Video Game Review: Back to the Future: The Game (2010-2011)

‘Back to the Future’ is my favorite movie of all time for a few reasons. Not only is the film (as well as its two sequels) highly quotable and incredibly entertaining, but in execution it’s more than just a ‘science fiction’ film; it’s a comedy film, an action film, a high school film, a romance film, and of course, a science fiction film all rolled into one. Because of this, I believe that it will stand the test of time for years to come. But this franchise hasn’t really fared well in terms of video games. There was the god-awful NES game made by LJN that barely followed the plot of the game in which protagonist Marty McFly, who for some reason was wearing an all-black shirt and not his usual red vest, went around the town of Hill Valley collecting clocks… don’t ask, and for the record if you haven’t played this game before, don’t even considering trying it out. It’s that bad. There have been a few other video games, but from what I understand, a lot of them aren’t that good as well. But in 2010, Telltale Games, the creators of the episodic ‘The Walking Dead’ video games, produced a ‘Back to the Future’ game which, while not exactly perfect, is the best representation of the ‘BTTF’ franchise in video game form to date.

Following a ‘re-creation’ of the scene in the original film where Marty McFly helps his friend Dr. Emmett Brown AKA Doc test out his new invention, a time machine made out of a DeLorean, we flash forward to a few months after the events of ‘Back to the Future Part III’ in 1986. In the time since, Marty hasn’t seen Doc at all. One day, when the bank starts to sell Doc’s house and his possessions, Marty comes across his ‘time-travel’ notebook before the DeLorean suddenly appears out of nowhere. Soon after, Marty learns that Doc is stuck in 1931 Hill Valley. Not only that, but he is also in jail for apparently burning down a local speakeasy, and is to be killed by local mob boss ‘Kid’ Tannen, the owner of the speakeasy. This leads Marty to travel back to 1931, where he gains the help of Doc’s 1931 self, in order to save the ‘present’ Doc before he is to be killed. However, in the process, Marty’s actions begin to set up a series of events that begin to drastically alter the timeline for both him and Doc.

The entire game itself is split into five separate episodes, each taking about two to three hours to complete. The story itself is very compelling, if mainly because of how this game feels so much like ‘Back to the Future’. Telltale had the help of Bob Gale, co-creator/co-writer/co-producer on the films, in developing the story and in doing so, it really helps this game feel like it’s part of the ‘Back to the Future’ universe, more so than previous games in the franchise (do I need to bring up that LJN game again?). Christopher Lloyd reprises his role as Doc and is once again excellent even after at least two decades since ‘Back to the Future Part III’ came out back in 1990. Michael J. Fox doesn’t reprise his role of Marty (well, to a certain extent but I’m not going to spoil anything about that) but his successor, A.J. Locascio, does a fantastic and very spot-on impression of him to the point where you can hardly tell any difference. All in all, the voice acting in the game is rock solid all-around. The overall presentation is this game’s greatest asset.

Now, the game itself isn’t particularly that ‘difficult’. It’s a point-and-click adventure game and in execution a rather ‘simple’ one at that. You control Marty as he travels around different ‘versions’ of Hill Valley and interacts with the various people and objects he comes across. Moving around from place to place is a little stiff because the game has a ‘fixed’ camera perspective meaning that it changes when you travel to a different part of the area you’re currently in. So, if you have Marty walking forward and the camera then switches to a different angle that’s facing him, he’ll continue to move forward if you keep the move button down, meaning that the controls become a bit inverted. You have to stop holding the move button so that the controls can revert back to their normal state. This does kind of get frustrating at times, but it’s not too big of a problem. I mean, I haven’t played a lot of games with a ‘fixed camera’ perspective so maybe it’s just me. Also, keep in mind I’m referring to the PC controls because that’s the version of the game that I played; not the PS3, Wii, or iOS versions. The game offers you hints if you get stuck on the various puzzles that you come across but even then the puzzles themselves aren’t too difficult to figure out. Some of them do require a little bit of trial and error but for the most part, they usually just consist of Marty selecting an item from his inventory and using it on either a person or an object.

‘Back to the Future: The Game’ isn’t necessarily a masterpiece, but as a video game, it is the best representation of the film trilogy in that format, even when it’s actually a follow-up to the last film (in other words, this is pretty much ‘Back to the Future Part IV’). Because Telltale was assisted by one of the film series’ writers, the game really feels like you’re in the ‘Back to the Future’ universe, thanks in part to the return of Christopher Lloyd to the role of Doc and A.J. Locascio’s dead-on impression of Michael J. Fox in the role of Marty among other things. The game itself isn’t particularly hard but at the same time, the main story is compelling enough to keep you entertained even if it only takes about two to three hours to complete each of the five episodes. If you’re a fan of the franchise, then this is an obvious must-buy and I guarantee that you will enjoy this game very much. Even if you’re not a fan, I’d still recommend it. Movie-licensed games usually tend to suck, but in the end, this is one of the best games of that genre.

Final Rating: 4.5/5

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) review

Author Tom Clancy, who sadly passed away in October of last year, has left quite an impact on pop culture. His novels featured tales of military espionage set during or after the Cold War and 17 of his novels have become bestsellers. He has also lent his name to multiple video game franchises, including ‘Splinter Cell’, ‘Rainbow Six’, and ‘Ghost Recon’. Some of his stories have been adapted to film, with most of them focusing on the character of Jack Ryan, a CIA analyst and occasional field operative. This character had previously been portrayed on screen by Alec Baldwin in ‘The Hunt for Red October’, by Harrison Ford in both ‘Patriot Games’ and ‘Clear and Present Danger’, and by Ben Affleck in ‘The Sum of All Fears’. In this new film, which serves as a reboot for the franchise (its second after ‘Sum of All Fears’), Star Trek’s ‘Captain Kirk’, Chris Pine, stars in the role of Ryan and the film is directed by Kenneth Branagh, who as a director landed a very big hit back in 2011 with ‘Thor’. As for this film, it’s not exactly perfect (what more should you expect from a film that came out in the ‘dead month’ of January?) but it is still pretty entertaining mainly thanks to its cast which help this film manage to ultimately overcome its shortcomings.

Compelled to serve his country after 9/11, student Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) joins the Marine Corps but his time as a soldier abruptly comes to an end after he nearly dies when his platoon’s helicopter is shot down. While in rehab, he is recruited into the CIA by agent Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) as an analyst. Ten years later, Jack, while undercover as a broker on Wall Street, discovers a potential terrorist attack that could weaken the market, eliminate the value of the dollar, and lead America into a second Great Depression. After Harper promotes him to the position of operative, Jack heads to Russia to meet with Viktor Cheverin (Kenneth Branagh), a businessman whose directly involved with this plot. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when Jack’s girlfriend Cathy (Keira Knightley) is brought into the situation and he is forced to reveal to her what his ‘real’ job is having kept it secret for years.

Now I’m not too familiar with this franchise as a whole, but from what I can gather, the appeal of the character of Jack Ryan is that he’s an everyman. He’s someone who gets into incredibly dangerous situations even when they are more than he’s used to handling. But at the same time, he’s not like some invincible superhero without any flaws. Overall, I’d say this film succeeds at making the character of Jack relatable to the audience. He is in way over his head and while it may seem like he is able to get out of most situations that come upon him without any major problems, the character still has a very down-to-earth and likable personality. Chris Pine does a very good job in the role. It doesn’t require the ‘cocky’ attitude of a character like James T. Kirk, but Pine still manages to be a charming lead. Kevin Costner (who’s having quite the career resurgence lately after his excellent performance in ‘Man of Steel’) and Keira Knightley also do good jobs as well, although Knightley’s role leans toward ‘damsel in distress’ territory near the end of the film. At the same time, she does get involved in Jack’s work at one point and the two of them have really good chemistry so it’s not like she’s just there to be Jack’s love interest. Finally, in the villain role, Kenneth Branagh also does a good job as well; his character can be both menacing and yet charming at the same time.

However, as a director, Branagh still isn’t used to directing an action move yet. In ‘Thor’, it wasn’t really too much of a big deal when it came to the action sequences, but some were shot in that close-up, quick edit style that some action movies tend to use. The same scenario applies here; most of the action scenes are shot close-up and use fast edits. Like in ‘Thor’, it’s not too much of a problem but at the same time it shows that Branagh needs to improve as an action director. On that note, the film itself also really doesn’t have a ‘definitive’ action sequence. There are a couple of car chases and some one-on-one fight scenes but I can’t really say that any of these scenes really stood out. It’s sort of your basic spy thriller; a good and entertaining one, but pretty basic as far as its execution is concerned. Maybe under a different director, the action scenes could have been better and some of them could have really stood out. In the end though, that wasn’t the case with this film.

