Films of 2012

It's been a great year, if only for the fact that I got the chance to see not one, but two Joss Whedon films in the cinema! Obviously, The Avengers is the best superhero film I've ever seen. But the issue is - as a huge horror fan, do I prefer The Cabin in the Woods? I reviewed both and one came up on top by half a star. But the more I watch its opponent, the more I love it. So I've been going back and forth over the last three months about what my favourite 2012 movie is. I've made a decision. I think. For now, at least......

Alas, I haven't been able to catch every movie this year, so maybe a mid-2013 post will be needed to reassess. I was eager to see Men in Black III, which got mixed reviews, but my sister assures me it's "good". Snow White and the Huntsman looked interesting, as did the Total Recall remake, which may actually have been a better movie than the original, despite the absence of Arnie. I was wanting to see Lawless, if only for having Nick Cave in the writing credits. Similarly, Rise of the Guardians looked hilarious and cool at the same time. Cloud Atlas and Life of Pi both look either epically awesome or gut-wrenching terrible. I'm hoping for the former. And, of course, The Hobbit is a must-see.


Honourable mentions:

The Raid was all out, painfully brutal action from start to finish, even if the story was ridiculously thin. But sometimes less is more - the film did what it did and it did it well. I accept that The Woman in Black scared me every time it wanted to, but in hindsight it was mainly just Daniel Radcliffe walking around a dark house for two hours. And the problem with Radcliffe is that, while I think he put in a very strong performance, he just wasn't right for that role.

Looper was a bit of a letdown after receiving 5-star reviews from the big name critics. But at the end of the day, even though it was better than most sci-fi of the last decade, the logic and characters just didn't hold together. And a mid-movie "twist" took us out of a smart time travel story and threw us into a sub-par Stephen King novel. Reviewed here.  

Skyfall got similar praise but ended up disappointing. I enjoyed what it was doing and it had a killer first half. But then everything became a little too run-of-the-mill for my tastes. Still worth a look though. Brave was a slight disappointment but then I'm not quite sure what I expected. I liked it, but it wasn't anything to write home about.

The Dark Knight Rises - a film half the internet insists is the most amazing thing ever! - was a big flop for me. While a few scenes were incredible, the plot and the endless amounts of useless characters brought it all down to what seemed like a parody of the second Nolan-Batman movie. Reviewed here. The Amazing Spider-Man was, in my opinion, a marked improvement on Raimi's trilogy and Andrew Garfield was note-perfect as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man, so it was a worthy reboot. Reviewed here.

Chronicle was pretty incredible, easily worthy of a 4/5 rating if only for giving a new take on the superhero genre. It was easily to get on board with the three heroes and actually seemed like a realistic portrayal of what a band of teenagers would do with superpowers. Combine that with clever found-footage-style camerawork and you've got a solid movie. Also pretty dark!

So, without further ado, my my top 5 films of 2012 are.......


5. Prometheus

There are more theories and opinions about this movie than pretty much anything from the last 10 years. I went in expecting a sub-par Alien, but ended up getting something thought-provoking and powerful. Ok, so maybe the whole thing is a little confusing and could do with more answers, but I have a serious weak spot for films that are batshit puzzling and strangely alluring. Stylistically beautiful with spot-on acting, the more I think about Prometheus, the more I like it. It's no Alien, but it's still a cracking sci-fi movie! Had some cool viral vids too!

4. The Hunger Games

I've heard it all - a bad ripoff of Battle Royale, completely boring for the first half, unrealistic, the new Twilight etc etc. But this movie did it for me! Granted, I've read the book so I expected a slow-burn first act and an explosive second. But for all intents and purposes, a great film! Mature for its target audience, strong, assured and not afraid to deal with some big issues. With perhaps the best first half hour of any movie this year, it's Jennifer Lawrence that commands every scene she's in - a huge talent that goes a long way to making this film great! Reviewed here.

3. The Grey

Remove Joss Whedon from the listings and The Grey is easily my top movie. It's intense, powerful, and really fucking emotional! The whole thing hangs on Liam Neeson's performance and he shows some of his best work here, all the while beating the hell out of a pack of wolves. Reviewed here.

