My Secret Shames: Vertigo

So, yes, up until a couple weeks ago, I had never seen Vertigo, Alfred Hitchcock's most acclaimed piece of work.  I don't have a good excuse, I just never got around to it.  Truth be told, I never had a nagging desire to see it.

That all changed a few weeks back when Sight and Sound magazine released their latest poll, which ranked Vertigo number one.  For those that don't know, Sight and Sound conducts a poll of film critics every ten years to rank the greatest movies of all time.  In the last five polls -- that is since 1952 -- the top spot had been taken by Citizen Kane.  However, this year, Kane was overtaken by Hitchcock.

Needless to say, this had me intrigued.  I immediately decided to make this movie the subject of my inaugural "My Secret Shames" post on this blog.  I know what you're thinking...that's an incredible honor.

In Theaters: Safety Not Guaranteed ***

As I sit down to write this review, I'm stumped.  Perhaps its the shoulder surgery I had a few days after seeing this movie that has, at once, blocked my memory of it and rendered me too mushy in the head to write a cognizable review.  But, alas, today is the first day since my surgery I've been able to sit and comfortably type at a computer, so damned if I'm going to waste it.

Random Movie List: Ranking Christopher Nolan's Movies

This year has marked the conclusion of Christopher Nolan's heralded Batman trilogy.  In addition, I think it's safe to say that it has marked an end of an era for Nolan himself.  While his career thus far has been more or less defined by the success of his take on the Caped Crusader, his overall record over the last decade or so has been nothing short of astounding.  

I don't think there's ever been a filmmaker who began his career with so many consecutive successes, both critically and commercially.  There are surely examples of filmmakers who made art-house or independent movies that had better track records.  But, in terms of both audience appeal and love from the critics, Nolan is in an elite class.

All in all, he has directed seven feature films -- eight if you count Following, which I don't.  I'm leaving Following off the list for no good reason other than I haven't seen the whole thing.  I keep starting it (it's streamable on Netflix) late at night and have fallen asleep, which is more of a commentary on my ability to stay awake than on the movie itself.  Other than that, it doesn't count simply because it was never really released in any real form other than to show people what Nolan did before he became famous.  Yet, even that's a crappy reason for not including it.  

I'm just not counting Following, okay?  I don't have a good reason.  

So...where was I?  Seven feature films directed by Christopher Nolan.  I will do my best to rank them here.  One thing to keep in mind: I hold all of these movies -- almost all of them anyway -- in very high regard.  Nolan is simply an incredible filmmaker and a master storyteller.  Those that appear lower on the list are all high-quality films, they're just low on Nolan's list.  They'd probably be near the top of a list ranking the works of virtually any of Nolan's contemporaries.  

In Theaters: Beasts of the Southern Wild ****

I recently took part in an email chain wherein we discussed the relative importance of world-building versus character development.  Needless to say, this discussion didn't reach a resolution as it would be impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on that point.  Now, having just looked over that chain of messages again, I realize that it wasn't much of a debate, just a few offhand musings.  Still, as I sat down to write a review of the latest indie-film sensation, Beasts of the Southern Wild, the idea of that conversation crept back into my mind.

What element is most important in storytelling, the characters being portrayed or the world they inhabit?  I won't be presumptuous enough to try to answer that question.  All I'll say is that, in this particular movie, they're of equal importance.

Writer-director Behn Zeitlin (you haven't heard of him, but you will) managed to create a world that is, at once, familiar and entirely unique.  And, in that world, he places two of strongest and most distinct characters depicted in recent film.  The result is, in my opinion, the best movie of 2012 so far.

In Theaters: Your Sister's Sister ***

There's not a lot to say about Your Sister's Sister.  It's a simple, little indie movie without a lot of story going on.  With one exception -- near the end -- the movie isn't artificially plot-driven.  In fact, there's really nothing about this movie that feels artificial.  And, that's its appeal.

The movie opens on a memorial service one year after the death of Jack's (Mark Duplass) brother.  Jack, obviously having difficulty dealing with conflicting emotions about his brother, goes to great lengths to remind the gathered friends that his brother wasn't always such a nice guy.  Jack's best friend Iris (Emily Blunt) -- who, incidentally, dated Jack's brother at some point before he died -- offers her assistance by giving Jack access to her father's cabin for the weekend.

So, Jack takes a ferry and makes his way to the cabin, only to find it occupied by Iris's sister Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt).  After a humorous meeting involving underwear and a weaponized oar, Jack and Hannah figure out the confusion and settle in for a quiet weekend spent on opposite sides of the cabin.

Unable to sleep, Jack and Hannah eventually sit down together to commiserate about each other's problems.  Hannah, it seems, has just recently left her girlfriend of many years and...well...you know Jack's problems.  After several drinks, the two of them decide, as is often the case in movies such as this, that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have sex.  After all, Hannah's a lesbian, so there's no chance of emotional attachment, and Jack's not attached to anyone.  They awake the morning after their drunken encounter to the sound of Iris coming into the house.

Jack, at first, is nervous, though it's not clear why.  Iris isn't his girlfriend and, once again, there's no chance of romantic entanglement.  The situation is odd, but not fatal.  Later, after learning some important information, Hannah shares Jack's fears.  What follows is a character study of three people in an awkward situation sharing a cabin.  It's not flashy, it's just very well done.

In Theaters: The Dark Knight Rises ***1/2

The Dark Knight about four years ago, virtually everyone on the planet has been eagerly anticipating the next entry in Christopher Nolan's Batman saga.  The only thing exceeding our anticipation was our expectations.  After all, given Nolan's track record and the brilliance of the first two films, we've all been certain from the outset that the third -- and what is purportedly the final -- act in the trilogy was going to blow us away.

