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.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013) review

I really didn’t know what to expect going into this film. I remember the first time I saw this film’s trailer back around late July or so; that was before I really knew anything about the movie so I my initial thoughts were somewhere along the lines of ‘what movie is this?’ because I truly didn’t know anything about it, not even the original story it was based on. Regardless, it did leave quite the first impression on me because it looked very interesting. That story in question is a short story of the same name from 1939 by author James Thurber and it is regarded as his best story. It had been made into a movie before back in 1947 starring Danny Kaye as the titular Walter. This one, which is coincidentally produced by the son of the producer of the ’47 film, Samuel Goldwyn, is directed by Ben Stiller who stars as Walter in this version. So like I said, I didn’t know what to expect, not just from the first trailer but especially after this film received a pretty mixed reception from critics. In the end though, this one ended up being a pleasant surprise for me, mostly because of how creative the film was. It may not be entirely perfect, but it was still pretty entertaining.

The titular Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller) is a negative asset manager at Life Magazine. Walter, whose life is rather dull and uninteresting, frequently fantasizes of doing incredible things along with the hope of attracting the attention of one of his co-workers, Cheryl (Kristen Wiig). One day, renowned photographer Sean O’Connell (Sean Penn) sends Walter a special photograph that, according to him, captures the ‘Quintessence’ of the magazine. That photo in question, he suggests, should be used for the final issue of the magazine, as the company is set to move into the online business. However, that photo is nowhere to be found. Having never lost a photo in the sixteen years that he has been working for the company, Walter heads off on an adventure to find O’Connell in hopes of finding the photo, finally experiencing some excitement for the first time in his life.

This film really benefits from being very creative, mainly through some of the fantasies that Walter has in the movie. I mean I certainly wasn’t expecting one of his fantasies to parody ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ but aside from that, a lot of his fantasies (which are mainly in the first half of the film, which makes sense considering that he ultimately does go off on a real adventure) are very interesting; one of them even reminded me of those fights between Peter Griffin and the giant Chicken on ‘Family Guy’ (I won’t reveal the details of the fantasy that ‘parodies’ those scenes but if you see the movie, you’ll know what I’m talking about). This is also one of the best-looking films of the year in regards to its cinematography; there are plenty of landscape shots in this film and overall the film just looks really nice. This is Stiller’s first effort as a director that’s not primarily a ‘comedy’, but while the film does have a more serious tone to it than his other films, there’s still a pretty good amount of comedy in the film, like these multiple phone calls that Walter has with a customer service rep from eHarmony, played by funnyman Patton Oswalt.

Ben Stiller does a very good job in the lead role. He gives the character of Walter a very down-to-earth personality even when considering the fact that he has frequent fantasies. You do get the sense of what kind of person he is; someone that is sort of a ‘nobody’ who dreams of one day being someone and in that regard, he is pretty relatable. He has a really nice chemistry with Kristen Wiig whose character, like Stiller’s, also has a realistic and sensible personality. Their relationship feels real and that is really the key to a successful movie romance. Sean Penn, in a rather brief role, also does a very good job as well. His character has a very laid-back and zen-like attitude and while I’ll admit that I’m no expert in photography, I have a feeling that’s how most photographers would be like. The rest of the cast of characters are a bit more over-the-top, like Adam Scott as Walter’s new ‘jerk’ boss at Life or Oswalt as that eHarmony employee, but not really to the point that it negatively affects the movie itself.

This was one of those films that left me guessing going into it because I didn’t know what to expect from it after seeing the original trailer and seeing the film’s rather mixed critical reception. But in the end, ‘The Secret Life of Walter Mitty’ turned out to be a really nice surprise because of how good it ended up being. While more serious in tone than most of Stiller’s directorial work, this film benefits from having a good amount of humor in it and is both creative and one of the best-looking films of the year. Sure, maybe the writing is not as polished as it wants to be but the movie overcomes that just from its imaginative premise. The main characters do feel real even when some of the supporting characters are a bit more exaggerated. All in all, this is a film that I do recommend; it may not be entirely perfect, but it is still very entertaining. You can’t fault this film for being ambitious.

Rating: 4/5

'Wolf of Wall Street'/'American Hustle' (2013): Short Review Double Feature

Last year, I did a double feature of ‘Les Miserables’ and ‘Django Unchained’ with my good friend, fellow movie fanatic, and co-panelist on ‘The Feature Presentation’, Matthew Goudreau. This year, the two of us did another double feature and like last year, because I’m currently busy working on my ‘Top 12 Best films of the year’ list, I’m just going to do a pair of short reviews.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

What do you get when you take Martin Scorcese, one of the best directors of all time, Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the best actors working today, and a script, which itself is based off of a true story, written by Terrence Winter, creator of the hit HBO show ‘Boardwalk Empire’? One of the best damn films of the year, bar none; this is one incredible movie. Basically, to sum it up in a nutshell, this movie can get absolutely crazy at times, but even though it’s about 3 hours long, it never gets boring. It’s also ‘riotously funny’ (I say that in quotes because I’ll be referencing it for my review of the second film); one scene in particular that I don’t want to spoil, but I will say that it involves DiCaprio and a car, was probably the most I’ve ever laughed in any movie. DiCaprio of course is excellent as usual in the lead role, as is the rest of the talented cast, including Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey. The latter is only in the film briefly at the beginning but was an absolute scene-stealer. In the case of DiCaprio’s character, the movie does not glorify him (which is apparently what some are thinking from seeing the trailer). His character is actually quite the scumbag… and yet DiCaprio’s charm is still somewhat present. This is easily one of the best films of the year; what else would you expect from the talent that is involved both behind and in front of the camera.

Rating: 5/5!

AMERICAN HUSTLE

The second film of this doubleheader is ‘American Hustle’, the newest film from ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ director David O. Russell and starring a pair of leads from both of his last two films; In this case, Christian Bale and Amy Adams from ‘The Fighter’ and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from ‘Playbook’. This film has been getting quite the reviews from critics, currently standing at a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes… but to be honest I think it’s a little overrated in that regard. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is a bad movie. It’s just that it gets a little slow at times and I’m perplexed as to why some critics are viewing it as a ‘comedy’ because it really isn’t. The ‘general consensus’ on RT is that it is ‘riotously funny’. That fits ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ much better and in fact, I think that film deserves a better RT score (at the moment, it only stands at 77%). Heck, ‘American Hustle’ isn’t even classified as a comedy. It’s a crime drama, so what I am missing here? But despite that, the film does have really good things in it, like a great period piece design (being that it’s set in the 70’s), a really great soundtrack, and of course a great cast. As for the standouts, I’d give the honors to the two ladies in the film, Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence. Adams’ character is probably one of the most developed out of the leads and while Lawrence is not in the movie that much she is a scene-stealer. Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner are all great as well. Still, I don’t think this movie’s as good to garner a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes… and I don’t think it will make my Top 12. Perhaps an ‘Honorable Mention’ but I’m not entirely sure.

Rating: 3.5/5