, Last Crusade) and gives us the last Indiana Jones movie we all want – full of grit and grime and spontaneity.

What do you guys think? Would you sacrificed the final Indy movie and the new Tintin movie to get the film described above? What about Snowy – would you miss him? Would it be sacriledge to knowingly use a Tintin story as a farm for an Indiana Jones adventure? Am I wandering, woefully naive, past the fact that this property is owned and controlled by LucasFilm – NOT Amblin or Wingnut? Or, was there just never any good reason for another Indiana Jones film to have been considered in the first place?

Hash it out in the comments section!

-

Also, be sure to check out the Cinematrimony podcast that Matt and Francesca recorded about The Adventures of Tintin! You can find more of my stuff here on the blog, and you can find info on my independent feature films at their respective websites (The Nocturnal Third and A Genesis Found), as well as on Twitter ( @wondermillfilms ) and Facebook (/wondermillfilms)!

On this day, ten years ago, New Line Cinema – then an independent production company – released the first film in a long-gestating film series. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring hit cinemas on December 19, 2001.

Before December 2001, I was only loosely familiar with Tolkien. I was – and still am – more of a C.S. Lewis guy, and I hadn’t seen a decent fantasy film since my VHS copy of Willow had worn out. Personally, I was in a kind of self-imposed movie drought. After my experience with Jurassic Park in 1993, I took a keen interest in movies, reading as many Starlogs and early movie sites as I could find. I was ten years old when I saw Jurassic Park, but by high school I had lost interest in movies, cynically believing I’d never be able to make the leap from fan to practitioner. I dove into comic books and television, but The Fellowship of the Ring pulled me back into the fold.

Join me in remembering the blockbuster movie landscape of 2001. Up until December, we had seen Hannibal, The Fast & The Furious, Jurassic Park III, Planet of the Apes, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, American Pie 2, Rush Hour 2, The Mummy Returns, and Pearl Harbor. Sure, we got a Harry Potter movie that only hardcore fans could love, and some solid Soderburgh and Pixar, but by winter I had tapped out. Then a funny thing happened. A friend dragged me to Lord of the Rings, and something clicked in my brain.

First of all, I had no idea what was going on. I assumed Gondor was some sort of deity. I figured Gandalf was dead forever. I paid little attention when the main characters referred to some troll thing floating on a log. I was uncomfortable at the level of Enya I was having to endure.

Despite the film’s apparent impenetrable nature, it worked. In fact, it worked extremely well. The way Jackson’s camera moved, the way he wielded a vast array of movie magic tricks, and the deadly serious tone that the script and performances conveyed re-ignited my love for cinema. I was ten years old again.

Looking back now, the film isn’t as perfect as I had assessed at the time. Tolkien purists take issue with missing or misappropriated characters, or questionable attempts at comedy. Even in 2001, general movie audiences bristled at its length and open ending. I have found myself less intrigued by Jackson’s ever-roaming camera, as it floats and tilts all over the place, with no discernible motivation other than pacing. Although verisimilitude must have felt pretty special in a fantasy film from the era of Dungeons & Dragons, some of the film’s emotional moments can feel overwrought and over-emphasized.

All that said, is there a more dynamic example of mainstream cinematic culture-making from this era? The Matrix had wowed audiences and inspired a whole chic of its own, but its convoluted mythology and cynical approach didn’t seem to stick to the ribs. Lord of the Rings, however, arguably became our generation’s Star Wars, rivalled only by the Harry Potter or Batman series, and for good reason. The Fellowship of the Ring is an all-encompassing adventure movie that takes the audience across a wide array of topographies, emotions, and relationships.

Possibly the best example of The Fellowship of the Ring’s breadth is its opening and closing action sequences. The film opens up with a massive, computer graphic-laden battle scene between generalized characters we’ve never met, composed in wide, swooping establishing shots. The movie closes, however, with a dirty, intimate fist fight between a hero and villain that have been separated and established slowly through the entire story. Jackson starts his film wide and on a soundstage, and ends close-up and in the forest. Much like Jurassic Park, Jackson’s film features every special effect discipline available to the medium up to that point. Both films are almost demo reels for the history of movie magic.

Ten years after The Fellowship of the Ring, I find myself a cinephile that’s wandered from criticism to filmmaking. This movie helped to unlock a talent that I hadn’t tapped into in before. It helped to re-establish and initiate a life-long dream. Come to think of it, I cannot have been the only one. I’d be willing to bet that many of today’s DIY genre filmmakers – as well as stereotypical modern “internet movie nerds” – were forged in the fires of Star Wars and The Matrix, but took their form during the release of The Fellowship of the Ring and its sequels. I’d love to hear some feedback to see if anyone else’s movie fandom intensified after the release of the The Lord of the Rings.

