My Top Ten Films of 2013

Like just about every blogger out there, I felt the need to write up a Top Ten List of last year's films.  I haven't seen all of the major Oscar contenders, but as of now I feel like I've seen enough of them that my Top 10 is pretty stable.  Among those I haven't seen yet: Mud, Frozen, Nebraska, All is Lost and, most regrettably, Short Term 12.

The links will take you to my original reviews of each film.

1. 12 Years a Slave - Honestly, my top three films are pretty much a dead heat, but I feel inclined to give 12 Years a Slave the edge because it takes subject matter that could have felt like pandering Oscar bait and finds a way to make it a horrific personal film about one man trapped in a living nightmare.  It knows when to be subtle and when to beat us over the head with the brutality of slavery.  Of all the films I saw this year, this might have been the one that left me with the most to think about afterwards.  There's little doubt in my mind that Chiwetel Ejiofor deserves the Oscar for his performance here and Steve McQueen is equally deserving of a Best Director nomination.

2. Gravity - I don't know how you begin to write a film like Gravity, much less direct it.  Alfonso Cuaron's film is a marvel of directing, visual effects and acting.  Some say there's no character arc in this, which to me is just indicative that they're not looking closely enough.  Many films this year offered spectacle, but for my money, no film delivered on that promise better than Gravity.

3. Her - Her could flippantly be described as a story about man who falls in love with his Siri.  That's not totally accurate.  The computer "operating system" Samantha is a few evolutionary steps above Siri, but not to a ridiculous degree.  Our lead character, Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), is a lonely introvert who's still not made piece with his separation and impending divorce from his wife. Every part of Theodore's world has a veneer of phoniness to it, so it's not terribly surprising that he'd bond with his newly purchased O.S. "Samantha." In exploring the relationship, the film first seems to deconstruct the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" trope and in going beyond that, writer/director Spike Jonze begins to explore more universal truths about relationships.

4. The Wolf of Wall Street - A portrait of excess that's unfortunately been misunderstood by many. Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese do some of their best work ever in this three-hour film about one of the greediest, slimiest stockbrokers to ever make a penny off his clients' greed and have them come back begging for more.  In its own way, it forces us to confront that part of ourselves that wants the life Jordan Belfort represents.

5. Captain Phillips - aka "the film that reminds us why Tom Hanks is so revered." The final scene of the film is incredible, as Hanks vividly shows us that the trauma of the hostage situation didn't end immediately with Phillips's liberation.  Equally impressive is how Barkhad Abdi holds his own with Hanks every moment they are on screen together - a feat that's even more remarkable once you realize this is Abdi's first feature film.

6. The Spectacular Now - There are a lot of virtues to be found in The Spectacular Now, but perhaps one of the most satisfying elements is the honest writing of the characters.  This is one of those movies where the viewer can't help but marvel at how authentic everything feels, even when it would be so easy for the script to veer into more common explorations of first love and high school cliques.  Director James Ponsoldt does a wonderful job of conveying the subtlety and nuance in Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber's script. This is the sort of film that is so natural that the writing appears deceptively easy, even though the truth is precisely the opposite. If you overlooked this one last summer, check it out on DVD when it's released later this month.

7. American Hustle - I didn't get to do a full review of this one back when I first saw it and now I wish I had because the capsule review here won't do justice to all my thoughts on it.  My big takeaway from this film was how rich and fleshed-out the characters were.  You want to know how to get a movie made? Get strong talent attached. And how do you do that? Write characters with as much range and complexity as the principle cast here.  Everyone scores here.  I've seen complaints that the structure was too loose, that the plot was too slight.  I don't agree with that and even if I did, guys like Christian Bale's Irving and Bradley Cooper's Richie were so fascinating, I'd have watched a whole movie of those guys just interacting.

8. Man of Steel - I rewatched this one a second time just a few weeks ago and found that my strong first impressions of the film weren't just "midnight screening" excitement. If anything, I enjoyed the film even more a second time.  David Goyer's script isn't quite as strong as some of his Dark Knight entries, but he still does a teriffic job of making an old story feel new. Some condemned this because this didn't feel like the Superman they knew.

