Brian's Best and Worst of 2012

This is not an end-of-the-year list.  I forfeited that right when I didn't make this at the end of 2012.  I never get the chance to see all the biggest movies of the year in time for the end of the year anyway, so I am continuing my annual tradition of posting my own "best of" just before the Oscars.  That is not because the Oscars (don't call them Academy Awards this year!) are the end-all, be-all of movie awards.  They're just the biggest, and nothing good ever comes out in January or February, so it's okay to still focus on the previous year's releases.

I'm not a Top Ten sorta guy, though.  These are just my personal and highly subjective choices for the best and worst of the year.

What was considered for this list? Obviously, the movies of 2012 that I have already reviewed up to this point.  I do cram in a lot of movies right before the Oscars, too, and am suffering a backlog of recent reviews.  Here's what I watched before coming out with this list:

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  Alex Cross.  The Amazing Spider-Man.  Amour.  Argo.  ATM.  The Avengers.  Battleship.  Beasts of the Southern Wild.  Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  The Bourne Legacy.  Brave.  The Cabin in the Woods.  Coriolanus.  The Dark Knight Rises.  The Devil Inside.  Django Unchained.  Dredd.  Drew Peterson: Untouchable.  The Expendables 2.  FDR: American Badass.  Flight.  The FP.  Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.  Goon.  The Grey.  Haywire.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  The Hunger Games.  Iron Sky.  John Carter.  Lawless.  Les Miserables.  Life of Pi.  Lincoln.  Lockout.  Looper.  Moonrise Kingdom.  Nazis at the Center of the Earth.  Prometheus.  The Raven.  Red Tails.  Resident Evil: Retribution.  Seven Psychopaths.  Silent House.  Silver Linings Playbook.  Skyfall.  Total Recall (2012).  Underworld: Awakening.  V/H/S.  The Woman in Black.  Zero Dark Thirty.

Best Bit Character
While Michael Fassbender's charming/bad-ass turn in Haywire shouldn't be ignored --- he would make a good 007 if we were in the market for a new one --- nothing amused me as much as Jason Schwartzman in Moonrise Kingdom.  A lot of actors (okay, maybe not Bill Murray) merely play "dry" when working with Wes Anderson, but Schwartzman embraces the dry humor with just enough excitement to make him stand out, even in the most star-studded cast.

This needs to be a mass-produced Halloween costume

Worst Supporting Actress
There were some pretty good possibilities in this category in 2012.  Catherine Dent was noticeably bad in the noticeably bad Drew Peterson: Untouchable.  Perhaps one of the lovely ladies from Battleship?  No, I'm going to have to go with Bingbing Li in Resident Evil: Retribution.  She was so bad that all of her dialogue was redubbed.  In a Resident Evil movie, a franchise famous for not giving a crap about acting or coherence.  Ouch.

But hey, she can do...this.  That's something.

Best Supporting Actress
Look, I know that Anne Hathaway is going to win everything for Les Miserables.  And maybe she should; she was good in a I'm-singing-at-the-camera sort of way.  That's not my style, though.  That's why my favorite this year was Judi Dench in Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  It's been a while since I've seen Dench play anything but a cold-hearted bureaucrat, and it was a pleasure to watch her in a warm, relatable role.  Definitely the best part of a quality ensemble cast.

Promo for M: Lost in Delhi

Worst Supporting Actor
This was a tough one.  I seriously hated a lot of supporting actors this year.  50% of the enormous cast from V/H/S were annoying douchebags.  The Ionut Grama was annoying in the truly awful The Devil Inside.  And how about Frank Grillo as the jackass who bitches about everything and fixes nothing in The Grey?  All are compelling choices, but I have to go with someone who has been irritating me for most of the year: Rafe Spall as the world's stupidest biologist in Prometheus.

You see a creepy alien and you smile and get close?  Death is too good for you, sir.

Best Supporting Actor
There were a lot of supporting actor roles that I loved from the past year: Javier Bardem in Skyfall, Sam Rockwell in Seven Psychopaths, Tom Hardy in The Dark Knight Rises, Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln, CGI Hulk from The Avengers, Michael Fassbender in Prometheus, etc.  The runner-up is definitely Fran Kranz as the best stoner in movie history in Cabin in the Woods.  As good as all those guys were this year, I can't overlook just how much I enjoyed Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained.  Is the role similar to his character from Inglorious Basterds?  To an extent, although I would argue switching the good/bad dynamic makes it different enough.  I just can't get over Waltz speaking Tarantino's dialogue, though --- they're so damn good together!

