Double Feature: 'Don Jon' and 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

Comedies are a funny thing. No, I'm not just saying that to be cute. Well, not entirely. What I mean is that they're not all that easy to categorize. One thing that makes someone laugh will be inherently different from another, and so forth. There are comedies about sex, comedies about politics, school, fantasy, reality... this list goes on. While most folk seem to agree on what makes an excellent dramatic performance, a comedic one divides its audience on a wide spectrum, whether done by Jim Carey, Will Ferrell or Anna Faris. For every human being, there are dozens of diverging ideas on what makes things funny, and that's why there's such a wide variety of subjects out there just ripe for parody.And you can be sure that many comedies for adults are CERTAINLY not for kids (although some aimed towards kids can be surprisingly insightful for parents).

Don Jon is one of those "adults only" kind of films. Written and directed by star Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the story follows likeable douchebag (because statistically speaking, there has to be ONE out there) Jon Martello, who objectifies everything in his life, especially women. Every week he takes home a different girl from the club, until he meets who he believes to be the one, played by Scarlett Johansson. As they settle into an everyday relationship together, there's just one small problem: Jon can't get through his day without watching porn, which he sees as "better than sex". Naturally, that comes into conflict with his relationship to Barbara, and he soon must settle the differences between the two.

Seriously, that's the 3'rd Rock From the Sun kid

Despite being hampered by the usual mistakes that plague first-time directors (especially when those directors are actors to begin with), there's much more done right in this raunchy comedy. Gordon-Levitt proves that this is his element, as we suspected this genre was two years ago in the under-seen 50/50. But even besides his impressive transformation, most impressive is his cast, between the lovely Johansson - who is a better actress than many give her credit - to the always-strong Julianne Moore, the strong presence of Brie Larson (who only has one line but at times is the best part of the movie), and a surprisingly solid turn by Tony Danza. Yes, I said it: Danza does a good job. Don Jon is also unexpectedly insightful; while on the surface, the movie keeps the audience laughing with witty dialogue and perfectly-conceived editing and scoring, the director doesn't skip a beat in presenting his evidence on why an otherwise-decent guy like Jon treats women like things instead of people. According to Don Jon, it's a combination of public advertising (beautiful woman used to hawk hamburgers? That's Hot) to how he was raised. When Danza (as his father) recounts how he met Jon's mother (Glenne Headly), he recalls that the first time he saw her, the thought through his head was "That's mine." Now, Jon's dad is not a bad guy. As far as we know, he hasn't cheated on his wife, and despite some obnoxious elements to his character he's not a BAD guy. But his mental imagery of his wife as a thing to be possessed is an idea that has no shortage of examples all across the planet. Gordon-Levitt also tackles the other end of the spectrum - albeit more lightly - in dismissing romantic movies and entertainment as fake and damaging, essentially comparing Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey to the porn that men watch.

One big happy family.

As a director, Gordon-Levitt does make some questionable decisions (by playing a "guido", was he TRYING to draw in the Jersey Shore crowd? Or did he want to give mainstream audiences an easily-visible reason to dislike his character?), but for the most part Don Jon is raucously funny, surprisingly sweet and a treat for fans of 50/50 or similar works. Is it for everyone? God no, as the subject matter alone will definitely turn off many potential viewers. But as an honest, soul-searching comedy, Don Jon will probably come to a rest in my pantheon of 2013's best movies.

Meanwhile, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 specifically targets younger audiences this fall. With most of the year's potential competition either already released or not much of a threat, this sequel to the film based on the beloved children's book takes a whole new spin on the story, where the heroes of the first movie return to their home of Swallow Falls, where Flint Lockwood's (Bill Hader) invention, the food-creating "FLDSMDFR" has malfunctioned, turning the once-peaceful town into a "Lost World" of wild food-imals. Tasked with shutting his machine down for good so that the creatures cannot get off the island and assault the mainland, it's a race against time as Tim and his team journey across the island and attempt to take back their homes.

Cloudy 2 distinguishes itself nicely from the original with a vastly different premise, and the steady direction of Cody Cameron and Kris Pearn feels seamless with the preceding duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller (who ran off to make 21 Jump Street and the upcoming Lego Movie), and the story itself takes off mere moments after the end of the first movie. The jokes - even if they are all food puns - are crisp, vibrant and ought to appeal to children of all ages ("There's a leek in the boat!" is a personal favorite and doesn't get old.) They also rarely repeat the same gags, and the cast all have their parts to play, from the spunky love interest (Anna Faris) to the dim-witted friend (Andy Samberg) to the requisite tough-as-nails policeman (Terry Crews) and the father who is the exact opposite of his scientist son (James Caan). Though nowhere near as subtle or intriguing as the best of Pixar or Disney (it reveals the main villain in just a few minutes after the film's open), it's still a fun story that will keep the kids happy and won't bore their parents.

Beware, for El Pollo Diablo is coming... for you!

No, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 doesn't have the heart of The Croods, the witty dialogue of Monsters University or even the solid story structure of Turbo or Epic. When all is said and done, it probably will be less remembered than even the underwhelming Despicable Me 2, if only because Minions exist. But Cloudy 2 is still a lot of fun if you want to see something with your family this weekend, since Prisoners is absolutely not a kid-friendly option. If nothing else, it's a very nice option given the alternatives.

Justice for All

I know I might upset a lot of Academy Award voters with this statement, but here goes: I'm not that big a fan of Steven Spielberg.

