DJANGO UNCHAINED

Django Unchained (2012)
Grade: B-
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington

Premise: A bounty hunter frees a slave to help him find a trio of wanted criminals, and after completing the mission agrees to help the slave find his long-lost wife.

Rated R for Strong bloody violence and gore, strong language (including multiple racial slurs), intense emotional content, brief graphic nudity, and a few torture-related images

            My problem with Quentin Tarantino’s movies is not that they’re violent. As a red-blooded, American male movie fan, I’m always up for some butt-kicking, shoot-em-up Action Jackson stuff. It’s not even that the man’s movies are different with a capital D—on the contrary, it’s nice to see movies that don’t take themselves too seriously, that are unique and cheeky stabs at different genres, brimming with quirky dialogue and surprising plot twists that make your typical horror movies, romantic comedies and inspiring true story movies seem all the more bland and perfunctory. No, my problem with Tarantino’s movies can be summarized in one word: excess. I’ve seen five of his films—1994’s Pulp Fiction, 2003’s Kill Bill: Volume 1, 2004’s Volume 2, 2009’s Inglorious Basterds, and now Django Unchained, which came out on Christmas Day of last year—and all of them were at least two hours long (Pulp, Django and Basterds all exceeded two-and-a-half), and all of them could have been shortened by at least twenty minutes. All were stuffed to the brim with sly jokes, cutting sarcasm, ringing irony and intersecting plotlines, the likes of which you wouldn’t see anywhere else. And all of them overuse (and I do mean OVER. USE.) violence to the point of absurdity, to the point of drawing perverse giggles from the audience. There’s no denying the man is a craftsman, that his movies are truly unique and interesting, that actors trip over themselves to get into his films and then come back for second and third tastes—Tarantino’s movies are always events. But, after sitting through the two-hour-forty-five minute Django Unchained, I’m impressed but weary. Too much of a good thing, you might say.

Plot

One frigid night in Texas, circa 1858, a pair of armed men leading a troupe of chained slaves is stopped by a traveling dentist, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2009 for his multilingual role in Basterds), who’s hunting a trio of miscreant cowboys who have a bounty on their heads. When Schultz determines that one of the chained slaves, Django (Jamie Foxx), knows the men he’s seeking and could recognize them by sight, he offers to buy him. When the slave traders refuse, he kills them, unlocks all the slaves, and takes Django with him. A bounty hunter, Schultz takes Django deep into the plantation lands of the south, where they not only find and collect the reward on the men in question—the ‘Brittle brothers’—but also bond when Django admits his real driving goal is finding his wife, beautiful fellow slave Bromhilda (Kerry Washington). When Schultz agrees to help Django find her, they set out, and because she not only derives her name from an old German legend but also speaks fluent German, she actually proves trackable. But it turns out Bromhilda is the property of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a brutal, pompous eccentric who rules a sprawling old family plantation, Candieland. And of course, he has no intention of selling any of his slaves, let alone one unique enough to speak German. Their quest ultimately becomes a match of wits and a race against time as they try to find a way to nonchalantly buy Bromhilda from Candie before Calvin’s head servant (Samuel L. Jackson) finds out why they’re trying to trick his master, and before local unrest over the sight of a well-dressed black man on a horse explodes.

What Works?

Whatever their flaws, Tarantino movies always come equipped with a high entertainment factor, courtesy of rollicking soundtracks, absurd comic situations, show-stopping sight gags, crackling suspense, and a steady undercurrent of knowing, winking humor. Django also contains some attractive visuals (sprawling plantations, snowy mountain-scapes).

But, of course, it’s the characters that always make Tarantino movies memorable, and Django is no different in that regard. As the title character, Jamie Foxx gives his best performnace since his Oscar-winning portrayal of Ray Charles in 2004’s Ray; always aware he’s a black man in a white man’s world, Django oozes rage and hurt—there’s a spectacular scene where Django interrupts the whipping of a young slave girl and whips the daylights out of the white man who was inflicting the punishment. Foxx’s face and body light up with the anger and drama of the moment. And as his object of utmost desire, Ray costar Kerry Washington has a small role but nonetheless wins the audience’s sympathy and care; we want to see her freed and reunited with Django.

Already an Oscar winner thanks to his previous collaboration with Tarantino, Christoph Waltz has snagged this film’s lone acting nomination for this year in the Best Supporting Actor category (he won the Golden Globe already, as well). And while I will say no one can deliver a line in the English language with more panache and delightful I’m-smarter-than-you-and-I-know-it nuance, his being nominated over his other costars is a big surprise, and something of a disappointment. That’s not to fault the ever-watchable Waltz, but it’s because the film’s middle segment is completely stolen by Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. A Golden Globe nominee, the always-admirable DiCaprio is firing on all cylinders scene as Calvin, putting his knack for accents, intensity, and explosive, raging, screaming drama at the fore of his portrayal, which is a stunning and instantly-memorable scene-stealer. The actor will always be associated with Titanic because of that film’s groundbreaking box office and pop culture success, but here, even more than in his twin coming-into-his-own 2006 leading roles (in The Departed and Blood Diamond), DiCaprio shows that you don’t have to be defined by one role, even one in a superduper megahit. It’s not easy to connect the sadistic, frothing-at-the-mouth Calvin with the fresh-faced dreamboat artist of Titanic (Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games actors hoping to have careers free of typecasting, take note). Speaking of actors connected to one role, Django Unchained may be the first movie Samuel L. Jackson has made since Pulp Fiction in which he’s not lampooning his classic Jules Winfield role. Though he does his share of yelling and cursing (which is what we all expect from Jackson), the actor’s hunched posture and sarcastic-servant-mumblings actually took me back to Hattie McDaniel’s Mammy from Gone With the Wind—I guess we’re not used to seeing the intense, loud-mouthed actor in a submissive servant role, but he puts his whole heart into it. Jackson actually steals a few scenes in his own right, with a performance that is both intimidating in its own way, but also, at times, a laugh riot.

Thus, I feel cheated by the Oscars. I can't believe DiCaprio got missed for such a wowzer of a performance, but either he or Jackson would have made a much more interesting nominee than Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Alan Arkin (Argo) or Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook) all of whom felt to me as though they were essentially playing themselevs.

What Doesn’t Work?

First of all, Django is long, and it feels long. I believe they could have cut a good forty-five minutes out of this film and made a perfectly-entertaining two-hour movie. I especially believe this because the last thirty minutes are just a shoot-em-up bloodfest, just as the last acts of Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds were. I quickly became overwhelmed and annoyed by the sheer amount of blood spraying and splattering, and by the amount of people being killed (especially when some of them—particularly the cold-blooded shooting of a white female character—are played for laughs). And also, while Tarantino’s humorous touches are often funny, a few scenes are dragged out so long they just feel like desperate gimmicks, particularly a narrative-stopping scene involving a Jonah Hill cameo and a Ku Klux Klan gathering.

Though I appreciate the type of knowing wit that fills Waltz’s lines, I do wish this film was done just a little more seriously.

Content

It’s Tarantino. Dozens of people get shot in the head, chest, legs, and crotch in bloody shootouts, a man gets ripped apart by dogs, people get whipped and beaten, and people bludgeon each other in a sickening, bare-flesh to-the-death wrestling match. There’s a fair amount of cussing (Samuel L. Jackson is in this movie, remember), but it’s the shocking, desensitizing gore that you’ll remember.