As someone who's lived with multiple interpretations of the mythos including two or three comic book reboots, the Donner films, Lois & Clark, Smallville and more, I've gotten used to accepting sometimes wildly distinct takes on the continuity.  Judging this film on its own terms rather than what came before is not only fairer to the film, but a better way to enjoy it.  Henry Cavill is perfect casting as Superman and for my money one of the most exhilarating visual sequences of the year is Clark exiting the spaceship in full costume and gradually learning to take flight.  If the joy on Superman's face when he finally soars doesn't make you smile, you probably have no soul.


9. The Conjuring - The was the one unqualified success in horror this year.  Several reviewers have focused on the "clapping game" scare, but for my money the opening sequence was one of the first genuinely unsettling things I've seen in a horror film in a while.  More amazingly, it involves zero violence.  There's an amazing sense of dread achieved just with a dark hallway, a shaft of light bisecting the darkness, a prone doll and creepy writing on the wall.  As the director of Saw, James Wan bears some responsibility for the decade of torture porn scripts that I suffered through in its wake. Thus, I feel his role in reviving a more restrained approach to horror might be the biggest redemption story of the year.

10. Dallas Buyers Club - I've never really understood the hate for Matthew McConaughey. Like Ben Affleck, the guy's gotten a lot of hate and derision that seems undeserved.  There might have been a period where he was trapped in rom-com hell, but I've always liked the guy, maybe just out of affection for his work in A Time to Kill.  That's why it's so great to see him remind everyone just how good he can be in this 1980s-set story about a man with HIV who's given 30 days to live and prolongs his life through illegal medications which he also provides to other patients in his situation.  This is one I definitely feel I'll need to revisit outside of the awards glut, just to fully absorb it.  Jared Leto does great work as a transgender HIV-positive patient.  It's not really a feel-good movie and is probably my most-debated entry here, but man, is this a great second act for McConaughey.

Overall, 2013 was a great year for film.  This was the first year in a long time where I was often seeing more than one movie a week and still felt like I was falling behind in the awards season crush.  I could probably craft a full top ten list out of my runner-ups and still be leaving some great movies off.  Among the other films I really enjoyed that almost made the cut were Saving Mr. Banks, Don Jon, Rush, Side Effects, Lone Survivor and This is the End.  Also, V/H/S 2 was about 75% awesome, particularly the cult segment "Safe Haven" written and directed by Timo Tjahjanto and Gareth Huw Evans.

Even the summer tentpoles were generally pretty good, with Iron Man 3 being the best movie of the trilogy (though nothing beats the first hour of the original film), Star Trek Into Darkness managing some great work with Kirk's character, even if the film wasn't quite as good as Abrams's previous effort, and World War Z proving that you CAN save a film late in production and that Damon Lindelof is capable of being your script's trauma surgeon.  There might have been some duds this year, but it definitely felt like the quantity of good material was a lot higher than in recent years.

No matter what your tastes were, there should have been something that came out this year that restored your faith in the movies.  If you came out of 2013 cynical about the state of film, I'm quite confidant in saying that nothing would satisfy you.

Post #997 - Some thoughts on Superman vs Batman vs Wonder Woman

Uh oh. The internet's being cranky. Someone must have announced some comic book movie news.

Yesterday Warner Bros announced that Gal Gadot will be playing Wonder Woman in the still-unnamed Man of Steel sequel which everyone has been referring to as Batman vs. Superman.  Right now it's starting to seem significant that WB has conspicuously not affixed that moniker officially.  At ComiCon, the announcement was made by way of a logo mash-up featuring the Bat symbol and the Superman crest.  Beyond that, we don't know much more except that David Goyer's writing, Zack Snyder's directing and Ben Affleck is joining the cast as Batman.

If Wonder Woman is now also a part of the cast, could this mean that the true title of the film will end up being JUSTICE LEAGUE?  It's kind of exciting to consider that possibility because I like the idea that the studio has been able to keep so many details out of the public eye and thus far is releasing information on their own terms.  As much as fanboys scream and cry that they want to know everything now (probably so they can begin their manifestos on how it's not what THEY would do and thus it's therefore wrong) there's something to be said for the joy of filmmakers completely surprising their audience.

