Remembering Robin Williams

By Matt Giles

It goes without saying that Robin Williams made all of us laugh. For some it was his starring role in “Mork & Mindy,” for others it was as the Genie in “Aladdin.” And then there was everything in between, from his dramatic roles in films like “Dead Poets Society,” and “Awakenings,” to more disturbing parts in films like “Insomnia” and “One Hour Photo.” What was always clear was his immeasurable talent and charm, as well as his kindness. For those of you who haven’t seen all of the media coverage about Williams – especially as it relates to Detroit Public Television – we’ve added a whole page dedicated to him called Remembering Robin Williams.

There, you can see his appearances on various PBS specials and you can also find links to mental heath resources. Williams was also remembered on Monday’s episode of Charlie Rose. PBS NewsHour also had a segment that featured my favorite film critic, A.O. Scott of The New York Times, and Budd Friedman, founder of Improv Comedy Club. For the young ones, WNYC tweeted a link to 30 years of Robin Williams appearances on Sesame Street, which is pretty cool: bit.ly/1oHLtBF

While we mourn the loss of one of our most beloved actors, it is very clear in all of the clips above that we should celebrate his life and the gift of laughter he brought to so many. For me, “Hook” will always be my favorite because I saw it at such a young age and loved the performance Williams gave as an older Peter Pan. The best scene comes when Peter finally remembers his happy thought and is able to fly, fight, and crow once more. Bangarang, Robin. Bangarang.

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" ★★

Crowded, Long, And Less Than 'Amazing' 

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

One of the pleasures of "The Amazing Spider-Man" was its attention to young love, illustrated wonderfully by Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). I felt that it added an extra layer that was missing from Sam Raimi's original trilogy, where the acting could be sidelined for dramatic camera movement. With "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", however, the scenes between Garfield and Stone come in small doses, in favor of developing the film's many villains.

It begins with a car chase where Aleksei Sytsevich, a.k.a. Rhino (Paul Giamatti), is quickly subdued by Spider-Man and locked away for later use. In the process of apprehending Sytsevich, Spider-Man saves the life of a lonely OsCorp electrical engineer, Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx, who later becomes Electro after a freak accident involving mutated electric eels), which sets up Dillon's strange obsession with the web-slinging hero. Complicating matters further, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) shows up to inherit OsCorp from his dying father, Norman (Chris Cooper), and discovers that he needs Spider-Man's blood to cure him of the same illness that is killing his father. All of this and we're only about a half-hour in to the two-and-a-half-hour running time. Crowded is putting it lightly...

While all of these new characters are introduced, Peter is struggling with the promise he made to Gwen's father, George (Denis Leary, who shows up just to stare disapprovingly at Peter in several scenes), to keep away from her, while Gwen is making plans to attend Oxford University. The focus is constantly shifting from one story to the next for the obvious purpose of setting up the next movie, or series of movies in this universe. In other words, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is less concerned with itself than what will undoubtedly come next.

It's a shame, really, because Peter and Gwen's relationship is something quite special. The film's strongest scene is one that involves Peter and Gwen deciding if they can truly be just friends or if they'll always be something more. The rules they establish for one another show the charm and wit they bring to the series, as well as the heart of Peter Parker's quest. Should he sacrifice what he wants in favor of being a hero, or is the real heroic act being there for the woman he loves?

The problem is that 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2" cannot decide what it wants to be. It's as if a bunch of noodles were thrown to the wall and the ones that stuck ended up making it into the movie. With three credited writers (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinkner), and a fourth for the story credit (James Vanderbilt), you would think that someone would have spoken up about the need for crowd control. Characters are ignored for chunks of the movie because of all the storylines and plot points the writers need to hit. After the initial confrontation, Electro is locked away, Aunt May (Sally Field) is virtually unseen except to deliver truly pointless exposition, Sytsevich is onscreen for a total of five minutes, and Harry's development into yet another villain is quite rushed.

All of this is to say that the writers and director Marc Webb appear to have forgotten what made this new incarnation of the series special in the first place: Garfield and Stone. They're the reason to include "amazing" in the title and they deserve far more than being ignored for unnecessary, uninteresting characters.

"Locke" ★★★½

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Shot over five days and five nights, Steven Knight's "Locke" is the story of one man's mistake and his endless desire to redeem himself, all while speaking on the phone as he drives from Birmingham to London. Yes, the film takes place entirely inside the title character's BMW and it is a mesmerizing experience, both in Knight's sheer inventiveness as a filmmaker and Tom Hardy's brilliant performance as Ivan Locke.

At first you may ask yourself how a film that takes place in a car could hold your attention for its eighty-five minute running time, but that worry fades the moment Ivan makes his first phone call. He's a construction foreman who leaves the most important job of his career because of a mistake he made in his recent past. (I won't spoil what that mistake is, especially since I went into this movie completely blind and was even more wowed than I otherwise might have been.) Ivan has a list of people he needs to talk to, as well as several personal goals to achieve as he makes the drive to London.

What's fascinating is the personal journey this character takes in such a short amount of time. Ivan goes from a man trying to control an uncontrollable situation to someone who accepts the fact that what he's done simply isn't fixable. It happens naturally, out of the many conversations he has on the phone, and also in his discussions with his never seen nor heard deceased father. He's trying to prove that one mistake isn't enough to condemn someone for the rest of their life and that he controls his own fate, not the other way around.

But Ivan is driving toward inevitability, and the closer he gets, the more unhinged and agitated he becomes. It's an honest and heartbreaking realization, and one that Hardy plays beautifully. Ivan's a man worn down by his actions, comforting to others but a mess on the inside, scruffy and more than a little rough around the edges, but he's built a life for himself. He's proud of the work he's done and just wants to get home to his wife, Katrina (Ruth Wilson) and two sons, Sean (Bill Milner) and Eddie (Tom Holland).

We only hear the voices on these phone calls, but these actors do great work and convey all the emotions they need to in their reactions to what Ivan is saying. Wilson is particularly good at bringing Ivan into reality, and Donal (Andrew Scott), Ivan's number two who must take over the job in his absence, adds some comedic moments to an otherwise dark story. You forget that you're only seeing one actor on screen and you become entranced. It's not your average car ride but you're more than happy to have made the journey.

"Under The Skin" ★★★★

A Cinematic Odyssey

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

The one film in recent memory to make me question everything I know about life, death, and a general love of movies is "2001: A Space Odyssey". What Stanley Kubrick did with that film is something that should be marveled, analyzed, and written about for years to come. I did not think another film could come that close to brilliance until I saw Jonathan Glazer's "Under The Skin", a hauntingly intoxicating film with a stellar performance from Scarlett Johansson.

