THE HOBBIT Proves That The Magic Is Still Strong In Peter Jackson's Middle Earth

THE HOBBIT Review:

- The Lord of the Rings books are some of my all-time favorites - I first read them as a young kid, and that experience has stayed with me ever since, and helped inform the kinds of stories I sought out and still do. I completely love the LOTR movie trilogy, and named them as my picks for Best Films of the Decade circa 2009. Over the last several years, it's been a pleasure to watch Peter Jackson become one of the most exciting and inspiring film directors of our time - a man whose passion for the material he works on is tangible in his movies, a man who is nearly the equal of Spielberg in his ability to craft set-piece action sequences, and up there with Ridley Scott in his skill at creating fully-realized, visually-dazzling fantasy worlds. And so, my anticipation for THE HOBBIT was off the charts. The long road towards production made it all the more satisfying when the film finally coalesced into a reality. When Jackson and his team assumed the reigns, after many false starts, all felt right in Middle Earth. Jackson, reunited with the likes of Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee, making The Hobbit. This is how it was supposed to be.

Somewhere along the way, however, something seemed to feel a little off about the endeavor. Sure, Jackson's trademark "making-of" videos were fantastic, chill-inducing fan service. And the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo was greeted with universal praise. But later, Jackson's decision to make The Hobbit into three films instead of one, or even two, caused a wave of negativity. If there was any one criticism of the LOTR films, it was their lack of brevity - did Jackson really need to extend The Hobbit - a book that was far  simpler and shorter than the LOTR trilogy - with that sort of elongated treatment? Then, there was the use of 48 frames-per-second in the film. This was another extremely sensitive subject. After all, who *didn't* love the gorgeous, painterly look of the original films? Most wanted new films that felt like a return to a beloved place - not something that looked completely different than what we all hold nostalgic affection for. There was a fear that 48 fps could put a black mark on the whole film.

After seeing THE HOBBIT, both of these concerns, I think, turned out to be at least partially justified. It doesn't feel like three films are wholly necessary to tell this story, especially given how much of this world is already established thanks to LOTR. The movie too often takes the focus off of Bilbo, and instead gives us any number of side stories, nostalgic tips of the hat to LOTR, and extended expository exercises. It remains to be seen how the decision for three movies ultimately pays off. But a little of what I saw here worried me, I'll admit. Meanwhile, the 48 fps technology, in my view, hugely detracted from the film's overall effectiveness. It gives the entire film an overly-glossy, smoothed-over, hyper-real look that severely undermines the beauty of the fantastic sets and costumes in the movie. There's now a stark contrast between the film's real and CGI elements, creating a "layer" effect where there's no longer the seamless blend of CGI and live-action from the original trilogy. The CGI now looks completely unreal, without the earthiness or grittiness that allowed, say, Gollum, to meld with the movie's human actors in LOTR. The filter between viewer and screen now feels essentially lifted, meaning that the suspension of disbelief is much harder. We can see where every CGI effect was inserted, where every dash of makeup was applied, where every fake beard was affixed to an actor's face. The scenes that are primarily CGI now flow with an unparalleled vividness, and the 3D is the smoothest and most seamless I've ever seen in a live-action film. But the benefits of the 48 fps by no means outweigh the costs. Suffice it to say, I kept longing during the film to see it in the same manner as I did the original trilogy.

Now I say these things to get them out of the way at the outset. The fact is, despite these issues ... I still loved THE HOBBIT.

The thing is ... the LOTR movies have always been about more than what's on the surface. There's a certain magic that Jackson and team bring to these movies that, again, is less about the length of certain scenes or the way the movie looks, and more simply about the love they have for Tolkien and Middle Earth. And while the story of The Hobbit may not be as epic or as world-shaking as LOTR, by its nature, Jackson still brings the same sense of respect and care for the source material to this one, and still makes it feel as whimsical, wondrous, and full of imagination as Fellowship, Two Towers, or Return. It's a tough challenge. As a kid, I remember reading The Hobbit, and then being astounded to find that this was just the prelude to a much more sprawling and serious epic. All the little details of Middle Earth that Tolkien sprinkled throughout the book - those were all hints of the gigantic tapestry he was crafting. So for the movies to go in the reverse order - to go from the vast and sprawling and serious epics, to the smaller-scale, more lighthearted, more kid-friendly prelude - Jackson is essentially rowing against the tide here. And yet, what he does is pretty cool when looked at in the context of the whole six-film epic that he will have eventually crafted. He's going back and reverse-engineering The Hobbit as a prelude, dropping quick glimpses of characters like Elrond and Galadriel, and hinting at a rising tide of darkness sweeping over Middle Earth. Does he lay it on too thick? Maybe. But mostly, Jackson skillfully balances nostalgic callbacks to fan-favorite characters and locations with the retroactive need to set up LOTR. Those movies are now a decade old, so it's a little jarring. It will be fascinating, though, to someday watch all the films in narrative order and see how, indeed, they end up fitting together.

