Frances Ha (***)

FRANCES HA
Directed by Noah Baumbach

***

The cinema of Noah Baumbach is usually bitter, awkward in the most cringe-worthy definitions of the word, and derivative references from the various poles of the cinematic/literary world. It's hard not to watch the first third of his latest film, Frances Ha, and not think of Woody Allen's Manhattan. Then its hard not to look at its last third and not think of Francois Truffaut's Jules et Jim. All of these films are shot in stylish black & white, filled with neurotic characters running around metropolitan cities, and imbued with an enthusiastic spirit that seems to betray the desperate actions of the characters. Frances Ha is not as angry as Baumbach's previous work, and a lot of that shift is owed to its star, Greta Gerwig, who co-wrote the script with Baumbach (and they also date, so there's that) and does a great job of putting Baumbach's usual annoyed, passive-agressive tone away and filling the void with a character that is so delightful as she is delusional.

Star Trek Into Darkness (**)

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Directed by J.J. Abrams

**

The Abrams reboot of the Star Trek franchise has been one of the biggest success stories out of Hollywood these last few years. It felt like something unlike the Marvel Iron Man/Avengers reboots that worked mainly because A) they were lead by a wildly charming, magnanimous movie star (Robert Downey Jr.); and B) we were introduced to characters that had never really had successful film or television platforms beforehand. Star Trek, on the other hand, has had decades of dedicatedly-watched television episodes. So, for Abrams to tackle a film version - and in doing so, totally re-imagining the television show's mythology - and it work, is quite an accomplishment in itself. Which makes Abrams' follow-up to his 2009 version of Star Trek that much more disappointing.

The Great Gatsby (*1/2)

THE GREAT GATSBY
Directed by Baz Luhrman

*1/2

While watching the latest film adaptation of The Great Gatsby, I tried to imagine if I would think it was as much of a failure if I wasn't comparing it to the great American novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, or by the two other failed film versions from 1949 and 1974. I don't want to fault this film by comparing it to one of the greatest novels of all time, but director Baz Luhrman makes this kind of thinking impossible, forever reminding you of the source material. It's like he can't help himself. Luhrman's films are usually sugary and melodramatic in nature, but his version of Gatsby is like diabetes on the screen. A two-hour stream of processed, synthetic images make its way across screen, each one vying for your attention with equal ferocity till your eyes get tired and you'd like a glass of water to cleanse your palette.

Iron Man 3 (***)

IRON MAN 3
Directed by Shane Black

***

In the entire twenty-first century comic book movie explosion, no actor has better fit into his superhero role than Robert Downey Jr. has with Iron Man. From the very beginning, the boozing, schmoozing apathy that radiates from Tony Stark was a perfect fit for Downey, if only because he's one of the few Hollywood performers that knows how to create a character like that and make him unbelievably likable and watchable. Iron Man has always seemed like the frivolous alternative to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but in reality Iron Man came much closer to true characterization than Nolan's Batman films ever attempted to. Which is why I've always preferred the one-liners and BANG-BANG-POW of Iron Man than the plodding moralistic meditations of the last three Batman movies.

Mud (***1/2)

MUD
Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols

***1/2

The degree to which Matthew McConaughey has attempted to change the trajectory of his career these last few years fascinates me, I must admit. He had spent the better part of the last two decades as not much more than a go-to scruffy alternative for fluffball romantic comedies. For a guy who made his start in compelling dramas like A Time To Kill and Amistad, by 2009 there were a lot more films like Fool's Gold and Ghost of Girlfriend's Past on his resume. He had become one of those actors that was essentially a stamp that said movie was probably going to be less-than-watchable, and seemed more than happy with that reputation (after all, acting is a job and a paycheck is a paycheck). But since 2011, his projects have become more interesting and he chooses his roles more carefully, noting characters that utilize his sexuality and charisma twofold. It's odd to live in a world where I have to take McConaughey seriously, but after watching his career-best performance in Mud, I seem to have no choice but to.

Pain & Gain (**)

PAIN & GAIN
Directed by Michael Bay

**

There's no other filmmaker that I actively dislike more than Michael Bay. His films create visions of a certain America that I want no part of, ripe with men that think only with their muscles and women who seem to only work for the benefit of those men. And the explosions. My lord, there isn't a car big enough or fancy enough that he didn't want to blow to smithereens. His 2001 film, Pearl Harbor, was such a deliberately ignorant piece of garbage that used the pages of history books as toilet paper. It offended me as a film lover and as an American, and I hadn't seen a Michael Bay movie since then. That is, until now, as Bay attempts to tackle something on a smaller scale. Pain & Gain is Bay's first non-Transformer film since The Island in 2005 and it might be the most interesting story he's ever told -  not that we're talking about any crowning achievement.