The film tells the story of an alien (Johansson) in Scotland who lures men with the promise of sex into a blackish blue liquid that preserves them for something far more sinister. The longer she's on Earth and the more she studies humans, the more curious and sympathetic she becomes. She's obviously not of this world, but "Under The Skin" itself feels like something otherworldly in its style. Glazer's images are best expressed as something Special Agent Dale Cooper would call "both wonderful and strange" bringing to mind the claustrophobic acid-trip of an ending that "2001" provided. From the opening minutes - with a score perfectly complimentary to the images on screen - to the quiet ending, Glazer never hesitates to make the audience squirm in their seats. Just when you think the story cannot possibly be any darker or stranger, he ups the anti.

The darker the story gets, however, the more I found myself sympathizing with the alien creature and less with her victims. In one sequence, she happens upon a disfigured man (Adam Pearson) who, as a result of his condition, has never been with a woman. She compliments his hands, they make small talk, and never once does she mention or seem to care about his appearance. Their exchange is essential to the journey her character takes, seemingly causing her to realize what she's doing to these people. She sees the best and worst in humanity and becomes more aware of the body she inhabits.

It's a brave role, that much is certain, and Johansson doesn't shy away from anything. Her performance has stuck with me, as I find myself thinking about this movie nearly every day since I first saw it. There simply are not a lot of movies that can creep in like "Under The Skin" does; a welcome respite from the summer blockbuster season. What Glazer and Johansson have accomplished here is Kubrickian in nature, but wholly original in style and form. This isn't a movie you watch, it's one you experience. Don't be afraid to let it in.

Revisiting "(500) Days of Summer"

A Look Back At This Wonderful Indie From 2009

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

There's something about the hopeless romantic character that resonates deeply with me. Perhaps it's because I am one myself, or maybe it's the idea of lost idealism rushing to the surface that creates a lasting appeal. Whatever the reason, "(500) Days of Summer" is a film that puts this archetype front and center, the result of which is a damn fine movie.

The hopeless romantic in this story is Tom, played by the always engaging Joseph Gordon-Levitt, an architect at heart but currently employed as a writer of greeting cards in downtown Los Angeles. Tom's belief in true love is expressed when he first meets Summer (Zooey Deschanel), the new secretary at the card company. What follows is the story of their strained relationship and eventual break-up, told from Tom's perspective.

Gordon-Levitt plays Tom's heartbreak beautifully, never making it sentimental or pathetic. He becomes withdrawn, depressed and, for a while, angry. Angry at Summer, yes, but mostly angry at himself for believing that he could change Summer's beliefs about love to fit with his. She tells him early on that she's not looking for a relationship, nor does she believe in true love. But Tom believes so earnestly that he's the man that will cause her to rethink what she already knows. Where your sympathy lies depends upon the character with whom you identify the most.

On one hand, there's Summer, who is upfront and honest about what she's looking for. She tells Tom how it is and asks if he is willing to accept her terms. On the other hand, there's Tom, a man whose judgement is clouded by his convictions. But that's what makes watching this movie such a rewarding experience: It nails both sides of a doomed relationship so perfectly, that no matter who you see yourself as, it's a pleasure to watch.

This pleasure, for me at least, comes to fruition in two key scenes of the film. The first is a small moment that sets up the second scene, when we're led to believe that Tom and Summer could potentially get back together. It's a few seconds on a train after they've left a wedding and it seems like they're falling in love all over again. Tom is awake in his seat and Summer's head ever-so-gracefully falls on his shoulder. The look on Tom's face is one of pure joy and relief. He's done it, he's won her back, or so he thinks. It's a small gesture, yes, but in the hands of a less capable actor it could have gone way wrong. Gordon-Levitt lives in this moment and reacts accordingly.

The second scene is when Tom shows up at Summer's apartment for a party. She invited him at the wedding, they had that moment on the train, so naturally Tom thinks this is his shot at happiness. Many will remember that this is the expectations vs. reality sequence, where the left side of the screen shows what Tom thought would happen and the right shows what actually happens. It's sad, yes, but contagious in its effect. What we're left with is a broken man who has to reconcile with his own ideals.

The one love Tom still has in his life is the city of Los Angeles, which is a character in and of itself. Out of Tom's loss comes the will to pursue his dream of being an architect and letting the city that surrounds him be his constant source of inspiration. Los Angeles is shown in ways we're not used to seeing on screen; there's an affection for the city. You could almost say that Tom is having a constant affair with it. And that's just one of many charms this movie offers, especially upon repeated viewing.

Director Marc Webb uses a variety of filmmaking techniques, all of which compliment the mood and tone of the characters. There's a musical number when Tom and Summer have sex for the first time, a reference to French New Wave films when Tom is "suffering", and interviews with the characters about their thoughts on love. None of this ever takes you out of the story because it's all so complimentary of what Tom is going through. "(500) Days of Summer" is love in its richest form: it loves the characters, story and setting, but it also loves every aspect of the filmmaking process.

Californication Season Seven Premiere: "Levon"

Finding Its Way Home

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

The final season of Californication premiered last night and after seven years of Hank's (David Duchovny) debauchery, the show appears to be getting back on track. The first season as a whole proved that Californication was something different, a comedy that pushed the limits even for cable television, but one that had a lot of heart and soul. Many wrote the show off as being just about sex, when in fact it was anything but. As the seasons progressed, however, it was clear that the writers were more interested in sexual situation comedy, rather than the story of Hank and Karen (Natasha McElhone).

I questioned how Californication could last past a season or two and the answer was it couldn't and shouldn't have. This always was a short term story, at least for me, and while I wish things could have ended much sooner, I'm glad that this first episode in the show's conclusion indicates a return to form. It begins moments after the ending of last season, with Hank knocking on Karen's door to tell her he wants to make it work. Things don't go as planned, so Hank decides to get a job working in television. Easier said than done.

Fans of the show will remember that season five revolved around the making of the movie "Santa Monica Cop", which has now been adapted into a television series and is being run by Rick Rath (Michael Imperioli). Hank convinces Rick that he's worth hiring because of his life experience and that his pain in the ass work ethic is beside the point. "I'm on a quest to reclaim the best parts of myself before it's too late", Hank says at one point. The same can be said about Californication.

The core of the show has always been Hank and Karen's relationship, and their scenes together, sparse though they may be, always remind me of why I fell in love with the show in the first place. Duchovny and McElhone are so good that when they're together, it no longer feels like I'm watching two characters on a screen, rather, I'm a witness to two very real people having arguments and conversations that actually matter. And when the show is firing on all cylinders, the comedy comes out of the characters, not the situations they're thrown into.

