The Adventures of Tintin (review)
As I said the night I saw this picture, I cannot and will not begrudge anyone who enjoyed this Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson action adventure film more than I. And that still remains the case. But despite the top-notch animation (I'm actually a fan of motion-capture technology) and one all-time great action sequence in the third act, the film suffers from a fatal lack of interesting characters. Jamie Bell's Tintin is a blank slate onscreen, Daniel Craig's villain is relatively rote, and there are almost no colorful supporting characters to pick up the slack. Andy Serkis's Captain Haddock is the only character with depth. Truth be told, any film involving humans where the most entertaining character is a dog surely deserves a gentle knock for not bothering to develop the humans. Perhaps I expected too much from two of the finest 'big' directors of my lifetime, but this is a relatively unengaging trifle that skates by on its technical merits and one absolutely superb set piece. It lacks the old-school swing for the fences zeal of Jackson's truly awesome King Kong, or even Steven Spielberg's flawed-but-impressive War Horse. If you enjoyed it as much as I wanted to, then you have not my scorn but my envy.
The Artist (review/essay)
The probable best picture winner is basically a 1920s-style silent film. It offers no commentary on the art form nor insight about its time period. It is one of several major films this season that deal with nostalgia and how we deal with the glory days of our would-be peak years. Yet this picture, charming as it occasionally is, offers no wisdom or constructive commentary on its subject matter, and it exists as testament to the whole 'gosh, everything was better back in the day' nostalgia that is infecting mainstream entertainment at all levels of production. Viewed apart from its (perhaps unintentional) implications of our current culture, it is a feather-light trifle of a picture, some that, had it been actually been produced in the time period when it takes place, would have been a solidly B-level (if that) silent picture.
Drive (review/essay/essay)
For better or worse, I became the poster child this year as 'critics who hate Drive'. As I've written several times, the film is a relatively lousy action drama. Only the supporting characters (Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, Bryan Cranston) and the paper-thin coating of 'cool' give it anything resembling a spark of life past the admittedly terrific opening scene. Ironically, the refreshingly specific Jewishness of the two villains inspired the year's dumbest lawsuit, but I digress (as a Jew, I want more Jewish villains!). The two dull-as-dishwater leads (Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan) are supposed to be among the most romantic couples of the year, yet they have so little chemistry or even dialogue together that it's not unreasonable to presume that much of their courtship is in "Driver's" imagination. It is yet another 'boy's adventure' where we are supposed to romanticize with a violent psychopath purely because he's handsome and has token feelings of lust for a pretty girl who happens to be in his midst. It is not exciting, it is not romantic, and it is not artful enough to justify the absence of any other entertainment value. It is, quite simply, a glorified straight-to-DVD thriller (complete with extended scenes of characters doing next to nothing in complete silence to pad out the running time) that somehow got hailed as the future of action cinema. And if you take Albert Brook's expository monologue at face value, Nicolas Winding Refn knows he's pranking the critics.
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (review)
If the original Swedish film had not been subtitled and contained moments of somewhat sensational violence, it would have been correctly written off as a solid but unremarkable B-movie thriller with an interesting supporting character in Lisbeth Salander. But, as Robert Rodriguez will tell you, subtitles do a funny thing to audiences, making them find art where only pulp exists and deeper meaning where only thriller mechanics can be found. But this big-budget remake by David Fincher actually manages to diminish whatever appeal the original film (or the original book too, I suppose) had. Drained of any real suspense and with much of the infamous violence toned down, the film comes off like a bloated and drained-of-all-life episode of Criminal Minds. Rooney Mara is sensational as Lisbeth Salander, and the film is engaging whenever she is onscreen. But she is truly a supporting player, with token story changes that make her feel even more at the service of her male companion that in the original. Rooney Mara's performance is certainly worth watching, and the character is fun to watch (if not the pioneering feminist icon she has been held up as). But the rest of the film is a drab and outright boring mystery thriller that fails to thrill and a mystery that, thanks to boneheaded casting choices, would have been solved by any television sleuth (Adrien Monk, Olivia Benson, David Rossi, Bobby Goren, etc) before the second commercial break.
Hanna (review)
Joe Wright earned my ire by trashing Sucker Punch while promoting HIS ass-kicking female action picture, which is both bad form and fraudulent since the theoretical prurient appeal of watching Saorise Ronan (in top form, as always) ruthlessly dispatching foes pretty much proves one of the big points Snyder was trying to make. There is much to admire in this pulpy and often brutal re-imagining of Little Red Riding Hood, including a single-take action sequence involving Eric Banna and Cate Blanchett reminding me why she was my #1 celebrity crush in high school (yes, she's terrific, but that goes without saying at this point). But the film is so detached and cold that there is no real viewer investment in any of the major characters and the film comes off as a pure exercise in style. If anything, you'll feel bad for the many innocents who get slaughtered as young Ronan's Hanna makes her way across Europe to track down Blanchett. Moreover, the film often feels hollow and empty behind the stylish visuals, making it almost as junky as the b-movie action pictures that Wright is clearly trying to upstage.