It’s that time of year. The weather’s cold, the food is good, and your schedule is cleared. What a perfect time to re-visit Middle Earth.

 

-

In other news, the Film Nerds podcasters have been busy with preview screenings! Check out Cinematrimony’s Tintin preview, as well as Aspect Radio’s discussion on The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo! For more information on my films, check out the sites for The Nocturnal Third and A Genesis Found, or visit the Wonder Mill Films Facebook page or Twitter feed.

 

What is “regional film”?

The term does not have a very concrete, undisputed definition.  Some of my filmmaking peers and myself might categorize a regional film as any that is about the place it’s from. Therefore, we might label a “regional filmmaker” as one who creates films that evoke, speak to, describe, or take place in the filmmaker’s chosen region. A term I like to use are “home-brewed” movies, as in our case, the films are most often also completely independently produced. On a big scale, Martin Scorsese’s or Woody Allen’s New York works or maybe Peter Jackson’s pre-Lord of the Rings projects might be the best examples of regional film. On a much smaller scale, I might humbly submit our own films The Nocturnal Third and A Genesis Found, as well as films like Pop Skull or George Washington.

The unsustainable nature of DIY productions notwithstanding, we are living in an age where an American region can use narrative cinema to represent itself to itself, and to its surrounding regions. Call it “local foreign cinema”… taking a microcosmic look at a national culture. Previously, this kind of cultural understanding had been left to documentary film, a vibrant and flexible medium.

Here are three narrative films from 2011 that are not only region-specific, but evocative, unique, and entertaining.

 

ATTACK THE BLOCK (dir. Joe Cornish)

U.K. comedy writer Joe Cornish surprised us all this year by releasing the Summer’s second “kids versus alien” adventure film, after June’s Super 8. Whereas the J.J. Abrams movie paid homage to Spielberg suburbia, Cornish kept things very local, honing in on his specific South London location. In addition to being central to the inner city, the film also subverts its genre’s expectations, at times making smart – though unsubtle – social statements: Cornish’s young heroes wonder if they’re being dealt with as the monsters they’re perceived to be by society, as well as questioning why social activists travel abroad to take care of global issues while forsaking issues at home. The film wisely uses the helpful tropes of science fiction and action cinema to get across some very specific and heady cultural ideas. That said, it is also a load of fun. Featuring some of the best creature designs I’ve ever seen, a poppy and distinctly modern European style, and a score by Steven Price, Felix Buxton, and Simon Ratcliffe that mashes Kanye West with John Carpenter, Attack the Block is one of the year’s most exuberant movies.

 

MEEK’S CUTOFF (dir. Kelly Reichardt)

All three of Kelly Reichardt’s feature films have been set in Oregon. Her first film, Old Joy, is a morose and lyrical travelogue through the forests of the Pacific Northwest, and here, she finds a brilliant entry point into the culture of her region. By reaching into history and exploring a local legend – that of a wagon train led by a questionable leader – she manages to craft a uniquely revisionist Western that uses genre to hide some of Old Joy‘s more obvious subtexts of ego-driven male certainty and political arrogance. Though Meek’s Cutoff is certainly a Western, it might not be the Oregon Trail video adaptation your nine-year-old self would have wanted to see. Reichardt takes her time in her visual approach, and Jonathan Raymond’s script demands patience. Despite the film’s intentional pacing, every scene is efficient and progressive, leading to a logical, well-earned ending that my fellow Film Nerds might dispute. Regardless of your stylistic preference, Meek’s Cutoff is – for me – a watershed in regional filmmaking.

 

TAKE SHELTER (dir. Jeff Nichols)

Take Shelter has been steadily gaining quite a bit of Oscar buzz, and might be the most visible of all the films I’ve selected. Here, Michael Shannon gives what might be his best performance as Curtis LaForche, a man who begins seeing apocalyptic visions that drive him to question reality. This selection is a bit of a cheat, as the film takes place in Ohio, despite director Nichols being an Arkansas native whose first film, Shotgun Stories, was set in Arkansas. That said, Take Shelter maintains Shotgun Stories‘ rural setting, and the regions are closely related. I’m curious about the change in setting; I would assume it has something to do with the thematic necessity of Curtis’ profession as a sand miner. Regardless, Nichols’ look at rural middle America is unparalleled in modern film, and I hope he maintains his specific sense of place and reliance on character. What floored me about Take Shelter was its inverted use of apocalyptic nightmares as a framing device for marital strife, and how responsible he was with the fragile character dynamic the film begins with. There are more nationalist subtexts in Take Shelter that many critics are drawing out, but on its surface, the film is an amazing and honest look at the Western family unit.