Bottom Line (I Promise):

It’s Tarantino. You’ll see things you’ve never seen, and you’ll hear things you’ve never heard. Django is entertaining, and driven by some bravura performances, but it can be a little too much.

Django Unchained (2012)
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Rated R
Length: 165 minutes

OSCAR NOMINATION REACTIONS, PART 2

A Nine-Year Old, I Dreamed A Dream, And A Whole Host Of Winners: Thoughts on the 2012 Academy Award Nominations (Part 2)

BEST ACTRESS

The nominees: Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook), Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Quveznhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Naomi Watts (The Impossible).

-          Count ‘em, folks: this year’s Best Actress nominees range in age from 9 to 85, with stops along the way at 22, 35 and 44. Both Wallis and Riva made history, as they were, respectively, the youngest-ever and oldest-ever Best Actress nominees (and nominees, period, in Riva’s case). This was actually a very competitive year where Chastain and Lawrence were the only people even in the neighborhood of “locks”, because…

The snubs: Marion Cotillard (Rust & Bone), Helen Mirren (Hitchcock), Rachel Weisz (The Deep Blue Sea)

-          You know it’s a tough year when the Academy leaves three former winners out in the cold. Again, they already have their trophies, so how angry can they be? Still, many doubted two actresses from foreign-made films would get nominated (that’s Wallis and Riva, I remind you). And Naomi Watts got really lucky that The Impossible started hitting theaters last week.

The Favorite?

Umm…I’m going to say Jennifer Lawrence, even though Jessica Chastain just beat her for the Critics’ Choice Award. In three years, Lawrence has rocketed to the top of the A-list (here is a big opportunity for the Academy to seem cool and hip by awarding someone popular and recognizable, and having a legitimate case for doing it). She got nominated for Best Actress at 20 for Winter’s Bone, making her one of the youngest Best Actress nominees ever (okay, so, we all know Quveznhane Wallis is smirking at that, but still). Then she grabbed the plumb role of the young Raven/Mystique in the X-Men reboot, which was a big hit, then she grabbed the even plumber role of the lead in the movie adaptations of the crazy-popular Hunger Games books. The first film, released this past March, was a mega hit that has, to date, won her an MTV Movie Award and a People’s Choice Award and bagged $400-plus-million domestically. Then she got rave review after rave review for her performance as a confused, lonely, “different” widow in Silver Linings Playbook. And, incredibly, she’s already had to refocus her attention because she’s been in Hawaii filming the next Hunger Games. And soon she’ll be filming the next X-Men. But for the record, she was very good in Silver Linings—she lucked into a very multifaceted role in which she got to cry, dance, yell and make a public scene, cuss people out, swoon, and, best and most amazing of all, out-argue Robert DeNiro.  

Upset Potential?

A lot, because Jessica Chastain just won the Critics’ Choice Award. And there’s no chance for an earlier comparison because, at the Golden Globes (winners announced this Sunday night), Chastain is nominated in the Drama category while Lawrence is in the Musical/Comedy group. Anyway, Chastain got great reviews in the sort of role (a CIA intel expert hunting Osama Bin Laden) that women rarely get. I wasn’t blown away by her performance in Zero Dark Thirty, but she, too, is a very well-respected and obviously-talented actress (who, by the way, has been in a ton of movies in the past few years, and got nominated just last year for her role in The Help). I can’t speak to the other nominees much because I haven’t seen those movies, but I do know that Meryl Streep upset in this category last year when her performance was the main reason her movie, The Iron Lady, was even thought about come Oscar time (kind of like Naomi Watts and The Impossible). And the Academy loves to bring on the emotion by awarding old actors who thought they’d never have a shot (like Riva; Christopher Plummer, Jessica Tandy, Alan Arkin and Helen Mirren are among the gray hairs who’ve won overdue Oscars in recent years).  Plus, Amour got great reviews, and Riva’s performance is one of the big reasons why. And that’s not to mention, the last time there was a big spoiler in this category (2007, when Marion Cotillard shocked Julie Christie and the rest of us), it was by an actress in a French-made and French-speaking film, which Amour is. Oh, and finally, I’m just going to go out on a limb and say the nomination’s the honor for the 9-year-old Wallis, no matter how cute it would be to see her on the podium.

Will Win: I really want to say Jennifer Lawrence with certainty, but I can’t. But if the award goes to someone other than her or Jessica Chastain, it would be a surprise.

Should Win: Again, I haven’t seen The Impossible, Amour, or Beasts of the Southern Wild, but I’m going to say Lawrence. She worked hard and completely stole the show in Silver Linings Playbook. (I also can’t help feeling that she’s not a super talented actress, and that Silver Linings made great use of her strengths and may be her best opportunity to win an Oscar)

Should Have Been Nominated: I don’t really have an opinion on this because I didn’t see any of the also-rans I mentioned, but Helen Mirren’s been hitting home run after home run lately, so I’m sure she was great playing Hitchcock’s wife.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

The nominees: Alan Arkin (Argo), Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook), Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master), Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

-          This was the easiest category to predict, because four of these guys have been penciled in for months, and it was who, not if, for the major players in Django Unchained. With Waltz winning that contest, we here have a category in which all five nominees are previous Oscar winners. That’s right: all five.

The snubs: Leonardo DiCaprio (Django Unchained), Samuel L. Jackson (Django Unchained), Javier Bardem (Skyfall), Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being A Wallflower)

-          Again, it was pretty much guaranteed someone from Django Unchained was going to get nominated, given Tarantino’s penchant for creating crackling dialogue, explosive encounters and memorable personalities. Waltz’s beating the respected DiCaprio isn’t a huge surprise, but I had started to hear a lot of buzz for Jackson recently. Bardem and Miller—though I wish it were otherwise—were never more than extremely long shots.

The Favorite?

There is none. Not that I know of, anyway. Four of them were always going to be nominated, and the fifth is hardly a surprise. But there is a wide range in the importance of the performance to the respective film. Hoffman was practically a co-lead in The Master, and, from what I hear, the same is true of Waltz in Django. On the other hand, Alan Arkin probably had fifteen minutes of screen time in Argo, and Jones had two memorable but short scenes in Lincoln. DeNiro, the third-billed actor in Silver Linings, was right in the middle. So, who could it be? It’s been the longest since DeNiro won (he won his second Oscar in 1980; Jones won in ’92, Hoffman in ’05, Arkin in ’06 and Waltz in ’09), but that doesn’t mean much. I have a hard time picturing DeNiro winning, though (unless—once again—the unlikely happens and Silver Linings Playbook buzzsaws through the major categories). But I would say Philip Seymour Hoffman gave the strongest of the performances I saw. He put his knack for seeming like the smartest person in the room, his knack for looking and sounding in control, and his split-second explosive temper all side by side in a truly dynamic performance.

Upset Potential

A lot, I guess, since there’s no real favorite. We’ll probably know more after the Golden Globes, for which DeNiro did not get nominated and Waltz’s co-star DiCaprio joined the others (whoa, what if DiCaprio wins the Globe; that won’t help Oscar forecasts at all!). It’s a real tossup. But I just have to say, though I’m a fan of Tommy Lee Jones, his performance was so small on the canvas of Lincoln that I’d be a little irked if he snagged it and beat out the likes of Hoffman.

Will Win: No idea. We’ll know more after Sunday night.