To The Wonder (***1/2)

TO THE WONDER
Written and Directed by Terrence Mallick

***1/2

Despite Terrence Mallick's already formidable reputation, Tree of Life seemed to come out of nowhere two years ago as this breathtakingly beautiful, yet frustratingly whisper-y meditation on life and the universe. It was Mallick's biggest hit since 1999's The Thin Red Line, and it got him several Oscar nominations. Now, the filmmaker notorious for taking many, many years to complete projects (there was a 21-year gap between Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line) is churning out pictures with alarming speed, and To The Wonder is just the first of four films that should be released within the next year or so. It's just as etherial and meandering as all of his previous films, but To The Wonder seems to have an earnestness and a beauty that I've never really seen (or perhaps, never really appreciated?) in anything else he's done. Even in its most cynical moments, To The Wonder is probably the most uplifting cinematic achievement of his career.

Room 237 (***)

ROOM 237
Directed by Rodney Ascher

***

In the middle decades of the twentieth century, a powerful literary movement thundered through America called the New Criticism. It was started by John Crowe Ransom and popularized by towering literary figures like T.S. Eliot. This new way of analysis stressed close reading, attempting to find the true meaning and status of a work, particularly how it can work as its own "self-contained, self-referential aesthetic object" (thanks Wikipedia). This movement was probably the way literature was deconstructed up until about 1975. That is, until people found the process tedious and unnecessary (there's only so many times you can find meaning in The Waste Land before you'd want to put your head in the oven). I feel like the New Critics would have really loved Room 237 and its five contributors who go deep down into the abyss to find what they feel to be the true meaning behind Stanley Kubrick's 1980 horror film The Shining.

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

I've seldom written in this blog unless its to either write a film review or write some Oscar-related fanboy screed and I've written precious few In Memorium pieces (though there are a few - the most puzzling, even to me, is probably the one I wrote about Michael Jackson, but I digress). That being said, I can't think of a single person who has had a bigger influence on this blog and my style as a film writer than Mr. Roger Ebert. The man was a legend, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and probably the most popular film reviewer of all time. A master of the written and the spoken word, I have gladly followed the word of Ebert for the last decade plus, and while I would be lying if I said I agreed with that word 100% of the time, there was no one else who I was more willing to watch wax poetic/pontificate.

Ebert had been writing reviews since his college years in his school paper, but became the lead film reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times in 1967 (where he was already championing films like Bonnie & Clyde). He also collaborated with controversial filmmaker Russ Meyer to write the screenplay for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. But what probably made Ebert the household name that he's been for the last three decades was his collaborations with fellow Chicago film reviewer Gene Siskel. The two began reviewing films together in 1975 on the show Sneak Previews. Their style - conversational but introspective, friendly but combative - was unlike any other show of its kind. It was not like even the film review shows of today, because Siskel and Ebert were true friends, and these were conversations that, if they weren't having them in front of the camera, they certainly were having them off of it (this similar strategy is being utilized on ESPN with the show Parden The Interruption which is built almost entirely on the chemistry of sports journalists Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon - incidentally, this is best show that network has).

As the success of Siskel and Ebert grew, so did the reach of their show. The show's name became At The Movies, and the two created the now infamous "thumbs up, thumbs down" grading system which was probably meaningless as a true judge of film, but iconic in representing the two film giants. This would be the catchphrase that would be attached to these two men for the rest of their careers, and they both wore it like badges of honor, posing with the proverbial thumbs up in media appearances. In 1999, Gene Siskel passed from surgical complications regarding his own battles with brain cancer. His absence was not only tragic, but it effected the balance of the show from that point on. The magic of At The Movies was all about Siskel and Ebert, and though the show pushed on with Ebert's fellow Sun-Times writer Richard Roeper, it never really had the same magic that came from the two originals. Siskel's death, both sad and sudden, was its own day of mourning in the film industry and a topic that Ebert would revisit in his own writing many, many times.

But if Siskel's death was a surprise, Ebert's passing seemed to be a matter of time. He was originally diagnosed with Thyroid cancer in 2002. And while the illness took its toll, it did not stop him from writing about films for his weekly reviews. He was even able to return to At The Movies until 2006, when complications from a second surgery left him without the ability to speak. As the cancer progressed, Ebert was even left without his lower mandible, creating deformities to his physical appearance. This did not stop him from making public appearances to talk about movies, unafraid of what his condition and appearance may seem to other people. More than anything, he continued to keep writing about movies, and while he may not have been able to speak, that familiar voice was still ever so present throughout his weekly reviews (and this guy was no slouch, he saw EVERYTHING). That is until recently, when he had a setback with his illness, and his reviews became fewer and farther between fellow contributors writing in his place. Until today, the day he finally passed.