-

Thanks for reading! Be sure to check out some great Christmas present ideas for the Film Nerd in your family in our latest Film Nerds Recommends piece! I might also urge any fans of film chatter to check out the movie podcasts Cinematrimony and Aspect Radio. You can find more information and reviews of my films at http://www.thenocturnalthird.com and find more info about Wonder Mill Films on Facebook and Twitter.

The 23rd James Bond film has been announced. Titled Skyfall, the film will see Daniel Craig return, will be directed by Sam Mendes, and will not continue the Vesper/QUANTUM arc from the first two Craig 007 films.

Of course, rumors of this type have been flying around for months. Javier Bardem will, in fact, play a villain, and the script will be written by Bond vets Purvis & Wade, in addition to star screenwriter John Logan (Any Given Sunday, The Aviator, Rango). I’ve only been burned by Bond films twice. Die Another Day was an experience I did not enjoy, but Quantum of Solace really stung. I loved Casino Royale for its sure-handedness, twisting narrative, and cinematic flair. I was optimistic about Quantum bringing on a German director, and its first trailer was impressive. Fellow Film Nerd Ben Flanagan spied hints of the Bourne Supremacy influence early on, but I maintained that if the series stuck with the style established in Casino Royale, the hand-held frenetic action that worked for Bourne would not be shoe-horned into this franchise. Of course, I was wrong. In addition to a rushed script and a bored, License to Kill -flavored tone, the film was, in fact, very dependent on the 2nd Unit action choreography and photography of Dan Bradley.

So, here we are, and I’m honestly trying very hard to be optimistic, and that’s a big problem. The problem with today’s James Bond series is that these movies cannot afford to be bad anymore. The great thing about the grand history of this series is that it always survived bad or under-performing films. In fact, the ability for a Bond film to be critically or financially disappointing gave us some of the character’s gems – the low-grossing masterpiece On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, for example. When I walked out of The World Is Not Enough, which has a thrilling first act that quickly loses steam, I wasn’t hopeless that Bond would disappear forever. In fact, there was another film already in the works. What I didn’t know was that this film would be financed, packaged, and released in a fashion similar to a Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man movie. Die Another Day had to be one of the biggest films of the year, or it would be considered a failure. Consider this: GoldenEye was produced for $58 million. It was a huge success, so Tomorrow Never Dies (an underrated entry, in my opinion) was rushed into production, finally breaching the $100 million budget mark. James Bond movies are no longer kitschy, escapist adventures. Now, they have to be full-on event movies with budgets usually reserved for Roland Emmerich pictures.

Here’s what I’d like to see from the franchise, which has been mostly well-protected from the Hollywood economic system from producers Barbara Brocolli and Michael G. Wilson.

 

There is Safety in Numbers.

Tone down the budget, crank down the risk. I’d much rather see a fun, creative Bond film every two years than a big, bloated “event” Bond movie every five. Treat it like a TV show, hire a writing staff, and crank some of these out. I should credit The Hollywood Saloon’s John Jansen with opening my eyes to this Bond philosophy. Again, so much of the strength of EON Productions is their insular nature. The only thing these guys need the studios for is distribution, so why even let Hollywood in the door to begin with?

 

Stay Away from the Auteurs.

Can you really blame kitchen-sink directors like Marc Forster and Sam Mendes if they flub a James Bond movie? The appeal of these movies are not the directorial vision or thematic strength they show off, rather their suspense and character moments. Both of these directors do care about character, but they usually prioritize character under theme (Revolutionary Road, American Beauty, Stay, Finding Neverland). When the series excels, it is under the guidance of a scrappy, skilled craftsman with an ear for dialogue and a mind for visual strategy (Peter Hunt, John Glenn, Martin Campbell). I’d prefer the producers hired a team of young British directors in the vein of Attack the Block‘s Joe Cornish to trade between smaller films, rather than putting such a big task on one man’s shoulders.

 

Make it British.