Should Win: Philip Seymour Hoffman. Even though I wasn’t a big fan of The Master, his terrific performance reminded me what a great actor he is.

Should Have Been Nominated: I loved both Javier Bardem and Ezra Miller, who gave scene-stealing performances in Skyfall and Perks of Being A Wallflower, respectively. If it were up to me, I’d replace Arkin and Jones with these two. But it doesn't matter.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The nominees: Amy Adams (The Master), Sally Field (Lincoln), Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables), Helen Hunt (The Sessions), Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook)

-          Jacki Weaver’s a big surprise; though she was nominated in this category two years ago, she didn’t get a lot of advance buzz for Silver Linings, probably because there were three other actors (Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro) in her movie receiving more attention. Otherwise, it’s a strong and nostalgic group, with Sally Field getting her first nomination in 20-something years and Hunt getting her first since winning Best Actress in 1997. Hathaway’s been the lead buzz-getter for Les Mis. And as for Adams, well, I know she’s an Oscar favorite, having been nominated three other times, but her role was small and the most memorable thing I can remember her doing was reading a porno aloud (something even Joaquin Phoenix’s perverted alcoholic didn’t like).

The snubs: Maggie Smith (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Nicole Kidman (The Paperboy)

-          While Adams, Field and Hathaway were locks and Hunt was close, Weaver’s spot was figured to be up for grabs between this pair of former winners, who got standout recognition for movies that otherwise got fairly mixed reviews.

The Favorite?

Lincoln was so popular and well-reviewed, and two-time Best Actress winner Sally Field is so well-liked, that she might have been the favorite in another year for her fiery performance as Honest Abe’s legendarily off-kilter first lady. But Anne Hathaway is the favorite here, especially since Les Mis has opened and gotten great word of mouth. While she’s pretty much only in the movie’s first half hour, her role as a poor, suffering woman who loses everything (even a tooth and the majority of her hair), is forced to serve as a prostitute for money, and then sings the emotional showstopper “I Dreamed A Dream”, has made her the clear front-runner. Her big tear-jerking one-take delivery of “Dream” is one of the movie scenes from this year that everyone is talking about.

Upset Potential?

It’s hard to say who is a bigger lock, Hathaway here or Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor. If the sky falls, though, could the winner be Adams, who has been nominated three times but has yet to catch a break?

Will Win: Anne Hathaway.

Should Win: I’m not going to argue. “I Dreamed A Dream” was amazing, and people have won this award on less.

Should Have Been Nominated: It would have been nice to see another beloved, former winner (Maggie Smith) nominated, but this is a solid group.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS REACTIONS, Part 1

The Snubs, The Spielberg, and Daniel Day: Thoughts on the 2012 Academy Award Nominations (Part 1)

I wonder how the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences go about nominating movies for their year-end awards. I really do. I mean, hundreds of feature films are released each year—some long, some short, some live action, some animated, some in English, a bunch in different foreign languages, some documentaries. How do the thousands of Academy members come up with a cohesive list of nominees for things like Best Picture and Best Actor and stuff? I’m curious. Does the Academy President and Board of Directors see a bunch of movies and then come up with a pool of ‘potential nominees’ and recommend the other members see them and pick their Top Fives? Do they listen to advance buzz on movies and then read critics’ reviews and go see the most hyped? Do they just all make sure they see certain talked-about movies and then write out their Top Fives (or Tens, or Twenties) and the five most-mentioned people/movies are nominated? How does it work?

It must be hard to be a voting member of the AMPAS. Not just because you have to pick five actors or actresses or movies you especially liked out of the scores-maybe hundreds-you saw during a given year, but because you have to make it relevant. People who vote on and give out awards on anything are going to be questioned and criticized for their decisions, but movies are a special thing. Most people go to movies for entertainment. They want to get away. And that’s never truer then in an age when unemployment is up, violent crime is up, our political system is in shambles, our economy is trending downward, and gas prices and taxes are up. People want to be entertained. Thus, they’re not always up for the most dramatic, artistic, creative movies made. And everyone has their own favorite movie and actor and actress. The difference between the average person’s taste in movies and the members of the prestigious Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has always been significant, but it’s never been more so when movies are both fighting the cynicism and know-it-all attitude of the modern age, but also when movies are less perceived as an art or a treat, and more seen as just another thing. Just another alternative for entertainment, along with the Internet and TV and video games and music and iPods and blogs and short Youtube videos, et cetera. Heck, a lot of people view movies illegally online these days, or otherwise acquire them without paying, so there’s even less consideration that they’re some kind of art. Now, people in general like movies too much to just stop caring or stop wanting to see movies, but most of them don’t give a fart about what is considered the best or the favorite of a group of movie critics and studio bosses and other people who wear suits and ties and make six figures just being involved in the ‘business’ of movies. And they really don’t give a fart enough to watch the presentation of these “prestigious”, “proud tradition”, “honorable” awards in a four-hour TV awards show that is already kind of boring to watch even without frequent commercial breaks. Not when they can watch their favorite episodes of a sit com or TV drama online without commercials.

And, of course, the common man’s taste in movies (and in most cases, the common man’s taste in movies equals his taste in entertainment) tends to differ from someone who treats movies as a business or an art or some combination of the two. For instance, the three most-seen movies of 2012—The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Hunger Games—combined for zero Oscar nominations. Zero. None. Diddly. The new James Bond movie, Skyfall, which has set the new box-office high-water mark for the 50-year-old franchise? One, for its song. The new Hobbit movie some people waited nine years to see after the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings franchise? Only a few minor nominations, for makeup and art direction. It has happened where the most popular, lucrative movie around in a given year also happened to be something of real note, something of quality the Academy appreciated (Titanic, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Rocky, Forrest Gump, Braveheart), but these tend to be the exception to the rule. The Oscar acting nominations usually feature a few well-known names but the movies are usually foreign-made or small-budget, limited-release features the average person never even heard of, let alone saw. So interest wanes.

Anyway, I’m just curious how it works for members of The Academy, because while I knew from advance buzz and preliminary awards’ shows and prediction blogs and critics’ choice groups who the people were going to be, the announced nominations still managed to surprise and disappoint me (like no love for The Hobbit). But having seen a lot of the movies and just being interested in this biggest of movie awards shows, I have to say a few words about the major categories.

BEST PICTURE

The nominees: Amour, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

-          None of these surprised me, as they were all predicted. I didn’t see the foreign-made Amour or Beasts, and I didn’t seen Django because I’m not a big fan of director/writer Quentin Tarantino’s edgy/gory style, but I saw all six of the others. Les Miserables was my favorite.

The snubs: Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

-          There are ten possible slots for Best Picture, but only nine nominees, even in a stacked year. I’m surprised the Academy didn’t try to earn some street cred by filling the last slot with a mainstream blockbuster like Dark Knight or Skyfall; there would have been no shame in doing so, also, considering both got excellent reviews from critics.

The Favorite?

At this point, the frontrunner has to be Lincoln, which has impeccable credentials (true American history, a legendary historical figure at its center, an inspiring story, Academy Award winners Steven Spielberg, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones all involved), was very well-reviewed, got great public word of mouth and became a bonafide hit ($144 million to date). It led all movies with 12 Academy Award nominations, and its grand, dramatic, heart-tugging happenings are the stuff legendary Oscar winners are made of.

Upset Potential?

