BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE Tries So Hard to Be an Event That It Forgets to Be a Movie

BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE Review:

- Batman vs. Superman. For decades, this has been a conflict, a contrast, that has captivated the imagination of comic book fans. It's light vs. dark, fear vs. hope. Gotham vs. Metropolis. An ordinary man with an extraordinarily nightmarish childhood vs. a superpowered alien who grew up with a Rockwellian, idyllic upbringing. A rich city playboy vs. a country boy journalist. Vigilante vs. Hero. And yet ... two men who are, ultimately, two sides of the same coin. Two men who believe in truth and justice. Two men who live by a moral code. Two men who never give up. Two men who fight the same battle. There is rich thematic territory to explore in pitting Batman vs. Superman. And over the years, many a comic book and animated adventure has mined that iconic relationship in order to produce memorable stories.

But BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE ... well, it has almost zero interest in any of those things. From watching this movie, from listening to interviews with director Zach Snyder - what's clear is that the bedrock upon which this movie was created is the fight between Batman and Superman in Frank Miller's seminal 1986 graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns. Snyder is an acolyte of Miller's work - he adapted 300, after all - and he seems to be a fan of that period of comics deconstruction (he also adapted that *other* big superhero deconstruction of the mid-80's, Watchmen). But increasingly, it feels like Snyder's affection for Miller and Moore is mostly just surface level. He likes the "kewl-factor" of those comics, but doesn't seem to get the context, the themes, or the subtext. As a pre-teen, I devoured those books. The shock factor of seeing R-rated interpretations of iconic superheroes blew my mind. But even then, I recognized what Moore and Miller were going for. They were subverting decades of superhero mythology - deconstructing aspects of superheroes that readers took for granted and placing them in the context of the politics of the 1980's. In The Dark Knight Returns, the "American Way" that Superman had long stood for had become corrupt and fascist, and Superman became a mere tool of that nightmare-America's government. Batman - now a grizzled, zero-%$&%'s-giving anarchist - comes out of retirement to fight the system. Ultimately, Batman and Superman throw down. And it's a fight for the ages. We actively root for Batman to win - it's his story, after all. And we smile and grin as the wily vigilante pulls out every trick in the book to humble the god-like Kal-El. But in BATMAN V SUPERMAN, Snyder takes that iconic battle and replicates it devoid of context. There's no real clash of ideologies here. There's no real thematic contrast between our heroes or what they represent. This Batman wants to hunt and kill Superman because he deems him (however misguidedly) responsible for the destruction and the resulting casualties that took place in Man of Steel. He views Superman as too much of a potential threat to let live. But even as he grits his teeth and decides to slay Superman, this Batman mows down people left and right while careening in the Batmobile through the streets of Gotham. This Batman brandishes a gun throughout what seems like half of the time he's onscreen in costume. This Batman kills (or as Snyder deemed it in an interview, he "manslaughters."). So where then, is the contrast?

In BATMAN V SUPERMAN, Gotham is indistinguishable from Metropolis. Both could essentially just be called Snyderville - perpetually dark, gloomy, and grey - lacking in any real personality or distinguishing characteristics. The movie is set 18 months after the events of Man of Steel - and we are told that - aside from some vocal pundits and protesters - people generally seem to have come around to the idea of Superman. I mean, there's a giant statue of him in Metropolis. But we are never really shown a Superman who is a man of the people. Most of the people we actually see in this movie - save for Lois Lane - seem to actively hate him. And Superman's personality seems to reflect that. Rather than serve as an optimistic contrast to Bruce Wayne's glumness, this film's Clark Kent can go toe to toe with Bruce when it comes to brooding. Snyder and his writers seem to actively not want to show a Superman being Superman. Aside from one moment of (misguided?) heroism in the film's final act, this Superman at times feels more like the fascist version from The Dark Knight Returns. Not for any real thematic reason - just because that's the version, I guess, that Snyder thinks is cool. Or at least, most palatable to his particular sensibilities.

It's funny, because in a world where multiple versions of DC Comics characters litter the pop-cultural landscape, the flaws of these movies often highlight the strengths of the other versions of the characters that are out there. When Superman Returns came out, its retread version of Lex Luthor - yet another spin on the sleazy used-car-salesman of the Donner films - made Smallville's tortured businessman version of Lex seem definitive in comparison. By the same token, BATMAN V SUPERMAN's dour Man of Steel makes the still-finding-its-groove Supergirl TV show seem to sparkle in comparison. Whatever flaws it may have, Supergirl overflows with palpable affection for its lead character and what she (and in turn, her iconic cousin) represent. There's no questioning that the show has an abundance of superheroic heart.

And where then is the beating heart of BATMAN V SUPERMAN ...? It's very, very hard to find. In retrospect, the relative lack of anything that could pass for real human emotion in this film makes Snyder's first DC movie, Man of Steel, start to look even better in comparison. I liked Man of Steel a lot. I graded it highly. It had fantastic action, a strong cast, and a pretty solidly-conveyed thematic through-line. It was Clark Kent's journey towards embracing the Superman identity after being confronted with his Kryptonian past. Simple, easy - and the foundation of a pretty damn good piece of sci-fi superhero pulp. But where Man of Steel took Clark on a pretty understandable character arc and plot trajectory, BATMAN V SUPERMAN jumps around with wild abandon - playing very fast and loose with things like character motivations, plot, and theme.

You can almost see the various hands reaching through the screen trying to mold this movie into something that fits their vision. You can imagine Snyder essentially working backwards from the big Batman/Superman smackdown, setting up a loosely-related collage of scenes meant to add some kind of mythic gravity to the heroes' first encounter. You can see screenwriter Chris Terrio (Argo) - brought in late in the game to polish things up - trying to somehow turn Snyder's comic book pulp into high-minded political-thriller allegory. And you can see the DC and Warner Bros brain-trust giddily - but awkwardly - shoehorning in all sorts of setup for future DC movie installments. This is "Dawn of Justice" - and so we get little glimpses of the rest of the DC pantheon, almost entirely unrelated to the actual plot of this movie - meant to prime us for what is to come in the years ahead.

The result is a movie that, for much of its running time, feels like an unwieldy mess. The first hour or so of the film is edited together so strangely - it almost feels like no one could agree how the movie should open, and so we're just left with no real opening. I won't spoil anything, but I'll just say that the movie begins with a truncated flashback to Batman's iconic origin story, followed by an extended revisit of the end of Man of Steel from Bruce Wayne's perspective, quickly followed by an extended scene of Lois Lane in Africa ... and then a bunch of other stuff before we ever see either Batman or Superman in costume. It's sort of shocking how all-over-the-place the movie is right out of the gate, and how long it takes to find any sort of real footing.

But what quickly becomes apparent is how thin most of the characters' motivations are in the movie. I talked a bit about the relative incoherence of Batman's decision to try to kill Superman (with a kryptonite spear, no less). But that incoherence extends to the entire fight between Superman and Batman. Look, comic book fans have long grown used to the trope of two heroes coming to blows without exactly having great reason to go at it. But here, it just feels like two action figures have been moved into place. In theory, Lex Luther is supposed to be the Machiavellian master manipulator of the confrontation. But Jesse Eisenberg's Lex never really makes any sense in this movie. His Lex is a jittery, half-insane madman on a perpetual sugar high. And what, exactly, he's trying to do and why is pretty vague - frustratingly so.