I understand that Bond’s adventures were always on a global scale, but I think it’s important to continually show us his regional centrality. In the 60′s, Bond represented a meddling empire. In the 90′s he represented a progressive, humanist “fixer”. It’s important for us to see the “Britishness” of James Bond, as well as his contrast with the government (which has been handled nicely in the newest films). This is why it’s important for a Bond actor to have roots in the Commonwealth, as well as Bond directors. Again, this shouldn’t be a global property just because of its global implications.

 

Make it Fun.

Contrary to popular belief, Casino Royale was an extremely fun motion picture. Its Bond was brash, rude, and funny, unlike the icy Bond of Quantum of Solace. The action scenes in Casino Royale are among the most playful and imaginative of recent years. In fact, the two biggest action scenes in that film – the opening foot chase and airport car chase – end with quite an ironic punchline. I hope that in Skyfall, as well as in future Bond productions, this wry sense of mischief isn’t traded for icy brutality. On the whole, I could certainly use more Brosnan “smugness” and less Craig “thugness”. I do think Craig has it in him to crack some jokes, but it’s up to the writers, producers, and directors to give him that playground.

Again, I’m forcing my optimism for Skyfall, and I really wouldn’t have to if I knew there was a 24th Bond film that could potentially redeem it. I’m troubled by the scale and risk of these productions. However, I’m also encouraged that, at the very least, the producers are attempting to put some sort of polish on their films. I guess I’ll see everyone at the theater next year, listening to Tom Petty’s newest 007 single, “Skyfallin”.

 

*In Wonder Mill Films news, we’ve announced our third major project, as well some updates on our newly released feature film, The Nocturnal Third. Check out all the details at www.facebook.com/wondermillfilms and www.thenocturnalthird.com!

While on a recent roadtrip with my wife, it occurred to me that Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park might be my favorite film of all time. I have very personal reasons for unabashadly loving the film, which is releasing on blu ray today. I was 10 years old when the Michael Crichton adaptation hit the big screen, and I knew nothing about it going in, except that it had something to do with dinosaurs… unfortunately, I was pretty sure these dinosaurs didn’t talk, unlike those in Super Mario Bros., which I would have rather seen. Yes, my best friend had to convince me to go see Jurassic Park over Super Mario Bros. I relented, and we caught the first showing on opening day.

So, what’s so great about an effects-laden, seemingly brainless early summer creature feature? Well, let’s start at the beginning:

1.) THE SOUND – You can choose John Williams’ amazing score – the main march of which accompanied my wife and I back up the aisle on our wedding day – or the ominous off-screen sound which everything on Isla Nublar seems to exude, or the ear-piercing shriek of the film’s star animals. Whenever your ear tunes into a sound in this movie, there’s going to be something to pay attention to. Gary Rydstrom and his crew deserved that Oscar, and John Williams added another classic to his ever-growing list, 18 years after he did Spielberg a huge favor by giving Jaws its tune.

2.) CHARACTERS – The characters are organic and unimpeded by star wattage. Just look at Alan Grant’s transformation from an obsessed, mission-centered scientist to a protective father figure. Sam Neill, who gained fame as a villain in Phillip Noyce’s Dead Calm*, starts the film typically cold, and ends up a hero. Had Spielberg gotten his first casting picks, rumored to have been Kevin Costner or Harrison Ford, we would have been begging for high adventure from the first time we met Dr. Grant. Add to Neill other fantastic character actors like Laura Dern, Bob Peck, Wayne Knight, Samuel L. Jackson, and the 90’s most unlikely action hero, Jeff Goldblum, and you have a cast that gets out of the way and lets story be the star.

3.) THE THEMES – The subtext of Jurassic Park is clear, unprojected, and perfectly communicated through sharp, to-the-point dialogue. The inevitabily of chaos, he thunderous power of nature versus the invasiveness of discovery, the danger of rampant consumerism, nihilistic commercialism… All at once, the film praises science, then assaults its worship. Jurassic Park is a Frankenstein story, as all great science fiction stories are. Even the script’s more implausible threads – such as the moment where a middle school student “hacks” an entire digital infrastructure – at the very least reflects one of the film’s major themes: the fallibility of technology.

4.) SHOTS – Oh, the shots. Spielberg is at his suspense-building best here, crafting two of cinema’s greatest scenes of tension. He uses off-screen space magnificently in both the first T. Rex attack and the harrowing Velociraptor kitchen hunt. Blink, however, and you’ll miss one of the great uses of “the fifth dimension of off-screen space”. Spielberg buries the subject of the film’s opening shot in the frame itself. Rarely has there been as a great use of misdirection as in the film’s first seconds: Spielberg opens the film looking high at a tree top, as we watch it rustle, expecting a monster to pop out at any moment… and yet, what do we get? Machinery. Technology. A crate, a forklift, and a look at the film’s true threat: the doomed attempt to cage nature.