Take Charlie (Evan Handler) and Marcy (Pamela Adlon) for example. They're the most unlikely couple in the series. Their chemistry is just perfect on as their co-stars and the funniest moments in "Levon" occurred when they were arguing about Charlie's erectile dysfunction. While Charlie has been the focus of ridicule throughout Californication's run, he's best served when Marcy is with him. Keeping them apart for so long was one of many missteps in the show's prolonged run, but now that they're living not-so-happily ever after, all could be forgiven. And yes, watching Charlie flounder about is always amusing, but it's having Marcy by his side that makes those scenes work. That's a testament to Adlon's comedic timing, which makes Marcy's mixture of bitter and sweet spot on.

It's that dichotomy that always made Californication work, and for too long, Tom Kapinos - the show's creator and, now, only writer - went for the wacky comedy instead of comedic character study. But for the first time in several seasons, I was laughing again and happy to see these characters for at least twelve more episodes. Let's hope that Californication, much like Hank and Karen, can get it right a second time.

Star Trek Into Darkness ★★

Visually Exciting; Illogical on Almost Every Level

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Remember Kirk, Spock and Bones? Remember the Enterprise and its five year mission? In case you're rusty: "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." Star Trek was about a future in which different nations and other worlds worked together. The Federation had its enemies, sure, but for the most part it was about the wonder of space and its endless possibilities. It was ahead of its time, to say the least, and sadly, the latest entry in J.J. Abrams' version of the series hints that we may never see that vision of the future again.

Star Trek Into Darkness has not only a bad title, but one that completely undermines what Star Trek was always about. It's as if Mr. Abrams watched the series and understood none of it, or, if he did, simply didn't care. Into Darkness is a film in which the director forces himself on the material, rather than let the material speak for itself. I was a fan of the first film, which wisely created an alternate timeline and even included the original Spock (Leonard Nimoy) so that the audience would know that the stories we all loved from that original series still existed. This also meant that Mr. Abrams was free to modify the characters, slightly, which made their introductions fresh and new, while still retaining what we always loved about them. In other words, he seemed to care when he made Star Trek. I'll say this for his directing of Into Darkness: he has a talent for creating breathtaking visuals during pulse-pounding action sequences, but when you strip that away you discover that this film is all style and no substance. You don't really have time to breathe when watching Into Darkness, and it's only after watching the film in its entirety that you begin to see its many flaws.

Into Darkness begins, promisingly enough, with Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) racing through a red forest trying to distract a race of aliens while Spock (Zachary Quinto) attempts to neutralize an erupting volcano. When things don't go as planned, Kirk has to save Spock by violating the Prime Directive, which states that Starfleet cannot interfere with the development of alien nations. As a result, Kirk is demoted to first officer by Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Spock is assigned to another ship. At this point it seems that Mr. Abrams and his screenwriters (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & Damon Lindelof) actually get Star Trek. Kirk could not allow a civilization to be destroyed and thus had to intervene, exposing the Enterprise when his friend was in danger.

I was optimistic about where the film was going right up until the villain, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), is introduced, at which point the film truly veers into darkness. Kirk resumes command and pursues Harrison into Klingon territory which, if Kirk is careless in his quest, will cause a war with the Klingons. From here, Mr. Abrams commits the biggest sin when he attempts to remake The Wrath of Khan, easily the best entry of all the Star Trek films.

The Wrath of Khan worked for a variety of reasons: it dealt with questions of mortality, friendship and above all, sacrifice. Once again, it seems as though Mr. Abrams watched that film and understood none of it. His Kirk is much more cocky and somehow managed to forget everything he learned in the first film. His friendship with Spock feels forced, not earned (let's remember, they only became friends in the first film because the older Spock told Kirk they needed to be), and Bones is barely even a character this time around. (The three of them and their clashing personalities were what made the original series, as well as Wrath of Khan great.) Thus, everything that happens feels false and does not achieve the emotion Mr. Abrams was hoping for. During the screening I attended, people in the audience were actually laughing at what was supposed to be the most moving scene in the film.

A lot of imagination is missing from Star Trek Into Darkness, which is unfortunate given the admiration and excitement I had for the first one. What does work comes in small doses - namely the opening, some of the action sequences, and perhaps the two best scenes in the movie, which feature conversations between Kirk and Pike. Overall, Into Darkness feels lazy and, at times, disrespectful, not only to the fans of both the original and the new incarnation, but to Gene Roddenberry's original vision of the future. The first film had the marketing slogan "This is not your father's Star Trek", which was true, but still had the heart of the original series. Into Darkness, however, feels like it's no one's Star Trek.

Iron Man 3 ★★★★

Finally, The Third Time Is The Charm

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Providing a much needed breath of fresh air to the series, Iron Man 3 kicks off the summer movie season with a bang.

As a director, I must say I have never been a huge fan of Jon Favreau. As an actor, he's fine, but when the best movie he's directed is Elf (although I do love Elf), you know there's trouble. Thankfully, Favreau chose to leave the Iron Man series as a director to pursue other projects and was replaced by the prolific Shane Black. Black has only directed one other feature, the highly enjoyable Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but is clearly the man for the job, at least for this franchise.

There's a certain style that comes from a Shane Black script, most notably witty dialogue (perfect for Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark); voiceover narration; a noirish, pulpy feel to the story; and Christmas as the juxtaposed backdrop. All of these elements are in place for Iron Man 3, which Black co-wrote with Drew Pearce, and it serves the story in a variety of unique ways. The voiceover narration is one of those elements associated with the film noir style and it's use here gives the film less of a superhero feel and more of a detective-recalling-his-biggest-case vibe. To that point, a large part of this movie is uncovering a mystery that's set up in its first act, and Tony plays the role of lead detective perfectly.

Iron Man 3 is also violent in the ways Black is famous for, even though it's somewhat muted given its PG-13 rating and the studio's desire for it to fit within the Marvel universe, but Black still manages to make this movie his own. As opposed to the previous entries in the series, this time around, the violence matters. These aren't just CGI characters created to be blown up, though for those who want it, there's still an impressive amount of CGI in play. We believe that any of the characters could die at any moment, largely because of the tone Black establishes and maintains throughout, as well as Downey's best performance in the series.

At the beginning of the film, we're told through voiceover that Tony has made many enemies, as he reflects back to a New Year's Eve party in 1999 where he had a one night stand with a scientist named Maya (Rebecca Hall) and managed to blow off a crippled scientist named Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), who was a huge admirer of Tony's. In the present, Killian despises Tony (why wouldn't he?), has gotten his disabilities in check, and now resembles the Guy Pearce we all know and love. Apparently, he is also working with a terrorist known only as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who shares in Killian's desire for Tony's demise. When The Mandarin attacks Tony at his home in Malibu, Tony is left for dead with only one non-functioning suit at his disposal, setting up some interesting plot reveals along the way.