Sure, his early stuff - Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind - are classics, and everybody who has seen his early thriller The Duel tells me that it's a movie I need to watch. But as good as Jurassic Park was, was it REALLY one of the best the year it was released? Are E.T. and Schindler's List REALLY among the best movies of all time? I say no. I believe Spielberg is one of the industry's more overrated directors, one with a certain amount of talent and an eye for the cinematic but lacking a consistent storytelling ability. Look at last year as an example; War Horse was a bloated, over-hyped mess that would have been shunned had anybody else been in the director's chair. Instead, it was nominated for Best Picture over more deserving fare such as Drive, Bridesmaids and even David Fincher's solid adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Spielberg's name can still move mountains, even if his movies more often move me to boredom. It's why I don't look forward to his products, even when they are Lincoln and feature the inimitable talents of Daniel Day-Lewis.

Ah, the days of smaller cabinets...

Based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography Team of Rivals, Lincoln focuses on one of the most crucial battles for our sixteenth US President, one that had (almost) nothing to do with the Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg has ended, and the disastrous Civil War is coming soon to a close. Lincoln (Day-Lewis) has just secured reelection, and makes it his priority to add an amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery. With public support at an all time high, now is the time to get the amendment ratified by Congress. But even with all his strength, he doesn't have the majority vote necessary to guarantee victory. And so Lincoln and his allies must convince his Democrat rivals that approving this measure is more important than petty political machinations.

As Jessica Rabbit's evil clone would say: "A Man!"

First and foremost, let's get the obvious statement out of the way: Daniel Day-Lewis is simply astounding. an almost guaranteed lock for this year's Best Actor categories, Day-Lewis does far more than simply emulate the recorded character of arguably our most revered President. As the stovepipe hat-wearing politician, the actor embodies Lincoln's persona, from his easy command of an audience to his sensitive compassion to his ability to speak on any given subject. That he does this convincingly comes as no true surprise; that it seems to arrive so easily is what makes Day-Lewis the outstanding performer he is. There isn't one moment in which he is on the screen that he does not demand your attention, respect and awe, and he also appears to garner those same responses from his erstwhile costars.

It was Mr. Booth, in the Theater, with the Revolver. I win!

But he doesn't have to carry the whole movie on his own back, as Day-Lewis is surrounded by some of the best actors Spielberg could cobble together. You can't fire a musket without hitting any of a number of talented character players, from David Oyelowo to Walton Goggins to Jared Harris to Lee Pace to the amazing Michael Stuhlbarg, and those are just the small cameo roles. Tommy Lee Jones, who had been regressing in the quality his performances the past few years, leaps back to relevance with his portrayal of Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens. His is an Oscar-worthy performance, a far cry from more Men in Black sequels. More strong performances come from David Strathairn, Hal Holbrook and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and it was obvious a lot of research went into making their relatively obscure characters as true to life as possible. Watchmen's Jackie Earle Haley manages to steal a few moments (opposite Day-Lewis, surprisingly) when he is allowed on screen, putting a much-appreciated face to the Confederate government. And some of my favorite moments in Lincoln involved the banter between John Hawkes and James Spader, playing Republican lobbyists tasked with garnering Democratic support for the amendment. Spader especially is one of the film's best additions. Certainly he's the most entertaining, and while his witty repartee won't likely be enough for Oscar considerations, I'm surprised he's not getting mentions in that regard.

No Oscar for you!

Of course, no Spielberg film is without significant drawbacks. Like most of his work, the director tends to spell everything out in no uncertain terms. Subtlety isn't his specialty, and he's not above using blatant humor, cliched situations and imagery, and telling rather than showing to get his point across. It's not as bad here as it was in War Horse, and the director is helped by his performers in not allowing these weaknesses to get too out of hand. One actor that doesn't really help him however is Sally Field, who plays Lincoln's mentally fragile wife, Mary Todd Lincoln. Spielberg has said that he only saw Field in the role, and that's likely what blinded him to the fact that her performance was typical of what we expect from the character. I frankly wasn't impressed; I've seen good Fields roles over the years, and this wasn't one of them. One scene in particular between Lincoln and his wife didn't quite fit, thanks to a decidedly theatrical take that I'm not entirely sure wasn't intentional. And Spielberg has issues with keeping all of his details straightforward. At times he uses subtitles to effectively introduce new characters or locations that we had only heard of before; at others he leaves us to our devices, confused as to the latest turn of events.

My favorite performer of the whole show.

Besides Day-Lewis and the mostly-amazing cast, what I liked most about Lincoln was the history behind it. For many audience members, this is the first we've heard of many of the details leading up to the ratification of the thirteenth constitutional amendment. The reasons behind each character's actions are closely scrutinized, and Spielberg actually does a good job of showing us both how things have changed in the last 150 years and how much they've remained the same, from the gullibility of the public to the divisiveness of Congress. Again, at times he makes things a bit TOO clear cut (especially with politicians perpetually shouting "What's next: black voters? WOMEN voters?" Yeah, we get it), but this is still likely the most authentic look at Lincoln's political career you're going to see on the big screen. The director's ability to capture a scene on camera is one of his greatest strengths, and likely the main reason he has maintained his foothold atop the Hollywood hierarchy after all this time.

I wonder if he has "Old Man" written on his business cards?

Despite my early reservations, Lincoln is a fine film, and one of the better historical dramas of the past decade. It's not perfect, and Spielberg's inability to get over his own hype slightly sabotages any chances of a Best Picture win. But Daniel Day-Lewis is more of a sure thing than anything else in theaters right now or at any time this year. This is a film that - warts and all - is worth watching for his performance alone. If you want to see a master at work - and really, who doesnt'? - then you simply must give Lincoln a shot. It's easily Spielberg's best film in two decades, and is a much better than most of his critics will ever admit.