2. The Avengers

I was always going to adore this movie - Joss Whedon does superheroes. His work on the X-Men comics is easily my favourite portrayal of the mutants and his skill at controlling ensemble casts is second-to-none (just look at Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, Toy Story et al). But where the film shines is in its portrayal of Bruce Banner/The Hulk and Black Widow - two characters mostly sidelined/watered down in previous Marvel projects. Joss made them believable but somehow ridiculously cool. Going in, I knew someone was going to die - this is Mr Whedon afterall. But I couldn't work out who. My money was Pepper Potts. Especially after the first half hour spent establishing a blissful Tony/Pepper relationship. But how wrong I was. A curveball I never saw coming. Damn you, Joss!!! The best scene? This (almost-cut-for-being-too-expensive) hero shot that gives me goosebumps every time I see it! Love it! Reviewed here.

1. The Cabin in the Woods

It's a personal preference - for me, the only thing better than "Joss does superheroes" is "Joss does horror". Combine that with Drew Goddard's direction and we have a winner! Pretty much picking apart the entire American horror genre was good enough - we've all been infuriated by those ridiculously fucking stupid horror teenagers that we actually want to die! But there's a lot more to Cabin. It goes beyond a commentary on films and becomes a critique of life itself - "Society needs to crumble. We're all just too chickenshit to let it." Not to mention it's funny as hell and has a third act better than any other this year (or the last 10 I'd dare say?!) In short - it's a movie that feels like it was meant entirely for me. Shiny! Reviewed here.


So overall, not a bad fucking year! In a time full of bottom-of-the-barrel ideas and piss-poor remakes, there seems to be some light. There may be a hundred Twilights, but there's one Hunger Games. Endless amounts of unoriginal horror tripe may be coming out the yingyang, but The Cabin in the Woods sits proudly out of the crowd. So yes, there's a saturation of horribly terrible movies these days. But there are also some absolute game-changers. Huzzah for them! 2013 won't be able to hold up, but I'm really, really looking forward to it!

Happy New Year, everyone - happy movie-ing!

'Looper' (2012)

3.5/5

Time travel movies are notoriously difficult to make and seemingly impossible to get your head around. "This time travel crap. Just fries your brain like an egg," as is uttered in the movie. Fortunately, Looper spends less time playing the What If? game and instead focuses on the characters at the heart of its story. Voice over digs past the necessary clunky exposition whereby we learn just what Loopers are and what can go wrong. Cinema has now reached a point where no-one is going to see this film without having first seen the trailer. Ergo, we'd be bored if Looper spent half an hour setting things up with subtle dialogue. Yes, that may show better writing, but it just isn't necessary - we forgive the dreaded VO as it means we can get straight into the story from the get-go.

The first thing you notice is just how clever they've been to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt look strikingly like a young Bruce Willis. It's kinda unnecessary, but it works. From there, the influences become apparent - from what I can see, Blade Runner in abundance, with a dash of Twelve Monkeys. A feel of effortless noir drops onto the screen as we see Loopers go about their daily business. We're almost at the "ok, we get it - this is a cool movie!" moment when your attention is perked by a particularly disturbing scene whereby a man's body parts begin to disappear. I'll say no more....

Once things get going, the film becomes a bit of a cat-and-mouse-style race with Young Joe (Levitt) needing to kill Old Joe (Willis) so that he isn't offed by his seemingly mild-mannered boss (Jeff Daniels). Old Joe, meanwhile, sets out on a Terminator-esque search-and-destroy mission of his own.

In any other way this would be predictable and boring. But with emotionally compelling flashbacks and clever use of POV (that forces us to switch sides without noticing), we're hooked. It's not long before we realise an hour has gone by in a flash and we're well and truly invested in both Joes and their respective missions. Which is where Looper throws us a curve ball.

The movie kind of steers off in a direction you don't expect with the introduction of Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (who, like all movie kids, is ridiculously smart and witty for a 10-year-old). I should stress that this isn't a bad tangent (Sara seems to really enjoy beating the crap out of a tree trunk with an axe - there's a metaphor in there somewhere), but it changes the film completely. The cool noir seems to disintegrate and the story sags a little under necessary exposition.

