Movies are rated as Terrible, Mediocre, Average, Good or Great.
The Dark Knight Rises
The epic conclusion to Christopher Nolan's superb Batman trilogy is hugely ambitious in its scope, but would have been better served by carving out unnecessary plotlines and characters (seriously, why are Juno Temple and Matthew Modine in this movie?) Even somewhat-major characters played by Marion Cotillard and Joesph Gordon-Levitt could have been excised fairly easily with one more pass over the script. Tom Hardy and Anne Hathway are welcome additions as Bane and Catwoman, though. As it is, the film drags along during its exposition-filled first act, gains a bit of steam in act two, then falls predictably in line for the finale. It's still a worthwhile film, but it is the least essential entry in the trilogy.
Rating: Average
The Avengers
Joss Whedon was the correct choice to write/direct the apex of Marvel's cinematic universe. The film moves along at a good pace, each major character gets a showcase scene, and the actors' chemistry is natural (especially Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, who had the benefit of having previously worked closely together on the under-appreciated masterpiece Zodiac). There may be some plot shortcuts that feel a little too "movie-y" (SPOILER WARNING: seriously, the mothership gets destroyed and suddenly an entire army, who are shown to be biological creatures, just fall down dead!?), but overall this is a shining example of a superhero mega-blockbuster done right.
Rating: Good
The Amazing Spider-Man
Full disclosure: I do not like Spider-Man. I never cared for the comics, and I particularly hated Sam Raimi's recent movie trilogy (I still struggle to understand how the thoroughly-stupid Spider-Man 2 winds up near the top of so many critics' lists of the greatest comic book movies). So I obviously didn't have high hopes going into this movie. But I liked director Marc Webb's previous film, and I thought the casting was spot-on. The resulting movie is, in my opinion, better than any of Raimi's films, but still falling short of being actually good. Andrew Garfield makes a decent Peter Parker, Emma Stone is only tolerable as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans is OK-I-guess as Dr. Connors. The only outright good quality of the film comes from Denis Leary as Captain Stacy, who grounds his character with a lived-in sense of realism. The plots is a by-the-numbers affair, and the film offered no real surprises.
Rating: Mediocre
Snow White and the Huntsman
This is the prettier of the two major Snow White films released this year, but the movie's good qualities pretty much end there. Chris Hemsworth proves that he really is leading man material, but the other actors are all over the map. Charlize Theron hams her way through the role of the evil queen, and Kristen Stewart continues her quest to live her entire life using only one facial expression. The murderer's row supporting cast of British character actors (including Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, Toby Jones and others) are largely wasted (though they seem to be having fun during the five minutes of screen time that they get). The story is overly convoluted, the tone way too dark and serious for the kind of movie it is, plot holes abound, and the gorgeous costumes, set design and cinematography aren't quite enough to make it all worthwhile.
Rating: Mediocre
Mirror Mirror
The other big Snow White film takes the opposite tone, going for light-hearted and fun instead of dark and serious, but otherwise suffers from nearly identical problems. Armie Hammer is a perfectly good leading man, but Lily Collins is flat and boring as Snow White and Julia Roberts goes too far over the top in her performance as the evil queen. Some of the comedy works pretty well (seriously Hollywood, get Armie Hammer in more comedies right this second!), so overall it is the slightly-more-enjoyable of 2012's Snow White films. But only slightly.
Rating: Mediocre
The Cabin in the Woods
As a lifelong horror fan, there are no adequate words for me to express just how great this movie is. Writers Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (who also directed) set up the perfect cliche horror senario (it's right there in the title), and then find ways to subvert every audience expectation, beginning with the opening scene and lasting right up to the ending shot. It's an invigorating jolt of fresh energy into the genre, one that made my inner fanboy squee with delight. I will mention nothing of the plot, for it is best to go in without knowing what's to come.