I Don't Want to Talk about Time Travel

It's odd to comprehend that the scrawny kid from 3'rd Rock from the Sun is seriously a movie star. I can still picture young Tommy Solomon, with his shoulder-length hair and carefree attitude, stealing many a scene from his older, more experienced costars. Since then, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has practically exploded onto the movie scene. He has been exploring a wide variety of film roles, starring in indie flicks like (500) Days of Summer, 50/50 and Hesher, and also major blockbusters G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and the surprisingly good Premium Rush. But the film widely considered to have catapulted him to where he stands now is 2005's Brick, the neo-noir thriller and debut of director Rian Johnson for which Gordon-Levitt's performance was vastly praised. Seven years later, the actor reunites with his Brick director for the time-traveling thriller Looper, which sees Gordon-Levitt wearing some crazy prosthetics as a unique style of hit-man who is literally confronted by his future.

He's looking a little different...

In the not-too-distant future, crime and poverty have risen to stratospheric heights, and the corrupt government ensures that things won't change anytime soon. In thirty years time travel will be invented, immediately outlawed, and therefore operated by only the largest criminal organizations. Because trackers make disposing of murder victims practically impossible, anybody the mob wants removed is instead zipped into the past, to be disposed of by specially-chosen assassins, named Loopers, who can secretly murder these people and wipe clean of any evidence. It's no easy life of luxury, however, as letting a target escape is grounds for extreme termination. Eventually, Loopers are sent their future selves to "close the loop", paid a boatload of cash and get the next thirty years to live their lives. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper who rose from the filth of the streets to make a name for himself as one of the most reliable men in the business. All that changes when he is confronted by his future self (Bruce Willis), who catches Joe off guard and manages to escape, and seems to be on an unknowable mission. Now Joe, on the run from his organization, will do anything to take down his older self, but what is Old Joe's goal? And how does a telekinetic single mother (Emily Blunt) fit into the picture?

"Eyyyyyyy!"

Looper's story is brightened by multiple intricately-managed mysteries, which refuse to be rushed in this two-hour film. The balancing act appears to be Johnson's strength as a writer and director; never revealing even the tiniest details before the timing is absolutely right. Johnson also knows that not everything in the universe needs to be told in vast detail; there are several instances of seemingly important facts glossed over - for instance, that about ten percent of the population can for some reason move small items with their mind -  and the reason for that is there is a major difference between needing to know something and needing to know everything about it. We don't need to know exactly WHY or HOW people have this talent, but we DO need to know that they have it, and Johnson wisely gives us just that. The character growth of Joe is also something of a big deal, as he goes from self-absorbed sociopath to... something else. I won't go into further detail as to avoid spoilers, but Joe's path is one of the better character stories I've seen in film this year, right up there with Judge Anderson in Dredd and the leads in For a Good Time, Call... It helps to be portrayed by a wunderkind like Gordon-Levitt and an underrated performer in Willis, but it is Johnson's direction that ensures that we demand to follow Joe's journey from beginning to end.

Just saw the box office draw for The Cold Light of Day.

Unfortunately, that aforementioned lack of detail also leads to one of the few problems I had with Looper: the science. I like time travel stories, from  H.G. Wells to Doctor Who to The Terminator to any comic book reference (and there are many). But do you know what they all have in common? They have rules. Very elaborate rules. Going back in time and altering the past is usually portrayed as a big no-no in stories, most notably because it can cause a paradox that does serious damage to the future. In Marvel Comics and the recent Star Trek reboot, such things merely causes parallel time-lines that exist outside the accepted universe. Even in the Terminator and (admittedly not time time travel) Final Destination pictures, fighting to stop a tragic future is never really successful, as the universe tends to right itself and force those events to occur eventually. Nowhere in modern time travel lore does it say that you can alter the past on a whim and with no major repercussions, and the logic in the science appears tailored to the story Johnson wanted to tell rather than something the tale is built around. Looper does get around this by making sure none of its characters really understand how time travel works, and in the end it doesn't matter all that much. While a little more science wouldn't have hurt the overall story, neither does it's absence detract from the rest of the movie.

She can hold my gun anytime.

The movie's story is one of great characters, and Johnson puts together a stellar cast to patch the whole thing together. Great pains were taken to make Gordon-Levitt and Willis appear like versions of the other, and while Willis puts on one of his better Bruce Willis impersonations, Gordon-Levitt is masterful at representing Willis' younger self. Sure, the unnoticeable prosthetics he dons certainly play a part, but his ability to nuance himself into a role is all but unparalleled in the industry, making for one of the year's better genre performances. A supporting cast of the excellent Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Piper Perabo, Garret Dillahunt, and Noah Segran flesh out what is already a generous amount of narration, and Johnson shows a keen eye for talent in his selections of his actors. Blunt especially stretches far from her comfort zone, a welcome sight for an actress of such talent, but everyone here is wonderful as well. Each has an important role to play, and more than fill their requisite storytelling needs.

"Just a tip from the future: stay away from the brisket."

Looper has deep and human characters, a generous dose of humor, and one of the best-written morality plays I've seen in this or any other year. This is probably the best science fiction film I've seen in recent years, perhaps only a tick behind District 9 or Moon, even though its a movie that will likely appeal more to mainstream audiences than the hardcore sci-fi fans that will frequent it. The lack of scientific logic might seem like a serious step back from traditional sci-fi, but I'll take the bad science when I'm offered both great characters and a worthy story that keeps me hooked. The only question is where to place it in my Top 10 for the year, a place it surely deserves to be listed. For genre films, it's better than just about everything Marvel has put out (besides The Avengers, of course), and perhaps just a bit higher than Dredd. #5 for 2012 seems just about right. Gordon-Levitt keeps proving that he deserves to be a star, and with fare like this constantly appearing on his resume, I'll gladly allow it.