It doesn't take a half-genius to work out exactly where the story is leading, which hits you with a weird combo of tense inevitability and finger-tapping tedium. While Young Joe hangs out on a farm discussing his past, Old Joe carries on in the city. We're well and truly going through the motions before the unavoidable final conflict. Fortunately, most of those motions involve seeing Bruce Willis shoot people (and not just any people!) so we're willing to stay awake.

After its slight lull, Looper comes full circle (not unlike a loop - see what they've done there?) and builds to a spectacular close. Action isn't hurled at the screen in an explosion of excitement like in some lesser movies (I'm looking at you, Michael Bay!) but the film instead focuses on the characters we are, by now, thoroughly invested in. The ending is either genius or completely ridiculous. I can't make up my mind without having my brain fried like an egg.

Overall, Looper is a solid movie. Easily better than most recent sci-fi actioners, but I expect all those 5-star reviews floating about are because expectations for this sort of film have become so low in recent years. This is no Blade Runner or Matrix. But it does a damn sight more than it needs to in order to earn a few pennies at the Box Office, which is commendable - it's good to see a sci-fi movie that is both smart and fun! Recommended.

Read more of Neil's reviews.

'The Hunger Games' (2012)

As adaptations go, The Hunger Games is pretty much spot on and there's hardly anything left out from the book - naturally some scenes play out shorter and a few developments are ignored, but for the most part it's a page-by-page copy. Which in itself might not be anything to write home about. If anything, it would be a criticism since we already have the book, so why do we need the film?

But where the movie is unable to compete (mainly in the subtleties of the action), it makes up for in some key moments that set up future films. Not too much so that everything is rammed down your throat, but enough to tell you that more is at play than what we're seeing. The film also compensates for the lack of detailed backstory with some clever exposition and a particularly effective flashback sequence.

The movie doesn't talk down to its aimed-at teen audience and rarely shies away from the violence, dealing with some big themes and tugging at the heart strings along the way. What's extra impressive is the brave decision to stick to the book in terms of pace - with a fairly actionless first hour-and-a-bit (and remember, this is an action film!) it would be easy to lose the audience. But the first half is tackled with such subtlety and attention that you don't care - there's more than enough to enjoy in seeing the way life plays out for the young Hunger Gamers(?) in their training. All this builds and builds as very little is known of the Hunger Games themselves, meaning that when things kick off we're eager and ready to go. Let the Games begin!

What follows may be fairly basic "survival of the fittest" stuff (yes, a lot like Battle Royale and a chunk of Stephen King's work), but we're fully invested in the key characters by this point, making the drama far greater than you could hope for if we'd quickly joined the action half an hour in.

Jennifer Lawrence shines in a daring role that would be easy to play fairly straight, bringing just the right balance of tenderness and power to spring Katniss Everdeen into life. The supporting cast do their jobs well - Josh Hutcherson, Lenny Kravitz and Amandla Stenberg all hold their own, while Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci put in predictably good performances - but our attention never leaves Lawrence, who commands every scene she's in.

There's nothing wrong with The Hunger Games (it's daring, emotive, dramatic and powerful), but there are times when you feel it could do more. Having a character throw a big metal rock to prove his strength may work in the book, but on the screen it seems clunky and lazy. Likewise, the decision to stray from the source material and cut away from the Hunger Games, showing the goings on of friends and family etc sometimes detracts from the intensity of the action. Yes, some parts are necessary (commentators explain key bits of info that are essential), but at times, there are clear cuts that pay maybe a little too much attention to possible future storylines when all we really care about it the young woman fighting for her life. But these are all minor criticisms (you know how good a film is when you're picking it apart for such tiny issues) and never really bring down the quality of the movie.

All in all, The Hunger Games hits the audience across the board - there's something for everyone. Ok, so I might have liked a bit more brutal violence, but it's rather refreshing that an action movie is capable of retaining your interest without showing blood and guts at every turn. The movie never patronises its young fans and never frustrates its older audience - it's strong, powerful, self-aware and confident. Overall, a cracking film that has me itching for parts two and three.....

Read more of Neil's reviews.