Not too much. To the surprise of many, the directors of Argo, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty and Les Miserables were not nominated separately (more on that later) in the Best Director category, and, apparently, cases where a film won Best Picture when its director was not at least nominated are very rare. That’s funny, because I’d otherwise have said the very well-reviewed Argo and Zero Dark Thirty were nipping at Lincoln’s heels in the race for the top honor, especially because Zero’s director/screenwriter team of Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal won all the big prizes for their thematically/stylistically similar film, The Hurt Locker, in 2009. So, if the hypothesis about the directors’ snubs damaging these movies’ chances is true…

Could Silver Linings Playbook be a possible upset contender? It’s based on a well-received book, has made a respectable $34 million in very limited theatrical release, received nominations in all four acting categories-a rare feat-and its director, David O. Russell, got nominated in the director category ahead of the aforementioned snubs who all directed more complex movies. Silver Linings didn’t get Lincoln’s reviews, but it seems to have legitimately warmed Academy members’ hearts. So, if there’s a movie that might have a shot at overthrowing the mighty Lincoln, it could be David O. Russell’s little movie about screwed up people. So…

Will Win: Lincoln is the safe bet. Important, majestic movies that go for the grand message almost always win the top honor (The King’s Speech, A Beautiful Mind, Forrest Gump, The English Patient, etc…).

Should Win: I liked Silver Linings, but not as much as I liked Argo and Les Miserables. I  liked Les Mis better, but I thought Argo was a really good, really impressive movie.

Should Have Been Nominated: I want to say The Hobbit, but I really did think the well-crafted and critically-praised Skyfall would get nominated here.

 

BEST DIRECTOR

The nominees: Michael Haneke (Amour), Ang Lee (Life of Pi), David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

-          This category made idiots of pretty much everybody. I doubt there’s a single person in the world who predicted these would be the last five standing. Oh, Spielberg was always a lock, and former winner Ang Lee was pretty close, too, but all year the safe money was on The Big Three of Spielberg, Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty) and Ben Affleck (Argo), with Tom Hooper peeking through the window for Les Mis. Quentin Tarantino and his outré tastes also have always had the Academy members’ respect (if not their love), and Django has gotten his usual solid reviews. So what the heck happened? Again, I didn’t see Amour or Beasts of the Southern Wild, though I’m sure they’re good movies, and I knew Haneke was well-respected, but still….wow…

The snubs: Affleck, Bigelow, Hooper, Tarantino and Sam Mendes (Skyfall)

-          Seriously, former winner Bigelow and the resurgent, very well-respected Affleck (an Oscar winner in 1997 for his original screenplay for Good Will Hunting) were LOCKS, with Hooper right behind them. I’m legitimately amazed—and a little angry. I didn’t love Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, but I thought Tom Hooper and Ben Affleck deserved this honor. Without question.

The Favorite?

Well, this category just taught us that nobody knows anything, but Steven Spielberg is one of the all-time greats who’s won two Best Director trophies (for 1993’s Schindler’s List and 1998’s Saving Private Ryan), and Lincoln is his first legitimate hit in a while. His last few nominations came for movies (2005’s Munich, last year’s Warhorse) that got mixed reviews from critics, and were seen by nobody else. Despite its often narrow focus, Lincoln was a big movie with a lot of moving parts—and a depiction of important history at stake—and the big guy nailed it. Plus, a third Oscar would put him in a tie for second-place all time, behind only the legendary John Ford and his four.

Upset Potential?

I would have said Affleck in a heartbeat, what with Argo’s great reviews (it was Roger Ebert’s favorite film of 2012), terrific word of mouth, and unexpectedly robust box office ($110 million to date). I actually could see it happening. With him out of the picture, though, I’d say there’s scant chance for an upset unless the Academy loved Silver Linings Playbook THAT much, as I mentioned it might. If the night becomes a Silver Linings lovefest, expect David O. Russell to get swept up along with it.

Will Win: Steven Spielberg. The safe bet, and, really, who the heck is going to argue?

Should Win: Ben Affleck. Sigh. But I do know a lot of people like Michael Haneke.

Should Have Been Nominated: BEN AFFLECK! And Tom Hooper.

BEST ACTOR

The nominees: Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln), Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Joaquin Phoenix (The Master), Denzel Washington (Flight)

-          Not at all surprised. I’m actually quite glad these are the five nominees, because I saw all five movies and therefore can adequately assess the competition (it makes me feel like I know a lot).

The snubs: John Hawkes (The Sessions), Richard Gere (Arbitrage), Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained), Anthony Hopkins (Hitchcock)

-          Former nominee John Hawkes was in the conversation all the way up until Joaquin Phoenix was announced; his ouster was a legitimate surprise. Former winner Foxx got unlucky, as did Anthony Hopkins, whose one-time Big Deal movie Hitchcock ended up completely forgotten. And it must stink to be Richard Gere, who won a Golden Globe for an eventual Best Picture winner (Chicago) back in the day and yet missed out on an Oscar nod, then produced a great performance in Arbitrage in a year when Best Actor is really crowded at the top. He would have had a much better chance at being nominated last year when the category was weaker overall.

The Favorite?

Daniel Day-Lewis. That’s an easy one. The man already owns two Best Actor trophies (for 1987’s My Left Foot and 2007’s There Will Be Blood), but he’s pretty much guaranteed to win again. His third Oscar would put him in rarefied air with the likes of Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson—only five actors have won as many as three Oscars. The man is such a darned good actor, though. Isn’t it amazing that an Irishman was able to totally put on the mystique, aura, majesty, and top hat of a true-blooded American who died back in 1865, and yet somehow hoodwinked millions of people into believing they were actually watching the man? I, for one, felt like I was watching the Abraham Lincoln, not an actor playing him. If Day-Lewis were to not win this award, it might be The biggest shock on the night. Speaking of which…

Upset Potential?

Not much. It’s like a replay of 2007, when Day-Lewis’ performance as a steely, cold-hearted oil baron sent George Clooney, Tommy Lee Jones, Viggo Mortensen and Johnny Depp packing (I still remember a red carpet interview with Clooney, nominated for Michael Clayton, who tried hard to look really happy and content while he talked about “other actors who were supposed to win” and how he was just trying to enjoy the night). It’s a little bit of a bummer, because this is a very strong group. Joaquin Phoenix is lucky the Academy gave him his third nomination even after he said, in a much-talked about October interview, that he considered the Oscars “bull****”. And then The Master went and died a really quick death at the box office. Still, his performance was good enough (in a yelling, screaming, twitching, wild-man alcoholic kind of way) that in most years he’d be a serious threat. And in another year we might be talking about Denzel Washington’s chances of joining the Three Oscars club after he scored his first nomination in 11 years playing an alcoholic, drug addled airline pilot. Popular actor Bradley Cooper scored a huge win being nominated as the overly-chatty would-be family man, but this is one award Silver Linings won’t win. And then Hugh Jackman actually made people forget he ever played Wolverine by singing his butt off and leading a terrific ensemble cast in the 2.5 hour epic musical Les Mis. But the fact remains that a really good Daniel Day-Lewis performance is simply better than a really good performance by anybody else.

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln. Pretty much no one doubts this.

Should Win: I’m not saying DDL shouldn’t win, but I admit: I’d love to see Hugh Jackman take this thing home.

Should Have Been Nominated: I didn’t see The Sessions, but John Hawkes’ performance as a lonely quadriplegic was the most buzzed-about male performance not nominated this year.