I was a little hesitant about this film being pushed back to January because, as we all know, January is not exactly the best month for movies and that was a little worrisome considering the talent involved on this film both behind and in front of the camera. However, in the end, this is one of the better films that have come out during this month. At the same time, though, it makes sense why this was released at this time because overall this film is just good, not great. That’s not to discredit this film by any means. It is a very entertaining spy thriller that benefits from having a solid cast, namely Chris Pine in the lead role. There is potential in this franchise but at the same time, there’s also room for improvement. Branagh is a good director, but as an action director, he still needs to work on just that… action. This film lacks a definitive action sequence, and some of the action sequences are shot in the close-up, quick edit fashion. Still, I can see this becoming a franchise. I would just suggest that the studio try and find a director who is more suited to the action genre.

Rating: 3/5

Her (2013) review

When you really get down to it, the premise for this film is… well, let’s face it, a little weird. I mean, we’re talking about a film where a man falls in love with the female voice of his computer’s operating system. It’s hard to deny it but it is true. But even with that in mind, why does this end up being one of the best films of the year (or of 2013, to be exact)? Well, that is because even with this film’s strange story, director Spike Jonze (‘Being John Malkovich’, ‘Where the Wild Things Are’) succeeds when it comes to the film’s overall execution to the point where this relationship between a man and a computer doesn’t feel as strange as it may sound. The writing is top-notch because the characters, as well as their dialogue, feel real, allowing us to become emotionally connected to these people, even when one of them is just a voice in a computer. When you take that and add not only Jonze’s excellent direction but terrific performances from the cast, then you have one truly excellent film on your hands.

The film follows Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix); a man who writes personal love letters for people who find themselves unable to express their emotions towards their significant others. However, at the same time, Theodore is lonely and introverted, struggling to deal with his impending divorce to his wife/childhood sweetheart, Catherine (Rooney Mara). One day, he purchases a new operating system for his computer, OS 1, the first artificially intelligent system of its kind that is programmed to adapt and evolve like human beings. After being asked whether he wants the system to have either a male or female identity, he decides that his operating system should have a female voice and as a result he is introduced to his new ‘system’ who gives herself the name Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). As Theodore and Samantha begin to bond, with the former starting to enjoy life more and the latter continuing to grow from her experiences, their relationship begins to get a bit more serious amidst her ‘limitations’.

This film mainly prospers because of the excellent writing (this film serving as Jonze’s first solo outing as a writer). Even when it’s working around a sci fi-ish premise, the characters still very much feel real and down-to-earth. That is also reflected in the dialogue. Regardless of your experiences with romantic relationships, good and/or bad, I think that you might be able to relate to a few of these characters because of their feelings and their interactions with each other. Heck, even Samantha, the operating system, feels real, not only because of how expressive she is and how she sees the world but also because of her relationship with Theodore. As weird as it may seem, it does manage to feel tangible. These two do have really superb chemistry which helps to ease the fact that this guy is basically in love with his computer. It’s quite something to be able to make us feel emotionally invested in a relationship as strange as this one and Jonze succeeds at doing just that.

Joaquin Phoenix is fantastic in the part of Theodore. He successfully disappears into the role of this man who may be able to express the romantic emotions that some people might not be able to say, but at the same time is lonely, introverted, and upset because of how his previous relationship is falling apart. This makes him incredibly sympathetic and Phoenix gives one of the best performances of his career. Likewise, Scarlett Johansson also shines as Samantha. She expresses so much emotion just by being a voice in the movie and that alone. I’m hoping that the Oscars will recognize her work, especially after she was ‘disqualified’ from being nominated for a Golden Globe. As for the rest of the cast, most of them only play minor roles in the film; of the film’s three female leads (not counting Johansson), Amy Adams has the biggest overall role compared to the other two (Rooney Mara as Theodore’s ex-wife Catherine and Olivia Wilde as a woman who goes on a blind date with him) but all three of them give their characters a sense of realism just like Phoenix and Johansson do with their characters.

‘Her’ is a film that may have a strange premise, but in execution, is full of real characters and dialogue that allow us to become emotionally invested in their actions. Yes, even to the point where we can believe in a relationship between a man and the female voice of his computer. There’s not much I can say about this film that’s bad. I mean, if I did have one solitary complaint, it would probably be that the film feels just a little bit too long at the end but even then that’s not really too much of a problem because everything else in the film is so good. The film has great direction, great writing, great performances, and a really great score (done here by Arcade Fire) among other things. I’m not too familiar with Jonze’s work as a director (I haven’t seen his other three films at the time I am writing this) but in the end, this might end up being one of his best out of the four films he has directed up to this point.

Rating: 4.5/5

Last Vegas (2013): Short Review

What happens when you take four major Hollywood stars and put them together for a comedy? You get a pretty entertaining film, which is the case of ‘Last Vegas’, a film that stars Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline as a group of friends who get together for a bachelor party in Las Vegas when Douglas’ character is about to get married. The film really benefits from its four leads. They have great camaraderie and the moment they all get together is when the film really starts to have a lot of hilarious moments. Kline in particular is probably the standout of the film. He’s actually the youngest of the four and yet ironically his character sort of feels like the oldest. But of course, De Niro, Freeman, and Douglas are also great as well. On the surface, this may seem like a less raunchy version of ‘The Hangover’ and in a sense, it kind of is. But at the same time, it’s still really funny, even if at times it’s a bit corny. It’s just really cool to see these four Hollywood legends on screen together; that’s something that I doubt we’ll ever get to see again. If I had any complaints, it was that at times the film kind of feels a little bit too much like a commercial for Vegas mainly just because of certain shots highlighting the sights and sounds of Sin City. Still, in the end, ‘Last Vegas’ is a pretty enjoyable film made even more so by its quartet of leads.

Rating: 4/5

TOP 12 FAVORITE FILMS OF 2013: #3-1

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s end-of-the-year list of my Top 12 Favorite Films of 2013. This is the final part of this list and today I’m listing my Top 3 Favorite Films of the year.

Number 3 is the latest collaboration from two Hollywood heavyweights. Together they make one hell of an entertaining film.

3. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

After seeing this movie, I’m finding that apparently many people are being misled by this film’s trailer. It seems like they’re thinking that this movie is glorifying the actions of the characters portrayed in this movie. But let me ask… are we talking about the same movie because I didn’t see that with this movie. They do establish that the main characters are, for lack of a better term, scumbags. I mean, the main character is consumed with greed a la Gordon Gekko from ‘Wall Street’, is a drug addict, and at one point hits his wife and tries to take off with their child a la Walter White from ‘Breaking Bad’. I don’t see how this film is supposed to glorify him after scenes like that. In reality, it’s just a very entertaining story of Jordan Belfort’s rise and fall as a major player in the business of Wall Street. I mean, this is directed by Martin Scorcese, one of the greatest directors of all time, so of course this film would end up being one of the best films of the year. As my friend Matt will argue, Scorcese has never made a bad film and while I haven’t seen a lot of his films, I’m beginning to agree with that statement.

The film may be three hours long, but it is never boring. It’s also ‘riotously funny’; a term that was applied to another film’s Rotten Tomatoes consensus, ‘American Hustle’, but in my opinion is more fitting for this one. There is one scene in particular around the midway point of the film where Belfort is trying to get home after some old Quaaludes that he ingested finally start to kick in was probably the most I’ve ever laughed in any film ever. That gives you an idea of how funny this movie is. It gets really crazy at times in this movie and yet it just goes with it. It’s incredibly entertaining, well-acted all around from DiCaprio (obviously) to the main supporting cast to bit roles from guys like Matthew McConaughey who is only in the movie briefly but is a total scene-stealer. The bottom line is simple; Go see this movie right now! It is easily one of the most entertaining films of the year.

Number 2… is the film that I predict will win the Oscar… in fact, I’d say it will be a genuine shock if it doesn’t win.

2. 12 YEARS A SLAVE

Like I said, this is a list of my ‘Favorite’ films of the year, not ‘Best’. If it was ‘Best’, then this would be number 1, no doubt about it. I mean this film is one in a million. And here’s the big thing about this movie… it’s quite difficult to watch. My friend Matt came up with a good alternate title for the film, ‘White Guilt: The Movie’, and I agree 100%. I guarantee that you people will be feeling that emotion while watching this film. It’s one that doesn’t let up in its brutality and is both highly intense and emotional. It also doesn’t skimp on anything. The thing about movies that are focused around slavery is that most of them will not show everything that happened during that period of time before the act was outlawed. This film doesn’t do that. This is slavery uncensored and we see the full effect of what life was like for African Americans back in the day. Slavery could corrupt anyone; there were no doubt slave owners like the vicious and cruel Edwin Epps, but then you have Solomon Northup’s other slave owner, preacher William Ford. Compared to Epps, Ford is a nice man who stays on good terms with his slaves… but don’t forget, he is still a slave owner!!! Even the nicest people in the world at that time could be slave owners. That’s how corrupt and vile this practice was.