'The Fountain' (2006)

Spanning over one thousand years, and three parallel stories, The Fountain is a story of love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world.  (via IMDb)

Is there a more pretentious-sounding synopsis? The thing is, The Fountain is nearly impossible to describe to someone who hasn't seen it. Darren Aronofsky's only bad film, that's what I'd heard. So I'd pretty much avoided it like the plague. But I'm glad I finally caved and gave it a whirl.

The film can't deny its origins in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey - it confuses the hell out of you and it takes a fair while before you really get what it's trying to do. To reveal what seems to be the film's intention would be to give away too much, but it definitely succeeds. It's not something you can breeze in and out of, and you can't expect to get everything that's happening right away. But if you stick with it, pieces fall into place and sense is made of even the most obscure moments.

Ok, so I don't pretend to fully understand the bald flying monk, but I have my theories. Which is what The Fountain seems to be about - theories. The point is you don't have all the answers. In the same way 2001 defies interpretation, there are many ways of seeing Aronofsky's story. Some may say that's a huge fault, but others will applaud the ambiguity.

It's an assault on the senses, giving stunning visuals (also reminiscent of 2001) and a soundtrack that compliments but never overpowers. The film isn't quite brave enough to show long empty black shots like in 2001, but it has its moments. And it's usually not until after those moments that you make sense of them.

Where The Fountain really shines, however, is in its acting. At the heart of the film is a man trying to save his wife from an inoperable brain tumour. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz give absolutely incredible performances, which brings a tender realism to an otherwise bizarre, fantastical movie. Anyone who doesn't need to fight back tears during a few key scenes simply doesn't have any tears left in them! Balancing several roles apiece, it's in the "modern-day" moments in which the two shine, guaranteeing a beautiful chemistry that keeps you engrossed throughout.

The Fountain is a story of life, death and rebirth. Some will love it, others will hate it - there'll be no middle ground. Which is, at the very least, admirable - dividing audiences is something to strive for because otherwise, what's the point? Give it a go - at worst you've spent 90 minutes of your life screwing up your face in confusion and taking in enough trippy images to secure bizarre dreams for the rest of the year. At best, you'll experience a complex piece of storytelling and an emotional film that will stick with you for a very long time.

Read more of Neil's reviews.

'The Dark Knight Rises' (2012)

 "What are you?"

"I am Gotham's reckoning."

It's the big one - Chris Nolan's last ever Batman movie. And it shows because he goes out with a bang! Seriously - a big frickin' bang! The problem is, The Dark Knight was so well-received (although I think Batman Begins is the superior film) that expectations are ridiculously high for Rises. It doesn't quite reach the pedestal.

The first half hour is, forgive me for saying, boring. A lot of plot lines are set up and characters float around stating their opinions which makes the opening seem like one big introduction to a university thesis. It makes you very aware that the movie is going to tackle some big issues over the next two hours, but it's a little jarring. We want to see more action in this action film! So I was worried 30 minutes in. But around the 45 minute mark, everything kicks off! And from that moment, you never look back and your half-hour boredom feels ok.

 

Anne Hathaway is fine as Selina (who we are never actually told is Cat Woman), but that's all. A lot of praise has been dumped on her, but I see nothing major about her performance that warrants it. Her character constantly reminded me of Black Widow, and that role was done better in The Avengers. Neither is the character really necessary and it seems like her removal would not only unhinder proceedings, but would actually improve the movie.

Tom Hardy gives an incredible performance as Bane, who commands every scene he's in, even the ones where he just lurks in the background. He's a great villain and perhaps even more memorable than the Joker. In the way Begins showed us a political idealist/tyrant and TDK gave us a psychologically unstable madman, Rises shows a truly unstoppable physical and spiritual force who you should be very afraid of! It's just a shame that his character isn't done even the tiniest bit of justice towards the film's close. Spoilers aside, it's just not very good.

 

Where Rises falls down is in the waffle. I'm not averse to a 160 minute movie, but here it seems gratuitous. With some serious streamlining, the film could be so much better. Get rid of a bunch of characters (Cat Woman, Lucius Fox etc) and give proper attention to the likes of Alfred (who only ever turns up to provide moralistic discussion for the audience and is forgotten about then conveniently brought back when the plot needs him) and newcomer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). It's funny, because I felt The Avengers was too short - so we should take half an hour from Rises and throw it to Marvel to play with.