5.) EDITING – Again, look at the end of the opening sequence: Juxtaposing the harrowing death of a dock worker in a prestine industrial environment against a smary, white-suited lawyer struggling to walk through a muddy jungle. Jump to the end of that scene, as Spielberg and editor Khan cut from one relic of the Cretaceous – the amber-encrusted mosquito – to another – an uncovered Velociraptor skeleton. How about cutting from the ominous shut down of park electricity to a photo of J. Robert Oppenheimer on Nedry’s desk? Again, look at the T. Rex attack. The pacing of that scene is maniacal. The most terrifying moment in that whole sequence is the pause that we have to endure right before the Rex plunges his snout through the sunroof of the kids’ Jeep.

6.) THE DESIGN – My definition of “design” includes everything in the frame of the film – the mis-en-scene, if you will. I’ve glazed over Jurassic Park’s game-changing visual effects because, in the end, they perfectly mesh with the rest of the movie. Production Designer Rick Carter nailed the look of a sanitized, concrete amusement park, as well as realistic jungle sets. Although current Spielberg cinematographer Janusz Kaminski gets plenty of credit these days, one should not overlook the work here from The Thing and Back to the Future veteran Dean Kundey, responsible for some of the most sure-handed and confident camera movement in action cinema. Again, the shots here are solid, on-point, and the typical Spielberg “atmosphere” is perfectly placed, for example, by lights streaming through jungle mist.

7.) IT’S PERSONAL – Look, I like dinosaurs. I always have. I also like jungle movies. Oh, and I like heroes that wear hats. Plus, John Williams music… aaand corporate espionage. Hm, and the Frankenstein archetype… In fact, man’s struggle to control the uncontrollable might be my favorite narrative theme in general… as if to suggest that’s something you can pick.

Although I’m not quite ready to oust Raiders of the Lost Ark, O Brother Where Art Thou, Seven Samurai, or any of the other movies that have held my “favorite of all time” spot, Jurassic Park has certainly climbed to the top of the mountain and wrangled itself into my top five. One of its greatest feats is its unending rewatchability and likability.

Not only is Jurassic Park a formalist example of the kind of directing I strive for as a filmmaker, it also showcases the kind of fun I like to have in a movie, despite it never losing a sense of sharp commentary and intellectual trajectory. Take another look at Jurassic Park. You won’t be disappointed.

*According to poster Christian, “Sam Neill was hardly a villan in Dead Calm, he was the hapless husband. Billy Zane was the villan.” He is, of course, right. My point about Neill being more of a sinister character actor stands,  I think. (I hope.)

The Movies:

• Fast Five
• Thor
• Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
• Bridesmaids
• X-Men: First Class
• Midnight in Paris
• Super 8
• Green Lantern
• Tree of Life
• Transformers: Dark of the Moon
• Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
• Captain America: The First Avenger
• Rise of the Planet of the Apes

As if we needed a sure sign, the cool weather and rainy Labor Day weekend has announced loud and clear that Summer 2011 is over. Before football season really cranks up and before we invest in tons of pumpkin-spice flavored treats, I want to take a quick moment and review the movie season that was.

Looking back, I think we can confirm that the thematic through-line of the summer’s movies was nostalgia… whether in remakes (Rise of the Planet of the Apes), period pieces, (Super 8, Captain America), revisionist histories (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, X-Men: First Class) or backwards-gazing spiritual ruminations (Midnight in Paris, Tree of Life), it seemed that the past was on Hollywood’s mind.

The industry’s stubborn attempt at indoctrinating the public with the importance of 3D was stronger than ever, and it does seem like the public is responding. I, myself, am still leery towards 98% of 3D experiences. I will admit that 3D seems to have brought Michael Bay closer to being the revolutionary visualist he has the potential of becoming, but a billion extra dimensions will never fix an inability to read tone or cut fat.

My most pleasant technological discovery this summer was the long-derided digital IMAX experience. Call it Diet IMAX. Call it IMAX, Jr. Call it LIE-MAX. There’s no denying that this is not the enormous, domed cinematic experience that has been sold to us for decades, but -regardless of the bad branding- seeing a film in digital IMAX is worth the up-charge and makes the experience special.

