Skyfall

I'm really not a James Bond guy.  As a result I was probably more annoyed by Skyfall than it deserves.  Don't get me wrong, it's reasonably entertaining and has some well executed set pieces.  However, since I don't really care about the characters (I've maybe seen three of Connery/Moore/Lazenby films, and found the Brosnan ones to be uniformly tedious) most of the big 'emotional' moments just elicited a 'meh.'   Anyway since its easier to be snarky, here's a random list of some problems I had with the film (mild spoilers).  None of them are any worse than many other films I do enjoy, but given my aforementioned lack of connection with the characters I ended not dwelling on them more than I would have otherwise:

1) The fundamental problem with the more recent films is that they really want to be more serious action films, but are still constrained by the bond cartoony elements (entendres, bad jokes, gadgets).  They obviously cut back on them, and you can tell the filmmakers are a little embarrassed by the inclusion, but this just makes them stick out more.  The tonal disconnect really contributes to my issues with the film.

2)  On the same point, I think these films need to decide whether they're going to be serious or cartoons.  Say what you want about the Mission Impossible films, they at least embrace the cartoon which makes the over the top action, and plot holes, easier to accept.

3)  Javier Bardem has been getting a lot of credit for being the one of the best villians ever, and I don't see it. Its not his fault, its just that the character's big hook is that he's so technologically advanced that he can bring down whole governments with the push of a button.  But then his big plan at the end just involves busting in with some goons and shooting it up.  No special weapons or anything.

4) The dialogue is unsubtle to say the least.  People give films like Cloud Atlas a lot of crap for beating you over the head with its theme, but Skyfall is about 20 times worse.  Some variation of the line "The old things are sometimes best" is said (or shown) about three hundred times.  Yes, we get it.  Bond is still relevant.

5) One more for an even 5. It was pointed out on the podcast Doug Loves Movies that the ending of skyfall is really just the climax of Home Alone.  That's not untrue.

Argo

Argo is a solidly entertaining, well-executed, thriller and doesn't really strive to be much more than that.  I can actually see it showing up in a solid rotation on basic cable, with a high-rewatchability factor.   Okay I wrote those two sentences two weeks ago after I've first saw the film, and now I'm no longer motivated (in so much of my life, but that's another story).  Whatever, its good.  Probably getting a little too much hype, but I'd rather have something like this be successful than a lot of other stuff.  Like your mom.

Okay, maybe in a week we'll see if I decided to suck it up and see the last Twilight film. Somehow I think not seeing the last three won't really hurt my understanding of the narrative.  These films aren't exactly Game of Thrones.

Cloud Atlas

I'm just going to say up front that I kind of enjoyed Cloud Atlas.  Yes its a bit of a mess, and some of the mechanics are a bit gimmicky, but its an incredibly ambitious film and I'm surprised at how much vitriol its seems to have generated.  Rather than getting into a detailed review here's some random thoughts.

1) it is a problem that the ending falls into the 'everything is connected' message that marks most of these interlocking story films (Babel, Crash, etc.).  While I usually find this annoying, what keeps the film from being insufferable is that it actually intersperses a fair amount of humor throughout (particular within the publisher story line).  This helps from keeping the whole thing feel like an overly pedantic slog, and stays entertaining for most of the 2 hour and 45 minute running time.

2) Using the same actors to play different characters is hit or miss.  I actually think it helps a bit to have the principles (Hanks, Berry, etc) do this, but when they have repeat characters playing incidental roles in some of the stories it does become distracting.  On the other hand we do get Hugh Grant looking like this:

3) There's been a lot of talk about how difficult the film is to follow, and I don't agree at all.  Yeah you have to pay a little bit of attention, but I think everything actually flows together pretty smoothly.  If anything you could argue that it ties together too nicely, and might have been more interesting had the ending not been so conventional (or as conventional as a film following six stories can be).

4)More than anything I just appreciate the balls on the Wachowski's and Tom Tryker for even making a film like this.   Even when it doesn't work, you can't help but admire their ambition.  The film is never boring, and really only the ending is where it completely falls apart (though I'm not sure there's a good way to tie the six different stories together).  I'll definitely check out the novel its based on, and it would just be nice to see more filmmakers make an effort like this.  Even if it doesn't work at least it would be interesting.