You're welcome.  Next round's on you.

Worst Actress
I'm going to go with the tough-as-nails Gina Coreno in Haywire for this one.  What makes her worse than any of the lead actresses wearing tight leather and shooting stuff this year?  Coreno had some amazing fight scenes in Haywire, but the movie didn't work because she gave an awful performance, even with the benefit of a good director.  If she was even halfway competent, she would have been on my shortlist for Best Actress.  THAT's how bad she is.

Example: I'm pretty sure this scene was supposed to be all dialogue

Best Actress
This one was easy.  Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games Silver Linings Playbook.  She carried that movie, and she wasn't even the main character.  She was funny, had levels and development, and showed some heart?  Come on!  What's not to love?  Besides, what are the other choices this year?  Jessica Chastain?  Ugh.  Pass.  This is the second time I've given this completely nonexistent and useless award to Lawrence, and it's getting to the point where I might actually watch movies because I have faith in the starring actress.  That's a big deal.

I like the scenes where Bradley Cooper is blurred best

Worst Actor
For as many bad movies as I watched this year, there were not many lead acting roles that I absolutely hated.  Sure, Rob Lowe was hilariously bad in his SNL-sketch-gone-horribly-wrong portrayal of a Chicagoan in Drew Peterson: Untouchable, but at least Lowe outperformed the material.  Taylor Kitsch --- who isn't really a bad actor --- played a role that emphasized all of his shortcomings in Battleship.  When your character is frequently described as being smart or talented, you should probably not come off as a complete moron, even when defeating board game-obsessed aliens.

That had better be your agent on the phone

Best Actor
This was a rough year for outstanding lead actor roles.  Of the nine Best Picture Oscar nods, only three of the films had Best Actor nominations!  I think 2012 was far stronger in the Supporting Actor category than the Lead Actor one.  Yes, Denzel Washington was terrific in Flight.  But the character and actor I would choose to watch or listen to again would be Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln.  I've always liked Lincoln as a historical figure, but Day-Lewis was perfectly cunning and warm; he commanded the screen with a soft voice, stooped posture, and anecdotes where other actors would have gone in a completely different direction.  Making America's (arguably) most legendary President into a human again was rather impressive.

The President apparently disagrees.  Or smells a fart.

Best Director
This is less about who was the best and more about what directors I liked that didn't have huge flaws in their finished products. I love Quentin Tarantino, but Django Unchained needed a damn editor. Cabin in the Woods was great, but Drew Goddard managed to make a great horror movie that was missing scares.  Competence narrows down the field considerably.  While Ben Affleck did a great job with the humor and pacing of Argo, I'm going to go with Sam Mendes and Skyfall.  He made a James Bond movie that was actually a legitimate film!  I don't like it because I'm comparing it to Bond movies --- I like it because it's awesome!  This is the first time anyone has tried to make a James Bond flick with character development, good cinematography and very good acting, and he was still able to film some great action sequences.  Mendes' work is sorely underrated on Skyfall.  Any decent director can make a prestige picture look good; making a series known for corny action and one-liners into an actually good movie in far more difficult.

Worst Director
There are movies that never had a chance of being good, and then there are the blockbusters that failed, in large part due to their direction.  Peter Berg took a stupid concept and did a terrible job with it, and Battleship was the nauseating result.  Timur Bekmambetov did a decent job with his cast, but pieced together a soulless abomination that sucked harder than any Twilight movie: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  The absolute worst direction this year, though, had to be Rob Cohen's work in Alex Cross.  He made a police procedural that was less competent than a third-rate CSI knockoff AND the acting wasn't great AND the editing was occasionally incoherent.  Stick to Vin Diesel movies, Mr. Cohen.

Biggest Disappointment
There were a lot of choices this year, primarily with sequels and reboots, but the one that stuck to me was Prometheus.  It's not bad, but it is intentionally obtuse and refuses to deliver on anything that its shared universe with the Aliens franchise has to offer.  Again, it isn't awful, but I was expecting a hell of a lot more.