The thing is, BATMAN V SUPERMAN constantly fumbles the ball both on a macro and micro level. There are big picture issues - like how the big Batman/Superman fight begins on a nonsensical note and ends on an eye-rolling silly and sudden one. But there are *tons* of smaller issues that elicit WTF moments throughout the film. After Batman and Superman have called a truce, Lois Lane disposes of Batman's kryptonite spear by ... throwing it in a random abandoned building's flooded basement. Then, finding that casually-tossed-aside Ultimate Weapon becomes a major plot point in the movie's final act. "Hey, remember that all-powerful super-weapon that you tossed in a random building - now, if we don't find it, the world ends!" Is that really what this movie boils down to? Similarly, you know how I mentioned the film's odd, occasional inclination to become some sort of political thriller? Those moments pretty much all fall flat, and they add up to a whole lot of nothing. For example, the movie introduces the idea that Lex Luthor's anti-Superman plot is actually backed by the US government - but then never really resolves that notion or wraps it up in any meaningful way. There's also a pretty baffling sort-of dream sequence where Superman has a vision of his dead father, that seems to exist just because they wanted to squeeze Kevin Costner in here. It's a real head-scratcher as to why this scene happens when it does, and what it is exactly.

But hey, this is BATMAN V SUPERMAN - none of this stuff really matters if the movie gives us big moments of heroism that reinforce why these characters are icons - right? Well, for some reason the film continually undermines itself in this regard. There's a mind-blowingly strange sequence, for example, where Batman chases down criminals to a much-discussed secret boat (yep) that may be carrying a clandestine shipment of kryptonite. As Batman catches up with the boat, he's intercepted by Superman (this is the first time they meet), and Batman does his whole "do you bleed?" line. Superman quickly flies away, Batman stands around muttering, and then, well, that's it. What about those nefarious criminals and their kryptonite-carrying boat? Who cares! In this movie, Batman and Superman would rather trade lame taunts than fight crime, apparently. There's another moment in the movie that seems poised to be pretty great. Superman is called to testify before a Senate Committee to defend himself and his role in the destruction he caused in Man of Steel (the movie is very hung up on the ending of Man of Steel - I mean, sure, some critics didn't like it, but let's move on). But Superman is clearly going to give some great speech here, right? Some movie-defining Big Moment where Superman says earnestly that, my god, he may be an alien by birth, but he was raised to be an American - and really, he's just here to help. Or something. But in a moment that seems to literally embody the movie being pulled apart at the seams by the various parties involved in its conception, that potential Big Moment is interrupted by a giant explosion, and we're back to more brooding and people hating on Superman. And to make matters worse, the explosion is another part of Lex's weird master plan that never quite makes sense - unless you just go with the idea that he's actually insane - basically The Joker - and that nothing he does makes sense and is just intended to cause chaos (but is that really Lex Luthor?).

Eisenberg goes for it with his Lex. I can't really fault him for going big and over-the-top, because that's essentially what the script demands of him. But it does sort of irk me that this is now yet another big-screen Luthor who does not at all resemble the best and most iconic versions from the comics and animated series. The irony, of course, is that the DC Comics version of Lex that was a villain to Superman but a semi-respected businessman to the public - a guy who once ran for and won the DC Universe presidency - feels shockingly plausible and relevant today in the age of Trump. But worry not, there's no real sense of the zeitgeist being reflected in this movie (the movie's sensibility is much more rooted in the Frank Miller 80's and X-TREME 90's). More importantly, there's no real sense here that this is a Lex Luthor who could plausibly be Superman's greatest enemy. He's a Lex who is so brazenly a criminal that there's no endgame for him here except to end up dead or in jail. Lex has one really good moment in this movie where he threatens Lois and forces Superman to act to save her. It's a classic villain scene. Lex vs. Superman. It's too bad that we don't get more of that - or that we don't get a true clash of philosophies between Lex and Clark. What makes Lex a great villain in other mediums is that he's convinced that Superman is actually an existential affront to humanity. Here, Lex does a lot of semi-incoherent babbling - but there are no real shades of grey to him. He's just criminally insane. He's a Batman villain more so than a Superman one - a guy who should probably be locked up in Arkham Asylum. But ultimately, Lex is pretty marginalized in this movie. He's more background noise than anything else, and it's never exactly clear to what extent a.) it's his influence that's directly influencing Batman's decisions here, and b.) to what extent Lex himself is being manipulated by outside forces.

So yeah, there are a lot of "outside forces" in this movie. If you've read up on any of the pre-release hype pieces or if you're a big DC Comics fan, then it's pretty clear as to who the Big Bad is that BATMAN V SUPERMAN hamfistedly alludes to throughout its running time. But to what end? It's a pretty big game-changer if we're to believe that Batman and/or Lex are being expressly controlled and manipulated throughout the film by this other villain. But we never really know for sure. What we do know is that Batman has a few hallucinatory, seemingly prophetic dreams throughout the film - dreams that seem completely random and tangential to the plot, except to slightly reinforce Bruce's paranoia about Superman being dangerous. But is Bruce being in some way mind-controlled? Is Lex? Unclear. So what these sequences amount to is one crazy, Zach Snyder-at-his-Snyderiest actionfest, in which a machine gun toting Batman shoots his way through a horde of alien invaders like he's suddenly found himself in a sci-fi version of The Raid. Oh, and in the dream, Superman is evil. Presumably it's all portents of things to come in Justice League. But it also feels like Snyder got a little too caught up in the presumed kewlness of OMG YOU GUYS IT'S BATMAN BEING LIKE THE PUNISHER, BUT WITH ALIENS. BUT JUST KIDDING IT'S ALL A DREAM. OR IS IT? Suffice it to say, too much of this movie feels like a corporate-mandated ad for Justice League and the other DCU movies. I mean, Marvel has perfected the post-credits "wait, there's one more thing!" tease. But when your entire movie feels like a tease, well, that's not so good. This is especially true in the sort-of-lame previews of other Justice Leaguers like The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. We see hints of them in action via ... computer files stolen from Lex Luthor. Seeing Wonder Woman point and click on computer files is not exactly the most dramatic way to introduce us to The Flash or Aquaman. And it's not helped by the fact that both of the aforementioned characters are super bro'd-out looking - like what would happen if Image Comics re-imagined the characters circa 1997. It's all pretty underwhelming.