Ride Like Hell and Run Like You Stole Something

On my last day off from work, I had so much extra time that I decided to pull a two-fer at the movies. Sometimes I'll do this, especially when my schedule has no overly-burdensome tasks laid out for me and I've got nobody else with whom to share my time. And so today I'm going to talk about two VERY different movies, the bike messenger thriller (yes, you read that right) Premium Rush and the sci-fi drama Robot & Frank.

In Premium Rush, rising star Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Wilee, a thrill junkie of a NYC bicycle messenger, one of the many riding through the streets of the city (my own recent jaunt to the United States' most populous city did not witness any cyclists, but maybe it was an off week). Among his peers, Wilee is considered one of the best, and it's his reputation that gets him a premium rush job, transporting one envelope from a friend from one side of the city to the other quickly. But the package turns out to be a hot commodity, as Wilee finds himself dodging Chinese mafia, dirty cops, legit cops, and even rival bike messengers in a bid to get the package delivered on time.

"Why yes, I WAS that kid from 3'rd Rock!"

This is a huge year for Gordon-Levitt. After finally gaining mainstream acceptance with his role in 2010's Inception, he has been steadily raising his status as a Hollywood star, and 2012 looks to be his biggest year yet. He was a huge reason Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises was as good as it was, and he'll be following up Premium Rush with the sci-fi thriller Looper, which is one of my more anticipated sci-fi flicks this year. He also has a role (how large, I'm not sure) in Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, which is as big as a deal as it sounds. While his Wilee does come off as kind of a jackass at times, it's Gordon-Levitt's charm that ensures that we never get tired of his schtick. He's front and center most of the time, and his casual, take-no-shit attitude and his interactions with others are what makes him such an effective protagonist.

"What do you mean he's 'not Batman'?"

Surprisingly, for a film centering around such an obscure job this movie never feels out of place or far from your comfort zone. Replace the bike chases with car chases, and you've got your standard high-level action film ready for distribution. That might make it seem like Premium Rush is no different than anything else out there (and you'd be right), but that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing; the film packs all the excitement of your standard thrill-ride, simply replacing four wheels with two. The supporting cast seems to have been set up with this action pastiche in mind; with Dania Ramirez and Aasif Mandvi doing the best they can with limited character. Michael Shannon especially steps up, as his cliche dirty cop with a gambling problem would be a disaster in anybody else's hands. Director David Koepp's biggest coup was casting the former Academy Award nominee in the role, which benefits from his experience and ability to command a scene effortlessly.

Out-riding all his newfound glory.

Anyone expecting Premium Rush to have more brains than it does is bound to be disappointed. The biggest surprise is that for an action piece with no emotional commitment, it's a lot more fun than it really has any right to be. You might want to overlook this movie (and as it made very little opening weekend, a lot of people did just that), but for a mindless action flick this one is actually clever enough to make the cut. It might not be Top 10 material, but it's still a lot of fun.

The next title required me to head to the oft-cited Coolidge Corner Theater. The story of Robot & Frank definitely struck me as a peculiarly odd, but somehow ingenious concept. Set in the near future, it stars Frank Langella as Frank, a mentally-afflicted father and former cat burglar who has strained relationships with his children. When his son (James Marsden) brings him a robot butler (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) to help keep his life in order and remain healthy, Frank is at first distrustful of having the thing around the house, but slowly begins to accept Robot's help. This comes to a head when he discovers that his new companion has no protocol that says that stealing is wrong, prompting Frank to plan a major heist to strike at the rich folk who he believes don't deserve their vast wealth.

On the surface, Robot & Frank has a lot going for it; a great cast (which also includes Susan Sarandon, Liv Tyler and Jeremy Sisto), an interesting hook, and some clever societal statements made it one of the smarter-looking movies this year. And for the most part, that is the correct assumption. Clever in a completely different way than Premium Rush could ever have hoped, this movie is more of an actor's film, with the characters guiding film in a way you don't see much anymore. The acting is all excellent, especially Langella, who might be Oscar baiting if the film can gather any traction beyond the science fiction crowd. If Sam Rockwell's under-loved role in Moon is any indication however, the Academy won't be giving this sci-fi movie any credit anytime soon. That's a shame for both Langella and Sarsgaard, who once again provides the kind of excellent performance we now expect from him. Together, they create a nice one-two punch and are one of the better pairs I've seen in 2012.

Two of the best performances you'll see this year.

Unfortunately, the film's slow and inconsistent pacing make many a scene less interesting than the film as a whole. While we get to experience the budding friendship between our two leads, director Jake Schreier does so at the expense of many of the other characters, most notably Sarandon's librarian who befriends Frank only to be cut from most of the main story. While the story as a whole is solid, and at times a ton of fun, there is a lot of evidence that Schreier is - for good or bad -  the first-time director that he is.

Guess who wishes Liv Tyler was elsewhere right now?

Still, Robot & Frank has a lot of charisma in its bones, and the story and characters combine for a fun if not perfect time at the movies. If it comes to a theater near you, it's a solid option as a smart, funny, and clever film. Langella and Sarsgaard are well worth the effort, and even if you somehow miss this small gem, definitely take the time to see it on DVD when it's available.

