2011 Movies worth Seeing at the Cinema

(preferably the Alamo Drafthouse, natch)

by Stephen Bohls

So I feel the strange need to inventory the films that I liked this year that I saw at the movie theater. I know no one else in the world does this, so I think it is my duty as a cinemaphile to let you know about these. Your results may vary. Stream of consciousness order follows:

Attack the Block - kick-ass south London hoodie kids vs. aliens. very reminiscent of early John Carpenter, which is high praise indeed in my book.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - what every sci-fi franchise reboot should strive for. an arresting original story that ties into the ethos of the original series. fantastic!

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - Fincher just nailed this to the wall and photographed it in exquisite detail. Letting the characters of Mikael and Lisbeth come to the front and everything revolve around them was genius. Better than the Swedish film and much like re-reading one of your favorite novels.

Red State - Why are you quitting filmmaking after you just made your best film every, Kevin Smith?! This film is surely not for everyone, but it was one of the most intense and satisfying and unexpected events I have ever experienced in a cinema. A dark religious satire / thriller / Waco-esque police standoff rollercoaster of a movie that never lets you go until it’s done with you.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 - Whew! Finally made it through to the finish. An utterly satisfying experience to the series. Saw this in 2D, along with all the other summer movies this year, including...

Captain America: The First Avenger - Marvel finally comes through with a few winners this summer. Loved the tone and aesthetic of a hero whose tone can easily get jingoistic or Pollyanah-ish. Looking forward to The Avengers now.

Thor - speaking of, the Avenger set up flick before Cap was pretty great, too. Who knew Kenneth Branaugh could direct a super hero movie?

The Green Hornet - almost forgot this was in 2011 before I consulted the wikipedia list. Michel Gondry is my favorite working director, and his mis-fires are more interesting and entertaining than most people’s best efforts. ‘Nuff said.

Midnight in Paris - Woody had a box office hit again! Is there anything more romantic than Paris in the 20s with Dali, Man Ray, Hemmingway, and Gertrude Stein? Maybe fin de siecle Paris in the 1800s? Loved this to death.

Source Code - a taught and ingenious sci-fi thriller that I thought was quite clever.

The Beaver - how do you even describe this film? Simon Day’s review does it pretty well: http://filmreviewsatmaddogsandenglishmen.blogspot.com/2011/12/mels-waterloo.html?spref=fb

The Guard - a wonderful UK import about a small town cop in northern Scotland who gets involved in a smuggling plot. Brilliant, just brilliant!

The Trip - another wonderful UK traveloge / mockumentary about Steve Coogan and his acting “friend” Rob. You will never watch Michael Caine the same way again after their impressions of him.

The Thing - still need to watch this, then immediately follow it with John Carpenter’s original. Bloody loved this flick, which is a prequel of what happened at the Norweigen ice station.

Rango - only one I missed at the theater, but really should have seen. Loved the whole loony thing. Leaping lizards, indeed.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - better than Guy Ritchie’s first movie, not as good as the BBC version, but still a fun romp in the theater.

The Muppets - Oh, how I have longed for this movie. Saw this TWICE at the Alamo, and had trouble (along with Magnus) not singing along out loud with all the great Bret McCenzie songs. A truly wonderful update to one of the most creative groups of characters ever. Jim Henson is laughing on a cloud somewhere.

BEST DOUBLE FEATURE of THE YEAR: Cowboys and Aliens, followed directly by Attack the Block. Don’t know how well Cowboys will bear on repeat viewing, but this was the most kick ass double feature of the year and an extraordinary pairing of alien invasion films old and new. Bliss.

Hugo 3D - OK, so for the end of the year we switched back to 3D glasses. When Scorcese does a kids movie in 3D, I watch it in 3D. And boy was I glad I did. I have never experienced anyone using the increased illusion of depth of field in such a masterful way. Such a beautiful film it makes me ache to think of it. Such an exquisite story, wonderful characterizations and all this wrapped up in a mystery about the tragic pioneer of cinema, Georges Melies. I cannot recommend highly enough that you go out and see this film NOW while it is still in the theater, with 3D glasses on.