These guys?  Seriously --- fuck these guys.

Biggest Surprise 
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the year was me not noticing Joseph Gordon-Levitt's makeup while I was watching Looper, but as far as feature films go, Dredd is the winner.  It should have been bad.  It's a remake of a crappy movie, and it has a lead actor who specializes in not emoting.  And yet, Dredd managed to get its core concept just right.  I was hoping for a movie so-good-it's-bad, but ended up genuinely enjoying it.

...because this is totally sweet

Bottom 5 Movies
5. Iron Sky - How do you screw up a movie about Nazis living on the dark side of the Moon?  By assuming that the concept was funny enough to last for an entire movie.  This one had promise, but then dropped the ball when it tried to be clever, funny, or serious.  So, yeah, it sucks.

Above: my reaction

4. Battleship - I still have trouble understanding how this made it past the conceptual stage.  A board game about stealth transformed into an alien invasion action movie?  The guy who came up with that concept must have balls the size of Death Stars.  Battleship must have run an "obnoxious actors wanted" ad in Variety, too, because the supporting cast is about two peanuts shy of being 100% crap.

John Carter vs. Master Chief?

3. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - I like the source material and the director, and yet this turned out to be an unholy mess.  I am okay with the chocie to not play this concept for laughs.  I am not okay with it feeling like it was 2/3 exposition, 1/3 Abraham Lincoln running on top of a herd of stampeding animals.  Be funny or be darkly awesome.  Anything else is failure.

Get it?  The bad guy's using the horse as a pommel --- you know what?  Screw this movie.

2. The Devil Inside - Possession horror movies are oftentimes terrible.  With the advent of the found-footage horror sub-genre, possession movies have gotten a little worse.  The Devil Inside has a lame concept, irrational characters, and poor direction; none of those earmark it for being hate-worthy.  What separates it from the pack is its ending.  This is the worst film ending I have seen since the director's cut of The Butterfly Effect.  I only wish The Devil Inside strangled Ashton Kutcher, too.

This for ninety minutes would have made for a better film

1. ATM - This is the single dumbest concept for a film I have seen in a long time --- and I watched FDR: American Badass and Nazis From the Center of the Earth this year.  There are no redeeming qualities with this film, and then it gave me a nosebleed by inferring that the villain --- who had the most unbelievably idiotic victims I have ever seen on film --- was some sort of criminal mastermind.  Crap...I'm bleeding out my eyes now, just thinking about it.

They're looking at the world's largest bottle of scotch, AKA what you need to get through this movie

Top 10 Movies:
10. Lincoln - I absolutely love Daniel Day-Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones in this film.  My biggest concern was how it would handle the whole "vampire hunter" angle, but I think Spielberg addressed the issue subtly.

9. Seven Psychopaths - Not a perfect movie by any means, but I adore the dialogue and I thought the supporting cast was stellar.  There are not many scripts that give Sam Rockwell license to be as crazy as he can be, but he was so odd that Christopher Walken looked...well, not normal, but sane by comparison.

8. Looper - I was concerned when this movie was being advertised.  Not only did it have a weird time travel concept at its core, but it contended that the Future Mob had sole control over time travel.  Add that to the incomprehensible choice to cover Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face in silly putty to look absolutely nothing like a young Bruce Willis, and this looked like a movie destined for the "mock" pile.  Looper surprised me, though.  It made some interesting and tough choices with its characters and delivered a movie intriguing enough for me to stop focusing on JGL's makeup.

Clever fan poster found on the Looper tumblr

7. Beasts of the Southern Wild - When you take semi-Artsy direction and some of the rawest acting talent around, you run a chance of creating something truly special.  This was easily the Academy Award-nominated film that I connected to best on an emotional level, and I am so disassociated with these characters that I cannot believe I live in the same country where it was shot.  And the editing and post-production work needed to make 6 year-old Quvenzhané Wallis this great was beyond impressive.

6. Argo - It is difficult to make a movie about a historical event suspenseful.  It's almost as hard to pace it well.  Ben Affleck managed to do both, and he still balanced it with humor.