Darkness Falls

I've been on more or less a hiatus the past two  weeks. A busy work schedule, not to mention plain old fatigue, has been gnawing on me, and between that and the string of blah releases recently the result I'm afraid has been me been neglecting Hello Mr. Anderson and my readers. Still, I couldn't imagine a better return to the site than reviewing possibly the most anticipated movie of the summer, The Dark Knight Rises. The finale to Christopher Nolan's take on the caped crusader has certainly earned it's "epic" label: at 165 minutes, it is the longest of his Batman trilogy, and borrows extensively from the comic book character's mythology in the formation of its story. In this third installment, the director took pages from one of the Batman's all-time great stories, 'Knightfall', which chronicled a hero driven to the point of both physical and mental exhaustion before being broken entirely. With Marvel having dominated the comic book film wars the past few years - Iron Man, Thor and of course The Avengers performing more impressively than DC's Superman Returns, Jonah Hex and Green Lantern - Nolan's films have been a light of hope for the company to somehow find their way back to the quality of storytelling for which they were once known. We're a long way from the "Bat-Nipple" sham that was Batman & Robin, and I was certainly of a mood to see this movie after spending this last weekend in the REAL inspiration for Gotham City, good old NYC.

You guessed it: he's Batman.

Set eight years after accepting the blame for the death of District Attorney Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, Batman has retired his cape and cowl. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has lived in seclusion, avoiding any public appearances both due to the physical trauma his body endured in his battle with Two Face and the Joker and his emotional instability following the death of childhood friend and former romantic interest Rachel Dawes. Gotham has enjoyed a modern Renaissance, with Dent's legacy ensuring that the city is free of the organized crime that had crippled its peace and prosperity in the previous decades. That all begins to change with the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy), a brilliant, mysterious and deadly mercenary who has Gotham set in his sights, to bring chaos in his wake. What is Bane after? Why has cat burgler Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) targeted Bruce Wayne? And how are Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows involved? It's no wonder the thing stretches out to nearly three hours, as Nolan definitely needed that time to tell the whole story.

You'll wake up to an empty apartment... but it will be worth it.

This was to be the big one. The Dark Knight Rises was going to be bigger, more explosive and exciting than Marvel's The Avengers, being the end of Nolan and Bale's involvement with the storied franchise. It was far and away the most anticipated movie of the year for most people. Naturally this is where you start to pick up that The Dark Knight fails to live up to those impossibly high standards you have set. It's not so much that Nolan does anything particularly WRONG, not really. But there were several curious decisions made that - while not making TDKR as disappointing as Prometheus - seriously hinder the film's narrative flow. The movie starts off exciting with the introductions of Hardy's Bane and Hathaway's Catwoman, two major characters in the Batman universe who benefit from the amazingly talented actors who portray them. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable, has turned himself into a force of nature, and Hathaway masters all the angles of Selina Kyle, from her natural seductiveness to her brilliant strategic mind to her physical prowess. We even get to see a different side of Bruce Wayne, one that has been seriously affected by the battles and losses in his life. For Bale, it might not be as impressive as his turn in The Fighter, but his ability to invest himself fully into a role is nothing if not impeccable. And Nolan has always had a talent for drawing a lot of emotion out of his audiences with stellar visuals and explosive action.

Sure, he's not quite like the comic character, but Hardy's Bane is one of the best villains this year.

Unfortunately, even Nolan can't keep it up in a three-hour film, and when the film inevitably slows down for excessive plot exposition, you start to notice all the things that are wrong with The Dark Knight Rises. Like how Catwoman, despite her and Hathaway's many talents, still turns out to be kind of a one-dimensional character. Or Bane's ending, which is about as anti-climactic as one can get. Or Alfred's (Michael Caine) actions, which would never have happened in the comics. Or how Nolan ceases to focus on Batman for stretches at a time, turning the movie into the John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) show. They're great actors and do wonderful jobs, but the last time I checked the protagonist was supposed to be Bruce Wayne, not some orphan cop. Or hey, remember when the villain conspired to use a Waynetech invention to actually destroy Gotham City in Batman Begins? Well, expect to see that again! Or Batman's steadfast refusal to use guns, while having no qualms about using the machine guns and missiles on his new "Bat" flyer late in the film. Or how there's no reference to the Joker, who contrary to the first law of Batman movies did NOT die at the end of The Dark Knight? I understand that nobody can replace Heath Ledger's Joker at this point but I don't need an actor in makeup, just some sort of sign that he was loose in Gotham as all the craziness was going down. Or the film's surprising predictability. Don't even get me STARTED on Marion Cotillard's character. And that ENDING...!

This guy gets more attention than Batman...

One of the biggest complaints you will hear about films based on comic book characters is that you can't fully get into the story unless you already know all about the character in question. That has at least been partially true of Marvel's recent efforts, especially for The Avengers, which did have some moments that might have been confusing if you hadn't seen any of its predecessors. The irony of The Dark Knight Rises is that newcomers to the franchise will handily be able to follow along whether or not they've read the comic, so long as they've at least seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Even marginal Batman fans, however, may find themselves frothing at the mouth with all the liberties Christopher Nolan has taken with Gotham's favored son. At it's best, The Dark Knight Rises is a fun, exciting and entertaining thrill-ride with enough action, character development and intrigue to overcome its most glaring faults. It's the little things that will dig into your fun at the theater however, and there is no moment like that one Avengers scene of the collected heroes preparing for battle that will make you cheer and clap your hands in pure joy and exhilaration. TDKR is not that kind of movie, and doesn't try to be. Nolan's Batman is a character mired in darkness, ultimately alone in the battle against injustice. It's unquestionably his creation, and I'll say it's good enough to be the #9 film of 2012. That it could have - and perhaps SHOULD HAVE - been so much better is a shame, but Nolan's successes far outweigh his failures. His Batman epic, though now over, will be remembered as one of the best superhero series of all time, if not THE best. It's too bad it didn't finish better, but perhaps this was the ending Nolan's trilogy needed, if not necessarily the one it deserved.

Dancing lessons have since been cancelled.