Don't get me wrong, Rises is a good film. But there's too much excess baggage to make it as brilliant as people are saying. But no matter how floppy it may feel, there's something very satisfying about how Nolan ties Rises into the first two instalments, digging up previously-explored themes (even if they are annoyingly signposted with big flashing flashbacks!).

Bane's mission is epically terrifying in its scope, and Bruce Wayne's journey is emotional, compelling, and inspiring. It's a fine movie across the board, and only has a few problems that keep it from a 4-star rating. If you can get through the first half hour (and you should because Nolan has earned your patience!), then you're in for a story of massive scope handled with a very human eye. So rather than not enjoying Rises, you'll love it, but at the same time be ridiculously frustrated by the few shortcomings that are a heavy drag on the story. Whilst incredible in parts, the rather awful elements force the rating to an annoying middle-road.

Read more of Neil's reviews.

'The Amazing Spider-Man' (2012)

"You seriously think I'm a cop in a skintight red and blue suit?"

It's hard to review this without referring to the original 2002 Spidey movie, so we might as well just dive straight in - it's better. Not by loads, but by a fair bit.

Obviously the special-effects and CGI are worlds ahead. Also, liberties are taken that assume a decent knowledge of Peter Parker's outings, meaning the film can get things moving faster and explore more elements of the story. So on that level, The Amazing Spider-Man owes a bullshit-clearing debt to its origin movie. This remake advantage, however, also has its problems - we know what's going to happen and when. So how does a movie do the same thing without boring the audience?

Drama - this is where The Amazing Spider-Man beats the original to a bloody pulp. Key moments that we know are coming (such as the radioactive spider bite) are wrapped in a tense drama and emotion that the original never had. Which is more compelling - a boy gets bitten during a routine school trip, or a boy gets bitten after sneaking into a science lab to discover secrets about his dead father? It's a no-brainer. And it's like that throughout - we don't mind re-seeing moments from the first film because they're wrapped in a different, more compelling story.

Grounding the movie entirely in high school is also a good move, giving it a better sense of realism and making Peter Parker a more relateable character. The relationship with Gwen Stacy is more basic than the one with Mary-Jane seen in the first movie, but it's also more compelling. There's less awkward "he likes her but she doesn't know he exists" moments, and more of the "they like each other but there are always obstacles". In this case, they take the form of Gwen's super-cop dad and a giant killer lizard. Life's shit that way.

Which brings us to Peter as a character. Andrew Garfield does an incredible job, making both Peter and Spider-Man the same person. It was a problem with the 2002 film - I never felt the guy in the mask was the guy we saw in plain-clothes. But this Spider-Man is closer to the comics - a smart-mouthed fun-having superhero. Parker is still a geek, yes. But now he's a cool geek - one of those alternative Ramones-loving guys who doesn't care what people think. It's a better, more relateable character and it's the Peter I always wanted. Garfield also brings a great emotion to the role, particularly in a scene with Martin Sheen's Uncle Ben, which culminates in a destroyed door and one of those moments we know is coming!

The one element that doesn't surpass the original is in Rhys Ifans' Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard - Ifans does a good job, but his character is a little too much of a mad scientist, and you'll be hard-stretched to find a better man than Willem Dafoe for the job. There's nothing in this remake as cool as Green Goblin's mocking: "You've spun your last web, Spider-Man. If you had not been so selfish, your little girlfriend's death would have been quick and painless. But now that you've really pissed me off, I'm gonna finish her nice and slow. MJ and I, we're gonna have a hell of a time!"

So overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is great film. I know it's cool to rail against "pointless" remakes (I'm looking at you Halloween/Nightmare on Elm Street/Friday 13th/Wicker Man/Psycho!), but this one (a) works, and (b) brings enough new material to the table to actually make it worth doing. By the end of the movie, I found myself desperate for a sequel. You can't argue with that! Recommended.

Read more of Neil's movie reviews.