My wife and I didn’t get to make it to many comedies this summer, and we happened to skip all of the animated features. One “achievement” we did nail was checking out all of the summer’s superhero movies, and I’m proud to say that both of us can champion Captain America: The First Avenger as the summer’s best superhero movie. Much of that is probably because the movie does not play out in the standard superhero sub-genre template, but works more as a character-based adventure film. Overall, I don’t think any of the comic book adaptations will hold up as well as a Dark Knight or a Spider-Man 2, but we’ll see how X-Men: First Class and Captain America -both crowd favorites- fare on repeat viewings.

For some chatter about the summer’s box office performance, check out this article.

 

All that said, here are some of my favorites of the season, with rankings in various categories:

 
SCORE
1.) Henry Jackman, X-Men: First Class
2.) Michael Giacchino, Super 8
3.) Alan Silvestri, Captain America: The First Avenger
4.) Patrick Doyle, Thor & Rise of the Planet of the Apes
5.) Alexandre Desplat, Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II

CINEMATOGRAPHY
1.) Emmanuel Lubezki, Tree of Life
2.) Larry Fong, Super 8
3.) Amir M. Mokri, Transformers: Dark of the Moon

EFFECTS
1.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
2.) Rise of the Planet of the Apes
3.) Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II

SUPPORTING PERFORMANCES
1.) Elle Fanning, Super 8
2.) Alan Rickman, Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
3.) Corey Stoll, Midnight in Paris
4.) Dwayne Johnson, Fast Five
5.) Adrian Brody, Midnight in Paris

LEAD PERFORMANCES
1.) Kristen Wiig, Bridesmaids
2.) Michael Fassbender, X-Men: First Class
3.) Joel Courtney, Super 8
4.) WETA & Andy Serkis, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
5.) Chris Evans, Captain America: The First Avenger

 

 

ACTION SEQUENCES
1.) Tower Topple, Transformers: Dark of the Moon
2.) Train Heist, Fast Five
3.) Uprising, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
4.) Train Wreck, Super 8
5.) Harry vs Voldemort, Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
6.) Bus Attack, Super 8
7.) Climax, Fast Five
8.) Final Plane Chase, Captain America: The First Avengers
9.) Getting to Sentinal Prime, Transformers: Dark of the Moon
10.) Chasing the Hydra Spy, Captain America: The First Avenger

SCENES OR MOMENTS
1.) Argentina, X-Men: First Class
2.) Train Station Performance, Super 8
3.) Final Moment, Super 8
4.) Childhood Montage, Tree of Life
5.) Caesar is Home, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
6.) Dinner Table, Tree of Life
7.) Interrogating Griphook, Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II
8.) Cookie Distribution, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
9.) Wedding Boutique, Bridesmaids
10.) Final Moment, Thor

BEST THEATRICAL EXPERIENCES
1.) Super 8 – Live music with dinner, followed by coffee with friends, topped off by a midnight screening in digital IMAX. Loud, vibrant, and very fun.
2.) Midnight in Paris – I surprised Danielle with a picnic after work. Wine, sandwiches, and a great screening.
3.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon – The eye-popping visuals and kinetic energy of this movie’s final act, rendered in IMAX 3D – with no loss in exposure, color, or clarity – more than makes up for its annoying eccentricities and fatty “character” moments.

 

 

GRADES:

A
Super 8
Tree of Life

A-
Captain America: The First Avenger
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part II

B+
Midnight in Paris
Bridesmaids
Transformers: Dark of the Moon

B
Fast Five
Thor

B-
X-Men: First Class

D+
Green Lantern
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

 

So, that’s it. The ice cream’s melted, the pool is covered, and those short shorts are wholly inappropriate. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that our newest movie, The Nocturnal Third, is premiering locally and online this Friday, September 9th, despite missing its chance to be a Summer movie… as well as its promised Spring release date.

You can watch The Nocturnal Third, in its entirety, for free all weekend long at http://www.thenocturnalthird.com

The bloodless battle between DC and Marvel has raged since the breakout of the Silver Age of comic books in the 1960’s. Along with DC re-establishing The Flash and Green Lantern, Marvel helped bring superhero comics back to popularity with characters like The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, and the X-Men. The battle has now extended, in earnest, to cinema, after some false starts in the 80’s and 90’s. While the war still trades victories in the comic book world, DC has all but won the animation battleground with the brilliant self-contained continuity and stylistic integrity of their Batman, Superman, and the Justice League shows (not to mention some fine animated features).