My take: I think Gadot could have the right look for Wonder Woman.  Sure she's skinny now, but the right trainer could easily put her in Sarah Conner-in-T2 asskicker mode.  She's got the right kind of exotic beauty and she's enough of an unknown that she brings little baggage to the part.  I've already seen fanboys whining that her boobs aren't big enough, but I think we need to focus on what really matters - the fact she's got a butt that can pull off the tight and revealing Wonder Woman trunks.

I kid, I kid.  Though that cheap joke would be more out of line were it not for the fact that her character's biggest contribution to the Fast & Furious series was using that asset to get a criminal's fingerprints onto her bikini bottom.*


*This is why real spies don't wear thongs.

Bottom line: I'm rather bewildered by all the venom directed at Warners about this casting. Some people hate the actress. And some people are pissed that Wonder Woman is making her big screen debut as a supporting player in a male hero's film.  I guess I can't say I'm surprised - fanboy overreaction has been a tradition since back before the outrage over Michael Keaton's casting as Batman - but it feels like a real waste of energy to be this angry when we really still don't really know anything.

I'll admit, as someone who loved Man of Steel it does bother me a little that instead of getting a straight-up Superman sequel, the new movie is more of a stage-setter for JUSTICE LEAGUE (if not JUSTICE LEAGUE itself.)  My preference would have been a bit more world-building of the Superman mythos, especially considering the first film didn't do anything with the Clark Kent reporter disguise.  My immediate reaction is that it feels too soon to crowd the movie with other characters.

However, I'm open to the possibility that Snyder and Goyer have somehow found a way to tell a story that explores the Superman mythos while also integrating Batman and Wonder Woman.  As nothing has been released about the story, it's not worth getting worked up over what I presume they might be doing.

But I also don't want another Iron Man 2, which pretty much stands as one of the weakest Marvel movies - in large part because it was forced to give a lot of screentime over to connective tissue to the other films.  The vast majority of material involving S.H.I.E.L.D. and Black Widow was there mostly to lay pipe for The Avengers.  Hopefully Warners and DC Entertainment are capable of learning from Marvel's mistakes as well as their successes.

I also wonder (oh shit, pun TOTALLY not intended, but I'm too lazy to think of something better) if the fact that they're introducing Wonder Woman here means that the studio is further along in developing a Wonder Woman script than they've lead on.  For all we know, her role in Batman vs. Superman is little more than a cameo that sets up a solo feature that will go into production right after BvS wraps.  I'd feel a lot better about the state of DC films overall if something like that is in the works.

Or it could just be a trial balloon designed to see if it's even worth the effort to develop a Wonder Woman standalone.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  This might be a good time to revisit my old post at Film School Rejects, "The Biggest Challenges Facing a Wonder Woman Movie."

Can we at least agree that if Warners does develop Wonder Woman, we'll force Emily Blake to tell us her pitch if someone else lands the assignment?

My review of "Man of Steel"

Be warned, this review drops major spoilers for "Man of Steel."

For many audiences, Man of Steel might feel like a significant departure from the Superman mythos. Indeed, a cursory glance at some of the negative reviews suggests that the shadows of Christopher Reeve and original Superman director Richard Donner loom large over any adaptation of the 75 year-old comic book. Indeed, it’s hard to think of any live-action incarnation of Superman in the last 30 years that didn’t either pay direct homage to the Reeve films or feel like they could comfortably exist alongside them. (Even though Lois & Clark went somewhat afield, there was little likely to shock casual fans.)

It’s appropriate that the film is entitled Man of Steel, as that was also the name of a 1986 comic book mini-series by John Byrne that reinvented the Superman legend to a similar degree. Though the revamp made the then-48 year-old character more accessible to modern readers (including yours truly), it also alienated some longtime fans who held a more rigid view of how the character should be depicted. Among those fans was future comic book writer Mark Waid, who teased Byrne at one convention “Okay John, when can we get the real Superman back?”