But, what if it didn't?  What if it fell victim to the Third-Movie-in-a-Super-Hero-Series Curse and just stunk up the place?  Between the tradition of franchise-ruining third entries and the law of averages suggesting that Nolan is due for a misfire, there was a lot going against The Dark Knight Rises.  And, honestly, when the first few trailers started rolling out, I, personally, started to feel like maybe the just wasn't going to be as good as we all hoped/needed it to be.

If you haven't seen the movie in the first two days, you'll be happy to know that my fears were misplaced.  This is a very good movie.  It left me riveted, fascinated, and anxious to go out and see it again.  But, that doesn't mean it's flawless.

Rather than catalog all the little problems with this movie, I'll just lump them into one big problem: the first hour.  The first sixty minutes or so of the movie are, for lack of a better word, dumb.  Another good descriptor for the initial hour would be sloppy.

In Theaters: The Amazing Spider-Man **1/2

I know that this review is a little late in the game, so I'll dispense with the general thoughts that everyone has expressed about this movie.  Yes, it's weird that they're making a Spider-Man reboot so soon after the last entry in the franchise.  And, yes, I know it was for contract reasons that they did so. Yes, this movie is better than Spider-Man 3, but, no, it's not as good as Spider-Man 2.  

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'll sum up my feelings about The Amazing Spider-Man:  Meh.

As the story goes, this was a movie that had to get made in order for Sony to maintain the film rights to the Spider-Man franchise.  According to the rumors that I've heard but am too lazy to verify at the moment, they decided to go with a reboot because principals in the previous trilogy -- Sam Raimi, the director, and Tobey Maguire, the star -- wanted too much money.

And, that's what this movie feels like: a movie made just for the money.  They needed to make a Spider-Man movie, so they cranked one out.  There's none of the affection for the characters and passion for the story that permeated the other Spider-Man movies.  Indeed, even when they were terrible -- and Spider-Man 3 was pretty terrible -- you got the sense that everyone from the writers to the director to the stars put some effort into what they were doing.  Aside from the special effects, this movie just felt lazy.

We all know the Spider-Man origin story.  Peter Parker (played in this incarnation by Andrew Garfield), a high school nerd being raised by his aunt and uncle, gets bitten by a radioactive spider and wakes up with all kinds of spidery super powers.  The twist this time around is that, in the back-story, Peter remembers his parents and their mysterious disappearance.  And, as it turns out, his father was a scientist whose work led directly to the creation of the aforementioned super spider.  In fact, Father Parker was a an employee of Oscorp (ooh...Green Goblin...ooh sequel foreshadowing) and it's in his quest to find out what happened to his parents that Peter wanders into the labs at Oscorp and crosses paths with the Arachnid of Destiny (TM).

It's also where he meets Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), his father's one-armed former partner.  Connors is working to find a way to splice lizard DNA with other species in order to give them the power to regrow limbs...did I mention that he only has one arm?  As it turns out, Peter's father had been working on the missing equation to this hazardous undertaking, and it appears to be the reason for his sudden disappearance.  Unbeknownst to Peter (but knownst to us) Connors was involved in that whole rigamorole

Through a series of events, Peter ends up giving Connors the equation and the good doctor ends up injecting himself with lizard DNA and it eventually overtakes him and turns him into the giant reptilian thingy Spider-Man fans call The Lizard.  Those that are familiar with the comic books will tell you that The Lizard is awesome...in the comic books.  Here, not so much.  More on that in a minute.

As you might expect, the central conflict of the movie is between Spider-Man and The Lizard.  Oh yeah, in addition to turning him into a giant dinosaur, the lizard DNA makes Connors crazy.  That's why they're fighting.

So, why didn't I like this movie more?  I think it has to start with Garfield.  I've enjoyed his work in previous movies, but he just seems miscast here.  He's awkward and really seems out of place the whole time.  Now, I get that Peter Parker is a nerd, he's also insecure and dealing with a lot of anger issues, so awkwardness is to be expected.  But, there's teen-angsty awkwardness and drunk nine-year-old awkwardness and, far too often, Garfield seems like he's going for the latter.  I'm probably being a little too hard on him...it's not terrible, it just didn't do it for me.

Then, there's Ifans playing the villain.  Ifans is a great character actor, but there's a reason why he's never been the lead in a major movie before: he's just not charismatic enough to keep people interested.  Like Garfield, he doesn't entirely botch the role, he's just utterly forgettable, which is a problem for a villain in a comic book movie.

The visual rendering of The Lizard is fantastic.  It's a truly terrifying creation.  But, then, the creature starts talking, rambling in Ifans boring voice.  In every one of those moments, any momentum built by the well-choreographed action scenes and the superb special effects is washed away.

And, of course, we can't not mention Emma Stone's portrayal of Gwen Stacy, Peter's eventual girlfriend.  Stone is a fine actress, with impeccable grace and timing.  Indeed, she's almost always fun to watch, and she's put to mostly good use here.  Any Gwen-related failings are the fault of the script.  Don't get me started on her dual role as high-school crush and high-ranking staffer at Oscorps labs.  I can suspend disbelief when it comes to super heroes with mutant powers, but I can't for a second accept that a teenager would have access to every area of a lab controlled by super villains.

Anyway, moving on...

For the most part, The Amazing Spider-Man has been looked at as the forgotten super hero movie sandwiched between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.  That's a pretty fair assessment, I'd say.  It's not bad, it's just not good enough to care about.