Rating: Great
The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games was seemingly being positioned to take the reigns from the departing Twilight franchise, giving 14-year-old girls something new to obsess about for the next four or five years. And with that perception, I was largely expecting the franchise's much-darker-and-more-violent-than-Twilight source material to be watered down for the PG-13 crowd, thus guaranteeing a healthy box office return from the target demographic. These expectations were solidified when the directing duties fell to Pleasantville and Dave director Gary Ross, who had seemingly never directed anything more violent than a paper cut. About halfway into the film, when a teenage boy was slashing the throat of another teenage boy, I realized the franchise had no intention of shying away from the books' content. In fact, I'm actually kind of excited about the franchise now. The world of the film is well drawn, with it's focus on a post-war division of socioeconomic classes. Jennifer Lawrence (who is already the prime candidate for best actress of her generation) is a more-than-capable lead, the supporting cast is uniformly solid (especially Woody Harrelson's haunted former game winner and a deliriously loopy turn from Elizabeth Banks). Ross' direction is maybe a bit too vanilla and workmanlike, though certainly not incompetent (I'm looking at you, every-director-in-the-Twilight-franchise-who-isn't-David-Slade). This was probably the most pleasantly surprising cinematic experience I had this year.
Rating: Good
Skyfall
Until the recent Daniel Craig-starring films, I had never liked James Bond. I always found the franchise too cartoonish. There was never any suspense. Of course Bond was going to come out on top every time, and his efforts to do so would all be undercut and swept away by a clever, smug one-liner before the credits rolled while Bond presumably went off to sleep with some gorgeous woman with a pun-filled name. What I love about the current iteration of the franchise is that, yes, Bond will always come out on top, but he will suffer greatly on the way there and the memory of that suffering will follow him long past the credits. Craig's Bond can be hurt in ways more palpable than ever before, and that makes a larger-than-life character start to seem like a regular (though highly-skilled) mortal man. Skyfall, a superb entry in the franchise, finds Bond hitting a new low. After being accidentally shot while on the job, Bond finds himself slightly out-of-practice and being looked at like an old-world relic of no more use to the modern age. The sense of oncoming irrelevance follows Bond for the whole film, which features the usual assortment of plot twists and action sequences brought about by a villain (Javier Bardem in a very amusing performance) who knows all too well what Bond is feeling. The plot's most welcome aspect is to finally bring the great Judi Dench front and center, at last having M graduate from a supporting player to the film's second lead. Craig may be the star, but this film belongs to Dench. Skyfall also has the distinction of being the only film on the franchise to be directed by an Oscar winner, American Beauty's Sam Mendes. Mendes keeps all the wheels smoothly turning, and lets legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins make every shot look incredible (Deakins' work on Skyfall is nominated for Best Cinematography at this year's Oscars). Overall it is a solid addition to Craig's tenure as Bond, and my second favorite of all the Bond films (Casino Royale being number one, and Roger Moore's films being nowhere on the list at all).
Rating: Good
Wreck-It Ralph
Whoever would have guessed that the non-Pixar animated film from Disney would end up being more creative and entertaining than the Pixar one (at least in a year where Pixar wasn't putting out another crappy entry into the Cars franchise)? Not that Brave was bad (as I'll be pointing out soon), but Wreck-It Ralph absolutely revels in the world in which it gets to play around. The design and color schemes of its various video game worlds are spot-on, the voice actors are good (especially Sarah Silverman), and the plot is simple enough for children to easily follow while providing a bounty of in-jokes and references for teens and adults. It's entertaining from start to finish. It's what Pixar does best, it's just not from Pixar this time.
Rating: Good
Brave
Pixar is the king of CGI family films. Of the eleven Oscars given out for Best Animated Feature, Pixar has qualified for nine of them (Pixar didn't release any films in 2002 or 2005), been nominated for eight of them (only the abysmal Cars 2 failed to get a nomination in a qualifying year), and taken home six of them (Monsters, Inc and Cars were beaten in their respective years). They have perhaps the most solid critical track record of any modern production studio (Cars 2 excepted, though it still made mountains of money). So Brave was pre-saddled with an important legacy to live up to, which makes it hard to judge the film on its own merits. Brave is a decently entertaining film with the typically-lush animation that Pixar is always pushing forward (seriously, watch the detail of the characters' hair). And it gets extra kudos for being Pixar's first film to be co-helmed by a woman (Brenda Chapman, who also co-scripted) and be anchored by a female character. But it is also bogged down by what the esteemed Roger Ebert terms the "idiot plot." That is, a plot where everything could be resolved in two seconds if only the characters would actually say out loud what they are thinking. The characters are agonizingly self-centered, and all the resulting drama feels hollow and unnecessary. It's a rare misfire from Pixar (though, to be clear, nowhere even close to the shitpile that is Cars 2). Though despite its shortcomings, it is still nominated for this year's animation Oscar. Personally, I hope it loses to fellow nominee Wreck-It Ralph.