ZERO DARK THIRTY

ZERO DARK THIRTY (2012)

Grade: B

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Jennifer Ehle, Kyle Chandler, Mark Strong and James Gandolfini

Premise: A CIA Intelligence Agent spends years researching the movements and possible whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Rated R for language, intense, bloody violent content, a scene of torture, and brief nudity

            Every year, I see movies that are adored by critics and showered with awards and voting committees’ year-end honors, yet, when I see them, the main thing I think is “solid, but unspectacular”. Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, already an Academy Award nominee for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Original Screenplay, joins that group. Obviously, it’s above reproach as a crafted piece of work, it tells an interesting true story that everyone over a certain age knows at least a little bit about, and ends with a riveting half hour sequence that, while fictionalized, you’d swear was real. However, lacking a really engaging narrative core is a problem for a movie that exceeds two and a half hours and contains very little humor and even less actual character development. I knew what it was about coming in-like I did with Lincoln-so I expected this no-frills sort of moviemaking, but I left disappointed that I wasn’t really captured.

Plot: After 9/11, one man became the most sought/wanted person in the world. I’m sure you know who I’m talking about. Scores of people in multiple government agencies were set the task of finding him, be it through satellite photos, intelligence files or interrogations of rumored subordinates. One such person, Zero Dark Thirty invites us to believe, was Maya (Jessica Chastain), a fictional person but one who nonetheless embodies the determination, stress and strain of the many faceless people who looked for Osama Bin Laden for nearly a decade, often doing so while the average person believed the man was dead. A straight-laced, no-distractions workhorse, Maya is sent to Kuwait to help oversee the interrogation of men with ties to Al Qaeda. She’s at first alarmed by the brutal tactics employed by Dan (Jason Clarke), the local anti-terrorist specialist, but she begins to pick up on the trade, questioning handcuffed men and even bribing or lying to them to get them to tell her what she wants. Against the advice of her colleagues and superiors (Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle), she single-mindedly pursues an Al Ahmed, believed to be one of “the next three” in Al Qaeda’s pyramid of power, after bin Laden. When an important contact springs a trap that kills one of Maya’s best friends in the field, she considers giving up, but when al Ahmed resurfaces, she chases him. With the help of more tech-savvy colleagues and some locals who know the local area and language, she’s able to track him to a large statehouse in Pakistan, one with iron gates, a sixteen-foot protective wall, and every protection it can be afforded. And satellite surveillance begins to suggest someone else may be living there, as well as al Ahmed. Believing it’s Osama bin Laden, Maya and her department scramble to gather enough intel to convince their superiors to move on it.

What Works?

Like director Kathryn Bigelow’s last film, 2009’s Best Picture The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty is a deglamorized, gritty film, one that sneers at suggestions of romance or sentiment and prefers to arrange dynamite suspense sequences. In this regard, it succeeds admirably. It’s impressive that a movie that uses a lot of technical jargon and a lot of confusing Arab names can, at times, captivate so easily. There are some great suspense sequences, including a depiction of a night-time Navy Seal raid that can rival anything in March’s Act of Valor; even though we know what’s going to happen, we’re still unsure.

For leading lady Jessica Chastain, her role as Maya caps a mesmerizing two-year stretch in which she’s appeared in some 12 movies and become an A-list star. For this film, she’s received her second Academy Award nomination, and, while I won’t say she doesn’t deserve it, I just have to say…Maya is kind of a colorless role. Chastain gets to shed a few tears at one point and gets to yell and cuss at another, but she’s not an action heroine, she’s not a soldier, not a politician, not a speech-maker, and we know nothing about her. She’s not given a family, a love interest, a backstory, or any facts other than she wants to find Bin Laden so badly she spends almost ten years looking for him. It’s an interesting role (and a rather curious choice for such talented, expressive actress), but not amazing. It doesn’t help Chastain’s case that most of the other major players in the cast are expressive actors, too. Clarke rivets as a torture expert, the always great Mark Strong pitches a few fits as a hotheaded CIA bigwig, and Jennifer Ehle brings spunk and energy to her role as an intel colleague, and all liven up the scenery more than Chastain.

What Doesn’t Work?

While it’s a masterpiece of editing and cinematography and suspense, Zero Dark Thirty is, like its leading lady, kind of colorless as a whole. There’s no character development at all; just forward progress in the story. And even the Navy Seal sequence feels like it’s from a different film. Ditto for the opening, a prologue composed of real-life 9-11 phone calls from people in air traffic control towers and the World Trade Center during the terrorist attacks; such an intense, emotional beginning seems to call for a movie that isn’t so brisk and business-like. Unlike, say, Lincoln—another highly-touted monolith of a movie that underwhelmed me recently; one that poured on the sentiment—Zero Dark Thirty positively flees the idea of sentiment so that the viewer walks out after 2.5 hours and goes “…okay, well that was cool” and goes on about their day. Pretty much what I did.

Content: Dark Thirty has made a lot of headlines for its alleged claim that the torture of Arabs led to key facts that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Politicians have been outraged by this idea, which is personified in a few scenes of Clarke’s method man waterboarding and taunting a feeble, bruised prisoner, then putting a dog collar on him and stuffing him in a box. They’re intense scenes, to be sure, but I wasn’t appalled (I’ve seen at least two other movies—The Expendables and Safe House—where people were waterboarded; I was expected something bloodier). Anyways, other than those scenes, which take place early on, Zero’s R rating comes courtesy of a sprinkling of F and MF words and the pools of blood spilling from people shot by Navy Seals.

Bottom Line: It’s an interesting film (if you’ve been DYING to know just how Seal Team Six killed Bin Laden, hurry and see this movie), but Zero Dark Thirty is a lot like a lot of other Oscar-bait-type thrillers: it’s too busy and smart and important to be really accessible to the viewer. And that’s a problem.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Screenplay by Mark Boal

Rated R

Length: 157 minutes

LES MISERABLES

Les Miserables (2012)
Grade: A
Directed by Tom Hooper

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Daniel Huttlestone, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter

Premise: Ex-con Jean Valjean seeks redemption from a life of selfishness even while concealing his true identity in the midst of the French Revolution.

Rated PG-13 for violence, blood, sexual material and intense emotional content

Maybe you have to have a passion for performing arts, like I do, or maybe you just have to have a certain excitable personality; whatever the case, as Tom Hooper’s tremendous Les Miserables drew to a close, I couldn’t wait to clap—just as if I was watching a performer on stage throwing themselves into the last few notes of a song that had moved me. True, the ending is one of incredibly powerful images of love and unity, bringing together nearly every character viewers have beheld during the previous two-and-a-half hours, and it’s also the big payoff for a sweeping, dramatic, emotionally-powerful movie, but, still, I wanted to clap very badly. Maybe, though I wasn’t moved enough to cry, I felt the need to express myself in some outward way. Thus, when the screen when black, I led the theater audience in a round of applause that started even before the first credits appeared.

Les Miserables—based on the musical play that was adapted from the 1863 Victor Hugo novel—is the rare movie that deserves to be called art. That’s an easy thing to say, yes, because nearly the entire movie is sung, but I mean it. The camera captures amazing images, from a man of powerful conviction walking a precipice by moonlight with a sprawling, sleeping city in the background to a young woman smiling contentedly as she dies because she’s in the arms of the man she loves. The music surges and hums and soars, and a cast of actors acts and sings with full-hearted passion in a way that’s really impressive to behold. Supposedly the first movie musical ever to be sung entirely live on camera as opposed to recorded in a studio and then lip-synched, this latest adaptation of the classic story immediately enters the annals of the best movie musicals of all time.