This guy says he was in Argo.  I don't recall, but it's an awesome pic

5. The Dark Knight Rises - A fitting end to Christopher Nolan's trilogy, this was everything needed to thematically bring Batman's story to a close.  Bane was not quite as classic as Heath Ledger's Joker, but Tom Hardy was good enough to make me forget about the Joker while I was watching --- and that is damn impressive.  If this had more Batman and less Bruce Wayne, it might have been perfect.  It will tide me over until the next reboot (I'm calling 2017 right now).

4. The Cabin in the Woods - This was such a fantastic homage to the horror genre that I can overlook the fact that it is not scary in the least bit.  A smart script that goes in directions that you would not guess from the promos and a great script make this a personal favorite.

This movie also finally gives stoners their own action hero

3. The Avengers - I'm a huge fan of the Marvel super hero movies, so the one where all the heroes team up and are directed by Joss Whedon, with a script he co-wrote?  Yeah, this was a no-brainer.  What makes it special, though, are the unexpectedly great moments, like when Hulk smashes Loki.  More of this, please.

Do you have this poster?  It was free w/purchase of the Blu-Ray.  FYI.

2. Skyfall - This is easily the best James Bond movie since Connery got bored with the role.  It has the best direction and cinematography of any Bond movie, and the best villain in decades.  This is the James Bond movie to show to people who (somehow) don't like James Bond.

Fan art poster taken from here

1. Django Unchained- Yes, it could have been better with thirty minutes less run-time, but Django scratched so many itches that this year's film crop failed to.  It was gory as hell, it had Tarantino's famously foul humor, and universally good acting.  There were a few movies about slavery in 2012, but this was the film that was fun to watch and I will come back to time and time again.  Bless your enormous chin (which houses your ego), Quentin Tarantino!

Sorry.  This was better than any Django posters I could find

Moonrise Kingdom

Audiences typically fall into two camps when it comes to Wes Anderson movies: you are either under his awkward spell or are baffled that anyone likes his stuff.  Both reactions are fair.  As much as I enjoy some of Anderson's work, I never recommend it to a friend without preparing them for oddness.  Personally, I find myself falling into neither category when it comes to Wes Anderson.  I used to really look forward to his movies --- the one-two punch of Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums will do that --- but was disappointed by The Life Aquatic and had hoped for more from The Fantastic Mr. Fox.  If I had to categorize my attitude toward a new Wes Anderson film, I think "the novelty is running out" sums it up best.  It's a little strange, then, that I saw Moonrise Kingdom in the theater.  I was on a family vacation and we wanted to see something that would be appropriate for anyone from my mother to my thirteen-year-old cousin.  And we chose a Wes Anderson movie.

Yeah, it was an odd choice, I'll admit.  But the main characters are right around the age of thirteen.  Maybe this could appeal to the Twilight/Hunger Games generation.

…yeah, okay, probably not.

Moonrise Kingdom begins with Sam (Jared Gilman), a twelve-year-old Khaki Scout, running away from Summer camp in 1963, leaving behind only a letter of resignation.  Sam was the least-liked member of his troop thanks to his incurable oddness, but he was an excellent scout.  His scoutmaster (Edward Norton) can't find him and turns to the local police, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) for help. 

Keep your mouth open.  That helps you look for things.

This story takes place on an island, but that small area is apparently too large for these authority figures to track Sam down.  Meanwhile, Suzy (Kara Hayward) has vanished from her home, leaving her lawyer parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and three younger brothers behind without an explanation.  In fact, they wouldn't have noticed she was gone if she had not left a note explaining that she was borrowing her brother's record player for two weeks, without permission.  As Suzy's parents start to look for her and enlist Captain Sharp in their quest, it becomes apparent that the two kids have run away together.  And so begins an odd tale of tween romance amidst mediocrity.

They look so in love!

Since this is a Wes Anderson movie, discussing the acting is almost a moot point.  It’s not that they do a bad job, by any means, but Anderson has such a strong hand in directing his cast that their performances are always peculiar (to put it nicely).  The hardest thing about Moonrise Kingdom is that the lead characters are children.  I liked Kara Howard; her performance definitely reminded me of Irene Gogovaia (lil' Gwyneth Paltrow) in The Royal Tenenbaums, and that’s not a bad thing.  She was cold, distant, and not nearly as awkward as her male counterpart.  Jared Gilman wasn’t as good, but he was definitely awkward as hell, in the tradition of other Wes Anderson leading men.  The more I think about his performance, the more I like the little things; it's hard to put a finger on what he was doing right, but it probably has something to do with how well he deadpanned his lines. 