This film is full of great performances from its cast. In the role of Solomon, Chiwetel Ejiofor gives one of the strongest performances of the year, saying very little but getting across so much emotion at the same time just through his facial expressions. His character realized the situation that he was in; he couldn’t tell anyone that he was actually once a free man because no one would listen to him and he would probably be killed because of it. Michael Fassbender is equally terrific in the role of Edwin Epps. Fassbender just gets into the role of the cruel slave owner and it’ll be a travesty if he’s not nominated for Best Supporting Actor just like Leonardo DiCaprio was snubbed of a nomination in that same category last year. But the whole cast is great; Benedict Cumberbatch as William Ford, newcomer Lupita Nyong’o as one of Solomon’s fellow slaves (and I’m also going to say; a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actress), and Brad Pitt in a small role as a friendly carpenter, among many others. I will be very surprised if this film doesn’t win Best Picture at this year’s Oscars because based on the current odds, this will be the film that wins it.

So here it is… my Number 1 film of 2013. This one actually did serve as my favorite film of the year for quite a while (at least half a year). However, these last few months of the year had a slew of terrific movies, so for a while, I was unsure what my favorite film of the year was by that point. In the end, though, it came right back to this film, which is slowly becoming one of my favorite films of all time. It’s one that, going in, I honestly did not have very high expectations for, mainly because of the prestigious pedigree it’s working off of, but the end I think that was why it exceeded my expectations; a film that came out in March of all times.

1.      OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL

That title gives you an idea of why I was hesitant about this movie at first. Here we have a prequel to L. Frank Baum’s ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and while it’s not technically the official prequel, in a few ways it can be considered to be a prequel to 1939’s ‘The Wizard of Oz’, one of the most beloved films of all time. But for the record, it’s not supposed to be; this is Disney, not MGM, and there were a few elements from the original film that they couldn’t use, like the ruby slippers or even the chin mole of the Wicked Witch. Sure, in the end, ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’ is probably not as good as the 1939 classic but it doesn’t have to be. It’s its own thing and it shouldn’t be compared to the original because it’s not trying to be it. This film really caught me by surprise in how much I loved it and there are numerous reasons as to why this ended up being my favorite film of the year, aside from a few obvious reasons. This is only one of two films I saw twice in theaters this year, the other being ‘Gatsby’.

Let’s get those obvious reasons out of the way. The film is just beautiful; it has some of the best CGI in any film this year. The world of Oz is just a visual sight for the eyes and as far as Disney’s past big-budget March releases are concerned; this is the best of the bunch in terms of the visuals. The other two I’m mentioning specifically are 2010’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’, which did have a very unique visual look but was overall too dark, and 2012’s ‘John Carter’, which despite having a budget of over $200 million, was shot in the desert. This film has a terrific visual look and production design and is also one of the few movies that I will actually recommend seeing in 3-D. The 3-D is not in your face like some movies are or badly post-converted into the format like most movies are; it helps emphasize the terrific visuals.

But there’s more to this movie than just its great visuals. The writing is also really good, even though the story itself may not have that many surprises to it. It may be a prequel, but it doesn’t suffer from ‘prequelitis’; any references to ‘Wizard of Oz’ are very subtle and well-handled. It’s not like someone just goes up to a person and says, ‘look there’s the Yellow Brick Road’ or ‘hey, is that the Cowardly Lion?’ It’s not like that at all. The main character arc for Oscar Diggs, the man who would eventually become the Wizard of Oz, is also really well-done. Starting off as a womanizing con-man, Oscar eventually changes his ways to become the savior of Oz from evil, even if he’s not exactly the Wizard that the people of Oz were expecting.

But another good thing about the writing is that the movie itself is not mean-spirited. They could have just gone and done a story where the goal of the main characters was to kill all of the bad guys, but thankfully they don’t go that route here. Around the midpoint of the film, Oscar learns from Glinda that the people of Oz are forbidden to kill, which makes things rather problematic for his plan to defeat the Wicked Witches. Is it cheesy? Maybe, but at least the film has good morals. This is just a really pleasant movie, and considering some of the darker films that come out every year, it’s always nice to see a movie like this that is not mean-spirited and yet doesn’t talk down to kids at the same time. It does get dark at times, but in the same way that the original got dark; more through frightening imagery (like those flying baboons, which I think are scarier here than the ones in the original), not just to be dark. Going back to ‘Alice in Wonderland’ again, there’s one scene where Alice gets across a river that is full of decapitated heads… you know, for kids!

The film has an excellent cast, although I will say that one of them falls a little flat at the halfway point. That cast member in question is Mila Kunis, who plays the witch Theodora. She did a really good job in the first half of the movie as the naïve witch who prematurely falls in love with the Wizard, who doesn’t really love her back; he’s just doing his ‘womanizing’ act. This ends up breaking her heart and her sister Evanora has her turned into the Wicked Witch of the West… yes, that Wicked Witch. She’s not terrible in the part, but she’s no Margaret Hamilton either. For one thing, she screams pretty much all of her lines as the witch and that does get annoying after a while. But I don’t really blame her here. Honestly, I think they introduced the Wicked Witch way too early here. I know that the character was undoubtedly going to appear, but we didn’t need two villains, especially when the other one, Evanora, is a really good villain. Rachel Weisz is a scene-stealer in this movie and is clearly having fun in the role. They should have just had Theodora turned into the Wicked Witch right at the end of the film to set things up for a sequel. I’m not too big on the idea to have her turned halfway through the film.

But the big standout of this cast is Michelle Williams as Glinda, the Good Witch of the South. In fact, I’d say this film had the best interpretation of the character in any ‘Wizard of Oz’ movie; yes, even more so than the 1939 film. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing Billie Burke’s performance from the original. It was still a really good performance, but the writing for the character was a little flat. She didn’t appear in the movie that much and she was just too ‘overly good’. This Glinda is still the ‘good’ witch, as her name obviously suggests, but even she has her limits. She immediately knows that Oscar is not the Wizard just through his actions alone and yet she still sees the good in him even when he doesn’t. She is also far more proactive in this film than the Glinda from the 1939 film, who only made brief appearances here and there. Overall, this Glinda is just the superior interpretation of the character and Williams brings the right amount of charm and kindness for the role while also giving her a very down-to-earth personality at the same time.

James Franco also does a very good job as the Wizard. I’ll admit that I would have been very interesting to see how Robert Downey Jr. (who was originally considered for the part) would’ve done in the role, but Franco manages to defy all expectations about him; it helps that he has a good character arc to work with and even when he’s acting like the womanizing con-man that he starts out as, he’s still rather charming. Like ‘The Wizard of Oz’, this film also has some really memorable supporting characters. Zach Braff plays the only ‘good’ flying monkey, Finley, and gets a lot of the best lines (“I see, because I’m a monkey, I must love bananas… that is a vicious stereotype,” “You don’t like bananas?” “Of course I like bananas, I’m a monkey, don’t be ridiculous. I just don’t like it when you say it.”). Joey King plays China Girl, a young girl made entirely out of china who loses her entire family in an attack on their village and joins Oscar and Finley on their journey. She’s pretty much the ‘Dorothy’ character of this film, giving the film an even greater human element even though she’s made of china.

So that’s ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’, my favorite film of 2013. Sure, it may not be as good as the original, but that’s one of the toughest acts to follow if you ask me because we all know how much of a classic that film is. But this film manages to be a great modern-day accompaniment to that film. That’s part of the reason why I liked ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ so much. Sure, it will never top ‘Wrath of Khan’, but it’s a nice modern update on the story and the same can be said with this movie. It’s probably the best Oz film that has ever come out since the 1939 classic and bear in mind that there have been a lot of films that have come out before and after the one we all know and love.

And those are my Top 12 Favorite Films of 2013. Thanks for reading.

TOP 12 FAVORITE FILMS OF 2013: #6-4

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s end-of-the-year list of my Top 12 Favorite Films of 2013. This is Part 3, and today I’m listing Films 6-4.

As I stated back in my ‘Worst of’ list, this was a really, really crappy year for comedies. In fact, I flat-out said it was the worst year I’ve ever seen as far as this genre was concerned. 5 ‘Comedies’ were on that list, so I’m relieved that, for Number 6, we have my pick for the Best comedy of the year.