PLOT

Imprisoned as a young man for stealing bread, Frenchman Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) gets out of jail and promptly ignores his status as a parolee in his quest to make up for the time he lost. This unwise decision naturally puts him back in the crosshairs of the local law enforcement, particularly stern government officer Javert (Russell Crowe), who makes a point to keep track of the case of Jean Valjean. However, after being shone some touching kindness by a priest (Colm Wilkinson), Valjean decides to drop his law-breaking ways and sets out to do some good in the world. In a few years, he’s a successful businessman and a leader in his community, and he’s able to do some serious good when a young single mother (Anne Hathaway) loses her job and, with it, her ability to support her young daughter (Isabelle Allen). Valjean takes the child in and raises her as his own. Still dogged by Javert, Valjean is forced to change locales every few years until one move threatens to break up his household, because his now-grown adoptive daughter (Amanda Seyfried) has fallen in love with one of the local rebellion leaders (Eddie Redmayne). Still very tempted to act in his own interests, Valjean is torn between his desire to keep his daughter (and himself) safe from harm or make her happy by letting her be with the man she loves. But Javert is hot on his trail and the city is on the verge of exploding as tensions between the rebels and government troops come to a head.

What Works?

Unlike many musicals, Les Mis stays interesting the whole time. Where many lengthy shows’ second acts are composed largely of reprises of the first act’s best songs and tired romantic clichés, Les Mis is constantly offering new action, new characters, new songs, and new looks—in this it probably benefits largely from being a movie, where the camera can draw in and out and around the actors and sets to keep things fresh, rather than the audience’s being forced to see everything from one viewpoint the whole time as they would at a musical theatre. Speaking of which, it’s obvious what an undertaking making this movie was, from costumes and sets to acting and getting groups of hundreds to sing the same song. It’s a sprawling, important, dramatic epic, and it’s done well.  Despite the considerable length, the pace rarely lags, and even though this show spans nearly 20 years and contains about a dozen major characters, the audience is able to maintain interest and affection for each.

Of course, a lot of that has to do with the actors, and director Tom Hooper has assembled a cast of bold actors who can not only sing well but are willing to go above and beyond, to act and sing with raw emotion in ways that are not always movie-star glamorous. The one you’ve probably heard about is Anne Hathaway, who sings one of the show’s biggest numbers, “I Dreamed A Dream”, in uncomfortable close-up, her haggard appearance, quivering voice and yearning eyes making the performance not only an impressive vocal display but an almost disturbingly real appeal to the heart. In those four/five minutes, you can see why the filmmakers opted for their actors to sing on camera, because it’s obvious the emotion of the moment and the setting and the character’s fall from grace enable the actress to make it so astonishingly vivid. While Hathaway’s the most likely actor to receive attention from year-end awards shows, she’s hardly alone in doing impressive work in Les Mis. Though best known as Wolverine from the X-Men franchise, Hugh Jackman validates his second reputation as a musical talent with waves of emotion and impressive vocal range. Though he becomes less the focus as the film moves into its second hour, he remains affecting. Then there’s proven screen actor Russell Crowe, who sings at least two of the show’s best solo numbers in an eye-opening performance. Eddie Redmayne has an emotional musical number (“Empty Chairs At Empty Tables”, an ode to dead rebel allies) nearly on par with Hathaway’s. The luminous Amanda Seyfried and sincere Samantha Barks make memorable impressions as well, as do child actors Isabelle Allen and Daniel Huttlestone.

Les Mis is the rare musical that has a bigger goal in mind than a romantic happily-ever-after, and another impressive achievement by the film is that despite the fact that all these things are conveyed through music, the morals of love, redemption, unity, sacrifice and faith all stick. Finally, the cinematography is also phenomenal (bravo head photographer Danny Cohen), going from those emotion-grabbing close-ups to sweeping panoramic views to create a visual experience a play never could.

What Doesn’t Work?

When it comes to musicals, be they on stage or on film, you have to make some sacrifices as a viewer. First, you have to believe two people could fall deeply in love after a few seconds of eye contact. Also, after two and a half hours, you do get a little tired of people singing, you’re also worn out by the constant emotional peaks and valleys. Les Mis does feel long—probably fifteen minutes could have been cut without compromising the movie’s quality—and, in keeping with musical tradition, there are a pair of supporting characters on hand mostly for comic relief that prove rather distracting. While they do have one amusing gag (the constant mispronunciation of a major character’s name), they’re so much less interesting and heartfelt than the other major players that you feel they could have been done without.

Content

What’s generally going to keep people either from seeing Les Miserables or from enjoying it are its length (a little over 2.5 hours) and its main idea (it’s a musical; ergo, it’s pretty much all singing). But there are some obvious innuendos and some partial nudity derived from skimpy costumes and scenes near a brothel, but these are largely contained in the film’s first half hour. And there is a fair amount of blood and a few minutes of intense warlike violence (the audience will see a number of people get shot at close range).  For the most part, though, it’s fairly light by today’s movies’ standards.

Bottom Line (I Promise):

I can’t stop humming a few of the melodies, does that help? It’s long and pretty heavy, but Les Miserables is an admirable and impressive movie with an exceptional cast, a grand scope and some important themes. Like all great shows, it earns its applause handily.

Les Miserables (2012)

Directed by Tom Hooper

Screenplay by William Nicholson; Based on the musical play written by Claude-Michel Schonberg (composer) and Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel (lyrics); English lyrics later added by Herbert Kretzmer

Originally inspired by the novel “Les Miserables” by Victor Hugo

Rated PG-13

Length: 157 minutes

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Grade: A
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian Holm, Sylvester McCoy, Hugo Weaving, and Elijah Wood, with Andy Serkis as Gollum
Premise: Respectable hobbit Bilbo Baggins finds himself drawn into a quest in which a company of dwarves looks to reclaim their long lost homeland.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material including violence and gore, scary moments and some grotesque bodily images

Yes, I would call J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' my favorite book. I was a child (probably seven or eight years old) when my mom first read it to me, and it's the first story outside of Disney movies I can remember really embracing. I read it over and over again (and still read it at least once every two years or so). I've memorized whole passages and know chunks of dialogue verbatim. Of course I've pictured how it would all look and sound if I could see it, movie style. Well, obviously, that dream became more of a reality when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films became monumental successes from 2001-2003, and then whispers about a big-screen film adaptation of The Hobbit immediately began, considering Hobbit is LOTR's predecessor. Well, for a few years, momentum has been building as a rumored trilogy based on The Hobbit and events from the same time period--but featured in other Tolkien works like The Silmarillion--has been in the works.

Well, last night I saw the first film in that trilogy, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and let me tell you, the experience was sweet. Unlike the recent Silver Linings Playbook--another movie adaptation of a book I adore--there wasn't a lot of wiggle room with the plot, so the makers didn't try to give it any. Sure, they've put a few things in there that aren't in The Hobbit's text (first published in 1937), but it mostly feels right (most of what they've added was meant for the unitiated, to help them mentally connect the dots between The Hobbit and the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, which take place 60 years apart). All the best scenes have been created in loving detail, the characters have been brought to vivid life (enriched by a fleshed-out backstory), and the genial entertainment of the originally for-children story has been recreated. I could tell people in my row at the theater were looking at me as I chuckled in glee throughout most of the first hour, which consists mostly of one wild and very unexpected party. While there were a few moments when my movie critic senses started tingling, for the most part, the movie was on point. And considering it was telling the primary beloved story from my childhood, that made me happy.