The classic look didn't hurt, either

I was glad to see Edward Norton having fun here.  It's been too long since he's been in a movie I've enjoyed, and he sure played up the sincerity of this character to a goofy degree.  Bruce Willis was decent.  I've never thought of him as a subtle actor --- "yippe ki-yay motherfucker" will do that to a reputation --- and I don't think he benefited from extra awkwardness.  He wasn't bad, though, and the moments where he seems most engaged (with Sam or through the CB radio) were pretty solid.  I was definitely disappointed by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand, though.  I love both actors, but neither had enough time to shine; Murray's depressed character had some great moments ("That's not enough" was a great line) and McDormand's performance showed promise, but neither character was developed much in the final cutting.

I know how you feel, guys

The rest of the recognizable supporting cast was pretty good.  Harvey Keitel had a very bit part, and he was fun to watch.  Bob Balaban played the omniscient narrator, and I think his performance sums up Wes Anderson's direction; he was odd and awkward, making you either hate or love his scenes.  I enjoyed them.  Tilda Swinton --- whose bandwagon I haven't jumped onto just yet --- was very good as Social Services, and I think she would benefit from a larger role in another Anderson movie.  My favorite supporting character --- and an early leader for my annual "Best Bit Part" award --- was played by Jason Schwartzman.  It's not that his role was terribly difficult, but he had some of the film's best lines and delivery.  Plus, as an internet-ordained minister (because why not?), I love his willingness to marry people.

P.S.: Nice 'stache

The direction of Wes Anderson is hard for me to judge.  I love the effort he puts into his films (story, script, set design, supporting material, etc.), and Moonrise Kingdom has the same depth of experience that fans are used to.  All the book excerpts that Suzy reads?  Written by Wes.  You can also assume that any paintings or interesting fabrics you see in the movie were also made on his express direction.  I don't think anyone can fault Anderson for the effort he puts into his movies, even if they dislike his work.  Anderson works strangely with actors, though.  This is a slow movie, filled with many pauses and very few visible reactions.

Example of a typical Anderson reaction shot

Your opinion about the acting will probably formulate your opinion on the film as a whole.  If you like the tone and feel of other Wes Anderson movies, you will feel right at home in Moonrise Kingdom.  If you're unfamiliar with his work, just imagine silly things happening to people who don't understand levity, and that will give you a basic understanding of what the acting is like.  On the whole, I liked the acting and direction here, but it certainly is not for everyone.

If this doesn't make you smile, this film may not be for you

I should point out that this PG-13 movie is primarily rated that because of sexuality.  I thought it was kind cute and (very) awkwardly believable, but my wife was absolutely repelled by the incompetent sexual fondling that happened in a particular scene. 

Not surprisingly, it's the underwear dancing scene

It wasn't intended to be anything other than innocent and (maybe) realistic, but if you get uncomfortable when you see awkward sexuality, consider yourself warned.

Moonrise Kingdom is pretty enjoyable.  I thought the pre-teen romance was handled extremely well and there were a lot of fun moments from the elders in the cast.  Unfortunately, few of those elders had fully developed character arcs.  That wouldn't matter too much normally, but the script spends a lot of time on the adults in the cast, with only Willis and Norton appearing to find anything close to closure.  That is my main problem with this particular film.  There is a larger problem with this movie, though, and that is how similar Moonrise Kingdom is to the last few Wes Anderson movies.  The editing, storytelling, sets, title cards and acting are all unique among this year's crop of films, but they are nothing special when you compare them to Anderson's body of work.  I love that Anderson leaves such a personal touch on his films, but I'm getting tired of him using the exact same unusual style for each movie.  He is a clearly talented fellow, but needs to expand beyond the curious niche he's found if he hopes to continue developing as an artist.  I'm not saying that Wes Anderson needs to genre-hop like Woody Allen (although comparisons between the two are natural), but I hope his next effort is weird and awkward in a different way.