6. THE WORLD’S END



Thank god for Edgar Wright. While most of the year’s comedies were doing everything wrong when it came to making comedies, Wright and co-writer Simon Pegg showed everyone how it’s done with ‘The World’s End’, the final film in their Cornetto trilogy. Well, let me be clear, this isn’t exactly a ‘trilogy’ like you might expect because these three films are all different genres. 2004’s ‘Shaun of the Dead’ is a zombie film while ‘Hot Fuzz’ is a buddy-cop action film. ‘The World’s End’ is a sci-fi film and considering that ‘Shaun’ and ‘Fuzz’ are two of the funniest comedies of this past decade, it’s no surprise that this one is another success for all involved. Now, I wouldn’t call this the funniest of the trilogy but at the same time, I’d argue that it’s the best written overall. It has probably the most developed lead characters of the entire ‘trilogy’ in Pegg and Nick Frost’s characters Gary and Andy respectively and as such they’re the best characters the two have ever played.

‘The one and only’ Gary King is a man consumed with his dream of finishing ‘The Golden Mile’, a fabled pub crawl in their old hometown of Newton Haven, to the point where he still sort of has the mindset of a kid. On the other side of the spectrum we have Andy who, like the rest of their friends, has grown up and is also very angry at Gary for an incident that happened to them years ago. It’s a refreshing change of pace from the last two films because usually Pegg is the straight guy while Frost is the man-child. Here, it’s changed around and it works out very well. While Pegg and Frost are their usual excellent selves, the rest of the cast is terrific as well. You really see the camaraderie amongst the five main leads, and co-stars Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marsan all have their own shining moments in the film. ‘The World’s End’ may not be the funniest film in the Cornetto Trilogy, but it’s arguably the best-written… and like ‘Rush’, another one that unfortunately wasn’t a big hit here in America. Seriously, this film only earns $26 million while friggin ‘Grown Ups 2’ earns over $130 million… I’m just going to let Pegg’s expression in this still from the movie do the talking for me.



Number 5 is a film that proves that ‘a little party never killed nobody’, especially when that party is hosted by…

5. THE GREAT GATSBY



I’ll admit that I’m not exactly a big fan of director Baz Luhrmann’s work. 1996’s ‘Romeo + Juliet’ may have been a nice change in style by being a modern retelling of the story but it was still stuck with the Shakespearean dialogue of old. For the record, I haven’t seen any of his other films before ‘Gatsby’ but in the end, he was just the best choice to direct this movie. He’s a visual director, sometimes to the point of excess, and considering that author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘Great American Novel’ is also a tale of excess and the flash and glamour of New York in the 1920’s, the two just fit perfectly. That’s part of the beauty of this film. Sure, Luhrmann’s visual style is most certainly on display but it doesn’t overshadow the key themes of the novel; ideas like the aforementioned ‘excess’, the shallowness of the upper class, and the decline of the American dream as shown by the titular Gatsby’s efforts to woo the girl of his dreams.

This movie also made the bold choice of having a soundtrack that combines both modern rap from artists like Jay-Z and Kanye West with 20’s style jazz. Sure, from an outside perspective, that sounds like it wouldn’t possibly work but as a whole, it did actually work out in the end. It doesn’t get that distracting hearing the modern rap being played alongside jazz in the movie because Luhrmann succeeds at blending the two together, except for one point in the film when Gatsby and Nick are driving through the city. They pass by a car that’s playing ‘Izzo (H.O.V.A.) and I have to admit, I laughed at this part. Aside from that, the soundtrack is pretty darn good with its fair share of entertaining songs, like ‘A Little Party Never Killed Nobody (All we Got)’, which is a fitting party song as it is played during the first of Gatsby’s parties, to Lana Del Rey’s ‘Young and Beautiful’, which is a really touching and somber piece to showcase the relationship between Gatsby and Daisy. I know I said earlier that Frozen’s ‘Let it Go’ is the most likely to win ‘Best Original Song’ at the Oscars, but I hope that Del Rey’s song will at least get a nomination.

The film also boasts a terrific cast, as every actor/actress is well cast in their respective roles. In the lead role of Gatsby, Leonardo DiCaprio brings his usual A-game as he’s been routinely doing in this last decade. The unique thing about Gatsby is that he can be portrayed in different ways. Here, they go with the ‘hopeless romantic’ route while briefly touching upon the character’s ‘shady practices’. I like that they went this route because when you pair this with DiCaprio’s charm, you get a Gatsby that is both sympathetic and likable. Tobey Maguire is equally great as Nick Carraway, effectively serving as the narrator for the story. The film itself is pretty faithful to the novel, except for a change in the narrative structure. Instead of Nick narrating over the whole movie, he’s shown in a mental institution where his doctor recommends that he writes his story and overall it does work better from a film perspective. As for Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton, they get the most out of the roles of Daisy and Tom Buchanan, two characters who were admittedly rather one-dimensional in the book. Daisy is still as shallow as she was in the book, but Mulligan gets a lot of prime emotions out of the character and as for Tom, Edgerton’s clearly having fun being over-the-top in the role of Daisy’s brute of a husband.

‘The Great Gatsby’ is probably my favorite book that I read in high school. I wouldn’t say that it was the best time to read it (I think it’s more fitting to read in college), but it was the main reason why I was anticipating this adaptation of the story. It’s a great modern take on the story that keeps it where it should be, set in the 20’s, but does it with a modern flair from Baz Luhrmann. His visual style is there, but it’s not overshadowing the story and characters. As I said, he was the perfect choice to direct this film and in my opinion it’s one of the best book-to-film adaptations ever, especially of the last few years. I feel that F. Scott Fitzgerald would be pleased with this one.

I have a feeling that this will be my most controversial pick for this list. This is another film that has received a really mixed reception from audiences. In fact, I’d say that this was the most polarizing film of the year that actually did get really good reviews from critics (‘Man of Steel’ holds the honor of being the most polarizing film this year overall). Even my friend Matt and I are split on this; he lists it as his biggest disappointment of this year. As you’ll see, I had a different opinion. So for all of those who did not like this film, please hear me out on this…

4. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS





I know I said this was a polarizing film, but in recent months, I’ve been hearing more negative things about it than positive. How negative, you ask? Well, at a Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, fans literally rated it as the WORST Star Trek film in the series, and that is saying a lot considering some of the really bad entries in this series (like ‘Star Trek V: The Final Frontier’ or ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’). Apparently one fan even said that ‘the reboot films shouldn’t even count as films in the series’. Well then if that’s the case, then where would this franchise be if J.J. Abrams’ two films never existed? This franchise would still be dead after ‘Star Trek: Nemesis’ was a commercial flop and ‘Star Trek: Enterprise’ was cancelled. This is not the worst ‘Star Trek’ film; this whole idea has been way too overblown and I think a lot of people are being a little too overcritical.

But despite that, there are many people who still aren’t big fans of the film, especially fans of the franchise. So I know what you’re thinking… how am I, a guy who has gone on record saying that I prefer ‘Star Trek’ to ‘Star Wars’, to the point where I named this my most anticipated film of 2013 primarily based on my love of the last film, not disappointed by this film? Well, for the record, my opinion of this film changed on second viewing. I only saw the film once in theaters and at the time I gave it a pretty solid rating of 4.5/5. But after that, I started to wonder if that rating was justified because I found myself agreeing with some of the problems that people were having with the film. I didn’t see the film again until I got it on Blu-Ray the day it came out and after watching it, not only was my rating justified, but the movie got better on my opinion. I got to say, this year was kind of frustrating when it came to these big blockbusters because my initial opinion was clouded/‘corrupted’ by all of the ranting that went on towards not only this film, but ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Man of Steel’ as well. But back to this movie… honestly, most of the problems that people have with it don’t bother me.

For the record, I am a little disappointed that the writers did go back to an old Star Trek villain/story instead of doing something new, especially considering that they established a new alternate universe, which meant that they could do new stories without having to adhere to the franchise canon. The villain in question is arguably Star Trek’s finest/most iconic villain, Khan Noonien Singh, the star of what is still the best ‘Star Trek’ film, ‘Wrath of Khan’. However, ‘Into Darkness’ also shares plenty in common with ‘Wrath’, which is another thing that has bugged a lot of people. But in my opinion, I feel that the writers were successful at blending the old Trek with the new alternate universe. Let’s face it; the ‘09 film was more catered to those who weren’t big fans of the franchise (like me before I saw it). This one is a little more geared towards the fans of the series… and yet look how that turned out. I guess why I’m not as mad about this is because I was introduced to this franchise through the reboot. Don’t get me wrong, I still appreciate the original stuff and as I said, ‘Wrath of Khan’ is still the best Star Trek film. But as a ‘Star Trek’ fan, I’m more attached to the reboot series.