In cinema, however, Marvel seems to be winning with a quantitative approach. After establishing enough capital to strike out on their own as an essentially self-sustaining company, Marvel has pounded out a strong series of popcorn movies, focusing on continuity and thrift over auteur-minded cinematic voice (admittedly after the failure of the very auteur-driven Hulk). Their approach resembles the classic Hollywood filmmaking engine of the 1930′s and 40′s, cranking out a consistent, slick, committee-driven catalogue made up of the Iron Man films, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger. None of these films falls under a B-, and none of them rise above an A- in my estimation… all very stable and safe ventures.

DC, on the other hand, has struggled to crank out consistent studio crowd-pleasers. Many of their films become stuck in development hell for years. It seems DC fails at the type of committee-driven consistency that Marvel has attained, most likely because of their strong tie to parent company Warner Brothers. DC movies are made like any other studio movie, and that process can be murder on source material with deep-running roots and broad possibilities. Although I’ve not seen it, the proof seems to be in Green Lantern, a movie that aimed to establish a cinematic DC continuity, but faultered amidst heavy studio meddling and grossly unfair market expectations.

 

When DC films do succeed, however, they’re more akin to the auteur-driven films of the 1970’s; guided by a clear directorial voice that, despite straying from source material, still manages to result in singular, unique “films”: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Superman Returns, and Watchmen. Like them or not, each of these is driven by an unmistakable directorial vision. They function almost in the way a graphic novel is driven by an artist/writer collaboration, rather than a monthly serial.

 

Clearly, an auteur mentality is DC’s best chance at giving audiences a flipside to Marvel’s candy-coated coin.  Let’s ditch the attempts at crossover continuity and tonal consistency amongst franchises. Go let some name-brand directors explore these characters and create true genre cinema, outside of the superhero sub-category.

 

Here are some other DC characters that deserve feature films, paired with the perfect and most interesting directors to get the job done. Comic book nerds beware… These guys would value subversion over mythology.

 

The Coen Brothers’ SHAZAM!

The Characters: Billy Batson is a homeless orphan that has been granted magical powers by the wizard Shazam, which give him the ability to transform into an alternate entity: The all-powerful, hulking Captain Marvel. With roots deep in the Golden Age of comics, Batson and Marvel give us an interesting flip-side look at what childhood and masculinity were perceived to be in the 1940’s.

The Auteurs: I’ll make the strong argument that there are no filmmakers alive than can depict an expressionist ideal of post-World War II America better than Joel & Ethan Coen (The Man Who Wasn’t There, The Hudsucker Proxy). Combine that with their youthful energy (Raising Arizona) and respect for childhood (A Serious Man, True Grit), and you’ve got yourself a perfect combination.

The Movie: The Coens cast Josh Brolin as a juiced-up Captain Marvel in a 40’s adventure film with the suspense of No Country for Old Men and the twisting reality of Barton Fink.

 

Steven Soderbergh’s Green Arrow

The Character: Green Arrow is the superhero alter-ego of Star City’s playboy tycoon, Oliver Queen. The billionaire makes like a medieval archer in his spare time, on a mission to quell injustice. The Robin Hood connection was enhanced during the Adams/O’Neill run of the 1970’s, and since then, Green Arrow has only become more socially conscious, a more sardonic vigilante than his colleague in Gotham City, always looking out for the plight of the underpriveledged.

The Auteur: When I think of Soderburgh, two things come to mind: Style and Social Justice. The man can make anyone look cool (Ocean’s Eleven, Out of Sight), and seems to be able to approach any social topic with a measure of balance (Traffic, The Girlfriend Experience).

The Movie: Imagine a Green Arrow movie where Oliver Queen’s self-righteous mission is tempered by the snazziest, snobbiest threads along with the LSU alumnus’ wry brand of sarcasm, grounded action, and visual flare.

 

Alfonso Cuaron’s Legion of Superheroes

The Characters: The Legion is a unique team that was introduced to DC readers in a late 50′s Superboy story (Adventure Comics #247). They hail from the 30^th century, when superheroes, all inspired by Superboy, are commonplace and organized in communities. The catch is that all of the Legionairres are teenagers, essentially X-Men from the future.