For the record, my thirteen-year-old cousin declared that Moonrise Kingdom was the worst movie she had ever seen.  And she's seen all the Twilight movies.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

If I was going to get a tattoo, the short list for choices would include the Triforce from The Legend of Zelda video game series.  Sure, I could go the boring route and get my soon-to-be-wife's name, but marriage is 'til death do you part.  Zelda goes beyond death; when you die in the game, you just start over from your last save point.

I would like to point out that I am not a huge video game nut.  I don't own a Playstation 3 (or 2, for that matter), or XBox 360, or even a Wii.  Even as a kid, I was never a huge gamer.  I point this out to illustrate how much video games, particularly the ones from my childhood, still impact my life, despite the fact that they haven't been a big part of that life for many years now.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a love note to classic video games, wrapped around a love story.  Basically, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) meets the (literal) woman of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and ineptly attempts to woo her.  Before their first (pity) date, Scott gets an email.  It's not from anyone he knows, and it includes the sentence "duel to the death."  His reaction is, "This is so...BORING.  Delete!"  That gives you an idea about Scott Pilgrim.  He is nerdy and nervous (you knew that because Michael Cera plays him) and absolutely idiotic.  That also indicates the attention span of this movie; there isn't much plot or character development, but everything moves so fast that you barely miss them.

That boring email was a notification that, to date Ramona, Scott would have to fight defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends exes.  The word "defeat" implies a certain amount of violence, and this movie happily supplies it, but in a very non-traditional form.  Instead of gruesome gore or ultra-realistic fighting, this movie opts for a fighting style reminiscent of early '90s video games, like Street Fighter II.  For those unfamiliar with games like that, let's just say that impossible physical acts, like flying, shooting energy blasts, and being thrown through buildings are par for the course.  There is no blood or torn shirts or jeans after the fight; if that alone didn't indicate that this film's violence is cartoony, then this would: defeated enemies turn into a pile of coins...just like in video games.  In between these fights, Scott tries (with varying levels of success) to understand Ramona, rock out with his band, Sex Bob-omb, and generally get a life.  In the process, he pitches some woo, breaks some hearts, kicks some butt, and gets his own kicked.  It's all academic, though.  Defeating the evil exes doesn't earn him the girl; he has to do that on his own.  This movie was set in Toronto, but but Cera, sadly, does not say "aboot" even once.

For a movie that exudes so much love for video games, I found it pretty friendly to non-gamers.  Sure, you'll get more from the movie if you know the references (I got chills when they played the respawn music from the original Zelda), but a basic knowledge of mid-80s games would be enough.  When Scott hits a bad guy, points appear on the screen, like in any old Mario game.  When bad guys die, they leave behind no body, but money, like in role-playing games, Zelda, or dozens of other games.  When Scott does well enough, an extra life appears.  It's not terribly in-depth stuff, but a lot of the sound and visual effects are taken directly from classic games, so there are levels to appreciating it.

Of course, if you are completely unfamiliar with video games (Hi, mom!), then a lot of this would appear absolutely random.  How that might affect your enjoyment of the film can be reflected in how much randomness you can take.  If you thought The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was quirky and fun, then you're pretty safe.  If you get frustrated and confused when classic Looney Tunes characters mimic Edward G. Robinson or Peter Lorre, then you're beyond my ability to help.

Normally, I would think action scenes featuring Michael Cera would also be beyond helping, but this movie disproves that theory.  The fight scenes, while basically relegated to the possibilities of classic 2-D fighting games, are varied and very well assembled.  Cera actually looks formidable, which is noteworthy on its own.  When you factor in seven separate fights, many featuring faceless underlings (how very Nintendo!), that means that Cera fights dozens of enemies, and each fight has its own style.  He is able to pummel ex number one, Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), but he has to outsmart number two, and challenges others to musical face-offs.  These scenes could easily have been repetitive, but each one felt fresh.