So what works in the movie? There are moments. There are definitely moments. In all honesty, there are some really good things about the whole Batman side of the movie that could bode well for a future Affleck-centric Bat-film. For one thing, Affleck is pretty darn good as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. My biggest fear about Affleck - that he was just too genial and bro-next-door seeming to be the Bat - was mostly erased here. Voice modulation and the best-looking live action Bat-suit ever help make him look and sound like, well, Batman. And as Bruce Wayne, Affleck feels sort of like the more old-school playboy-adventurer guy from 70's and 80's comics, and I dig that. Best of all, the new version of Alfred - played to droll perfection by Jeremy Irons - is great. Irons and Affleck have a fantastic chemistry, and probably my favorite, most geek-out-worthy moments in the movie are some of their exchanges. Batman also gets to really be Batman here in a way he never was in the Nolan movies. He's a detective. He does cool martial arts and fights like he does in the Arkham videogames. He grapples from building to building. He can move his neck. All the surface-level Batman stuff, Snyder gets pretty much right. It sounds simple - but so many Batman movies have sucked so hard in that regard that seeing a Batman who really moves and looks like Batman is a big sigh of relief. Of course, my enthusiasm for this Batman was somewhat dampened by him being written to be an emotionally unstable crazy person, who one minute decides to kill Superman and the next decides they're BFF's - whose main weapon seems to be guns (dude - no!), and who kills (sorry, "manslaughters") on a whim. But the point is, the ingredients are there for a pretty good Batman movie to come out of this - *provided* we get some better writing for the character.

I'll mention the score here, too. I love Hans Zimmer's themes from Man of Steel, and everytime they get play here I feel like the material becomes slightly elevated. Zimmer's Superman theme just brings an instant sense of gravitas to the table. I think the score here is overall pretty strong and adds a lot.

I also think the last hour of the movie really picks up the pace and starts to find more of a groove - and it delivers some fairly epic superhero brawls. Once we get Batman, Superman, and Gal Godot's Wonder Woman all in action together, taking on Doomsday, the movie devolves into sheer comic book spectacle - and this is where Snyder feels most at home. Though the Doomsday brawl has some really stupid and nonsensical beats to it, it's undeniably fun and has the look of some sort of Alex Ross painting brought to life. Even just seeing Wonder Woman in action and being awesome is cool, in and of itself. This was a *long* time coming, so it's no surprise that Wonder Woman's big entrance is a huge audience applause moment - it's a collective realization of "it's about damn time!" Wonder Woman doesn't do much other than fight and look cool in this film, but she's kickass enough to leave you anticipating what a WW movie might be like with Gal Gadot in the lead.

The thing is, there are these isolated moments of coolness in the movie. Although this film makes me question his storytelling a bit, I will still defend Snyder as a guy who can do really great, mythic, stylized imagery. And certain shots in the film are really powerful and really cool. But they are cool in a very out-of-context way - these aren't moments that ultimately add up to anything, or that feel dramatically earned. In our packed theater, people applauded when Batman kicked ass, when Wonder Woman debuted, when Doomsday hulked-out and began his rampage. But it felt like applauding things that we already had a pre-attachment to - applause from mere recognition. When I reflected back and thought about what the sum total of those scenes was, I kept coming up empty. Everything that was satisfying in the moment was satisfying only on a purely surface level. There was no substance here. When the movie tries to have substance - when Holly Hunter's senator talks about her stance on Superman, when Lex rambles about pop-philosophy stuff about gods and man, when Batman pontificates about whether he's a hero or criminal  - it all feels random, largely meaningless, and, often, mildly pretentious. At the same time, there just isn't a story here that works as a cohesive whole. What we get feels like a greatest-hits mash-up of stories like The Dark Knight Returns, The Death of Superman, Injustice, and a few others - except without the original works' emotional or thematic resonance.

What you're left with is a feeling of apathy towards whatever comes next. With Man of Steel, the tone worked okay given that it was an origin story -  I interpreted that film's greyscale darkness as depicting a pre-Superman world. It was a journey towards the light. But the darkness - both visually and tonally - of BATMAN V SUPERMAN is so relentless that it left me thinking: "Really? *This* is what the new DC cinematic universe is going to be like?" The weird thing is that the storylines and characters that this movie hints at for Justice League are some of the most out-there and cosmic in DC's library. On the Marvel side, we've seen movies like Guardians of the Galaxy full-on embrace the cosmic loopiness that Jack Kirby brought to the company's cannon. Will DC/Warner dare to do the same? Or will be forced to endure "extreme," pseudo-edgy versions of Jack Kirby's New Gods? It's hard to imagine how it will all work. But I do worry about a world in which all of DC's cinematic characters have an inherent sameness. I mean, if Batman and Superman - two polar opposites - can be made into mirror-image grim-dark avengers, then what hope does the rest of the DC Universe have?

Ultimately, BATMAN V SUPERMAN feels like a movie that desperately wants to be important. Not in terms of theme - but in terms of being an unmissable flag-planting for DC/WB - a stake in the ground laying all the cards on the table for what is to come in DC's answer to the Marvel movie empire. Many cards are laid out - no question there. A flag has definitely been planted, for good or ill. But what they forgot to do was make a good movie - and as a card-carrying, life-long DC fanboy, well - that's a damn shame.

My Grade: C

GONE GIRL Is Dark Satire and Riveting Filmmaking

GONE GIRL Review:

- With a David Fincher film, you know you're going to get dark. But GONE GIRL, adapted from the novel by former Entertainment Weekly writer Gillian Flynn (who also wrote the film's screenplay), is dark and darkly funny. GONE GIRL is satire - a pitch-black comedy about modern marriage and media spectacle, an over-the-top send-up of a mutually-abusive relationship that downward-spirals to absurdly depraved places. Flynn's sharp sense of humor, of-the-moment zeitgeistiness, and pop-culture obsessiveness are all there on screen - and so this is a Fincher film that feel like few others in the director's cannon. And that makes it a bit of a tough nut to crack. The impulse at the outset is to view the film's central mystery with the same sort of grim seriousness as, say, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. But soon enough, the unraveling layers reveal a story less grim and more fun - a story that becomes increasingly crazy and satirical as it goes. Though the film is lengthy, it remains consistently engrossing. Each new twist of the knife is delivered with cool, unflinching style from Fincher and team - but also with the keen sense of a self-aware airport-thriller page-turner. All that is lacking is a feeling of psychological completeness. As the central couple, Nick and Amy, unravel, they begin to feel less like real people and more like characters in a primetime soap. Fitting, in a story all about the ways we spin our lives into deceptive narratives. But not 100% satisfying as we, the viewers, attempt to understand what goes on inside the heads of Nick and Amy. Still, the film begins and ends with narration wondering just that - and so too are we left to wonder just what these characters are thinking as they manipulate each other in increasingly extravagant fashion. What goes on behind closed doors in all of the crazy, mixed-up tabloid-fodder relationships that consume our pop-culture news-feeds? It's a fascinating thought-exercise, and you can't help but admire a film that raises so many interesting questions about the couples that fuel these types of stories. As crazy and unreal as Nick and Amy seem, every day we're surrounded by real-life stories that echo this seemingly-over-the-top fictional one.

GONE GIRL gets a lot of mileage from playing with perspective and unreliable narrators. When we meet Nick and Amy, it feels like we're being set-up for a somewhat conventional troubled-marriage scenario. Amy's diary entries spin the narrative one way, and Nick's frustrated venting to his twin sister spins things another way. But what Fincher and Flynn do rather brilliantly is to hint that all is not as it seems. The film zig-zags through time, methodically allowing us to put the puzzle pieces together. But from the moment we learn that, in the present, Amy's gone missing, on her five-year wedding anniversary - potentially kidnapped, or worse - we know that something is clearly off ... we're just not sure what. And so begins a very well-laid-out guessing game, trying to figure out what and who to believe, even as we strain to understand the bizarre (yet disturbingly familiar) relationship between the two.