Whole, Not Half and Half

If I were to put together a list of the movies I was most anticipating this fall, it would not be a long one. Sure, there are the big budget blockbusters that are certain to entertain, such as the remake of The Thing, or the mythological warfare film The Immortals. But most of the high-class movies vying for potential award nominations are not making the compelling argument that they deserve to be seen, as I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to Martha Marcy May Marlene, Anonymous, Like Crazy, The Rum Diary, J Edgar, Melancholia, and The Descendants. There will be bad movies as well, many of which I will be readily avoiding like the plague. Even those that fall in the middle are no sure thing, and many I'll see not because they demand attention, but because they're all that is. 50/50 was definitely a film that fell in that category, a dramedy focusing on possibly the most unfunny topic out there. Sure, it sports a cast that was itself 50/50, including the excellent Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Academy Award nominee Anna Kendrick yet the film also harbors the eyeroll-inducing Seth Rogen in a major supporting role. Sure, played right this could have been among the best films of the year but come on; SETH ROGEN!! Sure, he can occasionally be a positive influence in good films, such as his non-corporeal role in this year's Paul, but I still had a hard time believing that he would do anything besides drag a title like this one down from its full potential.

"And how does starring in a film with Seth Rogen make you feel?"

Adam's (Gordon-Levitt) life is fairly steady. He's got a steady job, a steady girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), a best friend who cares for him (Rogen) and he exercises regularly. Overall things are just fine. But Adam's latest doctor visit has forced his life down an unexpected road, as he learns he has a rare form of aggressive spinal cancer. With odds of surviving the disease 50/50, Adam's life and relationships quickly unravel as he struggles to exist in this new, barely survivable phase of his life. He finds no solace in his friends and family and depressed about his chances of still being here when all is said and done.

This is what we call "Bad Idea #1"

50/50 is not your typical "cancer flick", most notably because it's not entirely fiction. The film was in fact based on the real-life crisis of screenwriter Will Reiser, who was similarly diagnosed in his early twenties. Reiser obviously takes liberally from his own experiences, from chemotherapy sessions to the intensity that such a disease brings to the relationships between the afflicted and their family and friends. This isn't an overly sappy sob-fest or an inspirational tour de force, but a story told straight without need of epic dramatic flourishes. There are a few glossed-over or ommitted details (how many chemo patinets keep their eyebrows in real life, I wonder?), it still manages to get most right. There's something raw and stripped down about this, and it makes for a more compelling dialogue about life and living. We are told, and we believe, that having cancer is more than enough of a plot to follow.

Three cheers for medicinal marijuana!

Of course it doesn't hurt the telling when you've got the best cast available for the job. While I'm sure James McAvoy would have been great in the lead role (it was his before he had to back out for personal reasons), but it's difficult now to envision anyone besides Gordon-Levitt and his swiftly-rising star as the courageous and ever-shifting Adam. Adam has to cover a lot of ground as a character, not only affected by his condition but by the changing world around him. Gordon-Levitt is uniquely suited to this task, as he can convey more dialogue to the audience merely by his facial expressions and body language than most people can do by speaking aloud. It's a shame 50/50's somewhat juvenile nature will probably prevent it from attaining top tier status, as there was enough here I thought to make an argument for this fine performer as the year's best actor. The crew around him are no slouches however, as director Jonathan Levine shows that he really knew what he was doing putting this group together. Anna Kendrick once again stuns as Adam's student therapist, drawing amusement from the audience as she stumbles through emotional hoops to try and break through Adam's defenses. This may not be a far cry from her breakthrough role of the young Natalie Keener in Up in the Air, but since she's still charming enough to be cute and new enough for the acting to not be old hat, it works perfectly. Bryce Dallas Howard gives us yet another reason not to like her, though in this case it's because she's so good as making us hate her character, Adam's emotionally-distant girlfriend Rachael. It's only a small role, but the daughter of director Ron proves that she can be used effectively in the correct roles, usually the smaller the better. Furthermore, Anjelica Huston is both amazing and almost unrecognizable as Adam's mother Diane, an overly-emotive and smothering matriarch who was already dealing with her husband's Alzheimer's problems. This is one of the characters revered by the filmmakers, as the dynamic of Diane's and Adam's relationship throughout is one of two that are pivotal. The other is the one between Adam and his best friend Kyle. I'm shocked to be saying this twice in one year, but Rogen proves to be compelling and fun to watch unlike ever before. Though 90% of his performance is just like everything you've seen before from him, there is a certain otherness and honesty to his work here. It probably stems from experience: Rogen played much the same character in real life when Reiser was diagnosed. The result is an above average performance and a cast in which even the most likely flaw emerges clean and sparkling.

Gordon-Levitt's eyebrows are saying "Get the hell out"

After enjoying the movie as a whole for the first 80 minutes, something strange happened. It's often said that I am emotional and cry at the drop of a hat, but I don't believe I've ever broken down and cried while watching a movie in the theater before. The sheer emotion of the film's final moments are almost too much to bear however, and I'm certain most people would have reacted in the same manner. 50/50 is a completely honest, sometimes brutal and thankfully uplifting tale in which we are told that sometimes the best moments of our lives might be brought on by our worst disasters. For a movie I wasn't even sure I wanted to watch, it was quite a surprise to clock it in at #3 for 2011. That might seem a little low, even to me, but the line dividing 50/50, Drive and Moneyball is so thin that any of them could be the top movie this year. With a weak-looking winter field ahead, there's a good chance that these three could still be the top three come January. Until then, they're all must-sees and each worth the price however you invite them inside.