The cast is an interesting blend of known and unknown actors; you usually don't see so many recognizable actors in small parts in the same film, with less known actors playing larger roles.  Cera's impeccable timing and geeky charm are perfect in the lead role.  Mary Elizabeth Winstead is almost as likable as the too-indie-cool Ramona, and she does a good job when she must give her character some depth.  The rest of the characters are completely one-dimensional, but the movie does not demand (or, honestly, deserve) depth from them.  As such, the supporting cast is just a series of likable caricatures.  That's not a bad, thing, mind you.  This movie doesn't slow down enough for genuine emotion to get in the way, so caricatures is exactly what this movie needs.  The supporting cast is surprisingly good, too.  Chris Evans, Brandon Routh, and Jason Schwartzman make up the most notable evil exes; they are all suitably varied, angry, and amusing.  Anna Kendrick has a small role as Scott's mean sister and Kieran Culkin is supremely entertaining as Scott's indifferent gay roommate.  Thomas Jane makes a cameo as a member of the Vegan Police, too (did I mention that this movie is random?).  The other important roles are handled by relative unknowns.  Ellen Wong, in particular, is impressive as Scott's fake high school girlfriend.  The rest include Scott's band (Alison Pill, Mark Webber, and Johnny Simmons) and his own evil ex, Brie Larson.

Director and co-writer Edgar Wright has an excellent instinct for blending stupid and charming in comedies.  His last two films, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, show this instinct off well.  Scott Pilgrim doesn't have as much heart as Shaun or the bromance of Hot Fuzz, but it does have more energy and enthusiasm than those movies combined.  This was obviously assembled with a love for the source material.  I haven't read the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels, but there is just so much going on, with so many distinctive characters, that it has to be the case.  I knew from his other work that Wright could handle jokes on film, but I was very impressed with the action sequences and the post-production work.  Certain sounds appeared as words (when the phone rang, for example, you see "rrrrring!!!"), 8-bit video game graphics popped up on occasion, and the battle effects looked great.  In short, this movie felt like it was adapted from a comic.  Not because it has super-heroes or stilted dialogue, but because it takes the visual and the written and blends them in a way unique to that medium.

While I enjoyed the breakneck pace, quick wit, and general fun this movie has to offer, I admit that the movie is open to some very just criticisms.  This is not a deep movie.  There is no emotional core to it, beyond some pretty simple teen drama stuff.  The characters are essentially character sketches, typically more suitable for Saturday Night Live than feature films.  The focus on the fight scenes ruins any chance of the movie having much of a plot.  The jokes, action, and editing in this movie are so fast that it's difficult to pay attention to anything, even if there was a plot.    Oh, and Aubrey Plaza's character was obnoxious.

And yet, I loved it.  This isn't a movie that is going to make you think, it's going to make you laugh.  While the target audience is clearly aimed at the video game generation (1980-present), the dialogue is really sharp and there are several moments that made me laugh out loud.  The soundtrack is clever, abrasive and funny, like the scenes it is featured in (bonus cool points to Edgar Wright for getting Canadian bands on the soundtrack).  I recognize a charmingly simple stupidity in Scott Pilgrim's character that reminded me of one of my favorite cinema characters, Navin Johnson from The Jerk.  Both are essentially nice, but absolutely clueless and the choices they make are as misinformed as they are.  Like Steve Martin's movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is not a film that tries to to do more than be fast, popcorn-light entertainment.  And in that, Scott Pilgrim is victorious.

UPDATE 11/10/10: Okay, I just re-watched Scott Pilgrim for the first time.  I was a little worried that this movie wouldn't stand up to repeated viewings because it is such a shallow film.  As it turns out, I still loved it.  I picked up on many more details (especially with how the soundtrack plays off the plot and characters) the second time around and was generally entertained throughout.  I have finally read the complete Scott Pilgrim graphic novel collection, and that gave me a greater appreciation for some of the detail that went into the movie.  Like The Watchmen, this film is ridiculously faithful to its source material, but Scott Pilgrim is not beholden to it; little things were changed to make a great comic into a great movie, as it should be.  The movie is still very shallow and has a pretty niche intended audience, but it is, above all else, a lot of fun.  Oh, and if you haven't seen the mock movie posters for Chris Evans' character yet, check them out here.  They're fantastic.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson...in retrospect, it's hard to believe it took this long for those two names to be connected.  Dahl, the author of so many delightful, dark, and subversive children's books, seems to have delighted in writing legitimate literature for the young and the old.  In his books, adults were often evil, and the world is full of evil, so it always seemed fantastic when things went right.  Wes Anderson is perhaps the youngest genius director working in Hollywood right now.  His films don't always work (I'm looking at you, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), but they are always worth watching.  As the writer and director of his movies, Anderson pays an amazing amount of attention to detail in all his films, so much so that re-watching his movies can often be a revelatory experience.  Anderson doesn't like telling safe or typical stories, so him basing a script on a Dahl book is a natural fit.