The movie has also the task of picking up the pieces left by the end of The Avengers, but manages it quite nicely by removing any Avenger-esque subplot (a fault of nearly every Marvel movie to be released after the first Iron Man) and instead (brace yourself, this is a novel concept) placing Tony front and center. He's suffering from anxiety attacks after his near death experience, can't sleep, and has become more paranoid than ever about attacks from other worlds and dimensions. Tony's desperate, scared, and a little unhinged. This isn't the Tony Stark we're used to. Sure, he's cocky at times, but more as a deflection than ever before. He's lost the confidence he once had. As a result, he's created 42 new suits, each one a supposed improvement over the previous. These suits are meant not only to protect himself, but Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) as well. At one point, Tony says, as if to put it mildly, "Nothing's been the same since New York."

All of this is to say that Iron Man 3 is precisely the summer blockbuster that I hope both critics and audiences can agree on. It's a lot of fun, it's intelligent, and it's one of those rare movies that I look forward to seeing again.

Upstream Color ★★★★

A Mesmerizing Follow Up From The Director of Primer

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Do not try to understand Upstream Color after one viewing. It's next to impossible. Instead, let the emotions, good and bad, wash over you and let that be your critique of the movie. It's the second film from director Shane Carruth (Primer), which should help to discern what type of movie this is.

For those who want to have an idea of what they're in for, I'll say this much: a woman, Kris (Amy Seimetz in a haunting performance), is kidnapped and force-fed larvae that make her susceptible to mind control. Her assailant (Thiago Martins) has her perform a variety of bizarre tasks before having her make a series of large withdrawals from her bank and pocketing the money himself. Later, Kris discovers worms gestating right beneath her skin and desperately tries to remove them. When that fails, she's somehow drawn to a farmer who is seemingly obsessed with sound, carrying microphones and recording equipment everywhere he goes. The farmer removes the worms and puts them in one of his pigs in one of the most disturbing surgery scenes I've ever witnessed, and Kris awakens alone and confused in her car on the side of the freeway. Some time later she meets a man, Jeff (Carruth), who becomes a kindred spirit to her, hinting that he, too, may have been experimented on in the past. 

Of everything this movie offers, that just scratches the surface. It's clear that Carruth operates on an entirely different level than I could ever hope to. But as a filmmaker, he certainly is a major talent. He's a director who uses imagery and, for this film, sound design (as noted by film critic Alonso Duralde) to give the audience an almost a dreamlike experience, while at the same time being astoundingly original in his approach to storytelling. His cinematography is evocative, his score is eerie, and his dialogue - what little there is - hardly matters when compared to what he's showing us. Think Terrance Malick, but much more twisted. Better yet, think of Darren Aronofsky's second film, Requiem For A Dream, and you might begin to understand how you'll feel after watching Upstream Color.

It works in the ways that the best science fiction films do; you'll find yourself asking a lot of questions, questions only truly great science fiction offers. I always come back to 2001: A Space Odyssey, as the quintessential science fiction experience. Every time I watch it gives me another interpretation of our place in the universe, where we come from, what's next etc. Upstream Color is offers similar questions, but is more of a cautionary tale of where we are as a civilization, and what certain members of society are capable of when given power. I'm not saying mind control is possible and I'm not saying it isn't. But pondering it's existence and what it could mean is just one of several rewarding pleasures of seeing a film like this. Where 2001 can be seen as more of an optimistic approach to consciousness (depending on your interpretation of it), Upstream Color is it's own dystopia. It takes place in the present, but seems to theorize that our undoing isn't the result of war or attacks from aliens, but instead by human choice. Given the power to control another, would we use it? Carruth is giving us his interpretation of a world gone mad from its own power. It's incredibly effective. 

Mud ★★★★

A Coming of Age Noir Along The Mississippi River

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

There aren't many directors who can make the audience feel as though they are actually part of the world displayed before our eyes when we see a movie. Some directors try but fail - James Cameron with Avatar, for example, forcefully tried to make us part of Pandora with his use of 3D - and some, like the brilliant Jeff Nichols, do so effortlessly, trusting in the work they're producing. Nichols' latest film, Mud, is a beautiful representation of the latter.

In an area unfamiliar, I'm sure, to many like myself who have never journeyed that far south, the story takes place and was shot along the Mississippi River in Arkansas. Two boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan, giving one of the most amazing performances of the year) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), discover a boat in a tree in the middle of a mostly desolate island along the river. They also find the boat inhabited by Mud (Matthew McConaughey, giving one of the year's best performances), a man who tells the boys that he is waiting for his girlfriend, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), to find him so that they can run away together.

Ellis' mother and father (Sarah Paulson and Ray McKinnon) are in the early stages of divorce, which is devastating to Ellis, as he is beginning a relationship with his first serious crush (Bonnie Sturdivant). We all remember our first crush; the intense feelings, awkward interactions and maybe some sleepless nights; and Nichols captures all of these feelings beautifully, getting an amazing performance out of Sheridan. After Mud asks the boys for help, Ellis obliges after hearing Mud speak about Juniper. The love that Mud clearly has for her entrances Ellis, giving him hope when his parents have left him hopeless. The look of excitement and desperation on Ellis' part perfectly conveys the longing all of us have experienced at least once during our lives. The idea of true love being tangible has its temptations and with them a certain degree of naïveté.

Mud is one of those coming of age stories that manages to get everything right. In his creation of Ellis, Nichols succeeds in making the audience a part of the story, despite the unfamiliarity of life along the Mississippi River. Our hearts break for Ellis, yet we believe, as he does, that love will conquer all. Nichols perfectly captures the innocence of adolescence while also providing a noirish backdrop for all the characters to live within.

Mud, we find out, is a fugitive for a crime I won't spoil in this review. Suffice it to say that, in addition to being pursued by authorities, some very bad men want him dead. With every task Ellis performs to help Mud, including finding and speaking with Juniper, Ellis places himself in more danger. McConaughey is stellar as Mud, portraying the character as somewhat of a simpleton with deadly skills, especially if someone threatens a person he cares about. Mud is thus the grown up version of Ellis, at least if Ellis doesn't learn from Mud's mistakes.

It's hard, I imagine, for anyone not to sympathize with both Ellis' and Mud's plight. This is a film that asks the audience to revisit the intense feelings young adulthood provides but also to recall the moment in time where suddenly we realized it was time to grow up. It's never easy for anyone, but it happens to us all, and Ellis' story is a beautiful representation of that time in our lives. This is a film about lost innocence and the acceptance of truth in extreme circumstances. Life is always simpler when we're young, or so we think. But Nichols knows better, and invites us into his story about lost youth by allowing us to remember our own.