Seven Psychopaths

This film was made to order for me to like it.  I absolutely love director Martin  Mcdonagh 's last film, In Bruges,  and the cast (Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, and Colin Farrel) made me super excited before I knew anything else about the film. Then I saw the trailer and was all in.  Therefore, when only ended up finding it intermittently entertaining, I was pretty disappointed.   This review    actually does a pretty good job laying out the problems with the film.  I enjoyed it more than that reviewer did, but ultimately you could feel the film trying to hard to be 'cool, 'edgy' and post-modern.   As any high school student can tell you, if you can see someone trying to be hip and edgy, then they're really not hip and edgy.  I get that the film is supposed to be a deconstruction of action films.  But it still needs to be coherent.  Compared to something like Cabin in the Woods (a deconstruction of horror films, but is still incredibly entertaining on its own) seven Psychopaths just doesn't cut it.  Still I'm looking forward to what Mcdonagh does next.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

I really felt like going out and seeing something, and it was either this or Pitch Perfect.  As the reviews for this one have actually been pretty good, I thought I'd give it a shot.   Unfortunately, it falls into a genre of films that just don't work for me.  Specifically, the navel-gazing "Waah I'm a high school outsider and everyone hates me even though I'm white and fairly well-off.  Lets go listen to The Smiths" type films.  They just never ring true, and the fact that I typically find their portrayal of high school utterly false means that I'm automatically predisposed to disliking them, no matter how well they're executed.  Therefore, the fact that I didn't find Wallflower completely annoying is actually a compliment. Since the film gives the main character significant mental problems, brought on by real trauma, I could buy his general darkness and alienation, even though I couldn't identify with the general setup of the film.  Therefore, as this genre goes, this is probably an above average entry.

That's not to say I'm completely in on the film.  Its still achingly sincere (almost eye-rollingly so) and there is still too much of the "Wow high school is the most important time ever, and is going to define the rest of my life" attitude.  Again, I fully admit that because I never felt particularly moved one way or another by High School that I am not who the film is targeting.  I'm sure there's a certain segment of the population who will find this type of story, and consider it as speaking directly to their life experience (kind of like Crank 2 does for me).  Really, its kind of  like that HBO show Girls.  I really tried to get into it, and I can see that there's some real skill going into its creation.  However, it's just portraying a certain type of person, and life experience, that I have absolutely no identification with and as a result can't get into it.  I'm not sure if this means that there's a problem with the show (since theoretically great art should be universal).  Actually, since I'm always right that's exactly what it means.  Glad we cleared that up.

The Master

I'm not going to bother with a plot recap, because the plot (such that it is) isn't really that important.  The film is really about performances (and really the film really spends all its time with the two principles - Hoffman and Phoenix) and its going to live and die with how engaging they are.  Thankfully, they are, otherwise the 2 and 1/2 hour runtime would have been unbearable.  Still this is definitely one of those films that I'm glad I saw once, but will probably never watch again (kind of like your mom).  This of course puts it way ahead of Paul Thomas Anderson's last work, There Will Be Blood, which just annoyed me.  Anyway, The Master is worth seeing for the performances, but I don't know that you need to go out of your way to do so.

Brief tangent.  I'd be interested to see PTA do something like Punch Drunk Love again, instead of these 'important' event films.  I think that these critically adored filmmakers can get a little too wrapped up in their own hype, and run the risk of falling into unbearable pretension.  Doing something like an Adam Sandler film  or some other genre exercise like Steven Soderbergh's been up, would be a good a way to stretch.  And interesting to watch as well.

Looper

Here's a plot recap .  I really liked Brick, and thought the first hour of Brothers Bllom was great, so I was looking forward to this film from director Rian Johnson. I don't have a lot to say about it other than I enjoyed it.  It makes time travel about as logically consistent as any film has, and actually has a nice sense of humor about itself.  I'm feeling lazy, so that's all you get.