As for the film itself, it’s not like they just copied the plot of ‘Wrath’; Khan’s not looking for the Genesis Device in this. If it was, then I’d be more critical about them ‘ripping off’ ‘Wrath’. Really, the only major comparisons that this film has to ‘Wrath’, aside from the obvious, is a major death scene at the end and the infamous yelling of Khan’s name, albeit with a twist. This time, the roles are reversed; Kirk is the one who dies to save the crew from their demise and Spock is the one who yells, ‘KHAANN!!!’ in anger after Kirk dies. It may seem pointless to do these scenes again, even when they switch Kirk and Spock’s roles around, but I think they still are effective… well, more in the case of the death. I’ll openly admit that I was tearing up during this scene because of how well-developed Kirk and Spock’s relationship is (more on that later, along with another controversial aspect of Kirk’s ‘death’). The yell… okay, they could’ve gotten away without adding that, but it’s not like there’s no reason for why Spock does this. Sure, Khan did not get them into the situation that they were in, facing probable destruction after being attacked by Admiral Marcus and his ship, the USS Vengeance, but he was the one responsible for firing the shots that ultimately sent the Enterprise falling down to Earth. It probably wouldn’t have happened that way if Khan didn’t take over the Vengeance… but I’m just speculating here.

I really do like the route they went in developing this universe’s take on Khan. Because this is an alternate universe, I can accept some of the changes that they made in regards to his backstory, like how he wasn’t first discovered by the Enterprise… or heck, even the fact that here he is a white British guy. I know he’s supposed to be Indian, but folks even the great Ricardo Montalban wasn’t the right nationality when he played the character. I like that in this one Khan starts out as a pawn of Starfleet who goes rogue when he thinks that they killed the rest of his crew. That actually makes him quite sympathetic to a certain extent, mainly during the scene where he reflects upon his situation, because while obviously I don’t agree with what he’s doing, at least he has a justified reason for doing it. Starfleet took his crew, who are like family to him. After all, “Is there anything you would not do for your family?” I also like that they didn’t kill this Khan off like they did in ‘Wrath’ so that he could possibly return in another ‘Star Trek’ film (or TV series, perhaps).

Of course, you can’t deny that Benedict Cumberbatch is outstanding in the role. He’s not Ricardo Montalban, but he doesn’t have to be. This is an entirely new take on Khan and he’s just as menacing as Montalban’s Khan was. He steals the spotlight whenever he’s on screen and has a very commanding screen presence. This is one advantage that this film has over the previous film… a better villain. I’m not saying that Nero was a bad villain in the last film; he just wasn’t a ‘standout’ villain like Khan was. However, because that film was more focused on the relationship between Kirk and Spock, it’s understandable as to why this was the way it was. This film is a different story… it has one of the best Star Trek villains in the entire franchise, even if the character already appeared in another Trek film. In fact, I’d say Cumberbatch’s Khan is right behind Montalban’s Khan when ranking the best Star Trek villains, if not just a few spots behind him.

The other main reason why I like this film as much as I do is because of the relationship between Kirk and Spock. Say what you will about the writing, but the writers did a great job at developing their relationship. That relationship is in a bit of a slump in this one after Kirk violates the Prime Directive in order to save Spock from death. Spock reveals this to Starfleet, and as a result, Kirk loses command of the Enterprise for a while. Obviously, Kirk is not too happy about this and it shows how different this two are when it comes to their actions. Kirk is still kind of the brash rebel who doesn’t agree to the rules while Spock is the by-the-book Vulcan who is still struggling to control his emotions. Their relationship carries the film and Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are both fantastic as they were in the last film. It is because of their great camaraderie that made Kirk’s death scene so sad. Sure, it’s sort of the same scenario as ‘Wrath of Khan’, but the dialogue between them has different meaning to it. In ‘Wrath’, Spock reminded Kirk that ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’. Here, Spock realizes that it was because of their friendship that Kirk violated the Prime Directive in order to save him, something he hadn’t realized at first. Now about Kirk’s death…

I know what you’re all going to say. That is regarding what happens ten minutes later. After Spock and Uhura capture Khan in San Francisco, they use his blood, which is revealed to have regenerative properties, in order to bring Kirk back from death. Because of this, many view Kirk’s death as being ultimately pointless and I’m pretty sure the ending is the most controversial part of the film. I can’t deny the fact that Khan’s blood is basically a deus ex machina and the fact that this is revealed through a scene of Bones testing out the blood on a Tribble doesn’t help hide that fact. But the idea of bringing a character back to life is something that has happened before on ‘Star Trek’. Remember ‘Search for Spock’, where they brought back Spock after his death in the previous movie? Well in my opinion, I’m glad Abrams and the writers didn’t decide to make the next Star Trek film, ‘The Search for Kirk’. At least they decided to speed that process up. Yes, the ending is a little bit rushed because of that, but it’s still pretty damn awesome. I do like that this one didn’t end in a space battle; you rarely see a ‘Star Trek’ film have a finale that doesn’t take place in space and the fact that this finale takes place here on Earth is even more compelling. Heck, in this film’s ending, Spock is a real badass.

Now I don’t think this movie is perfect. Why? Well, to quote the scene where Patton Oswalt performs a filibuster by talking about his story idea for ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’ from ‘Parks and Recreation’, “the female part is a little underwritten”. I’m not referring to Uhura because I’m fine with how they’re using her right now and for her relationship with Spock, although she sort of disappears during the scene where the Enterprise is falling to Earth, only reappearing until after Spock leaves the bridge to see to Kirk. I’m more referring to the character of Carol Marcus (another established role from ‘Wrath’). Overall, I’m fine with Alice Eve’s performance in the role; I think she did a fine job. But she really did not get anything to do in this movie. Sure, she disables one torpedo, but aside from that all she does is strip down to her underwear (you can’t deny it, fan boys, that was clearly a fan-service moment). I do like that they didn’t immediately make her the love interest for Kirk, but I hope that she’s given more to do in the next film. The relationship between her and her father, Admiral Marcus, is also very non-existent. As for him, his sudden turn as a villain is a little rushed. I say that because he starts off as a good guy, but then he’s suddenly willing to kill the whole crew of the Enterprise just so that he can eliminate Khan.

In the end, I don’t consider ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ to be a masterpiece or even the best in the franchise. But as a whole, the majority of the problems that many are having with don’t bother me in the slightest. I think that the writers were successful at telling an old Star Trek story in a new way and I’m fine with this universe’s portrayal of Khan. J.J. Abrams once again delivered on another exciting sci-fi action film and I’m eagerly awaiting to see what he does for ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’. But if I were to say one thing, J.J., it is that you should stop apologizing for everything about this movie, which you have been doing for the last few months. Don’t apologize for over-using lens-flare in your movies; I think that everyone’s being way too critical about such a minor/trivial detail of these movies. It’s not that big of a deal folks. Also, don’t apologize for trying to keep Khan’s identity a secret. I can’t blame you guys for trying to do that because I knew that Cumberbatch was Khan going in and I’m pretty sure everyone else knew too. Let’s face it, if they did reveal that he was Khan, then everyone would just ask them how this Khan would be different. In short, they were going into a no-win scenario (a ‘Kobayashi Maru’, if you’ll allow me to coin a phrase).

Check back tomorrow for the final part of this year-end list for my Top 3 Favorite Films of the Year.

TOP 12 FAVORITE FILMS OF 2013: #9-7

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s end-of-the-year list of my Top 12 Favorite Films of 2013. This is Part 2, and today I’m listing Films 9-7.

I’ve gone on record saying that I’m more of a Marvel fan than DC. I’m not saying anything bad against DC. It’s just that Marvel’s had a better track record as far as their filmography is concerned. Also, I’m rather worried that DC might be rushing towards a ‘Justice League’ movie without properly developing it first. But DC fans rejoice because this year, for the first time since 2008, you finally have the best superhero film of the year… though 50% of you will no doubt disagree with me.

9. MAN OF STEEL



AKA the most polarizing film of the year; people either loved or hated this movie. There was no middle ground when it came to this one… and as far as me and my friend Matt was concerned, we’re on the side of those who loved it. He even calls it the best superhero film since ‘Spider-Man 2’. While I don’t necessarily think that this is the best of the genre, there are still many reasons as to why I think this is a terrific superhero film. The first, and most important, is that perhaps for the first time ever in these, ‘Superman’ is portrayed as more than just an icon. Don’t get me wrong, ‘Superman’ is an iconic superhero and Christopher Reeve was fantastic in the original ‘Superman’ movies (even the crappy ones). But let’s be honest, he’s not the most ‘interesting’ superhero out there. We’re talking about a character that’s pretty much invincible whose only weakness is the substance known as Kryptonite (and even that is kind of lame because it makes Superman too weak to do anything… thankfully it wasn’t even in this movie). That can get rather boring after a while when nothing can stop him. So I’m relieved that this film was the first where Superman was given real proper character development.