Perhaps not surprisingly, Waid is not a fan of this new film. There is a certain irony in this, as much of the film feels inspired by SUPERMAN: BIRTHRIGHT, a 2004 miniseries that afforded Waid his own opportunity to reinvent the hero’s origins. (Full disclosure: I’m not a terribly big fan of this mini, particularly the art.)

The film opens on Krypton, where we explore a great deal more about the culture and society of the planet as it reaches its final days. There’s a greater sense of scope here than in Donner’s version, even as the film hits the same bullet points (Kal-El launched away in a rocket, Zod and his followers condemned to the Phantom Zone for treason.) Unlike the delightfully evil megalomaniac played by Terrance Stamp in the original two Reeve films, Michael Shannon’s Zod is given more backstory and complexity.

On this Krypton, everyone is bred genetically, not born, and grown to fulfill a specific role in society. Zod – as we learn – was created to preserve and defend the sanctity of his race. Kal-El is an aberration because his parents conceived him naturally so that he would have the freedom to choose his own path. To Zod, this is a perversion.

After the prologue where Kal-El is rocketed away seemingly moments before Krypton explodes, we leap forward some 33 years to find Clark living the life of a drifter. Circumstance often puts him in a position to save others in peril, essentially turning him into an urban legend that reporter Lois Lane comes to investigate following a later encounter when Clark saves her life.

Much like Batman Begins, the film leaps back and forth through Clark’s life at will, filling in his childhood years even as we see his adult self step closer to his inevitable destiny. Though Kevin Costner shines as Jonathan Kent in all of these scenes, the non-linear structure isn’t quite as impactful here as it was in Nolan’s first Batman film. Many of Costner’s scenes are good enough to make this a minor issue at worst.

The film’s depiction of Jonathan Kent is likely to be one of the bigger points of dissention between those who love the film and those who hate it. Throughout all the incarnations, one constant has been that Jonathan Kent provides Clark with his moral compass. That’s essentially true here, though in this version, Jonathan is fearful for what would happen if Clark were to make his existence known. Cleverly, this isn’t couched only as a father’s protective (or selfish) desire to keep his son safe. No, in one scene Jonathan ruminates on what it would mean for the world to know for certain that they aren’t alone in the universe. He believes – rightly or wrongly – that the greater good of humanity is better served by preserving that secret, even in the face of saving lives.

And he dies for that belief.

In virtually every other version, Jonathan Kent is felled by a fatal heart attack. It’s the absolute embodiment of Superman’s limitations. As the famous line from the Donner film goes, “All those things I could do - all those powers – and I couldn’t even save him!” Man of Steel might be the only instance where Jonathan Kent’s death that was 100% preventable by Clark. The only catch is that in order for Clark to save his father, he’d have to expose his powers. It’s clear from Clark’s reactions that he’s fully prepared to do this – to damn the consequences to humanity and rescue his dad.

But that’s not what Jonathan wants. Pa Kent’s last act on Earth is to die for his convictions, to accept a fate he demanded his son leave others to, so as to not risk exposure. And Clark honors it.

In Clark’s shoes, I don’t think I’d be able to do the same. In the context of this film, it’s a heroic act and a noble death for Jonathan. I respect that this will be a sticking point for many. My own gut reaction was to reject this scene, but the more I let it sink in, the more I’m okay with it.

The action picks up in the second half of the film, as Zod and his armies come to Earth and demand Kal-El turn himself into them. This has the effect of casting Superman’s public debut quite differently from the other films. He doesn’t get the heroic coming out of saving a helicopter, a space shuttle or a 777. Instead, his presence is outed by Zod. From Earth’s point of view, they’re caught in the crossfire between one alien infiltrator and a very powerful alien armada. This means that when things go to hell for Smallville and Metropolis, one would expect the world would blame Superman for the catastrophe as much as they might credit him with save.

And make no mistake, this is pure destruction porn for the last 45 minutes or so in the film. Remember the battles in the western small town and later in Metropolis in Superman II? Man of Steel takes both of those and turns the devastation up beyond Transformers levels. It’s at once more violent and less moving than similar scenes in The Avengers, actually. As thrilling as it is to see Kryptonians kick the shit out of each other (and make no mistake, it is AWESOME to see these titans finally cut loose) the human scale is almost completely lost when buildings start tumbling left and right in Metropolis.