To The Wonder ★★★

Searching For Love In Unforgiving Times

Written by Matt Giles

Edited by Erin Accomando

There is not another director working today that connects fluid camera movement with beautiful imagery as well as Terrence Malick does. Shots flow seamlessly together like streams of consciousness; we circle in and out of distant memories from someone else's life. The plot is less important than the ideas expressed, usually in voice-over. That's the best way I can describe what it's like to see a Malick film. It is, for all intents and purposes, visual poetry with religious symbolism sprinkled throughout. The same is true for Malick's latest film, To The Wonder, which deals with a woman's search for tangible love paralleled with a priest's search for God.

That woman, Marina (Olga Kurylenko), lives in Paris with her boyfriend, Neil (Ben Affleck), and her daughter, Tatiana (Tatiana Chiline). The film begins by showing the love Marina and Neil share, barely able to keep their hands off of one another. Malick shoots these scenes in an evocative manner, pulling the audience into the passion these two share. When Neil persuades Marina to come back to America with him, their love begins to fade, especially when there's an apparent refusal on Neil's part to marry Marina so she may stay with him. We're introduced to a priest, Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), whose love and devotion to God is dissolving with every less fortunate person he tries to help. 

Marina is in search for "the love that loves us" as she says at one point, and Father Quintana wants proof of God's existence. Marina is so determined to believe in that love that she fails to see what an idiot Neil is. She's blinded by faith, a bit naive, but also spirited and optimistic. Father Quintana is the opposite, his search guided by frustration and distrust. Both stories run parallel throughout the film, which proves less effective than Malick's previous film, The Tree of Life, which brilliantly used ideas of existence to pose similar questions asked in To The Wonder. Using lost love as a metaphor for one's devotion to God is a bit heavy-handed and does not illicit the response I think Malick was going for. 

The main problem is that Malick doesn't seem to have an interest in Neil, the character whose story is placed front and center. Early in the story Marina's green card expires and Neil, seemingly unfazed by the fact that she's forced to leave, wanders aimlessly for a bit before meeting Jane (Rachel McAdams), a woman he knew many years ago with whom he begins a relationship. Malick appears to be obsessed with choice, or in Neil's case, the lack of choice. Neil doesn't know what he wants and therefore cannot commit to either woman. Why either of them ever fall for him is lost on me, but then again, the heart wants what the heart wants. In this case, it's a brooding Affleck. 

For all of To The Wonder's faults, much can be said about the isolation and loneliness that misplaced love can offer. Marina dances in beautiful panoramas, vast and desolate, always in search of a love she may never find. Father Quintana walks in and out of poor neighborhoods surrounded by people yet utterly alone in his desire to find God among the impoverished. The question at the heart of the film is whether or not these two characters will ever find the meaning they're looking for. The beauty of that question is where it takes these characters and how Malick shoots their determination in modern landscapes. 

This is by no means Malick's best effort as a filmmaker - a longer version of the story may have made it a masterpiece - but there's also something hauntingly real about what happens when love is felt for the wrong person. In an era when the divorce rate is at an all-time high, To The Wonder is optimistic in it's approach to love; however misplaced, however intangible, it exists in all of us and allows us to feel, to be human. Maybe that's the point.  

Trance ★★★½

A Trip Down The Manic Rabbit Hole of Hypnotherapy 

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Danny Boyle is the type of director whose films become synonymous with his style. This can be used to great effect - most recently his 2007 science fiction thriller Sunshine, and 2008's Slumdog Millionaire, for which he won an Academy Award - but can also infringe too much on the story he's trying to tell, exemplified in his last film 127 Hours. Regardless, I'm usually won over because his formalistic technique is so precise that I cannot help but be in awe of his work. This style of his has been perfectly blended with story in his latest film, Trance, a hypnotic thriller with more twists and turns than I, or likely anyone else out there, was not expecting.

It begins simply enough with Simon (James McAvoy), an art auctioneer who helps a group of art thieves steal a painting but fails to remember what he did with said painting after a blow to the head leaves him with amnesia. The art thieves are led by Franck (Vincent Cassel) who, after realizing torturing Simon is ineffective, hears that hypnosis can help with memory loss and persuades Simon to meet with a hypnotherapist of his choosing. That therapist happens to be played by the lovely Rosario Dawson, who agrees to help Simon after learning the truth about why he's come to see her.

The opening of the film is fairly conventional for a director like Boyle; none of his usual motifs are on display. The moment Simon is hit on the head however, what's real and what's imagined become blurry, and Boyle's style takes hold. Boyle, using every trick he has and then some, manages to flow seamlessly between the real world and the world Simon creates in his head. Cutting back and forth between the two is jarring at times but is not to the detriment of the film. Instead, we feel just as Simon does: like we're losing our minds.The more Simon tries to remember, the harder it becomes to differentiate between the two worlds, and the mania that surrounds Simon from every direction becomes chaotic. It's a trip, and I mean that in the best way possible.

It's the type of script where Boyle can do no wrong. With every new scene there's an invitation for Boyle to ramp up his technique, as if to imply that everything that has come before, both in his career and within the film itself, has been practice for this story.  It works. When the film was finished I actually had to catch my breath and release my grip on the arm rests because of what Trance did to me. This isn't just watching a movie; it's having an experience.

After seeing what Boyle has done here, I can't help but wonder how different a film like Inception (don't get me wrong, I love Inception) could have been with Boyle at the helm. In many ways he's the perfect man to do a film about dreams and consciousness, Trance being a jumping off point for an interesting career shift. But that's the thing with a director like this: no matter what his next project is, you cannot help but be excited to see how his style will shape the finished product. Even with his films that maybe don't work as well, you always get the sense that he's perfecting his skills. Thus, every film of his becomes less a work by Danny Boyle and more a piece of art about Danny Boyle. Trance is the best example to date.

Giving 'Two Thumbs Up' To A Beloved Film Critic

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

It is a truly sad day for cinephiles everywhere like myself as Roger Ebert, film critic for the Chicago Sun Times for forty-six years, has died. As a child, I grew up hearing my parents and virtually every other adult say, "Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up," when deciding what movie to see. I remember my old VHS tapes having that phrase above the title of a given movie that these critics admired. At the time, I didn't know who they were, only that if they liked a movie it was a good bet that I would enjoy it as well.

If I'm being fully honest I don't recall ever having watched a full episode of Siskel & Ebert, only after Gene Siskel's death in 1999 did I start watching the show's later version, Ebert & Roeper. Over the course of many years I became more familiar with not only the show but Roger himself. Each week I couldn't wait to read his reviews and the more I read, the more I appreciated him and what he did for film criticism. He's not the only famous movie critic, but he and Gene managed to somehow mainstream film critics in a way that had never been done before. Other critics, new and old alike, credit these men for championing smaller independent films that audiences may not have otherwise known about.