Rosamund Pike, as Amy Dunne, is the clear breakout here. In last year's Jack Reacher, she was a standout, perfectly tailoring her performance to that film's pulpy tone. She pulls of a similar feat in GONE GIRL, except that the role of Amy evolves into something much more complex and layered. The Amy we think we know at the start of the film is not the Amy we come to know by its end - and in between, there are several different iterations of the character - masks worn by Amy to deal with different people in her life. Pike keeps us guessing as Amy, but in between the character's soapier and more melodramatic moments, there are also moments of real pain, anguish, rage, and despair. Of particular note are some of the scenes late in the film between Amy and a scorned-but-still smitten would-be lover, Desi, played by Neil Patrick Harris. At this point, we know more about the true Amy, but still, seeing her interactions with Desi proves shocking. It helps that Harris does a fantastic job of portraying the character as a delusional and needy obsessive, oblivious to the fact that he's being played.

Ben Affleck is also quite good as Nick. The actor is a natural to play the part - in particular, he brings the real-life meta element of being a tabloid star whose troubled romances have made headlines. But Affleck's dude-bro affability is a match for Nick's similarly affable, bordering-on-glib personality. And Affleck does a good job - similar to Pike - of letting real moments of rage and frustration peak through the facade of camera-ready chillness that Nick projects. Indeed, there is something "off" about Nick from the start, and Affleck skillfully keeps us guessing. That said, the enigma of Nick is perhaps the most troubling part of GONE GIRL. Whereas Amy's true self is revealed to us in grand, so-that's-what's-really-going-on fashion, Nick remains a bit of a mystery. It's hard to say too much without spoiling the plot, so I'll just say ... I was left just a bit wanting with regards to Nick. For a good portion of the film, I got him. But by the film's finale, I was just a bit baffled at where he ended up. My issue is that Flynn and Fincher seem to operate with a definite - and admittedly attention-grabbing - ending in mind for this story. But only one character's journey to that endpoint - Amy's - feels entirely plausible within the (very heightened) reality of the film.

The film is filled with some really great and notable performances, aside from its two main leads. I already mentioned Neil Patrick Harris, but another standout is Kim Dickens, as the dogged detective tasked with investigating Amy's disappearance. In a film rife with morally-compromised characters, Dickens plays one of two who is interesting for her relative dedication to truth and justice. The other positively-portrayed character is Margo, Nick's sister - played wonderfully by Carrie Coon. Margo's journey parallels that of the viewer. At first, she is a sympathetic ear to Nick, as he complains about his Type A wife. Then, she is a staunch defender of her brother, as accusations circle him following Amy's disappearance. However, her faith is shaken as more ugly truths about Nick's character come to light. It's a great performance from Coon that really helps to ground the film to an extent. Tyler Perry is also quite good as media-friendly celebrity lawyer Tanner Bolt (great character name), who takes on Nick's case and helps try to turn the media circus around Amy's disappearance in Nick's favor.

The cast is good, though some characters do seem a bit underdeveloped. In particular, I was curious to better understand Amy's parents. They are portrayed as rather frigid one-percenters, but there is clearly something more to them that isn't quite fully explored in the film. One of the story's most intriguing elements is Amy's status as "Amazing Amy," the real-life inspiration for a series of children's books written by her mother. Clearly, growing up in parallel to the fictional Amy did some damage to the psyche of the maybe-not-as-"amazing" actual Amy. But the parents seem wholly oblivious when it comes to the awkward position they've put their daughter in.

Still, the movie does a good job of drawing the parallels between Amy having been forced to play the part of "Amazing Amy" as a child, and her adult self's ability to play other parts to fit other needs. Here is where Flynn's sharp writing really crackles - in Amy's embittered interior monologues about needing to play the part of the "cool girl" for Nick and other guys like him, about having to be, in essence, a woman that only really exists in pop-culture-infused male fantasy. But what is GONE GIRL saying about the battle of the sexes, if anything? With so much of the film about he-said, she-said, and about how Nick and Amy's stories are perceived by their friends, family, the media, and the public, it's easy to make the movie into one giant think-piece about men, women, feminism, misogyny. Nick is a jerk, in his own way - no question. But I think the story is less about Nick's individual flaws than it is about the flaws of Nick and Amy's relationship. The film seems to say that in a me-centric world, the reality of a relationship becomes less important than the way that it helps tell a story to the outside world. The relationship becomes less about love and more about securing a personal "win." For many, marriage is the ultimate Facebook status update, the ultimate life promotion, the ultimate status symbol. But viewing things in those terms has an undeniable dark side, and that to me is what GONE GIRL is really about - ensuring that our own personal story is perceived as one of triumph, no matter the actual truth or cost to ourselves or others. This is, and long has been, the guiding principal for any number of celebrity couples - think the Kennedys, the Clintons - but in an age of social media broadcasting, it also becomes the way in which all of us, to an extent, lead our lives.

And so GONE GIRL becomes the ultimate bad date movie - a sordid look at the modern relationship that, in its own way, is as much about the darkness within as Fight Club or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, as as much about who we are today as The Social Network. Like I said, I do think that the movie misses the mark just a bit when it comes to giving us a clear view of what makes some of these characters - in particular Affleck's Nick - tick. But the achievement here is that it takes the framework of a trashy thriller and makes it about something more. Pike kills it as Amy. And David Fincher delivers another must-see.

My Grade: A-

Hunting For Goodwill When Ben Affleck Is Batman

So ... BEN AFFLECK IS BATMAN?!

- The internets collectively exploded late yesterday, as news broke that Warner Bros. had cast none other than Ben Affleck as Batman in the new Batman vs. Superman movie. There was shock. There was disbelief. There was nerdrage. 

I'll say for the record: I don't like this casting. But let's look at this point by point here:

"But Ben Affleck was Daredevil, and Daredevil sucked!"

- You know what, I don't even care about this. Daredevil was pretty bad, but the casting in it was basically fine. I blame this movie's general mediocrity on the script and director and the studio. Plus, I don't even think Daredevil was *that* bad. 

"Ben Affleck is actually a great actor. Just watch him in __________!"

- Guys, Ben Affleck is a pretty good actor, in certain types of roles. But a great one? Not convinced. Here's the thing: Ben Affleck does a couple of things quite well. For one, he's good and actually underrated at comedy, in my opinion. I actually was a big Affleck fan back in the day through Kevin Smith movies alone. More so, he excels when playing variations on the "regular guy" trope. In his best dramatic movies: Good Will Hunting, The Town, Hollywoodland - he is a variation on the regular-Joe, local-kid archetype. In Hollywoodland, he plays a celebrity who is essentially a guy overwhelmed by his abnormal lifestyle and success. Even in Argo, he does well as essentially a Joe Schmo who happens to work in a pretty dangerous and crazy line of work. Think about the scene in Argo where Affleck is brought in to pitch his fake-movie idea to a room full of government officials. Affleck is the jeans-and-flannel guy in a room full of suits. Affleck is good as the jeans-and-flannel guy. Well, guess what people ...