Bang Your Head

San Diego's Comic-Con International is naturally a big deal for fans of comic books. Heck, the whole thing began because comic fans wanted to get together and meet big names in the industry. That's what fandom is, and few conventions have expanded as much as Comic-Con since it's inception in 1970. For years, new television shows have also had an impact, as many potential fans learn of shows like Heroes and The Walking Dead first through the previews and panels at Comic-Con. It was only natural progression for the film industry to get in on the act, and many major releases over the years have appeared there. At 2010's Comic-Con ALONE, there were announcements for forthcoming films Captain America, Green Lantern and 2012's The Avengers, and preview trailers for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Tron: Legacy and Machete, among others. One that might have flown under a few radars (but not under mine) was the recently-released Hesher, produced by Natalie Portman and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Though it's heavy-metal influence wouldn't seem to fit with the comic book crowd (and to be fair, it really didn't), the transformation of Gordon-Levitt into a chain-smoking, crude malcontent seemed too off the wall to discredit, and the strength of the scene previewed for attendees was surprisingly good thanks to his stellar acting. A year later, Hesher finally made its way into theaters. Though it came out nearly two weeks ago, I had pushed it down my list of must-sees, behind more popular fare Bridesmaids, Priest and Everything Must Go. With very few visitors to see this film however, I knew I had to make room for it in my schedule before it was booted from theaters, and so I caught a recent showing (with a larger than expected audience; no theater will ever be as empty as my showing of The Warrior's Way) with no expectations other than a great performance from the leading man. I just didn't know if that would be enough.

Seriously, that's the kid from 3'rd Rock from the Sun. Fear him.

After his mother dies in a car accident, T.J. Forney (Devin Brochu) is deeply depressed and plain sick of the world. He and his father Paul (RainnWilson) now live with Paul's mother Madeline (Piper Laurie) and go to grief counseling, but don't seem to be making any progress. T.J. develops a crush on a supermarket checkout clerk named Nicole (Portman) after she rescues him from a bully, but isn't sure how to approach her. That changes when T.J. meets Hesher (Gordon-Levitt), a homeless, troubled and mean-spirited youth who ends up living in the family's garage, with T.J. and his father so depressed they are unwilling to remove him. Hesher soon becomes an integral part of their lives, helping (in his own way) with their various issues and putting them down the road to recovery.

Hesher manages to keep his shirt on a total of about ten minutes

This film basically lives and breathes on the basis of Gordon-Levitt's performance. Having made a name for himself playing non-violent, almost nerdy characters, his performance here is nothing short of miraculous, only cementing his incredible talents as an actor. Hesher is rude, crude and foul-mouthed, and everything that he says is comical carnage, laying out an entire theater with laughter. Even in the film's later stages, when the script forces him to be more sensitive and honest, he's still a comic hoot, and I never expected to laugh so much during this film. Gordon-Levitt simply becomes so entrenched in the character that he completely melts into the role. Hesher is the number one reason to see this film, bar none. Since the story is told from T.J.'s perspective, Brochu needed to be a solid talent to handle the film's narrative, and he vaults this low bar easily enough. Having to play against Hesher's mouth, T.J. is a much more silent character, having to express much of his dialogue through unspoken emotions. Though there are a few obvious crocodile tears involved, he manages that part of the job okay. It's the few chances he gets to speak where Brochu really shines through, especially in arguments with Gordon-Levitt or Wilson. Wilson at first doesn't do a lot as Paul, T.J.'s father, but sit around on the couch and look depressed; he does such a good job doing it that you really connect when he starts to snap out of it in the film's later acts. Wilson is like many actors who are best suited to these types of secondary roles, and a strong post-Office career seems secure in that vein. Portman plays the only "normal" character in the film, her role a good bounce-off for T.J.'s silent depression and Hesher's insanity. Sadly, that's all the purpose Nicole has, as she doesn't have much to do with the film's long-term implications. Finally, Piper Laurie is second only to Hesher in laughs department as T.J.'s senile grandmother who adapts best to Hesher's appearance in her home. Some of the best scenes feature both Hesher and Madeline, especially at the family dinners.

Yes, Natalie Portman is in YET another 2011 film... not that I'm complaining

The script is hilarious, but it does run into some problems. Written by director Spencer Susser, the film spends far too much time not doing anything while reveling in its silliness. The film's first half almost seems to be a Hesher tutorial to get you acclimated with the few details you NEED to know while supplying laughs to the audience in abundance. The second half ramps up the purpose, but also ramps up the cheese and melodramatics to a point that is almost painful to take in. Everybody reconciles with everybody else and Hesher unsurprisingly is the reason for all of that, but I would have liked a less traditional storytelling formula used for such unique characters. Also, Hesher's character often goes bat-shit crazy, almost scaring of the fans that he'd cultivated to that point. Thankfully the humor never lets up; the dialogue and Hesher's ability to appear seemingly from thin air drive the film to be so much more than the sum of its parts.

This is pretty much the mentality we should all have

I really didn't know what to expect from Hesher, which is why I put it off seeing it for so long. I'm glad I did finally see it, however, as the insane humor, great characters and good if not great story were more than I could have ever imagined from a novice director and a metal soundtrack that might not be my preferred musical genre. Hesher comes in at #9 for 2011; it's not P.C., its not polite and your parents might look at you funny for liking it, but it's still a lot of fun if you just sit back and allow the talents present to take you to places you didn't think you'd ever appreciate.

Spoiler Alert!

It's about dreams.

Okay, it's actually a whole lot more than dreams, but to be completely honest, I'm not sure how much I can say about Christopher Nolan's latest piece of art, Inception, without giving away any of the plot devices, spoilers, twists, turns or character development that the trailers were quite careful not to give away (unusual for a big-budget Hollywood flick). It's quite the conundrum, wanting to write a thousand-word review without saying anything revealing..

And so I've come up with a compromise. See Inception. That's all I can say right now, all I SHOULD need to say right now. If I can't talk about the movie without giving it away to those of you who HAVEN'T seen it, and it it's an excellent enough movie that I don't want to spoil it for you, then I suggest you see the movie, come back, and we can continue with this conversation.