When Roger's health declined, Richard Roeper began bringing on a variety of guest co-hosts, two of them being A.O. Scott of The New York Times and Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune. After a while, Phillips became the unofficial permanent co-host of the show, and I found myself eagerly awaiting the debates between he and Roeper each week.

When ABC decided that show needed to appeal to younger audiences, Roeper and Phillips were replaced by Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, a decision that caused ABC to once again reevaluate after a year. It was Roger who then hand picked Scott and Phillips to host the show, which by this point was renamed simply At The Movies. When Scott and Phillips came on I discovered what so many before me had loved about the Siskel and Ebert years, as they brought back the spirit of the original show. Both men were newspaper critics, and both men brought their own unique approach to writing and discussing film. Scott has a background in literature, often comparing movies to great novels, and Phillips always paid a keen attention to a particular film's score, highlighting the importance of music in film.

Roger recognized their talents from their past guest hosting duties and allowed these two men to keep the show alive while also bringing a fresh perspective to it. From what I've read and understand, Roger was the type of person who enjoyed reading other critics as much as he loved writing his own reviews. It's because of him that I learned the value of film criticism and not only its importance in modern society, but its relevance as well.

He brought back a new version of the show after its cancellation on ABC, entitled Ebert Presents At The Movies and just when I thought there couldn't be any other critics that I would love as much as Scott and Phillips, Roger brought on Christy Lemire of The Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com. These two could not have been more drastically different from Scott and Phillips, and yet they were just as entertaining and taught me as much as the critics before them, if not more. They had many disagreements, just like Siskel and Ebert did, but had a great admiration and respect for one another. There was a great chemistry between them that was infectious every time I watched the show.

Roger also brought in a variety of guest critics to discuss different topics associated with film on Ebert Presents. These were people that Roger himself admired, and thus were able to showcase their talents on his show because he recognized so many different voices when it came to writing about film. He opened a new world for me. It's gotten to the point that I'm reading so many reviews and listening to so many podcasts about film (all of which feature one or more of these guest critics) that my head may just explode. I couldn't be happier about that.

Just a day ago, Roger announced his "leave of presence" from writing but made mention of plans to bring back At The Movies again through a Kickstarter campaign. I hope it still happens, as his show continues to inspire new generations of film critics like myself even after it's ended. No amount of writing will ever fully express my gratitude toward this man. He gave me hope when everyone around me told me that writing about movies wasn't important, a show that opened up a world of different writers that I continue to admire and actively read, and he was the person responsible for compelling me to write about film.

Rest In Peace, Roger. And thank you for inspiring me.

Evil Dead ★½

Blood, Guts, Dismemberment And Not Much Else

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Just when you thought you'd seen the most gruesome horror movie ever made, a movie like Evil Dead comes along to make the previous movies look tame by comparison. Going for a much more serious approach, this remake of the 1981 classic brings a new group of ill-fated characters into the mix and wastes no time coming up with inventive ways to torture them.

The film's tone is established in the prologue, which shows what can happen when someone is stupid enough to read from the Necronomicon, everyone's favorite evil book, and the necessary immolation that can occur as a result. After the events, we jump forward in time (it's never specified how long) and meet the unlucky group of friends who have retreated to a cabin in the woods to help Mia (Jane Levy) go cold turkey from her drug addiction. We learn some of her backstory from her interactions with her truly idiotic brother, David (Shiloh Fernandez), who apparently left Mia when she was just a child to live with her mentally unstable mother, which caused her to turn to drugs in the first place. Not long after arriving does the group stumble upon the remnants of what they assume to be witchcraft (though the audience knows better from the prologue) in the cellar underneath the cabin, thereby discovering the Necronomicon and unleashing hell. Literally.

The presence that materializes manages to possess Mia, leading everyone in the group - who include two supposedly educated people, a teacher, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), and a nurse, Olivia (Jessica Lucas) and a bimbo, Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) - to believe that what Mia is experiencing is just extreme withdrawal. Keep in mind that at one point Mia gives herself third-degree facial burns with a boiling-hot shower, and sadly, that is not even the worst of it. What follows is an elaborate assortment of graphic mutilations all designed to see how much the filmmakers can get away with under the R rating. It's a lot.

If there's one thing I can say about all of the violence in the film (and really, you can only embrace it or reject it, but if you're willingly seeing a movie like this, are you really going to reject it?) it's that the makeup and effects are top notch for a horror film like this. It's extreme, yes, but very believable and (I hate to say it) rich with color. It's one of those movies where the production value is so good that you can feel every bit of pain that these characters endure, which at times is unbearable.

This version of Evil Dead is more concerned with effects than it is to story and character, something that the original franchise had in spades. Mia is supposed to be our replacement for Ash (Bruce Campbell) and I like that the director, Fede Alvarez, wanted a female lead but we barely get to know her. She's angry and depressed for the first fifteen minutes of the film and then possessed for the rest of it. She's not really heroic, or sympathetic, but rather a vessel for Alvarez to showcase his twisted love of gore. I'm not saying I expected Mia to be the female Ash but her character could have been much more developed. Ash was someone we sympathized with; someone whom we did not want to be tortured. While I didn't wish any harm to Mia, I certainly didn't get the sense that Alvarez cared what happened to her as much as director Sam Raimi cared about Ash in the originals.

It's sad, really, as Ms. Levy is a very talented actress (most, like myself, probably know her best as Tessa on ABC's Suburgatory) who is underused here. The rest of the actors have even less to do, but none are less convincing than Mr. Fernandez, who, as David, could not be more of a dolt. In scenes that are actually supposed to be serious, the audience at my screening was laughing because of how inept David was. The fact that he and every other character are not at all memorable except by the ways in which they die furthers my point that there are no characters in this film - only meat puppets. The only part of me that did not mind that approach was when these puppets were used to create visual motifs from the original Evil Dead. They occur several times throughout the movie and I found myself smiling each time, but what can I say? I'm nostalgic.

The only comfort I have after watching this movie is knowing that it only exists to reignite interest in the franchise for the inevitable Evil Dead 4/Army of Darkness 2. I'd wait for that movie. I'd also stay after the credits of this movie for a groovy cameo that could make you forget the horror you just saw.

My 2013 Oscar Ballot

Hollywood's Big Night

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

We're now officially a week away from Oscar night. The votes have been cast and now we play the waiting game. While I'm by no means a betting man, I do enjoy partaking in my own Oscar ballot, just to see if my Jedi-skills are improving.

What you'll see in the list that follows are my best educated guesses as to what will win and what I think should win. While I have no idea what to expect from this year's host, Seth MacFarlane, I'm very excited to see how everything turns out. Here. We. Go.