BATMAN IS NOT A JEANS-AND-FLANNEL GUY.

Now, look at Affleck in his more "movie-star" esque roles, where he plays the action hero even though we've now learned it doesn't really suit him. Have any of those action-hero, blockbuster turns from Affleck been praiseworthy? No, not a one. It's frustrating, because Affleck really has been on a hot streak with the double-whammy of The Town and Argo. Both fantastic films that he directed, both featuring two of his best acting performances to date. These star turns show Affleck in low-key mode. He's still doing a variation on jeans-and-flannel guy, but he is able to reign himself in and perform in a more nuanced, subtle, and refined way than in his earlier career.

Those directorial efforts seemed to be the start of a new era in Ben Affleck's career. An era in which he stopped taking roles offered to him because of star-wattage alone, and instead took roles that suited him, that played to his specific strengths, that were perhaps less glamorous, but ultimately had much more merit. As a director, Affleck's been knocking it out of the park. The days of Ben Affleck: star of Pearl Harbor and Armageddon, seemed like a distant memory.

Until this. Until Batman. Let's be honest: in order to be a great Batman, BEN AFFLECK IS GOING TO HAVE TO TURN IN, LITERALLY, THE PERFORMANCE OF A LIFETIME.

Why do I say that? Because Ben Affleck is not, naturally, Batman. Batman is tough, gritty, grizzled, and full of pain, rage, and angst. He's a badass. He thrives on fear and pain. He is, always, the smartest man in the room. He's a genius, a scientist, a detective, and a hero. Does that sound like Ben Affleck? Does that sound remotely in the vicinity of any role that Affleck has ever (successfully) played? 

For Batman, you need someone who has that darkness and rage and slight bit of madness in their eyes. Bale had it. Michael Keaton had it. Hell, Kevin Conroy's voice has everything you need to know about Batman in its inflection alone. But Affleck? Affleck is the 'bro next door. Even at his most grizzled and gritty, in, say, The Town, he's still a 'bro, jeans-n'-flannel (or in that movie's case, track-suit). 

Let's talk about Michael Keaton for a second. His name is being tossed around a lot as justification to use a wait-and-see approach. Sorry, but no. Keaton's casting was out-of-the-box, but it was also oddly appropriate. Keaton was a comic actor who had a certain undeniable darkness in his performances, and a Batman-esque madness in his eyes. He was weird. And Tim Burton's Batman was a weird and gothic movie that needed an appropriately offbeat lead. Keaton worked. 

In some ways, Affleck is a natural to play a superhero. He's a big dude with a square jaw. He might even make sense in, say, the Marvel-verse, where so many characters are regular joes who happen to have extraordinary powers. He'd fit in well with guys like Mark Ruffallo and RDJ, cracking wise and smirking and snarking his way through a world-conquering threat. But Batman is anything BUT a regular joe. And that's why you need someone to play him who's slightly off, slightly menacing, just a little bit dangerous. Is Ben Affleck any of those things? Not really. And is he enough of a chamelion-like actor that he could believably *become* those things? Not that I'm aware of. Like I said, he will literally have to put in the performance of a lifetime - and go to places and depths (physically, mentally, emotionally) that we've never seen from him yet on-screen - to pull it off.

Some reports indicate that Warners was intent on casting Batman with an eye towards someone with a Robert Downey Jr.-esque cult of personality. But why? Iron Man was a second-tier property that needed an injection of star-power and charisma to take-off, and RDJ was the perfect fit. He basically was Tony Stark. It was a match made in heaven. In contrast, if ANY movie sells itself, it's Batman Vs. Superman. So why the need to cast a marquee "name" ...? 

On that ... let's look at this in comparison to other divisive comic book casting. When Michael Keaton was cast as Batman, there was absolutely no element of box-office draw to that decision. The draw was Jack Nicholson as The Joker. Keaton was a left-field pick, but at the least you could assume that Tim Burton saw something in him that convinced him this was the way to go for his vision. When Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker in The Dark Knight, yes, he was a draw for the female audience, and he had a following. But this was a quasi-teen idol cast as a make-up covered homicidal villain. There was certainly no element of "safe" about that choice. Again, you had to believe that Christopher Nolan saw something unique in Ledger - and as it turned out, Ledger nailed it. Chris Evans as Captain America is the other one that felt really left-field to me. But Evans was not a big enough star to make his casting a purely box-office-driven decision. Again, you had to think that Marvel screen-tested him and saw something special. And again, they were right, and Marvel's track record in casting remains pretty damn good. They've earned our trust.

But WB and DC ... who knows what's going on there. They struck gold, I think, in Henry Cavill as Superman. In fact, the whole of MAN OF STEEL was seemingly perfectly-cast. Whatever reservations you might have had about the film, you've got to cop to that. But this Affleck casting reeks of a purely corporate-driven decision. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Chris Nolan and Zack Snyder have a Ben Affleck screen-test that's mind-blowingly awesome. I hope that this is, somehow, a role that Affleck will play by reaching deep down and showing us something we never thought we'd get from him. But the first instinct is naturally to be cynical, and look at how this house has been out-of-order for a long time now.

And why not be cynical? Already, sites like Deadline are waxing about what a brilliant business move this was for WB. Affleck's casting generates buzz, ropes in the tabloid-crowd who might not ordinarily see the film, and hey, all those dorky fanboys are just going to see the movie anyways, right? The abundance of these types of editorials make me even more cynical. As often happens, creative concerns are intermixed and confused with discussion about box-office potential. But a casting decision made primarily for box office is a cynical one, and cynical decisions often lead to underwhelming movies. Again - look at Marvel as Exhibit A of smart casting in which the name on the marquee was never more important than the CHARACTER. And they've done pretty okay, I think.

I'm a DC fanboy to the core. I'll defend MAN OF STEEL until I'm blue in the face. And I want nothing more than for Batman Vs. Superman to kick ass. But so much of what's going on right now feels utterly reactionary and short-sighted. I wonder if Zack Snyder is upset about this. I mean, Snyder seems to have an eye for good casting. Look at Man of Steel. In 300, he gave Gerard Butler a break-out role (and man, HE could have been a good Batman) and Lena Heady as well. In Sucker Punch - even if you hate it, how could you not love the casting of Emily Browning, Abby Cornish, etc? Watchmen even had some really interesting casting, a lot of it out-of-the-box - a lot of risks that, mostly, I think, paid-off (Jackie Earl Haley, anyone?). Snyder, if nothing else, knows badass. And so you've got to wonder about his reaction here. And that of Nolan, whose casting of the great Christian Bale helped wipe away horrible memories of the Val Kilmer and George Clooney years. Was Bale perfect as Batman? No, but man, he was pretty damn good. I never did like his Batman voice. But Bale pulled off the emotional and psychological beats of those films to perfection. Bale is exactly the sort of actor you want as Batman.

And that's the capper ... even if, IF, Affleck shows us psychological range that he's never-before displayed on-screen ... he'll still be Ben Affleck. And again, I like Ben Affleck. But the voice, the look, the smirk, the demeanor, the persona ... every bit of him screams "chill dude to have a beer with," and not " tortured soul / relentless genius / guy who scares the crap out of you."

We shall see.