The Adventures of Tintin 3D - and finally, a childhood favorite of mine given a wonderful treatment by Mr. Speilberg and Mr. Jackson. AND we got to see The Hobbit trailer (in 3D!) beforehand, TWICE! :)

I know I forgot a few in here somewhere, but that was something like my year at the movies. I hope you had a good one, too.

Mission Accomplished

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol(2011)

Like Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, once a Titan of the 80s box office, and along with Tom Hanks, for a very long time, the only sure bet for bofo box office in Hollywood, has hit a rough patch since the mid 2000s. Rather unfairly in my opinion, this wasn’t so much because his films have not been as good, indeed last year’s Night and Day(2010) seemed precision engineered to exploit all and every demographic, and I thought it was ridiculously entertaining, but more because he started going a little weird publically in a Michael Jackson type way. Suddenly audiences who’d loved him for decades went anti-Cruise seemingly overnight. It must have been a very humbling lesson in fame for the man. Wisely, after all else, war movies, action comedies, etc have failed, Cruise had pulled out the biggest chip he has left, and cashed it in. His last $100 million hit was Mission Impossible 3 in 2006, so unsurprisingly dusting off his franchise seemed a no brainer. Of course straight away rumors abounded about Cruise being eased out of the franchise by younger stars etc, but I’m happy to report that the new film is a mix of business as usual but also an improvement over the expected. Probably the saddest thing about MI3 was that it was a great Mission Impossible film that a lot of people missed, partly because the anti-Cruise feelings were mounting, and partly because Part 2 had been rubbish. Ghost Protocol takes all the good work of Part 3, unsurprisingly as the director of 3, JJ Abrams, is back as producer here and pushes it even further away from the worst excesses of the series. The franchise also weirdly seems to echo the ages of man that Cruise himself is going through, If the original 1996 movie had the usual arrogant, unstoppable Cruise with his spiky 80s buzz-cut, the slightly smarmy, constantly grinning and flicking his lovely hair superman of the 2000, style over substance, sequel showing a star at his box office apex, then part 3 started to show vunerability and the character worried more about his family than career. Ghost Protocol gave me a very strange feeling watching it, because even though he still looks amazing, Tom Cruise is starting to look old, he also gets hurt in this( if in Part 3 he managed to do his usual 100 meter dash with a bomb stuck up his nose- not as funny as it sounds), then in this, he, horror of horrors, has a nasty limp at one point and actually looks nackered and unsure quite often. He also asks quite reasonably to go to the hospital at the end. I love the scene where he has to scale the building and answers back “we?” when Simon Pegg says that this is all he has to do. This is a man in touch with his own personal, and his box office mortality. Sounds depressing, well it isn’t. This is an excellent action movie, probably the best since The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007. Infact, after feeling lightweight in the past, the Mission Impossible franchise is now giving as good as it gets to the Bonds and Bournes. The setpieces are amazing but still not too ridiculous(unlike Part 2), I loved how the team is out on it’s own with malfunctioning equipment and making mistakes, and this is the first time all members of the team have been necessary and memorable, each has a personality with Pegg a welcome source of humor but not at the film’s expense. It’s probably a bit too long and the villain could have been stronger, indeed the blonde assassin is more memorable, and while I applaud director Brad Bird not giving the audience what they expect, I personally could have done with a bit more of the theme tune during action scenes as it never fails to get my blood pumping. There’s also a coda that even fans of Part 3 won’t really care about but it does have a nice sense of cyclicality about it, and they even crowbar Ving Rhames in with seconds to spare. Brilliant, treat yourself and reconnect with your inner Cruise, you’ll remember why you loved him. 10/10

The Boys are Back in Town

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows(2011)