Ebert in one of his many appearances after losing his lower jaw.

Roger Ebert was not my favorite film reviewer because I agreed with him a whole lot. Actually, we probably didn't have very strict agreements on many films at all. We almost never agreed on what the best film of any given year was. But its his conviction, his intelligence and more than anything his love of movies that really set him apart. In a subsection of writing that is flooded with pious megalomaniacs shouting out fire and brimstone about their ever-so-important opinions, Ebert wrote with a wit that always seemed humble to the point of self-deprecating. Not that he couldn't be mean. Oh boy, could he be mean. He once filled an entire book with his most popular negative reviews, entitled Your Movie Sucks. But despite all that, he always managed to seem fair and he never seemed to have an agenda. And while he may have a reputation for being partial to commercial films, he was always a champion for the smaller filmmakers (just last year, he wrote a LONG blog post imploring people to recognize the work of Chop Shop and Goodbye Solo filmmaker Ramin Bahrani).

More than anything, Ebert rooted for films that he enjoyed, even if it wasn't in his best interest to enjoy them. Just a few years ago, he gave the dubious Nicolas Cage vehicle Knowing a four-star review and even had the gaul to include it on a list of the ten best films of the 2000s. And that it was I respect the most about Ebert: his knowledge that the most important part of how you view a particular film is how much you enjoyed it. You can use vocabulary of hifalutin film theory and metaphors to support your case, but in the end you either enjoyed the film or you didn't. And if you enjoyed Knowing as much as you enjoyed No Country For Old Men, well so be it. (*For the record, I have still never seen Knowing and don't plan to. So, I have no comment on that debate.) So, Ebert was both a film scholar and a terrific middle finger to all film academics who feel you can only enjoy movies only after you've studied Andre Bazin or baked out on Stan Brakhage movies. He was the ultimate populist in this way.

So, while I know that Roger Ebert was just popular enough to have a sizable backlash, I announce that today is not for them. Instead, we celebrate the life of one of the single best film writers in the history of the medium.

I should probably admit now that I have also very recently lost my older sister, Chloe, just last month to illness. It was an event that, while also not a complete shock, was a moment that shook me cold and made death a much more real and perceptible concept for me. Not that I'd ever compare the two experiences, but losing both of these immensely important figures in my life so close together really does give me a feeling of melancholy that I did not expect. Goodbye Roger. And just know that you made movies that much more enchanting for this little boy from Pembroke Pines, Florida. More enchanting than you'll ever know.

Spring Breakers (**1/2)

SPRING BREAKERS
Written and Directed by Harmony Korine

**1/2

Harmony Korine enjoys blurring the line between trash and art, and attempting to expose that the line the separates the two is a lot thinner than most people realize. A film like his Trash Humpers from 2009 does this almost literally. But what else can we expect from a guy who was once quoted as saying that he'd like to direct a minstrel show staring Tom Cruise? His latest film Spring Breakers seems to be made specifically for the cult following that is almost assured to attach itself to it in the coming years. The film is so incredibly aware of its nihilistic style that its hard to figure out whats an inside joke and what is just a blast of overwhelming dub-step cinema. And this constant imbalance that the audience is in works as Spring Breakers best and worst trait.

Ginger & Rosa (***1/2)

GINGER & ROSA
Written and Directed by Sally Potter

***1/2

The two Fanning sisters, Dakota and now Elle, both have seemed to possess a delicate, but occasionally powerful screen presence that seems beyond their young ages. They've both been working since they were young children, and both gave performances during that time that garnered rave notices (Dakota in 2001's I Am Sam, Elle in 2010's Somewhere). Too often, I feel, great child performances are dismissed as terrific direction or editing, feeling that its almost impossible for children to possess the emotional intelligence needed to truly excel at acting. This issue was front and center when Quvenzhane Wallis was nominated for a performance that she performed when she was six years old. Elle Fanning (and her older sister) are no longer small children, but they are still delivering top-rate performances - which adds some interesting fuel to the debate.

Oscar thoughts? I Have Several...