The main failing here is that we’ve barely spent enough time in Metropolis to have an emotional connection to it. The few minutes of screentime doled out to Perry White and the rest of the Daily Planet staff aren’t enough to compensate for this. Even though we’re watching a citywide catastrophe that’s on the order of 9/11 times 20, I felt nothing for the poor inhabitants of the city who were watching everything crumble to dust around them. For all we care, Metropolis might as well be a city of a half-dozen people.

After 9/11, we wondered when – if ever – it would be acceptable for Hollywood to depict such wanton destruction again. If The Avengers didn’t answer that, this film surely did. It’s odd – it’s treated too solemnly to be entirely escapist in nature, but there’s also little regard for the casualties of the siege. At least if they’d exploited 9/11, the audience might have felt something more. Larger issues aside, the effects are glorious and effectively raise the stakes for any future superhero battle.

The final resolution of the battle is another moment likely to be debated by comic book geeks. After a battle with Zod that lays waste to most of downtown Metropolis, Superman finally manages to get Zod in a sleeper hold. Still unwavering, Zod reaches out with his heat vision, ready to fry a group of civilians.

So Superman snaps his neck.

My mother emailed me to take exception to that scene. She felt the final battles went on for far too long and asked why Superman didn’t just snap Zod’s neck sooner? I’d argue that Superman needed to beat Zod enough so he had the physical leverage to perform that action. (It ain’t exactly easy to snap a neck.) Frankly, given that Zod’s neck should be indestructible, it’s amazing that even Superman could snap it.

Cavill is fantastic in the Clark/Superman role.  There's just something about the way he carries himself that makes you say "That IS Superman," even when only shown in silhouette.  His interpretation is different enough from Reeve's that it avoids inviting direct comparison.  That in itself is a superhuman achievement.  There's not a moment of this film where you're likely to be tempted to compare him and Reeve to each other.  Amy Adams makes a wonderful Lois and she has some great chemistry with Cavill. I bought her as a reporter, but my one issue with her might be her voice. It’s a little too soft and whispery for a reporter who we usually associate with bold, assertive tones.

I haven’t yet touched on the Codex, the MacGuffin that Zod is pursuing. It’s boils down to some sci-fi mumbo jumbo about how Superman’s DNA is coded with all the children who were to be bred on Krypton. I buy a lot in sci-fi, but I hate what some critics have termed “fun with DNA.” As much as I don’t like the mechanics of it, I approve of the drama that it leads to. Zod wants to use Superman’s blood to create a new Krypton. It could be the salvation of a long-dead society. Superman’s quandary is made perhaps too easy when Zod reveals that in order to save Krypton, it will require destroying Earth.

But it forces a clear choice from Superman and he chooses his adoptive home over his genetic one. “Krypton had it’s chance!” he tells Zod in the throes of one of their battles. Kal-El may be Kryptonian by birth, but his heart is human. In a film where the humans characters are shown (rightly, for the most part) to be paranoid and mistrustful of the outsiders, it’s a moment that’s needed.

But these issues aren’t totally wrapped up in a tidy way and I’d expect them to be covered in further depth in the sequel. If nothing else, the fallout from the Battle of Metropolis must be addressed. I’d love a smaller-scaled sequel that finds a way to address what it must be like for the survivors. Perhaps if the film features more of Clark Kent’s work as a reporter for the Daily Planet, that can be an inroad to exploring Metropolis as a city.

The earlier Superman films position the character as a savior. Though he saves the day here, the way it unfolds makes it possible the world would not welcome their “strange visitor” with open arms. It would be a very different path for any Superman film to take, but after the events of this one, possibly the most logical.

For those who didn't walk out of Man of Steel terribly thrilled with the film, take heart.  There is a vast universe of Superman adaptations, and I'm sure that you'll find something more to your liking.  Goyer and Nolan made some bold choices with this version and I'd hope that even if I didn't appreciate the film, I'd salute their moxie.