His struggles living amongst us on Earth actually make him pretty relatable, even though he is an alien from another world. He’s a fish out of water, and we see how he grows into the hero that we all know and love. Many have argued which of Superman’s two identities are his true ‘mask’; Superman or Clark Kent. As this movie shows, I believe that they are one in the same. Superman is a character with incredible abilities and that makes him a hero in the eyes of humanity but at the same time, he was born and raised in the town of Smallville and as such, grew up with the middle-American values that came from him being the son of Jonathan and Martha Kent. Let’s look at that controversial moment after Clark saves his classmates when their bus crashes into a lake. When Jonathan tells him that he has to hide his powers, Clark asks him what he was ‘supposed to do’… just let them die? Jonathan replies with a simple, ‘Maybe…’, but that doesn’t mean that he was saying that Clark should have just let them die; he’s just worried about how the world will react when they find out about his son’s powers. The same scenario applies to the scene where he dies in a tornado. I don’t see that scene as a pointless self-sacrifice. Again, he was worried about Clark’s secret getting out so he made sure that Clark did not try and save him, even though he obviously could. As such, this is one of the most emotional moments in any film this year and in fact I’d say this death was better handled here than in the original Superman movie.

Speaking of death, let’s talk about what is probably the most controversial aspect of the film; the apparent ‘collateral damage’ that Superman causes during his fight with General Zod and his army of Kryptonians. There’s no denying it, Metropolis gets annihilated during the final battle; there’s plenty of property damage and a lot of people probably died as a result of it. But here’s the thing… did anyone actually die as a result of Superman flying around and fighting Zod and his army? If there was, then I didn’t see it. Maybe some did, but thankfully the filmmakers didn’t show it. Most of the death and destruction was caused by Zod, not Superman. How about the just as controversial scene where Superman defeats Zod by snapping his neck and killing him? Yes, I’m aware that Superman is a character that doesn’t kill. With that said, this scene can hopefully establish that in future movies and let’s face it Superman didn’t really have any other choice. Zod was about to kill some innocent civilians and even if Superman tried to stop him, he would probably keep trying to do it. And you know, in the last ‘Superman’ film to star Zod, Superman did kind of kill him in that one too. Just saying…

In the lead role of Superman, Henry Cavill is excellent; he doesn’t say much but he is still very charming and likable. As Lois Lane, Amy Adams has great chemistry with Cavill and I did like that, in this continuity, Lois actually figures out that Clark is Superman… and thank god they didn’t use the ‘mind erasing kiss’ plot point from the theatrical cut of ‘Superman II’. Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner are both fantastic as Superman’s two fathers, Jor El and Pa Kent, respectively. They both influence Superman’s actions throughout the course of the film, and in the case of Jonathan, no it’s not letting people die as I already established. The bottom line here is that this is a new take on the character of Superman and regardless of your opinion on the film; you can’t fault the filmmakers for trying something different. I’ll admit that I was rather hesitant about this film going in, if mainly because of director Zack Snyder’s previous film and my pick for the worst film of 2011, ‘Sucker Punch’. In that sense, let me just say that, Mr. Snyder, you proved me wrong.  

Number 8 is the next entry in a series that, coincidentally, held this exact same spot in last year’s list. It’s at this spot again this year, though this entry is actually vastly superior to its predecessor.

8. THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE



I really did like the first ‘Hunger Games’ movie, even with some of its flaws. That is because, after a horrendous series known as ‘Twilight’, this series that was also based off of a popular young adult book series had far better writing and a superior female lead in Katniss Everdeen. Still, the first film did have the whole thing about the shaky camera work during the actual Hunger Games. I didn’t really mind it that much, but there’s no denying that it was present. ‘Catching Fire’ on the other hand is a vastly superior movie and it’s interesting to note that, from what I’ve heard, this is sort of the least favorite book in the series for most people and yet, depending on how Parts 1 and 2 of ‘Mockingjay’ turn out, this might end up being the best in the whole film series. For one thing, you’ll be pleased to hear that the shaky cam and fast editing is no longer a problem here. I guess you can attribute that to the fact that in this film, the other competitors in this film’s Hunger Games are all adults so it’s not as brutal compared to them being kids in the first film.

But aside from that, this film really manages to explore the universe much more. It’s probably because the filmmakers had a better budget this time around, but regardless you get a greater sense of the turmoil amongst the districts of Panem. That idea of ‘expansion’ also extends to the character development, particularly the relationship between Katniss and Peeta. I love that the writers did remember to add in that plot point about how Katniss played up their relationship in the last movie to the audience, something that the last film did not include at all. Jennifer Lawrence is once again outstanding as Katniss, and Josh Hutcherson really shines this time around as Peeta. Of course, the rest of the cast is excellent as well, from the returning players (Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland, etc…) to the new additions (Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, etc…). Many consider ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ to be the film that really got the Harry Potter franchise to where it is today and in that regard, ‘Catching Fire’ is the Hunger Games’ ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’. Nothing against Gary Ross and what he did in the first movie, but Francis Lawrence ended up making the superior film.

Number 7 is easily the most underrated movie of the year. It did get good reviews but it wasn’t really a big hit at the box office.

7. RUSH



Now at first glance from a box-office perspective, ‘Rush’ may not initially seem like a box-office flop. It earned $90 million worldwide, surpassing its $38 million budget. But take away exactly 70.1% of that gross and you’ll see that, here in America, it only grossed about $26 million. I’m guessing the main reason why this film didn’t do so well here in the states is similar to why 2011’s ‘Warrior’ didn’t do so well. I’m pretty sure that Formula One Racing is not exactly the most popular sport here. But there’s more that this movie has in comparison to ‘Warrior’ besides the fact that it wasn’t a bit hit stateside. ‘Rush’ is the story of the rivalry between F1 racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda during the 1976 season, a season where they both experienced their own personal highs and lows and yet neither is portrayed as the bad guy. They’re both very compelling people and you root for both of them at the same time. Not only that, but they are both totally different people. Hunt is the playboy with something to prove while Lauda is the calculating precisionist whose life is put on the line after a near-fatal accident at the German Grand Prix. Not only are these two characters very compelling to watch, but Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl are both outstanding in the roles. I’ll admit that I’m not a big fan of director Ron Howard’s work (‘The Grinch’ is a Christmas classic and ‘Apollo 13’ is terrific, but ‘The Dilemma’? Ugh.), but this easily one of his best films to date and one that is highly underrated as far as its box-office performance in North America is concerned.

Check back tomorrow for Part 3, for Numbers 6-4.

TOP 12 FAVORITE FILMS OF 2013: Honorable Mentions and #12-10

If I were to describe 2013 in film in just one word, it would only be ‘okay’. What do I mean by that? Well, as I established in my ‘Worst of’ list, the bad movies this year were REALLY bad; unfunny comedies, poor action movies, etc. But the reason why I don’t consider this year to be a terrible year is that the good movies were still really good, particularly during the last few months of the year. However, in the case of some of the movies that came out this year, some of you might argue against whether or not they were any good because I have to say, this was a really divisive year as far as audience reception went. A lot of big summer blockbusters, films that received generally positive reviews from critics and seemed to be guaranteed successes both critically and commercially, ended up splitting audiences right down the middle. I will admit… a couple of the films on my list are some of those films. I guarantee you that you will all disagree with me on at least one movie on this list. So, with that in mind, here are my Top 12 favorite films of the year. For the record, yes I am doing a ‘Top 12’ list again just like last year and that is something I think I’ll be doing each year now. That is because I do see a lot of films each year and I want to cover as many of the good films I’ve seen as I can, most of them are films that will not be a part of the Oscar race.

Before I start this off, let me lay down the usual ground rules that I have for this list. First off, this is a Spoiler Post (!); I will be discussing major spoilers for pretty much every film on this list so you have been warned. If you haven’t seen any of these films, I suggest you watch them first before reading what I have to say. Second, like pretty much every year, I have not seen every film that has come out in 2013. Films like ‘Nebraska’, ‘Dallas Buyers Club’, and ‘The Spectacular Now’ will not be on this list so don’t be surprised if you don’t see them here because I haven’t seen them. Finally, and most importantly, please be respectful of everyone’s opinion. Obviously as I’ve said earlier, some of these films haven’t gone over well with audiences, so I guarantee you guys that you will no doubt disagree with me at least once on this list. Just don’t go and be an idiot and say something along the lines of ‘my opinion doesn’t matter’ for liking a movie that you didn’t like. This is just my personal opinion; everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. If there’s one thing that pisses me off more than a bad movie, it is when no one’s respecting others’ opinion.