Rating: Average
The epic conclusion to Christopher Nolan's superb Batman trilogy is hugely ambitious in its scope, but would have been better served by carving out unnecessary plotlines and characters (seriously, why are Juno Temple and Matthew Modine in this movie?) Even somewhat-major characters played by Marion Cotillard and Joesph Gordon-Levitt could have been excised fairly easily with one more pass over the script. Tom Hardy and Anne Hathway are welcome additions as Bane and Catwoman, though. As it is, the film drags along during its exposition-filled first act, gains a bit of steam in act two, then falls predictably in line for the finale. It's still a worthwhile film, but it is the least essential entry in the trilogy.
Rating: Average
The Avengers
Joss Whedon was the correct choice to write/direct the apex of Marvel's cinematic universe. The film moves along at a good pace, each major character gets a showcase scene, and the actors' chemistry is natural (especially Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, who had the benefit of having previously worked closely together on the under-appreciated masterpiece Zodiac). There may be some plot shortcuts that feel a little too "movie-y" (SPOILER WARNING: seriously, the mothership gets destroyed and suddenly an entire army, who are shown to be biological creatures, just fall down dead!?), but overall this is a shining example of a superhero mega-blockbuster done right.
Rating: Good
The Amazing Spider-Man
Full disclosure: I do not like Spider-Man. I never cared for the comics, and I particularly hated Sam Raimi's recent movie trilogy (I still struggle to understand how the thoroughly-stupid Spider-Man 2 winds up near the top of so many critics' lists of the greatest comic book movies). So I obviously didn't have high hopes going into this movie. But I liked director Marc Webb's previous film, and I thought the casting was spot-on. The resulting movie is, in my opinion, better than any of Raimi's films, but still falling short of being actually good. Andrew Garfield makes a decent Peter Parker, Emma Stone is only tolerable as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans is OK-I-guess as Dr. Connors. The only outright good quality of the film comes from Denis Leary as Captain Stacy, who grounds his character with a lived-in sense of realism. The plots is a by-the-numbers affair, and the film offered no real surprises.
Rating: Mediocre
Snow White and the Huntsman
This is the prettier of the two major Snow White films released this year, but the movie's good qualities pretty much end there. Chris Hemsworth proves that he really is leading man material, but the other actors are all over the map. Charlize Theron hams her way through the role of the evil queen, and Kristen Stewart continues her quest to live her entire life using only one facial expression. The murderer's row supporting cast of British character actors (including Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, Toby Jones and others) are largely wasted (though they seem to be having fun during the five minutes of screen time that they get). The story is overly convoluted, the tone way too dark and serious for the kind of movie it is, plot holes abound, and the gorgeous costumes, set design and cinematography aren't quite enough to make it all worthwhile.
Rating: Mediocre
Mirror Mirror
The other big Snow White film takes the opposite tone, going for light-hearted and fun instead of dark and serious, but otherwise suffers from nearly identical problems. Armie Hammer is a perfectly good leading man, but Lily Collins is flat and boring as Snow White and Julia Roberts goes too far over the top in her performance as the evil queen. Some of the comedy works pretty well (seriously Hollywood, get Armie Hammer in more comedies right this second!), so overall it is the slightly-more-enjoyable of 2012's Snow White films. But only slightly.
Rating: Mediocre
The Cabin in the Woods
As a lifelong horror fan, there are no adequate words for me to express just how great this movie is. Writers Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (who also directed) set up the perfect cliche horror senario (it's right there in the title), and then find ways to subvert every audience expectation, beginning with the opening scene and lasting right up to the ending shot. It's an invigorating jolt of fresh energy into the genre, one that made my inner fanboy squee with delight. I will mention nothing of the plot, for it is best to go in without knowing what's to come.