“We’re back, your black and I’m mad.” Well, not quite, but probably the fact that a youthful joy of the buddy cop movie structure is more in keeping with Guy Richie’s Sherlock films than the twisting mystery of the source materials, has Holmes purists exclaiming that they’d have to be dragged to the theatre first, or if they saw the first movie two years ago, for the sequel, like The Who, “ they won’t get fooled again.” This is a shame, as A Game of Shadows is several steps up from the fun but clunky original. For a start, the plot is a lot better( no more bad Doctor Who episode feeling about supernatural happenings)- this time it’s Moriarty trying to start the First World War, also, thankfully someone gave Mark Strong the day off as having to be the villain in every film(also, he was killed in the first one), so we get the refreshingly underplaying(but then wouldn’t anyone have to underplay opposite Downey Jr’s histrionics) of Jared Harris as the scheming Professor. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. have genuine chemistry and capture their bromance perfectly while Stephen Fry and his butler add further comedy about those daft English, to some already snappy lines from the main players. Brits will chuckle at Downey Jr. saying “ponce” among other things. It’s pithy, funny, action packed, really doesn’t pause for breath and links up nicely again with the books at it’s conclusion. Against it, Noomi Rapace is of course totally squandered by Hollywood as a pretty Gypsy, the slow motion can get a little wearing and how much more powerful would an open teaser of an ending have been, although it does make sense of an early plot setup. Indeed, everything slots together like a well oiled machine but like the nasty scene where Holmes is put on a hook, a few more of these unsignposted moments would have gone a long way. Great fun though, and for a change, not just for the cast. 9/10

Mel's Waterloo

The Beaver(2010)
“I took a long, hard look at Jodie Foster’s Beaver, and I liked it,” or “I saw Jodie Foster’s Beaver close up and….” These jokes will run and run, as indeed they already have, possibly giving an intelligent film it’s only real talking point. Postponed from last year due to Mel Gibson’s domestic and personal problems, The Beaver is one of those films that seems to eerily imitate what is happening in life. Whether Gibson was attracted to the script because it reflected a similar inner turmoil or just because it provided a great acting opportunity, who can say? Either way though, can you actually like The Beaver? Playing like a less audience friendly American Beauty(1999). Mel certainly shows his acting chops and reminds us of how good he can be outside of action movies. Infact, with this and last year’s Edge of Darkness, ironically, like so many before him, now that his box office is slipping, he is producing some of his best work. If you don’t appreciate Gibson, just imagine what horrible things Robin Williams would have done with the same material. The rest of the performances are uniformly great and Foster has a sure hand as a director. Sadly, at least in Austin, The Beaver lasted a week at one theatre, albeit on two screens, showing that Gibson probably needs to return to action to reengage with an audience- still time for one last Lethal Weapon or Mad Max. Sometimes people just want escapism and not to be reminded of their hero’s foibles, not a film that bravely ignores the inherent comedy and a feel good ending. 9/10

Thor(2011)

Hammer Time.

Going into Thor, I admit all I knew about the character was he was kind of a Viking, had a big hammer and would often get into fights with the Hulk because they both had anger issues. He also was one of the worst dressed superheroes. If you thought the fuss over changing the X-Men’s costumes was overblown, Branagh deserves credit for pulling off a futuristic Viking look that isn’t totally embarrassing or makes you giggle. The armor in this is actually very cool but the film still allows the audience to poke fun when Thor’s companions land on Earth and a watching Fed wonders whether a Renaissance Festival is in town. It will be interesting to see how the film does, on the one hand IMDB are posting great figures with some people(whisper it), saying it’s better than Iron Man(2008) or Spiderman(2002). It isn’t, but it is better than Iron Man 2(2010) and possibly Spiderman 3(2007), on the other hand, the character is a lot less known by the mainstream. Kenneth Branagh, who ten years ago might have made a pretty good Thor himself, directs a very solid if not totally exceptional comic book adaptation. It’s like a slightly dotty mix of the first Superman movie( especially the scenes on Krypton), Flash Gordon(1980)(everyone has very silly costumes and take themselves dreadfully seriously) and of course Shakespeare. It’s actually a great tone to adopt and it the cause of much comedy when Thor is relegated to Earth. The acting and indeed actors chosen are all very good too. Chris Hemsworth makes a great Thor, his bravado and arrogance giving way to thoughtful contemplation and regret as the film proceeds, but still always up for a punch-up. Hopkins carries on breaking off big chunks of the scenery and chewing it as he’s been doing since The Wolf Man(2009), or even as far back as Dracula(1992) if we want to be honest, but sadly spends most of the film in a coma. Rene Russo hangs around in the background and wins the‘Danny Huston in the Remake of Clash of the Titans’ award for ‘I was in this film honest, but they cut all my parts out.’ Portman makes a good love interest although this feels a bit sketched compared to the ones in Superman and Spiderman, and indeed, Portman has now officially become a big money maker because since Black Swan and noticeably in this, like so many other actresses, the higher her box office, the thinner she gets, and she is very thin in this. In the deficit corner, the film suffers from the usual first part need to set things up, the action scenes lack real ‘wow’ factor and I felt no real sense of menace or jeopardy. Partly, I think this was due to there being no real villain, but in a similar weakness to the Superman movies, once Thor has his hammer(which is most of the film), he’s invincible, which is why we really need a General Zod equal to give him a proper run for his money. Also, compared to the vicious fight at the end of Spiderman(much complained about by parents) , Thor also seemed a little too kid friendly, no blood, no on camera deaths which didn’t help. There is also, probably the least effective so far, teaser for The Avengers at the end of the film( if for some reason they don’t make this now, audiences could sue under the trade descriptions act). Thor then was very good in every department, but was never great. 8/10