And what kills me is that somewhere out there is some up-and-coming actor who was basically born to play Batman. 

So yeah, what only a few weeks ago seemed like a can't-miss movie event now feels like a potential disaster-in-the-making. I hope I'm wrong. But yeah, we shall see.

OSCAR 2013 - Pre-Show Thoughts & Predictions & Rants

"Why yes, that Anne Hathaway was quite good. But Daniel Day Lewis, now there's a *real* actor. Also, Kathryn Bigelow was snubbed. Oh, and why didn't Spielberg put any vampires into his movie about me?" - Abraham Lincoln

2013 OSCAR PRE-SHOW THOUGHTS AND PREDICTIONS:

- Well, it's once again almost Oscar time, and as usual all anyone can talk about is the politics behind the awards, rather than the actual merit of the films, actors, and directors that are nominated. Personally, I found this year's nominees an odd mix of deserving talent peppered with some truly jaw-dropping omissions. The reason I say jaw-dropping is that you would think that Kathryn Bigelow getting a Best Director nomination, for example, would be a no-brainer - not just as a movie fan, but also if you're going by the Academy's usual tendencies. Sure, last year, many of my favorite films like Drive and Young Adult were snubbed altogether from the Oscar race. But that, at least, was somewhat expected (and it was similarly but sadly expected that some of 2012's most incredible movies - like CLOUD ATLAS - would get excluded). But this year, the Oscars don't even necessarily seem to follow any sort of internal logic. Zero Dark Thirty up for Best Picture, but no Bigelow for Best Director (despite the film's incredible direction)? Okay ...

Again, it comes down more to politics and cult of personality - in terms of nominations, winners, and in the public discourse. Example #1: Ben Affleck. Look, Argo was a fantastic film, and Ben Affleck's transition from actor-in-bad-movies to director-of-awesome-movies has been really cool to watch. But is it reasonable to say that there were at least five other films in 2012 that were better-directed than Argo? Yes, very reasonable in my estimation. Is it also reasonable to say that there were several films in 2012 that were, overall, even better and more impactful than Argo? Yes, also reasonable. So, people, stop talking about Ben Affleck. The man will get his due in due time.

Of course, there are many great films and great performances that I would have loved to have seen recognized at this year's Oscars. To that end ...

MY TOP 15 SNUBBED OSCAR PICKS:

1.) Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director (Zero Dark Thirty)
2.) Moonrise Kingdom for Best Picture
3.) Wes Anderson for Best Director (Moonrise Kingdom)
4.) Quentin Tarantino for Best Director (Django Unchained)
5.) Dwight Henry for Best Supporting Actor (Beasts of the Southern Wild)
6.) Frank Langella for Best Actor (Robot & Frank)
7.) Jim Broadbent for Best Supporting Actor (Cloud Atlas)
8.) Tom Tywer, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski for Best Director (Cloud Atlas)
9.) Doona Bae for Best Supporting Actress (Cloud Atlas)
10.) Safety Not Guaranteed for Best Picture or Best Original Screenplay
11.) Rian Johnson for Best Director (Looper)
12.) Liam Neeson for Best Actor (The Grey)
13.) The Grey for Best Picture
14.) Jason Clarke for Best Supporting Actor (Zero Dark Thirty)
15.) Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio for Best Supporting Actor (Django Unchained)

No doubt, many of the Academy's picks this year are "safe." Even a movie like Zero Dark Thirty, which in past years would be a shoe-in, may end up getting penalized for the political controversy surrounding it. And of course, despite efforts to make the Oscars feel a little younger and fresher, with indie picks like the very-much-deserving Beasts of the Southern Wild, there is still a pretty wide gulf between what is and isn't considered an "Oscar movie." Suffice it to say, the big exclusion this year in that regard was clearly Moonrise Kingdom - one of Wes Anderson's best-ever. But several other notable indies with quirky sensibilities - Safety Not Guaranteed and Robot & Frank, for example, were also left off the list completely. So too goes it for 2012's big action flicks that were deserving of consideration. Movies like The Avengers, The Grey, and The Raid: Redemption were all pulpy and over-the-top in their own way, sure - but all were also absolutely impeccably-made and deserving of awards consideration (The Grey, in particular, was really overlooked by critics in general - it's a future cult classic, no question). Similar sentiments could be shared about the superlative Cloud Atlas. It's a big, epic, sweeping, emotionally-charged movie - with Oscar-friendly actors like Tom Hanks and Halle Barry and Jim Broadbent. But I suppose that the future-shock sensibilities of the Wachowskis are still a bit too much for most people (especially when removed from the confines of hard sci-fi a la The Matrix), most especially Oscar voters. I know that opinion was divided on Cloud Atlas, but man, to me it was the year's most epic cinematic tour de force.


With all that said ... that still doesn't make it cool to hate on great films just because they *were* showered with golden Oscar love (hmm, that sounded wrong -- oh well). Chief example - LINCOLN. Okay, so perhaps Spielberg flubbed the ending a little bit, but still - this was a phenomenal film, and certainly one of the year's most towering cinematic achievements. I'll be very happy for actor-supreme Daniel Day Lewis should he win Best Actor, and for living legend Spielberg if he were to win for Best Director. Honestly, after the disappointing War Horse, Lincoln was a great return to form for him. Silver Linings Playbook is another one that certain people have been hating on. I'll defend the movie to anyone - it's just a fantastic film, and it's got everything - amazing lead performances, knockout direction from David O. Russell ... And trust me, it's such a well-done, fell-good movie - part of me really *wants* to hate on it, just because. But again, forget the cult of personality stuff, forget misgivings about anything labeled as a romantic comedy, and just watch the movie with an open mind. I did, and I loved it. Has part of me loved it not-as-much after it seemed to inspire hundreds of annoying Facebook posts stating stuff to the effect of "ZOMG NEW FAV MOVIE EVS!". Yes. Ugh. Please, go away. And was Jackie Weaver's part really substantial enough to deserve an Oscar nom? Probably not. But my point is: don't hate on Lincoln just because it seems ready-made for Oscar love, don't hate on Silver Linings just because you find Bradley Cooper annoying from making the godawful Hangover movies (it's a hurdle to get over, I know), and hey, don't even hate on Amour because you haven't seen it yet and/or the idea of a movie about two old people slowly dying makes you want to run and hide and cry.

So here we go, here are my picks:

DANNY'S OSCAR PICKS 2013:

BEST PICTURE

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Will Win: Argo

- This one annoys me, because I feel like an Argo win is going to have more to do with politics than anything else. No question in my mind: Zero Dark Thirty was the better film of the two. Whereas Argo simplified its story by packaging it as a Hollywood-style thriller, Zero Dark Thirty had zero pandering - it was challenging, smart, and thematically ambitious. But Argo is a story about how Hollywood saved the world. Therefore, there's probably no beating it.

BEST ACTOR

Should Win: Daniel Day Lewis
Will Win: Daniel Day Lewis

- There are few things that movie fans of all stripes can agree on, but one of them is this: Daniel Day Lewis is a beast. The man can do no wrong, and when he's got a role this good, this iconic, this well-written (kudos, Tony Kushner) ... there's no stopping him.