Enjoy!

Are you still there? Or have you come back? Well, then... (clears throat)

!!!SPOILERS WARNING!!!

(Just to make sure you were paying attention)

Anyone who knows me realizes that I have had, and still do have, problems with Leonardo DiCaprio. I know, he gets touted as Hollywood royalty, and no I haven't seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape which was supposed to be his early-days best film, but I never got into his movies. For years, I would justify these feelings with how bad his movies were (The Beach) or how he was constantly being overshadowed by his supporting actors when they simply out-acted him (Gangs of New York). And of course nobody talks about his performance in Titanic (except perhaps to ridicule it). So for years I remained unimpressed by this so-called wunderkind while others flocked to rightfully steal his thunder and shove themselves into spotlights which before might have been reserved for Leo.

Then came The Aviator.

The Howard Hughes biopic, while not a perfect film, was up to that point owner of the finest Dicaprio performance to date, with the actor almost flawlessly stepping ton Hughes' loafers, portraying the industry magnate with a fiery energy almost unseen in his career. Of course, one movie makes not a career, and only time would tell whether this had been a fluke or if he was truly beginning to "get it." The latter seems to be the case, since after The Aviator, Leo has starred in several notable films with nary a blotch inbetween. With The Departed, Revolutionary Road, and Shutter Island, DiCaprio finally seems to be living up to his potential as a performer (and, though the Academy didn't agree, actually deserved an Oscar nomination for his role in Revolutionary Road). It remains to be seen if he can keep it up but for now I don't have the dread feeling of impending failure when I see he's headlining a film these days.

And so I was actually excited to see Inception, the latest mind-fuck by Christopher Nolan (the man who made Batman cool again), but not just for Leo. Inception boasts a strong cast, with up-and-comers Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy and Ellen Page, and veteran performers Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Pete Postlethwaite flanking DiCaprio. It was like Nolan got his shopping list out and grabbed every great actor he wanted, no fuss no muss. As the writer, writer, and producer of the film, Nolan took what could have easily been a glorified Matrix rip-off and instead produced a fine piece of filmmaking, creating what might be one of the better films this decade, let alone this year.

You might think that last bit was a little bit of hyperbole, but I honestly think this film is too smart, too clever, too GOOD to end up on the wayside. I once thought Nolan would be remembered for reviving the Batman franchise, but I'm confident that he'll be to this movie what the Wachowski Brothers are to The Matrix. What makes Inception different from the superhero-like Matrix, however, is it's genre. It's a heist film, and a giddy heist film at that, but one that, unlike most such films, also has emotional stakes which drive the movie forward, in addition to the genre's standard practices. As Cobb, the group's leader, DiCaprio had to be that character who's doing what he can with what he knows to recover from his wife's death and be able to return home to his children. That, more than the dream scenarios or fantastic effects, are what drive the film forward, and Leo handles the role with a talent I honestly didn't know he had ten years ago. You see the pain in his eyes, the tiredness and wanting to go home, to somehow redeem himself for the guilt he feels he put on himself.

And let's not forget the rest of the cast, who put on something of a clinic themselves. Gordon-Levitt has gone from indie favorite to rock star in his role as DiCaprio's partner in crime Arthur, a man so bodily beaten in this film it's surprising he can still stand at the end. Whoever's running Ellen Page's career deserves major kudos as well, as the in-her-prime Canadian actress once again wows and dominates most of the scenes she's in. Those she doesn't steal are pretty much in the hands of Hardy, whose suave forger (who can imitate other characters in dreams) always has the perfect quip to suit the occasion. He also becomes one of the ones to root for in the film's closing moments, led only by Arthur. Cotillard may be the best, vacillating between the loving wife DiCaprio remembers and the scorned personification of his guilt as she foils his jobs. Not as much is seen of Watanabe or Murphy, but both put on the respectable performances they are known to be capable of. Rarely do you see this level of talent in an ensemble cast, and nobody mixes poorly with the others, proving Nolan cast this piece well.

One of Inception's best qualities is that Nolan does his best to eschew the idea of shoving CGI graphics into any part of the film that is difficult to shoot. While CGI was necessary to add to create some of the more outlandish sequences in the dream worlds (including the "folding earth" moment shown in the trailer) some of the movie's more famous scenes were done in real time, with multiple cameras catching the action simultaneousy. Some of these, like the infamous exploding Paris bistro scene with Dicaprio and Page, or the rotating hallway fight involving Gordon-Lovitt, were done without CGI in very tricky shots that any other director might have done entirely using computers. The only instance where this hurts is in the very beginning of the film, where Watanabe's old-man prosthetics look extremely fake and haggard, but that's a minor quibble. Thankfully, Nolan's old-school attitude made sure that no fake-looking CGI ruled the day, and his extraordinary directorial talents made sure the scenes looked fantastic.

(Okay, even if you didn't take it seriously before, SPOILER WARNING!!)

With a story that cuts deep and manages to surprise, Nolan has brought us a film that hopefully will be remembered years from now as a modern classic. But is is truly over? I've heard more than one viewer wondering aloud about the ending of the film, which keeps the idea open that Cobb may not have woken up and may be still in fact dreaming. My opinion is, whether yes or no, it doesn't matter. Cobb's journey was to accept the circumstances that led to his wife's death, nothing more. Whether he's really awake or stuck in a dream, his guilt is assuaged, and he can once again be happy. And that's what this last job has really been about. It was never about the idea of actually pulling off inception, but about redeeming himself, to himself, stopping his self-sabotage and being able to go home again one day.

And if you're happy, who are others to say whether it's real?