First up, here are the Honorable Mentions and this year I have five.

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY



It’s really good to see Pixar return to form after two rather lackluster films in 2011’s ‘Cars 2’ and 2012’s ‘Brave’… well, almost. No, I don’t think this is the best Pixar film, but it is still a very good movie nevertheless. It’s a prequel that may have been a little unnecessary but it manages to avoid some of the things that plague most prequels, like phoned in references to the previous film. Not only that, but the story itself has a very heartwarming message; being able to believe in who you are against all odds. That is the story of everyone’s favorite one-eyed monster, Mike Wazowski, once again voiced by the incredibly talented Billy Crystal, who is repeatedly told that he doesn’t belong in the University’s Scare Program but continuously works to prove everyone wrong. John Goodman reprises his role as Sulley as well and like the last film, the two of them work off each other very well. Unlike ‘Monsters, Inc.’ which was more focused around Sulley and his relationship with the little girl Boo, this is more Mike’s story and yet it also gives Sulley a really well-developed character arc as well. At first, he actually comes off as a bit of a jerk but as the movie goes on, not only does he change his ways but, like Mike, he also starts to discover his talents as for most of the movie, he mainly gets by on his family legacy. As we see, even that legacy has had a rather negative impact on him. With a terrific voice cast, beautiful animation, and a lot of humor, ‘Monsters University’ is easily one of the best animated films of the year (though not really the best, as we’ll see in a bit).

THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG



I do really like the first ‘Hobbit’, despite the fact that it felt too long. It made the number 11 spot on last year’s list after I initially gave it a 4/5 rating. This year, ‘Desolation of Smaug’ just misses the cut… despite the fact that I gave it a better rating, 4.5/5. Why? Well, to be honest, this was a bit more crowded of a year. Regardless, I think this film is a big improvement over ‘An Unexpected Journey’ mainly because this one has better pacing. Benedict Cumberbatch steals the show as the titular dragon Smaug, which is easily one of the best dragons ever in the history of film. However, at the same time, now I have a new worry about this ‘trilogy’ of films that shouldn’t really have been a trilogy in the first place. Obviously considering the fact that ‘The Hobbit’ is a very small book compared to the massive ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, Peter Jackson and the filmmakers obviously have to include more stuff in to fit what will no doubt be a 9+ hour trilogy. But this is at the expense of some characters getting the shaft when it comes to character development, like most of the dwarves. The only major dwarves that have gotten any real character development in these movies are Thorin (obviously because he’s the lead), Balin, and Kili. Remember, there are 13 dwarves and I’m pretty sure that I’m still not able to remember all of their names because most of them haven’t done much in these movies. Also, for a film called ‘The Hobbit’, the actual Hobbit himself, Bilbo, is a side character for most of the movie. Still, the film is well-acted, the new additions (like Orlando Bloom returning as Legolas and Evangeline Lilly as an original character, Tauriel) are welcome, and it’s still just really nice to be back in Middle-Earth. However, I hope that ‘There and Back Again’ will be able to conclude this trilogy as best as it can.

PACIFIC RIM



‘Pacific Rim’ is just one of those ‘shut off your brain’ movies. Yeah, this movie is stupid, and it is most certainly a case of style over substance, but I think that was what director Guillermo Del Toro was going for with this movie. It delivers on exactly what it promises; giant robots, giant monsters, and giant robot/giant monster battles. This movie is an action-packed thrill ride from beginning to end and if you can accept it as that without being too overly critical on the writing, then you will really enjoy this film. Sure, the writing is not exactly perfect, and the characters may not totally be that well-developed. But at the same time, the film isn’t completely devoid of character and substance. The actors all do pretty good jobs, particularly Idris Elba and Del Toro regular Ron Perlman. All in all, ‘Pacific Rim’ probably won’t be winning any Oscars (unless they’re for technical achievements, like visual effects) but it’s just a fun popcorn flick that’s very, very enjoyable.

ANCHORMAN 2: THE LEGEND CONTINUES



Most sequels usually end up being not as good as the original, especially if that sequel is a comedy. Most comedy sequels tend to suck but thankfully ‘Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues’ is not one of those films. Sure, in the end, ‘Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy’ is still the better movie, mainly because it’s so quotable. Still, I have to give Will Ferrell and Adam McKay credit for being able to not only continue the story but to also make a film that is just as funny as the original. Ferrell and the rest of the returning players from the first movie (Paul Rudd, Christina Applegate, Steve Carell, and David Koechner) all return to their roles with ease and their camaraderie/chemistry is second-to-none. ‘Anchorman 2’: One of the rare comedy sequels that is actually pretty good.

SAVING MR. BANKS



Seeing how this is a Disney film, there was a possibility that the filmmakers might have been pro-Disney in telling the story of the production of their 1964 classic, ‘Mary Poppins’. They could have just had Walt been ‘right’ all of the time and try to vilify P.L. Travers for disagreeing with everything Walt did, but thankfully they don’t do that. Both are portrayed positively and the story is actually more about Travers, as it should be. We see how she’s worried about how Disney is going to adapt her beloved story to the big screen, as most authors probably are when their works are adapted to film. We also see why this story means so much to her, because it was heavily inspired by her own childhood, with the story’s patriarch, Mr. Banks, directly inspired from Travers’ alcoholic but loving father. Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, and Colin Farrell all shine in this dramatization of the story. Sure, the whole story may not have translated onto screen (like Travers’ disgust with the finished project or Walt ultimately overruling most of her objections) but as a whole it’s just an interesting story. It does take a little while to get going, but it still worked out in the end.

And now we officially kick things off at number 12 with a film that many are predicting will be one of the top contenders at this year’s Oscars, along with another film that, spoilers, you’ll be seeing much later on in this list. Why then is it only at Number 12, you ask? Well, to be honest, it’s a truly amazing film but more on a technical level.

12. GRAVITY



I’ll openly admit that while I do stand by my original rating for the film (5/5), ultimately I ended up liking the next 11 films on this list a little bit more. But that’s not to discredit what a truly amazing film this is. From a technical standpoint, this film is a visual masterpiece. It has incredible special effects, gorgeous cinematography, and is a very effective thriller that will have you on the edge of your seat. However, at the same time, the film really isn’t the best when it comes to the writing. Still, I wouldn’t consider it bad; it’s just simple. There’s only two main characters in this, and they are your basic character archetypes. Sandra Bullock’s character is the rookie astronaut, while George Clooney’s character is the veteran who’s on his last mission. Yes, the character development may seem very simple, but I don’t think that’s the fault of the filmmakers, specifically director Alfonso Cuaron. I believe that his focus was more on making this film a visual masterpiece and he most certainly succeeds at doing that. Even with the simplified character development, both Sandra Bullock and George Clooney do great jobs nevertheless. Bullock, who basically is the only one on screen for the majority of the film, more than holds their own and while Clooney is not in the film that much, he’s still quite charming as he usually is. I won’t say ‘Gravity’ is the best film of the year, but it is still pretty darn good.

As I said earlier, ‘Monsters University’ was one of the best animated films of the year, but I didn’t call it the overall best. Number 11 is my pick for the best animated film of the year, and coincidentally, both films were released by the same company; Disney.

11. FROZEN



Like with Pixar and ‘Monsters University’, it’s good to see Disney’s main animation studio get back on track after a rather shaky start in the early 2000’s. I haven’t seen ‘Princess and the Frog’ and ‘Tangled’ in full, but ‘Wreck it Ralph’ was my pick for the best animated film last year and lo and behold, ‘Frozen’ gets that honor for this year’s list. It’s a film that goes back to the tradition of old-school Disney musicals like ‘Beauty and the Beast’ or ‘The Little Mermaid’ but at the same time it’s done with a modern flair. Sure, it seems like Disney’s starting to move away from traditional animation, but at the same time their computer animated films are now starting to reflect certain stylistic designs from their traditionally animated films.

This film has a great cast of characters. The main leads Anna and Elsa are both very engaging and the sister dynamic between them is really nice, something I don’t think Disney’s really done before. In a bold change from the original source material, Elsa the Snow Queen is not the villain of the film and both she and Anna are not the typical Disney princesses of old. They’re not prim and proper and they don’t need a man to do their work for them. The mountain-man Kristoff and his reindeer Sven are also fun characters mainly because they have a fun camaraderie, with Kristoff ‘translating’ all of Sven’s thoughts. But easily the best character in this whole film is the snowman Olaf. Not only does he get all of the best lines, but the fact that he’s a snowman wishing to experience summer for the first time is just hilarious. However, not all of the characters work though. The prince that Anna falls in love with, Hans, is pretty bland and even when he’s revealed to be the main villain, he’s still not that memorable. Another bland character is the Duke of Weselton (voiced by the sadly underused Alan Tudyk). At first it seems like he’s going to be the main villain but in the end they do nothing with him.