Rating: Great
The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games was seemingly being positioned to take the reigns from the departing Twilight franchise, giving 14-year-old girls something new to obsess about for the next four or five years. And with that perception, I was largely expecting the franchise's much-darker-and-more-violent-than-Twilight source material to be watered down for the PG-13 crowd, thus guaranteeing a healthy box office return from the target demographic. These expectations were solidified when the directing duties fell to Pleasantville and Dave director Gary Ross, who had seemingly never directed anything more violent than a paper cut. About halfway into the film, when a teenage boy was slashing the throat of another teenage boy, I realized the franchise had no intention of shying away from the books' content. In fact, I'm actually kind of excited about the franchise now. The world of the film is well drawn, with it's focus on a post-war division of socioeconomic classes. Jennifer Lawrence (who is already the prime candidate for best actress of her generation) is a more-than-capable lead, the supporting cast is uniformly solid (especially Woody Harrelson's haunted former game winner and a deliriously loopy turn from Elizabeth Banks). Ross' direction is maybe a bit too vanilla and workmanlike, though certainly not incompetent (I'm looking at you, every-director-in-the-Twilight-franchise-who-isn't-David-Slade). This was probably the most pleasantly surprising cinematic experience I had this year.
Rating: Good
Skyfall
Until the recent Daniel Craig-starring films, I had never liked James Bond. I always found the franchise too cartoonish. There was never any suspense. Of course Bond was going to come out on top every time, and his efforts to do so would all be undercut and swept away by a clever, smug one-liner before the credits rolled while Bond presumably went off to sleep with some gorgeous woman with a pun-filled name. What I love about the current iteration of the franchise is that, yes, Bond will always come out on top, but he will suffer greatly on the way there and the memory of that suffering will follow him long past the credits. Craig's Bond can be hurt in ways more palpable than ever before, and that makes a larger-than-life character start to seem like a regular (though highly-skilled) mortal man. Skyfall, a superb entry in the franchise, finds Bond hitting a new low. After being accidentally shot while on the job, Bond finds himself slightly out-of-practice and being looked at like an old-world relic of no more use to the modern age. The sense of oncoming irrelevance follows Bond for the whole film, which features the usual assortment of plot twists and action sequences brought about by a villain (Javier Bardem in a very amusing performance) who knows all too well what Bond is feeling. The plot's most welcome aspect is to finally bring the great Judi Dench front and center, at last having M graduate from a supporting player to the film's second lead. Craig may be the star, but this film belongs to Dench. Skyfall also has the distinction of being the only film on the franchise to be directed by an Oscar winner, American Beauty's Sam Mendes. Mendes keeps all the wheels smoothly turning, and lets legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins make every shot look incredible (Deakins' work on Skyfall is nominated for Best Cinematography at this year's Oscars). Overall it is a solid addition to Craig's tenure as Bond, and my second favorite of all the Bond films (Casino Royale being number one, and Roger Moore's films being nowhere on the list at all).
Rating: Good
Wreck-It Ralph
Whoever would have guessed that the non-Pixar animated film from Disney would end up being more creative and entertaining than the Pixar one (at least in a year where Pixar wasn't putting out another crappy entry into the Cars franchise)? Not that Brave was bad (as I'll be pointing out soon), but Wreck-It Ralph absolutely revels in the world in which it gets to play around. The design and color schemes of its various video game worlds are spot-on, the voice actors are good (especially Sarah Silverman), and the plot is simple enough for children to easily follow while providing a bounty of in-jokes and references for teens and adults. It's entertaining from start to finish. It's what Pixar does best, it's just not from Pixar this time.
Rating: Good
Brave
Pixar is the king of CGI family films. Of the eleven Oscars given out for Best Animated Feature, Pixar has qualified for nine of them (Pixar didn't release any films in 2002 or 2005), been nominated for eight of them (only the abysmal Cars 2 failed to get a nomination in a qualifying year), and taken home six of them (Monsters, Inc and Cars were beaten in their respective years). They have perhaps the most solid critical track record of any modern production studio (Cars 2 excepted, though it still made mountains of money). So Brave was pre-saddled with an important legacy to live up to, which makes it hard to judge the film on its own merits. Brave is a decently entertaining film with the typically-lush animation that Pixar is always pushing forward (seriously, watch the detail of the characters' hair). And it gets extra kudos for being Pixar's first film to be co-helmed by a woman (Brenda Chapman, who also co-scripted) and be anchored by a female character. But it is also bogged down by what the esteemed Roger Ebert terms the "idiot plot." That is, a plot where everything could be resolved in two seconds if only the characters would actually say out loud what they are thinking. The characters are agonizingly self-centered, and all the resulting drama feels hollow and unnecessary. It's a rare misfire from Pixar (though, to be clear, nowhere even close to the shitpile that is Cars 2). Though despite its shortcomings, it is still nominated for this year's animation Oscar. Personally, I hope it loses to fellow nominee Wreck-It Ralph.
Rating: Average