BEST ACTRESS

Should Win: Jessica Chastain
Will Win: Jessica Lawrence

- I'm actually a huge fan of both Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty and of Lawrence in Sliver Linings. Personally, I give the slight edge to Chastain, because her role in that film was subtler, more nuanced, and ultimately more powerful and iconic. But Lawrence was also fantastic - both very funny and very fearless - and she'll probably be rewarded for it. This was one of those "I just made America fall in love with me" roles - and Lawrence's real-life lovability probably also doesn't hurt her chances.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Should Win: Tommy Lee Jones
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones

- TLJ was just a firecracker in Lincoln, and it's one of those incredible roles that quite simply brings the house down. It was a reminder of why Tommy Lee is such a damn fine actor - I mean, he steals the show in a movie that's basically bursting at the seams with A-level actors. My only regret is that this award will come at the expense of the always-awesome Christoph Waltz. But the weird thing about his role in Django is that it's really the lead role. Same goes for Philip Seymour-Hoffman in The Master (and that movie's mixed reactions will hurt it - justifiably so in my opinion - despite its two incredible lead performances)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Should Win: Anne Hathaway
Will Win: Anne Hathaway

- Hmm ... I don't really like the nominees in this category, which is quite weak this year overall. That said, Anne Hathaway unquestionably tore the house down in her part in Les Mis. But my feelings about the film as a whole were very mixed, and it makes you wonder about how Oscar votes should be considered. It's like picking the NBA MVP ... can you really give it to the player with the best points-per-game average if his team has a losing record? Not really. So, personally, I don't like giving Hathaway a prize if the film as a whole was only okay (though, somehow, it's nominated for Best Picture). But Hathaway will win, and unfortunately, there are no other nominees who make a strong enough of a case to knock her out.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Should Win: Frankenweenie
Will Win: Wreck-It Ralph

- Man ... Frankenweenie was one of my favorite films of 2012, and in my opinion one of the most unfairly overlooked. People have apparently so soured on Tim Burton that they decided not to pay attention to a film that was a true return-to-form for him. No question in my mind, Frankenweenie should win. But what movie did Oscar voters' kids and grandkids love most this year? No question on that one either - Wreck-It Ralph FTW.

BEST DIRECTOR

Should Win: toss-up
Will Win: David O. Russell

- This is easily the hardest major category to call and in which to pick a favorite. Spielberg may be the favorite in some respects, but Lincoln is also not really a director showpiece (it's an actor showpiece). Spielberg could still win, but I think ultimately David O. Russell will take it for the way he skillfully framed Silver Linings Playbook, to get the most out of his actors, and to really take the audience on an emotional roller-coaster ride. I also really like Ang Lee's work on Life of Pi. But I wonder if some of the more controversial creative choices he made on the film (the sometimes-awkward framing device, for example) will hurt him. And ... I also give incredible props to Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild. In some ways he might be my personal pick here for what he accomplished on a low budget and with a cast of mostly untrained actors. The whole category feels off without Kathryn Bigelow though - she was my clear #1 pick as Best Director of 2012 ... how is she not here? But ultimately, Russell, I think, takes it (and if he does, I expect a huge backlash from film geeks, to whom I say in advance "stay calm").

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Will Win: Zero Dark Thirty

- I have a feeling that ZDT will win this category as a sort of "we really did love ya', but hey, our hands were tied" sort of make-up prize. It also helps that writer Mark Boal has a great reputation, and is known as the rare screenwriter who does true journalistic-style research while crafting his scripts. I will say, this is a loaded category. Tarantino and Wes Anderson are two heavyweights and personal favorites, and would be more-than-deserving winners.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Lincoln

- Lincoln had a phenomenal screenplay, packed with memorable moments and quotable lines. Tony Kushner nearly topped his previous collaboration with Spielberg, Munich, and delivered a definitive account of Lincoln's presidency and the passage of the 13th amendment.

BEST FOREIGN FILM

Should Win: no opinion
Will Win: Amour

- Amour - also nominated for Best Picture, making it a seeming shoe-in for this award. Have also heard great things about films like Kon-Tiki, but seems like Amour's got this one locked.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Les Mis

- To me, Life of Pi was the most visually-beautiful film of the year. But Oscar loves a period piece, and Les Mis is likely this year's winner in many of these categories.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Les Mis

- See above.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Should Win: "Skyfall"
Will Win: "Skyfall"

- Come on now, "Skyfall" is the only legit song in this category - and it's a pretty excellent song too from no less than beloved songstress Adele. Plus, it's an acknowledgement of the quite-good latest Bond flick, which many feel was snubbed from other categories.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Lincoln

- John Williams ... the man is a legend and an institution, to the point where you almost want to discount him just because, well, been-there, done-that. But let's be honest, the score for Lincoln literally gave me chills ... DURING THE TRAILER. On a sidenote though, how in the heck was Cloud Atlas not nominated here?! Whatever else you think of the film, its score was incredible. Damn you, Oscars.

BEST DOCUMENTARY

Should Win: no opinion
Will Win: Searching for Sugar Man

- Man, there are a couple of films on this list that I've been dying to see - most of all The Gatekeepers and Searching for Sugar Man, which I've heard universally great things about. It seems like this story about a long-forgotten musician who finds he has a following across the globe is the one to beat.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Should win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Life of Pi

- Life of Pi, again, looked stunning. I've got to go with it here. Skyfall is perhaps a close second, and a Skyfall win would mean a win for the great Roger Deakins, who's somehow never won an Oscar. But still, Life of Pi is my pick. I mean, come on - that flying-fish scene? Incredible.

BEST FILM EDITING

Should Win: Argo
Will Win: Argo

- Here's one where I give it up for Argo - the film was impeccably edited. The way the movie creates tension and builds up to its harrowing finale is incredible, and deserves to be rewarded (and also, for its amazing opening sequence with the raid on the U.S. embassy).

BEST MAKEUP

Should Win: The Hobbit
Will Win: Les Mis

- The Hobbit has Gandalf and Bilbo and Orcs. That, to me, makes it worthy (even if the movie does use too much CGI, in places it should have stuck to practical f/x). But Les Mis will take it.

BEST SOUND EDITING

Should Win: Argo
Will Win: Argo

- Argo wins this, and deservedly so. On a technical level, the movie is top-notch - and its mixture of real-life news footage with new footage (particularly in terms of audio) is also aces.

BEST SOUND MIXING

Should Win: Les Mis
Will Win: Les Mis

- Here's where I do give Les Mis props - the way they captured live singing and somehow made it work in the context of a film is actually a pretty amazing trick.

BEST VISUAL F/X

Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Life of Pi

- Part of me wants to give at least a shout-out to Prometheus. Script issues aside, it was one of the most visually-stunning films I've seen, well, ever. That said, Life of Pi creates a CGI tiger (as well as an entire menagerie of wild animals) that are utterly convincing. That tiger becomes not just one of the year's most impressive visual effects, but also one of the year's most compelling characters. Now that's award-worthy.

BEST SHORT FILM - ANIMATED

Should Win: Paperman
Will Win: Paperman



- There is a SIMPSONS short nominated here. The Simpsons could win Oscar gold, and hey, that would be sort of awesome. But Paperman ... I mean, it's incredible. I think it got a round of applause in the theater when I saw it. It's one of those pieces that makes you just smile and think "wow, animation kicks ass."