The Auteur: Alfonso Cuaron is at his best when examining childhood. His Y tu mama tambien and Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban are angsty and, in the case of Y tu mama tambien, provocative examinations of our developmental years. Even his greatest film, Children of Men, examines the impact of children by way of complete omission. Combining Cuaron’s youth-oriented instincts with the technical wizardry he pulls off in A Little Princess, Azkaban, and Children of Men would be a startling direction for the Legion, possibly the most “Silver Age” of all the surviving DC properties from the late 50s and early 60s.

The Movie: Expensive, challenging, and emotionally volatile, but still a roller coaster ride, this is probably the imaginary movie on this list I’d like to see most.

 

Gus Van Sant’s Sandman Mystery Theatre

The Characters: The most popular iteration of a character called Sandman is currently the character known as Dream, from Neil Gaiman’s ethereal Vertigo series from the 1990’s. His world of “Sandman’ is not at all related to the golden age vigilante known as Sandman, who solved mysteries in grimy urban settings behind a World War I gas mask, putting criminals to sleep with knock-out gas. Imagine The Shadow, minus the hocus pocus. Sandman Mystery Theatre, specifically, is a Vertigo series from the 1990s in which writers Matt Wagner and Steven Seagle resurrected the long-dormant character.

The Auteur: I’ll be honest. I have never seen a Gus Van Sant movie other than Milk. I’ll proceed whilst dodging tomatoes.

The Movie: Now that that’s out of the way, just imagine this: A stripped-down, low tech mystery story in the (reportedly) lyrical and barren style of Elephant or Paranoid Park, focusing on an obsessed masked man. Do I really need to say more?

Quentin Tarantino’s Spectre

The Character: A revenge-driven ghost that acts as the Wrath of God incarnate.

The Auteur: Not many people play the revenge game better these days than the man who brought us Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds.

The Movie: DC Animation recently released a grindhouse-styled Spectre short that showed off some real flair. Yes, it was overwrought and apparent, even more so than a Tarantino movie, but the director of Pulp Fiction has always brushed with Old Testament vengeance. This would be the most literal interpretation of that idea.

 

Terrence Malick’s Starman

The Characters: Starman is a tricky character, having gone through many iterations and identities over the years. His power is simple: he has a cosmic wand that allows him to bend reality with “stellar radiation”. In recent years, James Robinson has written the character in a critically acclaimed way by portraying a cluttered, gutter punk descendant of the original Starman, struggling with his family’s legacy.

The Auteur: Hot off the heels of his most challenging film, Tree of Life, Malick has once again proven that he is a cinematic voice like no other. His name, evoking poetic elliptical editing and dreamy camerawork, is probably the most prestigiously regarded name in movies today. In fact, I feel like suggesting Malick should spend his temporal currency on a superhero film will probably get me into more hot water than admitting I’ve seen little of Van Sant’s oeuvre.

The Movie: That said, if I was a studio exec, I would write Malick a check for $300 million and an unlimited schedule to allow him to ruminate about the implications of a loser gaining the ability to warp the universe around him.

Then I’d get fired.

But my grandkids would thank me when they got to college.

 

Pedro Almodovar’s Hawkman & Hawkgirl

The Characters: With origins  more varied and convoluted than Starman’s, the Hawks have the most widely publicized, cluttered backstory- so much so that its confusing elements have been written into numerous origin reboots! At this moment (I think), the story has diverged greatly from Gardner Fox’s original mythology. Hawkman is a reincarnated Egyptian prince, living in the body of archaeologist Carter Hall. Using armor made of an other-wordly element called Nth metal, Hawkman fights crime with super strength and the the ability fly. The hitch is that in ancient Egypt, he was married to a princess, who has also been reincarnated into the body of Hawkgirl (Shiera Sanders), who does not remember this formerly requited love. You get my point about the confusion. Just thank me that I left out Hawkworld.

The Auteur: Almodovar is at his best when he’s juggling strange romantic trajectories (Talk to Her), and dealing with the tension that’s generated out of these internal struggles (Volver). He also injects his films with a tenuous sense of reality, often allowing for art to conquer logic.

The Movie: Would it be sacrilege or possibly ethnically ignorant for me to suggest Almodovar re-locate the Hawks’ ancient royalty to the Mayan civilization? How about casting Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz as the leads, struggling to come to terms with their cosmic responsibility to fight tyranny and Carter’s determination to convince Shiera is his eternal soulmate?

 

So there you have it. Seven directors that deserve a giant playground, and seven DC characters that deserve a serious cinematic treatment. So, I’ve done my part saving DC comic book movies by quickly writing a little-seen, easily digestible blog post from the comfort of my living room. The ball is in Warner Brothers’ court.