Best of 2013: Honorable Mentions

Well, it's that time of year again...pretty much my favorite time of year when it comes to the blog.  It's time for me to unveil my annual Top 10 list.

I have to say that 2013 was a fantastic year for movies.  So, making this list was particularly difficult.  In an average year, I'd say that there are two to three great movies released.  This year, there were at least eight or nine.  And, three bona fide masterpieces came out in 2013, an extreme rarity.

In fact, while I have my Top 10 list all figured out, I'm still not sure what movie will take the top spot.  I plan to post individual entries about each movie on my list, like I did in 2011.  I should be able to finish it all in about a week or so.  Hopefully, by then, I'll have it all figured out.

In any event, this is a different post entirely.  This is the post where I talk about the movies I really liked that didn't make the list.  Needless to say, there were a lot of those.  So, in the interest of brevity, I'm just going to throw out some titles of movies that I think people should see.

I'll start with a list of indie movies that few people saw but that I'd highly recommend:

The Spectacular Now
The Way Way Back (Actually...a lot of people saw this one)
Drinking Buddies
In a World
Kings of Summer
Frances Ha
Ain't Them Bodies Saints

I know I'm leaving some movies off that list.  Oh well.

I'll spare you the list of big-budget studio movies that I'd recommend and go straight to my REAL Honorable Mentions.  These are the movies that I just couldn't find room for on my Top 10 list, even though I wanted to include them.

Here they are, in alphabetical order:

Before Midnight

A fitting capstone to Richard Linklater's trilogy exploring modern love and romance.  If you've seen Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, you probably took the time to see this one as well.  If you haven't seen them, you should.  I wasn't fully on board with the first two films -- I enjoyed them, I just didn't go gaga over them like many people did.  However, I really liked this last film.  

Julie Delpy is absolutely superb in the movie.  And, Ethan Hawke continues to carve out an interesting niche for himself.  Definitely worth your time.

Captain Phillips

I actually reviewed this movie on the blog.  It's a wonderful piece of filmmaking, featuring what may very well be Tom Hanks finest performance to date.

In any almost other year, this would have easily made my Top 10.  This year, however, it just misses the cut. It was probably the hardest movie to keep off my list.

Iron Man 3

You should all know by now that I'm a sucker for comic book movies.  And, though I had hoped that Man of Steel would take the prize as Super Hero Movie of the Year, it fell short of my lofty expectations.  Luckily enough, Marvel injected some new life into its top franchise, most notably by putting director Shane Black.  The result was the best big-budget blockbuster of the summer.

You've all seen this movie already, so I won't say any more.

Prisoners

I was very surprised that I liked this movie as much as I did.  And, it held up the second time around.

Denis Villeneuve's crime drama was one of the most intense, gripping movie-going experiences I had in 2013.  It's also a showcase of some very fine acting.  Jake Gyllenhaal turns in what is easily the best performance of his career, playing a tortured cop determined to solve a child kidnapping.  Hugh Jackman is also fantastic as the father of one of the kidnapped children.

Prisoners could have easily been just another run-of-the-mill crime thriller.  And, I suppose, in many ways, that's what it is.  But, it's all in the execution.  With these actors, this director, and the brilliant cinematography by the great Roger Deakins, it comes together very, very nicely.

The Wolf of Wall Street

Martin Scorsese movies are like pizza: even when they're bad they're still pretty good.  Not that this movie is bad -- it just doesn't reach the same heights as other Martin Scorsese-Leonardo DiCaprio ventures.  It's a little too long -- just under three hours -- and, at times, it's a little too self-indulgent and gratuitous.  

Still, it's hilarious.  And, it has a myriad of great performances in it.  DiCaprio is in top form.  Jonah Hill is also very, very good.  The whole ensemble just does a great job.

There's definitely room for criticism with this film.  But, what it does well it does so well that it deserves a lot of praise.

Alright, there we have it.  There were a number of other films worth mentioning in 2013.  But, I don't want this to go on forever.

Next up -- hopefully in short order -- will be the post about Number 10 on my list.

Adventures in Netflix: Kick Ass **

I know that I'm supposed to like this movie.  I'm something of a comic book movie apologist.  For crying out loud, I've even defended The Green Lantern in more than one semi-heated debate.

When this movie came out in 2010, I saw the trailers and thought it looked pretty good.  I definitely wanted to see it, but, truth be told, a super-violent super hero movie can be a tough sell with the wife.  That being the case, I just barely got around to seeing Kick Ass today, fully expecting to enjoy it.

But, I didn't.

It might have been the fact that it was poorly made, rife with tone and pacing inconsistencies.  But, let's be honest, I've overlooked that before.  No, the biggest reason I didn't like Kick Ass was that it was morally repugnant.

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: 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.

In Theaters: The Avengers ****

Alright.  I saw it.

Truth be told, I went into the movie this morning thinking that I'd end up shooting holes and nit-picking the whole thing when I got around to writing my review.  I'm not exactly sure why.  I'm a sucker for super hero movies, so I was certain that I would like it, I just wasn't prepared to buy into the hype.  I suppose that's because I haven't been sold on this whole Marvel Universe thing.

Prior to this film, the Marvel Universe endeavor has consisted of one stellar movie (Iron Man), one terrible movie (Iron Man II),  a couple movies that aren't great but will do in a pinch (The Incredible Hulk and Captain America), and a movie that was remarkably entertaining notwithstanding the fact that it was pretty lame (Thor).  With that decent-but-not-great build up, I was certain that I'd like it, but I just hadn't been able to get fully on the bandwagon when it came to The Avengers.

So where am I now?  Am I a full-blown believer in the genius of the Marvel Universe?  Is it the greatest idea in the history of cinema?  I don't know.  But, I will say that, with The Avengers, they did everything right.  And, while the composite parts of the Universe that lead to The Avengers haven't all been stellar, they helped make this movie better.