Plot: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole, with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat. It was a hobbit hole, and that means comfort." -first lines from "The Hobbit", by J.R.R. Tolkien

The hobbit in question is, of course, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, with Ian Holm in a few scenes of Bilbo as an older hobbit). As a respectable, middle-aged hobbit, Mr. Baggins lives a quiet life in the Shire, a peaceful country where people never have any adventures or do anything unexpected. All that changes one day when old Baggins family friend Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) comes by and hints that he's looking for someone "to share in an adventure". Bilbo quickly rejects the offer, yet finds himself hosting an entire party of adventure-ready dwarves that very evening. Led by regal lord Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the dwarves' intention is to travel to the east, to The Lonely Mountain, where a thriving city called Erebor once stood--a fine city by dwarf or any other standards, it was ruled by Thorin's grandfather King Thror. But the dwarves were forced to flee (those who survived, anyway) when a dragon named Smaug plundered and all but destroyed Erebor, but Thorin and his fellows swore they would return to retake the ancient city and its caverns full of treasure.

Though petrified at the idea of danger, Bilbo decides to accompany the dwarves (his mother's side of the family, the Tooks, have long been famous for their knack for adventure, after all). Though the adventure is often grim--the 15-person party faces heavy rains, murderous orcs, terrifying trolls and rumors of ancient evils regaining strength--they nonetheless find treasure, make an ally of sorts in the elf lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and learn of a secret passageway into Erebor that might allow them to avoid direct contact with the dragon. But then they're ambushed and ransacked by orcs, and Bilbo himself gets lost in the dark underground catacombs of the orc fortress. There he encounters a strange, murderous creature and accidentally runs off with something that creature holds dear...something called its Precious.

What Works?
Nobody does spectacle like Peter Jackson. From stunning landscapes to huge battles, pulse-pounding chases and epic panoramic shots that span miles in seconds, Jackson has put his epic touch all over this depiction of The Hobbit, just as he did so famously on his Oscar-winning LOTR trilogy a decade ago. Being a movie that needs to give people who haven't read the book (but may have seen the LOTR movies) some important info, Hobbit gets to open with an epic prologue that will teach even dedicated readers like me a lesson or two, but then it gets down to business. As a lifelong fan, I am pleased to report that all the most important scenes--"An Unexpected Party", "Roast Mutton", "Riddles in the Dark"--have been done great justice. Two songs from Tolkien's text (which is surprisingly full of songs) have been included, many jokes and nuances have been incorporated, and then one scene that is touched on, but quickly passed over, in the book gets my pick for the holy-cow-am-I-really-seeing-this, this-is-AMAZING movie moment of the year (two words: stone. giants.).

The visual effects are great, giving life and detail to three enormous, nasty trolls, all manner of hideously deformed goblins and orcs, and snarling, drooling wild wolves, and even a pack of giant eagles. The elf fortress of Rivendell remains a gorgeous sight, as does the quaint, rural countryside of the Shire. The Hobbit might lack the more adult LOTR's emotional complexity on the page, but it fills in the gaps with action, humor, some extra mythology, and some pleasing little nods to LOTR (Elijah Wood pops in and out of a few scenes, series vets McKellen, Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee have a lengthy discussion in another, and, of course, the nefarious Gollum's key scene is given its due).

Even more than the Lord of the Rings movies, The Hobbit has a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to introduce, so the acting isn't of utmost importance, but a few positive impressions are made. Ian McKellen is as good as ever as Gandalf, wise but weary, old but battle-ready. Andy Serkis (who provides the voice and movements for the motion-capture-animated Gollum) proves, again, that he may be the most invaluable person working in movies today. As Bilbo, Martin Freeman gets a little lost in the shuffle during group scenes with the dwarves, but the actor not only shows Bilbo's growth as an adventurer and a warrior but nails a few key emotional moments. Of special note is Richard Armitage in the meaty role of Thorin, proud warrior and heir to the lost dwarf throne. Other than a late misstep that involves a little too much sentiment, the actor brings this complex character brilliantly to life, showing all the nobility, courage, stubborness, pugnaciousness and pride that makes him such a daunting figure. It's a great portrayal, and I'm looking forward to seeing the character further develop in future installments.

What Doesn't Work?
The Hobbit isn't perfect, alas, but my complaints are small. The major detour Jackson and company take in including a character not in 'The Hobbit' text is a little distracting, taking away from the main action when the main action is plenty interesting. I wasn't surprised by the movie's length (in fact, I'd gladly watch the depiction of the entire story if it was all one movie, however long), but it did start to drag just a little bit in its last few scenes, when I knew it was ending. It took its time getting there, and it does so with a few over-the-top touches that, to me, felt fake (Thorin might come to respect and care for Bilbo as an ally and friend, but he would never hug him, as he does here).

Content:
As with LOTR, the real issue isn't language or graphic violence (though you do see a few decapitations), the issue is just intimidating content, like deformed and gruesome goblins and trolls, unexpected ambushes and creepy shadowy creatures (like the crazy-schizophrenic Gollum and the dark spirit Necromancer). But this is not (yet) as dark as The Lord of the Rings was at times.

Bottom Line (I Promise): What can I say? My favorite childhood story was made into a faithful and often delightful movie, with all the most important scenes given affectionate detail, plus some awesome battle scenes and breathtaking images. I'm happy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Directed by Peter Jackson
Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro; based on the novel 'The Hobbit' by J.R.R. Tolkien
Rated PG-13
Length: 169 minutes

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Grade: B+
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Jacki Weaver, Anupam Kher and Chris Tucker
Premise: Believing he still has a chance with his estranged (ex) wife, an optimistic man gets out of a mental hospital and tries to improve his personality by fostering a friendship with an odd young woman who lives down the street.

Rated R for language, intense emotional content and some sexual material

Picture this: a book you love is turned into a movie, and you're interested enough in the story and characters to see it, but you're terrified what they (the screenwriters and [producers) might do to change it. Then you see the movie, and you suffer that horribly awkward mental/emotional complex where you liked the movie, but it is (depending on the story in question) noticeably different from the book you came to know and adore, so it both does and does not feel like an accurate representation. Does that make any sense? Fans of The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings will know where I'm coming from. Twenty-four hours after seeing Silver Linings Playbook, screenwriter/director David O. Russell's adaptation of Matthew Quick's wonderful, offbeat novel of the same title, I'm suffering that very thing. It's like going through withdrawal--some of the book's characters, dialogues, plot points and themes were represented well, while other big changes were made that I'm not happy about (why didn't they just do it like the book did it?). And, of course, I wonder if Matthew Quick himself A) approved the script, B) will see the movie, and C) will like it.