The music by Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez is pretty good but in the end, one song stands out above the rest. That song is Elsa’s big solo, ‘Let It Go’. Going back to what I said earlier about her characterization, this song really defines her character not being the main villain of the film. At this point in the story, she’s become an outcast after her powers have been revealed to the people of Arendelle. Before, she was told to keep her powers a secret but now she’s no longer afraid to do so. Again, this isn’t for evil purposes, she’s just finally free to use her powers to their full potential. This is easily one of the best Disney songs in recent years and I’m pretty sure it’s a shoe-in for ‘Best Original Song’ at this year’s Oscars. As a whole, ‘Frozen’ may not exactly be the best Disney film ever (the claim in the marketing that it’s ‘the best since ‘The Lion King’ is a little pretentious, especially to me considering that ‘Lion King’ is my all-time favorite Disney film), but it’s certainly one of their best of the last few years.

Number 10 is the first of the ‘fairly controversial’ movies that I mentioned in the intro. This is one of the summer blockbusters that had a rather mixed reception, despite the fact that it did pretty darn well both critically and commercially. Actually, as far as the box office was concerned, ‘pretty darn well’ is an understatement. This was the highest grossing film of the year (over $1 Billion), and I think it’s also one of the most unfairly criticized films of the year.

10. IRON MAN 3



There are 3 ‘complaints’ that many are having with this film, and I believe that these are rather unfair in regard to a movie that is far better than what many are saying. These three main complaints are:

A. The lack of the other Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D.



Many question where the other Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. were during the course of the entire movie. Aside from a few references and a key cameo in the post-credits scene, Tony Stark was the only Avenger on screen. Well, I can answer that… they had their own crap to deal with. I think that it’s unfair to judge every superhero movie now for not having a whole team of superheroes; films like ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ and ‘Thor: The Dark World’ are in this category as well. Sure, we would all love to see ‘Avengers’ movies year-after-year, but it’s not that simple. Not every superhero film can be a big team-up film and be directed by Joss Whedon. They need time to develop these films and the Cinematic Universe that they reside in. How do they do that? By doing solo films, which you know, they’ve been doing since 2008’s ‘Iron Man’? As I keep bringing it up, the solo films are the main reason why ‘The Avengers’ worked as well as it did. Solo superhero films are just as effective as the team films, and this one is no exception. If someone asked, “Hey, where are the other Avengers? Where’s S.H.I.E.L.D.?” during every single action sequence, then that would get really, really annoying. Besides, isn’t Iron Man like the most popular of the Avengers anyway? His movies are the highest-grossing in the MCU (not counting ‘Avengers’, of course).

B. Tony Stark not being in the suit much



Tony Stark isn’t really in the Iron Man suit that much over the course of the film… just like in ‘Iron Man 2’… and yes folks, even the first ‘Iron Man’ movie. Looking back at that film, he’s not in the Iron Man suit that much either. More importantly, like with how the need for more superheroes isn’t necessary for every film, this shows that these films can work if the characters are well-developed, and in the case of Tony Stark, it most certainly is. Think about all of your favorite comic book superheroes; Batman, Captain America, the Hulk, Superman, etc. They all have one thing in common; their superhero identity is not their only one. It’s not the suit that makes the man; it is the man who makes the suit. They can’t cover up Robert Downey Jr.’s face all of the time, you know.

And of course, the most controversial aspect of this film:

C. The Mandarin Twist





Yeah, you’ve probably heard about this by now, but if by some chance you haven’t I’ll give you the rundown. As the movie begins, we’re introduced to who we presume to be the main villain, the terrorist/mastermind known as ‘The Mandarin’ (played by Ben Kingsley). He’s established to be quite the threatening villain early on, mostly by destroying Tony’s house after he threatens him on national television. Yes, that ‘threating a terrorist’ part’s pretty stupid, but I’m not too bothered by it because I think he was just emotionally compromised because his former bodyguard, Happy Hogan, had just barely survived one of the Mandarin’s ‘bombings’. But things start to change at the halfway point. Tony infiltrates the Mandarin’s base in Miami and comes across the Mandarin himself and as it turns out, the guy we thought to be the Mandarin… is just a drunken British actor by the name of Trevor Slattery. He was only playing the part of ‘The Mandarin’ while the main villain Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) was controlling everything behind the scenes. I’m just going to come out and say it… this is one of the best twists in any film in recent years.

First off, I have to give a whole lot of credit for everyone involved for managing to keep this secret. In this day and age where any major detail about a film could be spoiled at any moment (see my number 4 for proof of that), I applaud them for keeping this as hidden as they did. To paraphrase the ‘Mandarin’, or Trevor Slattery to be more precise, we truly ‘never saw this coming’. But more importantly, in the end what’s important is this… it actually worked from a story perspective. Let’s be honest, the Mandarin that many were hoping for is not really PC these days, and co-writers Shane Black and Drew Pearce make a bold move in changing things up. At the same time, it works because the main villain Killian was able to successfully create ‘an image of fear’ that keeps the heat off of him, the true mastermind behind all of this. Near the end of the film, when Tony is fighting Killian, he proclaims that ‘he is the Mandarin’. I understand the idea, but I don’t necessarily view Killian as the real ‘Mandarin’; it’s still just the image.

For reference, let’s briefly discuss another major character change in another superhero film, ‘Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer’. That film changed up the design for the character of Galactus. Instead of being a gigantic man in a purple outfit, he was changed to a cloud. I understand why they decided to do this, because the former design is not exactly that practical. But as far as that film went, it was purely a cosmetic change and there was no reason why the character had to be a cloud. Here, I understand that it’s a drastic change from the source material, but Black and Pearce do give the proper explanation as to why it is. Ben Kingsley certainly got the most out of the role. When he’s ‘The Mandarin’, he’s properly menacing and commanding. When he’s Trevor Slattery, he’s properly goofy. He succeeds at being two characters at once and I would be interested in seeing this character again in perhaps either ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ (and please don’t get me started on how, like this film, that show has been getting a bit of a unfair rep) or even an Marvel One-Shot, which apparently they are doing where they will actually have the ‘real’ Mandarin in it. That will be very interesting to watch.

With that in mind, that gives you an idea of what kind of movie director Shane Black made here. It’s radically different from most of the other superhero films out there. I mean, how many superhero films are set around Christmas? As far as I know, none aside from this one. From a writing perspective, this film also does a great job at concluding the story of Tony Stark, whose now haunted by the events of ‘The Avengers’, sort of making him a shell of the man he once was. This is also Robert Downey Jr’s best performance in the role. He dials back on the arrogance that was a little too much on display in ‘Iron Man 2’ but still maintains his usual cocky but yet still likable persona. The ending, where Tony gets the shrapnel in his chest removed and destroys all of his Iron Man suits, does leave a rather big question about what kind of role he’ll be playing in ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ but I’m pretty sure they’ll find a way to properly incorporate him into the story. The rest of the cast is terrific as well; Don Cheadle gets more to do in this film than the last one and his camaraderie with Downey Jr. is much better. Gwyneth Paltrow still sort of gets stuck in the ‘damsel’ role at times as Pepper, but her chemistry with Tony is still excellent and she does get more to do than what she usually does. I mean, she actually kills the main villain… that’s actually pretty awesome.

As the main villain, Guy Pearce (who thankfully has been getting more work in recent years… he is a much underrated actor) is excellent. I’m not so sure yet if he’s the best villain in the ‘Iron Man’ universe (as I kind of prematurely claimed in my original review), but I think he was given a real nice amount of character development here. I like the backstory for Killian, as he tried to discuss business with Tony when the two of them first met in 1999 but was ignored (and yes, this is just like in ‘The Incredibles’… I get it). However, if there’s one character who kind of got the short end of the stick, it would be Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen. Hall’s fine in the role, but she doesn’t get much to do. In fact, they don’t really establish whose side Maya is on. At first it seems like she’s going to be an ally of Tony, but then we learn her boss is Killian and she starts working with him again but then it seems like she’s still on Tony’s side. Not only is it unclear, they don’t effectively establish who she ultimately sided with… because they killed her off. Still, despite that, this is another fantastic entry from Marvel that I think has been getting a bit of a bad rep.

Check back tomorrow for Part 2, for Numbers 9-7.