This film is a classic case of 'telling instead of showing', as the entire film hinges on the idea that Ryan Golsing's high-level political operative is a master of the game and a wide-eyed innocent, neither of which are on display in this half-hearted political drama. There is no more political insight in this George Clooney-helmed picture that can be found in a mediocre episode of The West Wing, and the overriding narrative becomes a sexed-up and dumbed-down variation on Primary Colors. Whatever insights Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman bring to the table (oh what a film it would be if they were the main characters...), the second half degenerates into a moronic 'Uh oh, the hot girl is going to wreck everything!' melodrama that has as much relevance to today's political climate as The Lion King. Oh, and this is the second major film this year where Marissa Tomei's primary purpose is to be humiliated for attempting to act like an adult in a sea of overgrown children (the other one is... spoiler alert, on a different list).
Like Crazy
This film is a classic example of how alleged independent cinema is often treated differently than mainstream cinema of a similar nature. This romantic drama, told in a not-entirely linear narrative, deals with the ups and downs of a young couple (Felicity Jones and Anton Yelchin) and theoretically highlighted the ickier, more complicated parts of a long term relationship. But the execution feels so much like a standard indie romantic drama that it threatens to tip into self-parody (there is another film this year that fell headfirst into that pool, but that's a later list). Purely on the strength of a decent performance, a British accent, and the idea that critics often fall over themselves to praise any attractive young woman who comes out of the indie scene, Felicity Jones is now 'the next big thing'. I hope she lives up to the hype and I am a fan of Yelchin (he stole The Beaver from Mel Gibson earlier this year), but this film offers little in the way of insight. If this film had been a wide release with a major star at its center (say, the neither better nor worse One Day with Anne Hathaway), it wouldn't have gotten a second glance or would have been eviscerated. It's not a horrible film, and it's certainly not an evil or hateful picture, but it's a shining example of how independent cinema is often graded on a curve compared to similar genre entries that happen to be studio pictures.
The film was supposed to be 'the great original picture that saved us from a summer of mediocrity'. Problem is, the summer started out quite strong and J.J. Abrams's Super 8 wasn't all that good. Fashioned as an homage to Steven Spielberg, the film comes off as someone else doing a spin on the prototypical Steven Spielberg film that never actually existed. Sure Spielberg directed ET and produced The Goonies, but he was also producing (directing?) Poltergeist and directing Empire of the Sun and The Colorful Purple during that same period. But the film itself, powered by a hazy glow of alleged nostalgia, fails both as a character drama and as a supernatural thriller. The supporting kids aren't developed in the least, the film pulls out an unseen dead mother purely for cheap emotion, and the lone female character (Elle Fanning) spends the entire film as merely the romantic object and the entire third act as a damsel in distress (even The Goonies had two females, one of which was not the least bit romanticized). And the film absolutely falls apart in the third act with a dramatic arc that makes no sense as it's clearly the lead's father (Kyle Chandler) who is emotionally wrecked by Mrs. Lamb's death, not his son. This was a film with no other purpose than to mimic the template of a handful of 80s would-be classics (I'm not the world's biggest fan of The Goonies) purely as a technical exercise. This isn't the work of Steven Spielberg, it's the work of Señor Spielbergo.
And that's a wrap. Now have your say, which I'm sure will have many of you calling me an idiot and/or a bully, which is the price one pays for doing an 'overrated' list in the first place (good -- lots of traffic bad -- lots of name calling). Next up, the 'Good films you missed,' which is a list of ten good or great films that slipped under the radar. And yes, I do enjoy highlighting the good movies far more than highlighting the whiffs, but everything has its place.
Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson
It also had brilliant performances in all the main and supporting players. The way they all mixed classic silent-era techniques (body language, facial expressions) with modern method acting (living and breathing through a role) was a beauty to watch. Anyone who doesn't fall in love with Berenice Bejo in that movie has a glass heart.
Scott dismisses "The ides of March" as follows:
"March is a half-baked "pretty girls are nothing but trouble" melodrama that's being hailed as a stunningly insightful political drama, etc....."
First of all, I haven't seen any reviews that call it "a stunningly insightful political drama...".
Quite the contrary.
And nobody except you, Scott, refers to it as a "pretty girls are nothing but trouble.." melodrama,
Your patronizing attitude toward women is very unpleasant, Scott. The fact that the young woman dies so tragically in the film seems to have escaped your notice, as did the central theme of the film about the political maturation of the Ryan Gosling central character.
Your characterization of the reporter/columnist character played by Marissa Tomei is equally off-base. She's actually quite typical of many cynical political reporters...her gender is irrelevant. She's certainly not used as a tool for any of the men.