BEST SHORT FILM - LIVE ACTION

Should Win: ???
Will Win: Asad

BEST DOCUMENTARY - SHORT

Should Win: ???
Will Win: Redemption

- And that's it for now. Feel free to leave comments or picks of your own. Or just go watch Cloud Atlas and cry about it not getting any nominations. Or watch The Grey, and be awesome. But hey, no matter who wins or loses, just, you know, don't be mean. Because as Lincoln said ..."shall we stop this bleeding?" Yes, Mr. President ... we shall.

ARGO Is a Riveting Real-Life Thriller

ARGO Review:

- Ben Affleck has come a long way. After reinventing himself with gritty, Boston-based dramas Gone Baby, Gone and The Town, Affleck has now taken the next step towards becoming not just a legitimate filmmaker, but a great one. His latest, ARGO, is a fantastic film. It's a gripping thriller that's also funny, and even educational. This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction real life tales. But the interesting thing with the story of Argo is that it isn't just a "can you believe this really happened" sort of narrative. There's some fascinating political context here, recent history that still very much informs where we're at today with Iran and the Middle East region. Argo is an intriguing look at one of the major foreign policy challenges of the Carter administration, but it's also a rip-roaring spy story. The cast here is top-of-the-line. And again, Affleck makes it all sing. Despite its true-life trappings, ARGO zips along with the urgency and sheer entertainment value of a classic, 70's-era, big-screen thriller. This is one of the finest films of the year so far.

Argo's story is the kind of thing that you'd imagine could only be dreamed up for the movies. But this story - declassified by President Clinton in 1997 - is all too real. In 1980, Iranian revolutionaries took over the US Embassy in Tehran, holding all of the workers there hostage for a prolonged period that extended for months, as President Cater attempted to work out a solution that would result in minimal loss of life. But during the initial Iranian raid on the embassy, six American diplomats escaped the building, and eventually found refuge at the home of the Canadian ambassador to Iran. He kept them hidden in his home, even as the Iranians desperately searched for them. The US needed a plan to extract them from Iran, but had to figure out a way to keep the identities of the six diplomats hidden. Enter Tony Mendez, a CIA "exfiltration" expert, who specializes in out-of-the-box escape plans. Mendez devises a plan to get the Six out of Iran by having them pose as a film crew. Mendez reaches out to contacts in Hollywood, including a major producer, and the special f/x guy behind the Planet of the Apes films. They get a hold of an unproduced sci-fi screenplay called Argo, and go to every effort to make it seem like this movie - a cheesy Star Wars ripoff - is actually going to get made. Eventually, Mendez, posing as the film's producer, goes to Iran to "location scout," picking up the Six on the way and briefing them on their new, assumed identities. All the while, the Iranians are increasingly hot on their trail.

Part of what makes the film so fun is how Affleck-as-Mendez must weave between the worlds of international espionage and Hollywood. At the CIA, he's answerable to Bryan Cranston's exasperated Jack O'Donnell and O'Donnell's even more world-weary superiors. In Hollywood, he works with old-school producer Lester Siegal (Alan Arkin) and veteran makeup and f/x guy John Chambers (John Goodman). In their own way, these guys are as cagey and hardened as the higher-ups at the CIA - and the movie illustrates how the movie business can be as much about rumors, info leaks, false statements, and insider secrets as the CIA. At the same time, it's funny to see how the movies really do serve as America's most beloved export. Whereas other covers might have raised more Iranian eyebrows, the thought of a big Star Wars-esque movie shot in Iran never fails to impress even the most American-hating Iranians.

Now, from some of the description above, you can probably tell ... the cast of ARGO is phenomenal. Arkin and Goodman are always great, always scene stealers - and the same holds true here. They bring some needed levity to the film, and Arkin in particular just kills it with some of his quips. What I like though is that there is some real dimension to these characters. Sure, Arkin and Goodman play Hollywood old-hands, but you also see a gleem in their eyes as they realize they get to use their talents to serve their country in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, Cranston gets one of his meatiest film roles to date since breaking out on Breaking Bad. Mostly, he plays the part of the by-the-book good soldier, but when he has to go out on a limb to support Affleck, we get to see Cranston really let loose. As for Affleck himself ... he's quite good here. It's a somewhat understated role, but Affleck does a great job of giving the part of Mendez some nuance. The film doesn't dwell, for example, on Mendez's strained relationship with his ex-wife and young son - but what bits we do get shade Mendez's character and his motivations throughout the film. Otherwise, the cast is just filled, top-to-bottom, with fantastic players. Victor Garber, Zeljko Ivanek, Kyle Chandler, Tate Donovan, and many others all do solid work. There are cameos from the ever-reliable likes of Richard Kind and Titus Welliver. Suffice it to say, a huge part of what makes the film so successful is the cast just playing off of each other, and lending an old-school sort of feel to the film. It's an all-star cast, but no one is really competing for top-billing. Everyone chips in and makes the most of their screentime.

What's more, the film does a great job of giving us all sorts of interesting details of the CIA's unusual mission. We see the storyboards that were created to help sell the fake film (drawn by no less than Jack Kirby - the co-creator of The X-Men, the Hulk, etc. - himself!). We see how an ad for the film was taken out in Variety, and how a poster was hung up on Siegal's office wall for posterity. We see how the diplomats were explained away to the Canadian Ambassador's Iranian maid as being houseguests - but we wonder if she might suspect something. We also get some insight into the diplomats themselves. They too are fully-formed characters - each with a backstory that makes watching their own debates - on whether to trust Mendez, and on whether to go along with his escape plan - all the more riveting. Affleck skillfully covers a lot of ground here, zipping from Washington to Los Angeles to Iran. He keeps things moving at a nice clip, but he gives us all the details that flesh out the story, that make you realize all of the meticulous planning that went into this caper.

Affleck perfectly captures the vibe of the late 70's / early 80's. Not just in terms of the period details, which are spot-on, but in the way the movie itself almost feels like some lost classic of the era. The packing, the acting, the sense of intrigue and humming intensity - it brings to mind classic thrillers like All The President's Men. Still, Affleck isn't afraid to bring some of the bombast of The Town and other modern action flicks to the movie. There are some epic scenes in this one - from the initial raid on the US Embassy, which is absolutely breathtaking - to the nail-biting finale in which the six diplomats attempt their ultimate escape. Meanwhile, little touches - like Jimmy Carter giving a sort of spoken epilogue prior to the end credits, or side-by-side photos of the principle actors next to their real-life counterparts, provide a nice sense of context to the film.

What we have here is one of the year's most entertaining, well-acted, and sharpest dramas - a film that seems to perfectly encapsulate a certain era, even as it feels uber-relevant to today's headlines. With ARGO, Ben Affleck has, in my estimation, just catapulted himself into the upper-echelon of working directors, and I will now actively look forward to what he does next. Argo stands as a top-notch example of the kind of film we need more of: it's a big, fun, engaging drama that nonetheless actually says something about the way things were and the way things are. This is one of the year's best.

My Grade: A-