Picture 

Will Win: Argo

Should Win: Amour

Director

Will Win: Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)

Should Win: David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Actor

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)

Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix (The Master)

Actress

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)

Should Win: Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)

Supporting Actor

Will Win: Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook)

Should Win: Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

Supporting Actress

Will Win: Anne Hathaway (Les Misérables)

Should Win: Helen Hunt (The Sessions)

Original Screenplay 

Will Win: Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained)

Should Win: Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola (Moonrise Kingdom)

Adapted Screenplay

Will Win: David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Should Win: Tony Kushner (Lincoln)

Foreign Language Film

Will Win: Amour

Should Win: Amour

Animated Feature

Will Win: Brave

Should Win: Wreck-It Ralph

Sound Editing

Will Win: Argo

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty

Visual Effects

Will Win: Life of Pi

Should Win: Life of Pi

Film Editing

Will Win: Argo

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty

Short Film, Animated

Will Win: Paperman

Should Win: Paperman

Short Film, Live Action

Will Win: Buzkashi Boys

Should Win: Buzkashi Boys 

Short Film, Documentary

Will Win: Kings Point

Should Win: Kings Point

Original Score

Will Win: Lincoln

Should Win: Lincoln

Original Song

Will Win: Skyfall (Adele)

Should Win: Skyfall (Adele)

Production Design

Will Win: Anna Karenina 

Should Win: Anna Karenina 

Cinematography

Will Win: Roger Deakins (Skyfall)

Should Win: Roger Deakins (Skyfall)

Costume Design

Will Win: Anna Karenina

Should Win: Anna Karenina

Makeup

Will Win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 

Should Win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Documentary

Will Win: Searching For Sugar Man

Should Win: Searching For Sugar Man

Sound Mixing

Will Win: Argo

Should Win: Skyfall 

For those interested, Nerdist has actually linked to the Animated Short Films (in their entirety) here. You can see a full list of nominations and my ballot in a more professional manner here.

A Good Day To Die Hard - Zero Stars

Yippee Ki - Yeah, Not So Much

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

I don't know if February is too early to say that we already have the worst movie of 2013, but I'll say it anyway: A Good Day To Die Hard is the worst movie of the year.

This movie has problems right from the get go, beginning with a Russian whistle-blower and the corrupt government bad guy out to silence him. Already this doesn't seem like a Die Hard film. We then cut to New York, where John McClane (Bruce Willis) is testing his target practice abilities when he finds out that his son, Jack (Jai Courtney), has been arrested for murder in Russia. He decides it's up to him to find out what happened with Jack, and not a minute after landing there chaos (illogically) ensues. McClane finds out that Jack is actually a C.I.A. agent, and that the supposed murder was faked so that Jack could get close to Yuri (Sebastian Koch, the aforementioned whistle-blower) and protect him. To complicate matters, McClane's reintroduction to Jack results in a botched mission, thus forcing father and son to work together to protect Yuri and get out of Russia alive. It's terrible.

If there is an award for most phoned-in performance of the year, Willis should definitely get it. There is not one time throughout the movie where he takes any scene seriously. One in particular involves an evil henchmen (who, by the way, you're not sure if he's the main villain or not until the third act) forcing McClane and Jack on their knees so he can execute them. Willis plays it as if to say, "Yeah, yeah. The kneeling down on my knees scene. I've gotten out of this in four previous movies, let's do this so I can grab lunch." As McClane, he doesn't even seem to care when the henchmen kick his son around. He actually laughs. Seriously. 

Willis isn't even emotionally present in the scenes when he's expressing regret over not being present for Jack's life. They feel false and very poorly written, which is true of the whole film; Skip Woods, the writer of this film, couldn't write a Die Hard movie if his life depended on it. He understands nothing about McClane as a character or, for that matter, characters in general. Even the dialogue doesn't work. If ever there were a script that needed doctoring, it was this one. 

In addition, it's as if the studio realized they had the perfect match of bad writer and bad director, as John Moore just does not know how to shoot an action sequence. An example of which occurs when McClane is pursuing his son and decides it's better to crash through a bridge and drive over several cars in his truck rather than take the ramp that is clearly visible in the background, because, I mean, who has time for that?

This is a film that is all mindless action with no heart and fails miserably to grip us with any emotional stakes. The first two films in the series involved McClane's need to save his wife; the third film was a bit of a mixed bag of treats and not all that memorable; and the most recent film, Live Free Or Die Hard, was actually thoroughly entertaining, with a great performance from Willis, and McClane's daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) at the center of it to give him his drive to save the day. Here, McClane almost enjoys putting his son in harms way, mocking him even when he has a severe stomach injury. If this review doesn't convey how dreadful this movie is, I don't know what does. Trust me. It's a good day to see anything but A Good Day To Die Hard.

Top Ten Films of 2012

An Amazing Year In Cinema

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

2012 could easily be one of the most distinguished years in film. There were great performances from a variety of talented actresses, amazing achievements in independent cinema, and overall a lot of originality among directors. Unlike 2011, when there were very few documentaries that made critics' lists, 2012 has an overabundance of terrific ones. There were a number of great foreign films, and a surprising amount of great American movies as well. In short, this year offered variety. It was the year where, dare I say, anyone with any particular type of movie taste could wind up loving a film that has made the critics' consensus list. My choices are by no means meant to be permanent, as ranking movies is part of the fun in creating a list. They simply reflect how I feel at this point in time about the year that was.

10. Jiro Dreams of Sushi

This documentary came out early in the year, but never left my mind as not only a terrific portrait of perfecting one's craft, but a great philosophy about life in general. Jiro embodies the idea that perfection is always just a day away. Despite being a world-renowned sushi chef, he believes he can strive to do better. To us, he's already achieved perfection, but to him each day is another chance to work even harder. It's inspiring, engaging, and a terrific portrait of Japanese culture in general.

9. The Grey

Another film that came out early in the year that I'm sure many people have forgotten about is a story of man against nature, The Grey. Liam Neeson gives a stellar performance as John Ottway, a man who protects oil workers in Alaska from wolves. When the plane that he and the other workers are on goes down in a snowstorm from hell, he and the other survivors must find a way to make it out of the wilderness safely as they are pursued by wolves and other obstacles nature has in store for them. It sounds like a standard survival film, which some have argued it is, but for me it's so much more than that. This is the first film I've seen in awhile that takes death as seriously as it does. These men, who at first seem like the last people in the world you would ever care about, are characters who actually matter. We're invested in their survival and the more we learn about each one of them, the more we can't help but care.

8. Argo 

Here's a movie that is so wonderfully entertaining and suspenseful, you're unlikely to believe it came from Ben Affleck. This is a guy who, just a few short years ago, was written off by virtually everyone (including myself) but who has managed to cement himself in American culture as one of the true talents in the directing category.  The way he marries these two very distinct tones - Hollywood farce and historical thriller - is brilliant and seamless. You wouldn't think a film about The Iran Hostage Crisis could, at times, be this funny, and yet it is. It also pulls off the trick of keeping the audience on the edge of their seats during its climactic ending, despite already knowing what happened in real life.