The final scene between her and Gosling has nothing to do with her humiliation and everything to do with Gosling's character's having learned how to deal with reporters.
It is a bit surprising to see someone attack a film written, directed and starring someone like George Clooney and starring someone like Ryan Gosling, based on a highly regarded play about politics, for its mistreatment of women.
The above is your response to my question about which rating you said "overrrated" the films on your "overrated" list.
Not much of answer, Scott. What you said about Drive, Dragon Tattoo and Ides, however, is unfortunate.
"Drive is being hailed as 'art' because it's 'cool',"
Most critics aren't so shallow as to like Drive as "art" because they think its "cool".
You can't figure out if Gosling's character is a hero or a psychopath.
Characterizing Drive as a romantic comedy/drama with a male lead ( every romantic film has a male lead..except if the couple are lesbians) as the reason critics like it, is ridiculous.
".....Drive [is] cashing in on the inexplicable praise that is all-but standard whenever a romantic comedy/drama stars a male lead),.."
"Dragon Tattoo... we crowned Salander (and interesting character no doubt) as the ultimate female movie icon because she was slightly out of the box,..."
Your dismissal of such a complex character as the Lisbeth Salander as "slightly out of the box" is pitiful, Scott.
Calling Lisbeth a "female movie icon" is inaccuratel...Lisbeth is a literary icon depicted in film in the same way icons like Tarzan and Robin Hood and James Bond and even Jesus are.
All you've done is clear up my question about whether your list was a joke.
To your discredit, it wasn't.
Drive is not a 'romantic comedy/drama'. I was referring to two specific films. Midnight In Paris is a romantic comedy, while Drive is (arguably) a romantic drama. I believe that both genres are more likely to receive positive praise when they feature a male lead, by which I mean the film focuses on the male journey as opposed to a female's journey (IE - most romantic films in the so-called 'romance genre'). Yes you need both, but whose point-of-view is Drive or Midnight In Paris being told from, as opposed to (random examples) 27 Dresses or Bridget Jones's Diary?
You are now contradicting your prior dismissal of Lisbeth Salander as "sligthly out of the box:.
Lisbeth Salander was and would have remained an iconic literary character had Fincher's film never been made.
You are also dead wrong calling Lisbeth a "supporting character" since she is the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and one of two main characters in the film.
Rooney Mara is even up for a Golden Glolbe as best actress (not supporting actress).
You're being untruthful in denying you called Drive a "romantic comedy/drama" (you did so in the same sentence you described Midnight in Paris that way.
To describe the Gosling character as being on a romantic "journey" is ludicrous. He's a selfless hero who saves a young woman and her son.
What you're doing now is worse than calling the driver a psychopath.
George Clooney: Women Can Carry Film, 'The Help' Proves
He certainly didn't do it for the money or for personal revenge.
Did Scott miss the soundtrack of the movie, including "real hero" "real human being" playing in the background during the driver's scenes with Carey Mulligan and her son?
Protecting ones loved ones is nothing close to Scott's snide characterization of the driver as a psychopath.
There are similar problems with Scott's missing or mischaracterizing the essential elements of other films on his list, particularly Dragon Tattoo.
Which is it? Hero or psychopath, Scott?
I've seen enough, thank you.
My impression is that you were over the edge long before you saw the movie.
Funny that you ducked the point about what triggered Gosling's chanacter's violence in the film.
Calling Drive overrated and Green Lantern underrated makes no sense at all.
Drive was a good movie (great IMO), while it is hard to underrate a complete flop as bad as Green Lantern was.
Driver cannot be a psychopath because everything he is doing is to protect Irene and Benicio, he clearly loves them, and psychopaths do not feel love. Neither do sociopaths, and Driver is neither. He may have had a bit of a psychotic break in the elevator, but that is as far as it goes. Next time you decide you wright something like that actually bother to find out what a psychopath is before you publish it.
drive isn't an action drama. it was supposed to be an action block buster originally. thankfully that fell through and one of the best films ever was made.
i'm sorry you can't appreciate the subtle acting of gosling and mulligan.
and you really didn't call driver a psychopath? there is no excuse these days to be psychologically illiterate s to not know the exact definition of a psychopath as well as the differences between those, sociopaths , psychotic and schizophrenic.
most people i'm sorry to say are.
your writing an article. please google the definition. driver is NOT any of those . an understanding of facialexpressions and body language would come in very handy here. i have been told that young men in particular often find reading facial expressions and body language hard and most people who only see bland where i see subtle are young men. as someone else said ; gosling can convey emotion with his jawbone. yes he can.
and'' token feeling of lust ''. ? he's the one holding back in case you hadn't noticed .
here is an interview with gosling that might help you understand.
http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/interviews/ryan-gosling-16013