 

So that is that, as they say, as a particularly interminable Oscar ceremony wheezed to a close, running all the way until midnight and including little in the way of serviceable filler between each award (here's a link to see all of the winners, in case you missed it). One thing that I've always loved about the Oscars is that they present each and every award during the ceremony, even if its the smaller, unsexy kind (like, for instance, all of the short film categories). In an awards race that had several races still up in the air, the award winners managed to produce several surprises (in the end, I ended up scoring a respectable but still mediocre 14/24 on my final predictions), while still giving off the feeling that everything went the way that it was supposed to. Here are a few thoughts that I had while watching last night:

Seth MacFarlane, Not Terrible
Not that that's saying much, but for the most part I enjoyed his schtick. I even loved the self-aware skit at the beginning of the show (after all, the host is always going to get blamed for the laborious efforts of the show's producers - too often, the host is the one catching heat for this every year). MacFarlane didn't reinvent the wheel, but his jokes were funny enough by middlebrow Oscar host standards, and the few zingers that he did bring hit home pretty well (his line before the Best Actress award was probably best in show). As much as I don't want to say this, if he were to come back to host a second time, I don't think I would mind.

Christoph Waltz, A Huge 'DUH!' in Retrospect 
I even wrote this in my predictions piece, but even I overlooked it. Waltz had won most of the awards going into last night's ceremony (including the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). But for some reason most people could not get past the raging hype that was supporting Tommy Lee Jones (who did win the SAG award, after all) and the somewhat charming, somewhat sentimental storyline that it would be nice to give Robert DeNiro a third Oscar for his first fully realized performance in what felt like forever. In the end, I think it was Waltz' very recent first win that turned most people away from him actually predicting him. Django Unchained actually had a better night than most expected, when Quentin Tarantino picked up his second Oscar for Original Screenplay (another thing most people weren't predicting), and went on to give a speech which I'm sure ingratiated and pissed people off in equal measure.

Final Oscar Predictions

Tonight is the night. At 8pm Eastern, the film industry has its annual, back-padding celebration known as the Oscars. I'm excited. I'm excited because this might be the first ceremony in many years where several of the major categories have legitimate suspense. Will Roger Deakins finally win his first Academy Award? Does Steven Spielberg pick up no. 3? Is there really a chance that a 9-year-old girl can win Best Actress? How about an 86-year-old woman (on her birthday, no less)? For the first time in a while, it's going to be an exciting show. And the truth is, in a lot of the categories, I really don't have a definitive feeling about who will win. But because I'm a sucker for tradition (as well as sticking my foot in the conversation), here are my official Oscar predictions.

Best Actor
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix, The Master

Daniel Day-Lewis has been driving a freight train toward this award for several months now. It's pretty much a done deal and the single least suspenseful award of the night. Day-Lewis is movie legend now, and a professional who does a great job at making acting look really hard while also creating fluid, fully-fleshed characters effortlessly. It's a tremendous piece of work from a great actor, and even a true, groundbreaking tour-de-force from Phoenix will prevent the inevitable.

Best Actress
Will Win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
Should Win: Riva

Jennifer Lawrence has probably stacked up more awards than Riva (including an Independent Spirit Award just last night), but she's had the benefit of not having to face Riva in several of the races. For reasons that mostly have to deal with Amour not being an English, Riva has seldom been nominated against Lawrence, and I feel like Riva is really the performance that has the edge here. For one, it's the best performance of the bunch, but also it's the best story. A legendary French actress who can win an Oscar on her birthday. I wouldn't mind seeing Quvenzhane Wallis sweep up and take the award, and I'm not saying Lawrence has no shot, I'm just saying Riva just has the edge.

No (***1/2)

NO
Directed by Pablo Larraín

***1/2

In 1988, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet caved into international political pressure and allowed the people to have a choice: elect him to lead for the next eight years or choose to take him out of office. More simply, they had to choose yes or no to more Pinochet. The 1988 Chilean National Plebiscite changed the course for the South American country, leading to the end of Pinochet's 16 years of punitive, military dictatorship. As is the case with most dictatorships, Pinochet's rule began with a coup d'etat and the hostile takeover of Socialist leader Salvador Allende, with most people hoping that Pinochet would bring peace. Pinochet and his people used the usual tactics to regain power, but 16 years later he would be faced with a whole new kind persuasion, led by a man who truly knew how to go about swaying the minds of the people.

Side Effects (***)

SIDE EFFECTS
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

***

Steven Soderbergh's latest film already has the interesting asterisk of possibly being the final theatrical release of this celebrated filmmaker's career (to be sure, Soderbergh's final film is setting up to be the much-anticipated HBO TV movie Behind The Candelabra - a biopic about Liberace). That Side Effects may have to hold the mantle of being his last movie in the theaters probably puts a little more pressure on this small but compelling film then needs to be. But I don't think Soderbergh sees his career that way. He seems much happier to go out with very solid work than concluding it with a big bang. It's all circumstance, really, and I just feel that this is the story he felt he needed to tell right before the end - and to be honest, I find it fitting.