Like I said, I've been through this before. I thought The Hunger Games movie was solid but was extremely critical of some of the Harry Potter flicks, and I read "The Silver Linings Playbook" just last week, bought it, and re-read it because I thought it was terrific, so of course it's fresh in my mind. Well, it has to be darn near impossible to make a barely-two-hour movie a fantastically accurate reflection of a 290-page book (let alone one in which the last third is mostly composed of letters written from one character to another), so I knew the challenges O. Russell's adaptation would face. Quick's novel uses a lot of descriptions in place of dialogue, centers around a very unconventional relationship, deals with some sobering/difficult issues, and ends on a note that both is and is not satisfying. As I expected, the movie is considerably more upbeat and a lot more accessible, increasing the amount of dialogue, upping the romantic ante and downplaying two of the major conflicts. Without giving away anything specific, I can also say the primary difference between the Silver Linings book and movie reflects the same  structural difference between the Two Towers book and movie. In J.R.R. Tolkien's text, the siege of Helm's Deep was a mere chapter; in Peter Jackson's 2002 film, it was half the movie. That's the key difference to the Silver Linings--an event that is important but not that important becomes the centerpiece of the movie, which requires a lot of tweaking of dialogue and smaller plot points and characterizations. It also necessitates a rather different ending. But if you haven't read the book, that means absolutely nothing to you, so...

Ultimately, though I've been wringing my hands over the differences between book and movie for the last day, I would say David O. Russell succeeded in doing what movie adaptations of books and other mediums always aim to do: respectfully acknowledge and reference the major characters, events, and themes of the original work while also creating some new life in a stand-alone project. Yes, O. Russell did it.

Plot: Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) has been in a mental institution for eight months, fulfilling his end of the deal on a plea bargain that he entered after he beat the bejeezus out of a man his wife (Brea Bee) was cheating on him with. Turns out, this sloppy workaholic had also suffered from bipolar disorder his entire life and not known it. But after eight months of medication and open talking sessions and self-help slogans, he has a new, positive (some would say naive) lease on life, is in great physical shape, and is ready to go home. When his mother (Jacki Weaver) is able to get the courts to approve his release, he rejoins his family. He's not completely well, though. He's still obsessed with finding, and getting back together with, his ex-wife (who he doesn't really believe no longer wants anything to do with him). He doesn't believe a restraining order really means he can't go back to work at the high school where he used to teach as a substitute. And he also has "diarrhea of the mouth", wherein he says pretty much anything that comes to his mind (as one character puts it bluntly: "you say more inappropriate things than appropriate things"). He's also prone to tense, sometimes-violent tantrums. All these things stand in the way of his truly reconciling his relationships with his mother, his father (Robert DeNiro), his older brother (Shea Whigham) and his old best friend (John Ortiz), despite the help of a kindly therapist (Anupam Kher). He's also being occasionally dogged by a police officer (Dash Mihok) who knows he isn't in his right mind.

One night at a dinner party, he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a friend's pretty but spacey sister-in-law who, it turns out, is nearly as blunt and socially awkward as he is. When Tiffany suddenly tries to seduce him, Pat turns her down out of respect for his wife (as he calls her; he still wears the ring, after all). But this interaction nonetheless gives him an idea: maybe his befriending this notorious, apparently-friendless girl (who has curiously started following him around on his daily runs around the neighborhood) could win him some brownie points with his ex, making him look like a kind, considerate guy. Though a dinner date goes badly when Tiffany explodes and begins shouting obscenities in public, she soon approaches Pat with an interesting offer: be her partner in an upcoming popular ballroom dance competition, and she'll put in a good word with his ex, whom she and her sister (Julia Stiles) occasionally spend time with. He agrees, and they're soon spending hours in Tiffany's personal dance studio, working on a routine. But Pat's unique relationship with the eccentric Tiffany soon raises a lot of uncomfortable questions with her parents, his parents, her sister, and his therapist.

What Works?
Since I read the book first and have a great amount of affection for it, of course it's easier for me to think of things I did not like about Silver Linings Playbook, but it nonetheless takes a lot of steps in the right direction. The pace is quick, the mood is much more upbeat, even playful (the book can be very somber as it explores Pat's honest, sometimes-depressing view of his life and relationships), and the big dance-off is a treat (it includes a classic yuk involving a lift gone very wrong).

This being a David O. Russell film, though (like I Heart Huccabees and The Fighter), the most important aspect of Silver Linings Playbook is obviously the actors and their portrayals. While a few of the characters get left out to dry by the transition to movie (particularly Pat's therapist), most of them are brilliant. I haven't seen any of Bradley Cooper's big movies to date (The Hangover, Limitless, The Words), but I was really impressed with his work here. From book to movie, the character has become a lot more outspoken and blunt and erratic, and Cooper gives it his all in a manic, determined performance. Robert DeNiro also does some of his most sincere work in years as Pat's sensitive father. Jacki Weaver is perfectly cast as Pat's sympathetic mother, and Chris Tucker has a few good moments as a buddy from the mental institution, but the real actor to watch is Jennifer Lawrence. I knew the Hunger Games star was one of the favorites in the Best Actress Oscar race for this performance going in (which didn't surprise me, as Tiffany on the page is one of the most complex and interesting female characters I've ever read), and Lawrence proves an absolute pistol. Shaking off the withdrawn sullenness that sometimes hindered her portrayals in Games and in last year's The Beaver, Lawrence makes Tiffany exactly who she's supposed to be, an unpredictable, self-centered and occasionally crude woman who tends to drive people away even though what she really clearly wants is to be loved and cared for. Screaming insults or self-degrading remarks at the top of her lungs or breaking down at mentions of her recently-deceased husband, Lawrence honors Matthew Quick's most poignant, memorable character.

What Doesn't Work?
Oh boy. The things I could say here...

Well, let me just put it this way. Though there were a bunch of differences in dialogue and event sequence and character importance, Silver Linings did the book impressive justice for two-thirds of its run-time. Though different, it was essentially on course. Then it completely deviated, started to come back, then deviated again (in my opinion, even though there was a major plot change, they still had a chance to return to the book's very particular brand of drama again, but they mostly missed it). I won't use specifics, but, in my view, the ending was a little cheap. Though it gets to the same ultimate destination, the movie goes for a more obvious and plain emotional payoff than Quick's gorgeous, emotionally-fragile writing. In fact, I'm extremely frustrated, because as good as Cooper and Lawrence are, their potential best dramatic moments are taken from them by this big tonal change, which ultimately leads to an ending that feels uncannily like a mushy Valentine's Day treat movie, as opposed to the grittier, more idiosyncratic nature of the happenings in the book.

On a completely subjective note, however, there are a few things I'd quibble about in any movie, like the plausibility that a man is able to publicly approach a woman with a restraining order against him to the point that he's able to whisper in her ear--with that Dash Mihok police officer watching. But I digress.

Content: As in the book, there are many uses of colorful language (like words that start with "f" and "s"), which is the main reason the film is rated R. There is a brief shot of a woman in the shower, an uncomfortable family tussle, some suggestive dancing and even some descriptive sexual dialogue, but, as with the book, there are no unnecessary romantic/sexual pit stops. This story is more focused and serious than that.

Bottom Line (I Promise): I love the book, and, though I could say a lot of things about how it's different, I enjoyed the movie Silver Linings Playbook. It does the book justice for the most part, but it does its stars even more (it's a must-see for fans of Cooper and Lawrence), and it leaves you feeling hopeful.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Directed by David O. Russell
Screenplay by David O. Russell; based on the novel "The Silver Linings Playbook' by Matthew Quick
Rated R
Length: 122 minutes