7. Skyfall

I make no apologies for loving this installment of the James Bond franchise. For me this was the film the franchise needed to get people reinvested in the character. It is beautifully shot by Roger Deakins, well executed by director Sam Mendes, and, quite simply, a lot of fun. I enjoyed M's more involved role in the film, as well as Bond's struggle to regain his humanity. I was quite moved by its ending and look forward to where the next film in the series takes the character.

6. Lincoln 

A return to form in many ways for director Steven Spielberg, Lincoln is one of the most important films of the year. Daniel Day-Lewis is virtually and audibly unrecognizable as our 16th president, and he manages to show us a human being rather than just the ideal figure Lincoln has always been remembered as. This is a film that shows the audience the beauty of democracy and level of commitment it takes to get something like the 13th Amendment passed in the House of Representatives. It's inspiring, never dull, and one of the many films that would not have been what it was without Spielberg at the helm.

5. Silver Linings Playbook

It's nice to know that critics and audiences still have a place in their hearts for sentimental films. In my review, I compared Silver Linings Playbook to the work of Frank Capra, a director whom many write off as corny. Silver Linings, while at times dark and brutally honest, veers into Capra-esque territory in the best of ways without making the audience roll their eyes. This is the first film in many years to be nominated in all the major categories, which is a testament to everyone involved with it: Director David O. Russell is at his finest; Bradley Cooper has finally received a role and the recognition he's always been deserving of; Jennifer Lawrence continues to amaze me with her talents, this time pulling off being a widow despite her young age; and Robert De Niro has not been this good in years. It's a film that fondly reminds us of the classic screwball romantic comedies while also taking a truthful look at mental disorder. You wouldn't think all of this could be in one movie, but Silver Linings Playbook manages all the mania of love, loss, family turmoil and reconciliation quite nicely.

4. Moonrise Kingdom

Wes Anderson is a filmmaker who at times can feel like too much style without enough substance. With Moonrise Kingdom, however, he manages to find a middle ground, giving us an original tale with a lot of heart. The two lead performers, Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward as Sam and Suzy, respectively, are perfect, and together with Anderson manage to beautifully capture what it's like to be young and in love, and not taken seriously because of your age. This is one of the most original, heartwarming movies I've ever seen and the film Anderson has been toward throughout his career.

3. Searching For Sugar Man

The most uplifting film of the year happens to be a documentary rooted in Detroit. Unfolding like a murder mystery, Searching For Sugar Man tells the story of Sixto Rodriguez, a Detroit musician who did not get recognized for his talent in the music industry until thirty years after his first two albums failed to sell in the U.S. The entire time however, and unbeknownst to Rodriguez, he had a Beatles-like status in Cape Town, South Africa, due to his anti-establishment lyrics during The Apartheid. Not since Man on Wire has a documentary been everything that I love about the magic and power of movies. At one moment you're on the edge of your seat because the intrigue of the mystery keeps building, the next you're in shock because of what that mystery reveals. You're saddened by everything this musician went through, seemingly for nothing, until finally, he's given the praise he's always been deserving of. It's an amazing film and one of the few that makes me proud to say that I'm born and raised in Michigan.

2. Amour 

Emotionally devastating, but a beautiful representation of what it means to truly love someone, Michael Haneke's Amour tells the story of Georges and Anne (Jean-Louis Trintignant and an amazing Emmanuelle Riva), an elderly couple who's love and marriage is put to the test when Anne suffers a stroke, leaving Georges as her primary caregiver. As Anne continues to decline, Georges does all he can to be there for her. Some people have asked why anyone would want to see such a sad movie, but the answer is simple: loving someone is perhaps most important when one approaches the end of his or her life. We've all seen so many movies about two people meeting and falling in love, or about a marriage struggling to reignite the once strong spark, but I don't think anyone has seen a film like this.

1. Holy Motors

Hands down, this is the most original film I've seen all year. Directed by Leos Carax, Holy Motors  involves a man (Denis Lavant) who is driven by taxi all around Paris for nine, what he calls, "appointments". Each appointment involves this man putting on a different disguise and acting out some scenario. Each scenario is different, stranger than the last, and seems to fall into a separate genre of filmmaking all together. Before our eyes, it seems, Carax is redefining what it means to make movies. I have truly never seen anything like this film. It left me speechless, in the best of ways, and excited for the possibilities that filmmakers like Carax can bring to telling unbelievably original stories.

Warm Bodies ★★★

A Zom-Rom-Com 

Written by Matt Giles

Edited by Erin Accomando

It seems as though audiences cannot get enough zombie-action these days, between the countless sequels of the Living Dead films, and The Walking Dead TV series (which is based on yet another medium telling zombie stories, comic books). After a certain amount of time it can feel like if you've seen one, you've seen them all. Until, of course, a movie like Warm Bodies comes around to reignite your interest in the genre.

One could argue that the premise is the Twilight equivalent for the zombie-genre and to a degree, you would be right. But Warm Bodies, while certainly a romantic comedy, never takes itself too seriously; it knows it's ridiculous. That being said, there's room for some sentimentality, if you're looking for it, as well as a simple message about embracing people's differences instead of constantly fearing them. 

The film centers around a zombie named R (Nicholas Hoult), who, by his own admission, is conflicted about eating people. He provides the narration for the film, explaining that he doesn't remember his former life, only that his name began with the letter R. He has a best friend named M (a surprisingly timid, but very funny Rob Corddry) whom he mostly just grunts and moans back and forth with, and spends most of his time living in an abandoned airplane listening to vinyl records. When he and his zombie brethren go out for a routine snack, he sees Julie (Teresa Palmer) and instantly falls in love. He abducts her and the two embark on a newfound friendship shortly thereafter. 

The more time R spends with Julie, the more he begins to change, eventually developing a heartbeat. The idea is that the zombie population is not just a group of human flesh-eaters, but actual people too. It's cheesy, yes, but also a lot of fun and a refreshing take on this tired genre. Hoult does a good job of delivering one-liners, both within the scene and in his narration, and is perfectly cast as the one zombie to give us a view of the world through his lens. Palmer, meanwhile, is fine but not all that memorable, and doesn't really do much except play the attractive blonde whom R has fallen for.

At times it feels like there may have been more of a movie - there's a minor subplot involving Julie's former boyfriend (Dave Franco) that never really resolves itself emotionally - but for the most part, Warm Bodies works as a fun zombie movie told from the zombie's perspective.

Warm Bodies will be released Friday, February 1st 2013