The first thing you will notice about this movie is the animation.  Anderson wanted to capture the look and feel of the original King Kong, so stop-motion animation was used.  However, unlike the claymation-style animation from Gumby or the original Clash of the Titans, this animation looks absolutely painstaking.  The hairs on each animal move.  Not all at the same time, or even in the same direction.  They move naturally, which is extremely difficult to achieve through artificial means.  The characters are far more expressive than you would think possible with this technology.  The animation style changes, from the ultra-detailed work of the close shots to fast and loose two-dimensional shots used to pass time quickly and show off the cartooniness of the story.  Nowadays, Pixar studios have the animation market cornered with their terrific computer animated films.  The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a welcome reminder that animation comes in many shapes and forms, and can be just as amazing as the best that technology has to offer --- or even better.

That's just the animation, though.  What about the story?  This is the tale of Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), a former chicken thief turned family man.  Mr. Fox has sworn off the risky life of chicken thievery to please his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), and provide for his son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman).  The movie conveniently skips over the twelve years where Mr. Fox kept to the straight and narrow and focuses on when he eventually starts stealing again.  There are three mean farmers near the Fox household.  Fox plunders them systematically until they decide to fight back.  This movie doesn't pull its punches with the mean humans; they have might and machines, and are willing to use them.  Fox's home is torn apart and the entire neighborhood is ruined, making Fox and his entire community homeless.  That doesn't mean that Fox stops fighting, of course.

Wes Anderson adds quite a bit to Dahl's original story, partly to make it feature-length and partly to fit into his unique cinematic vision.  The most notable change is the number of children, from four in the book to one in the movie.  This sets up Fox's somewhat odd son, Ash, for a rivalry with his cousin, the athletic Kristofferson; Mr. Fox seems underwhelmed by Ash, while openly applauding Kristofferson.  Then again, it wouldn't be a Wes Anderson movie without a strained father/son relationship, would it?

The voice acting here is fine, overall, but could be better.  Clooney is excellent as Mr. Fox.  Willem Dafoe is very entertaining as Fox's animal nemesis, the rat.  Bill Murray does a good job with Mr. Badger; not good enough to cancel out Garfield, but still pretty good.  Overall, though, it probably would have been better with voice actors.  As it is, the cast is a blend of Anderson's friends, coworkers, and actors that he likes.  That means that Adrien Brody, Brian Cox, Owen Wilson, director Garth Jennings, musician Jarvis Cocker, and Wes Anderson himself all make small contributions to the voice cast.  Anderson earns loyalty from his actors unlike any other director today; that is why so many of the same actors work with him, picture after picture, even if their part is minute.  That works wonders in an ensemble movie.  This is animated, though, and that affection does not always show through.  While the voice acting could have been better, it certainly could have been much, much worse (I'm thinking of Shark Tale as an example).  The movie circles around Clooney's character, so that makes a lot of the shortcomings inconsequential; it's called The Fantastic Mr. Fox, not An Animal Ensemble featuring Mr. Fox, after all.

From a visual standpoint, this movie is superb.  From a directorial standpoint, this movie is pretty awesome.  But the story...well, it is ambitious, but doesn't quite hit a home run.  Anderson's script calls attention to the anthropomorphic aspects of the characters, pointing out some of their odd behaviors, all while reemphasizing the fact that these animals are, in fact, animals.  It's not quite metafilm, but it's close.  The movie likes to step back and point out some of the oddities of animals acting like people, and that quality of self-awareness, while often funny, detracts from the story . It sometimes felt like Mr. Fox was giving me the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge, letting me know that animals don't really act like this.  This isn't overt stuff, like Jimmy Fallon mugging the camera, but I noticed it.  Anderson also takes the time to show the consequences of Mr. Fox's actions; Fox's selfishness (or wildness, I suppose) threatens the lives of his friends and family in the short- and long-term, makes his son feel inadequate, and might ruin his marriage.  This is theoretically fine, but a little heavy-handed in practice.  Do I need a realistic marital argument in a children's film about foxes?  No, but I admit that it was written well.  The fact that it was written, though, just feels like a case of wrong time, wrong place.