Arthur(2010)

ReBranded


The remake of Arthur neither trends a brand new path, or sticks to the original’s script verbatim. It’s actually a weird mix of the same story with minor tweeks, but with new dialogue, peppered with the classic lines of the original. Sadly missing is my favorite from the original. Prostitute to Arthur-“My mother died when I was 5, my father raped me when I was 10,” Arthur(drunk as usual), “So you had a relatively good 5 years.” The fact that such a great line is missing kind of sums up the new movie. It’s rudder, as in it has more swearing, yet it is also a lot more scared of offending anyone. You’ve probably heard that in this version Arthur actually does attend an AA meeting, although to Brand’s credit he gets a big laugh out of it by saying, “this is depressing stuff, I need a drink.” Later however the movie caves and we are told that Arthur has dried out. If I’m not exactly selling you on the film, don’t dismay though. The film is very funny, I laughed out loud several times which for me, these days, is a very good sign in a comedy where often I sit stony faced with the odd lip twitch. Brand holds the film together sometimes through sheer willpower, luckily coming across like Dudley Moore’s ruder, younger brother, which is a great compliment, and he also feels like a leading man in this rather than the stunt casting of Sarah Marshall(2008), or secret weapon in Get Him to the Greek(2010). You can tell Brand probably improvised a lot of his lines and while some miss, and some may be more Brand than Arthur, when they hit, they really work. One of the best lines is when Arthur says, “not if I keep them moist,” in response to Jennifer Garner saying her father will cut his balls off. This is a great punchline to an unfunny scene set up way, way before. In the theatre the audience I was with actually paused to remember the set up but then laughed all the harder. If Brand works wonders(and I’m only a recent convert to him myself, I used to not understand his appeal at all, especially the sexual frenzy of women for him), the rest of the cast is ill served by the lines the script gives them. Garner actually shows good comic muscles but doesn’t feel like a real person, Guzman as Bitterman is just the idiot foil in a role that could have really worked very well, as he is basically the audiences eyes, Nolte- the stunt casting here is wasted, and seemed ill or on drugs to me, also he’s unfortunate to be part of the most uncomfortable and unfunny scene in the film with the table saw- although it does lead to that great line later. Surprisingly the biggest disappointment is Mirren, not because of anything she does but again by the script. Strangely enough one of the biggest fumbles is in her reading of Gielgud’s lines such as “if I die, take back my library books,” which are totally mishandled and sadly have nothing new of the same power to replace them. In the place of comedy and sarcasm is sentiment and Hobson does get two speeches, one in the AA meeting where she talks for Arthur about his problems, and one about why she didn’t leave him when she fell in love as a younger woman. These do work well, but give me Gielgud saying “do you need me to wash you dick for you, you little shit,” any day. Also, interestingly, whereas in the original we had a beautiful scene of Moore closing the door to Hobson’s room and locking it, after he had died, here we have Brand finding Mirren in bed and trying to rouse her- it shows us more but gives us less, which to me sums up the new version. So Arthur is not as good as the original, which frankly no one expected it to be, and it feels more like a succession of sketches than an organic film but it is a funny romantic comedy with a very rude and British slant, and for that speaking as an Englishman, we should be very greatful. 8/10