Like I said, Jackson captures the magic of the LOTR films, but he also adapts to follow the more storybook-esque structure of The Hobbit. In that book, each chapter is almost like a self-contained short story - an effect of the book's origins as a series of bedtime stories told by Tolkien to his children. And I think it's important to remember that when watching the film. The movie follows a similar chapter format - many chapters lifted directly from the book ("An Unexpected Party," "Riddles in the Dark,"), and others invented for the film (an extended encounter with a group of ravenous trolls, an aside featuring the kooky wizard Radagast the Brown). So, while some may take issue with the film's structure, I enjoyed that it honored the spirit of the book in this way. My only real complaint is, again, that the movie veers too far away from telling the story from Bilbo's perspective. I mean, it goes so far as to use a framing device where Ian Holm - back as Old Bilbo - tells Elijah Wood's Frodo his tale of adventure. So when the movie goes off on extended tangents about Radagast's escapades or Thorin the Dwarf's feud with a nasty Orc warrior - it can feel a little forced.

It's hard to get too upset though when the vast majority of the film is so darn delightful. For one thing, the cast is fantastic. Ian McKellan is again an MVP as Gandalf. The man is basically a wizard - he's got the part down to a science, and wholly embodies the character in iconic fashion. When Gandalf is on-screen, you are entertained ... period. I enjoyed that the wizard we see here is a slightly more whimsical version than in LOTR. He has occasion to be serious and badass, but Gandalf's less-intense personality is emblematic of the fact that this movie takes place in a lighter, brighter age than in the original trilogy. McKellan displays that duality to perfection here. As Bilbo, Martin Freeman is also superb. It's still a little surreal to see an actor I became a fan of years ago - as Tim on The Office - playing this sort of iconic fantasy role. But the same sort of "is-this-really-happening?" impishness that made Tim a classic comedy character serves Freeman well in The Hobbit. What remains to be seen is if Freeman can muster up the sort of wide-eyed earnestness that Holmes and Wood had in LOTR. There are signs of that range here, but mostly, this is Freeman as a slightly disaffected version of Bilbo. Perfect for this opening film in the trilogy - but I'll be curious to see how the fear of death and the toll of the Ring affects Freeman's performance in the subsequent movies.

As for the band of dwarves that accompany Bilbo and Gandalf on their journey to confront the evil dragon Smaug, they are certainly a motley crew of personalities. On one hand, there aren't characters that stand out like Gimli or Legolas did in LOTR. On the other hand, the point is less that these characters stand out, and more for them to be strange and gruff and a device to show how Bilbo is suddenly getting swept up into this wider world of adventure and danger. That said, Richard Armitage is quite good as badass dwarf Thorin Oakenshield. Armitage brings a real gravitas to the role, and lends the film a bit of edge that might otherwise be missing. Obviously, there's not really an "epic hero" equivalent of Aragorn in The Hobbit, so Thorin fills the gap.

Also, even though they play minor roles, I think it's worth mentioning the sheer awesomeness of key LOTR returning players like Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee. Their scenes are brief, but man, are these guys good - iconic, all of them. It's a particular treat to see Lee here as Sauruman the White. Knowing that the actor was ailing at the time of the movie's filming, it feels fitting and proper that Jackson went to great lengths to ensure that Lee was afforded the opportunity to cameo.

I will also reiterate that Peter Jackson still has the ability to direct action like few others. Some of the set pieces in THE HOBBIT tend to be a little bit more cartoonish and slapsticky than in LOTR, but again, that's in keeping with the spirit of the book. But Jackson does big action better than just about anyone not named Spielberg. Some of the film's biggest sequences - an underground confrontation with a horde of goblins, for example - are absolutely breathtaking. Similarly, complaints about 48 fps aside, Jackson continues his tradition of making Middle Earth feel positively alive and real. Locations are rendered in stunning detail. Some are familiar - like Bilbo's quaint dwelling in Bag-End. Some are new - the Misty Mountains, for example. And all are pretty awesome. Some will complain that Jackson throws in some unnecessary stuff. But really, can you complain when that stuff includes giant rock monsters hurling rubble at one another, glimpses of the evil-in-waiting Necromancer, and/or insane battle scenes of dwarf vs. orc armageddon?

The thing is ... Jackson not only has a knack for epic action, but he also has an innate sense for how to get the smaller moments right. At the end of the day, what often made LOTR so great were the little moments of friendship, fear, hope, and inspiration that make the stories emotional quests as well as geographical journeys. Jackson again weaves many such great little moments in The Hobbit. Again, it can be a little hard to view The Hobbit as its one thing in the wake of the previous trilogy. But if you look at it serving the same sort of function as the book - as a gateway into Middle Earth, as a sort of entry point into this world, then you have to admire the sense of awe and wonder that Jackson infuses the film with. Bilbo is our gateway - the Middle Earth equivalent of your average real-earth suburban homebody. We begin with his simple life getting interrupted by an unexpected party, his home filled with dwarves and wizards. But once recruited into their ranks, Bilbo's life becomes one of adventure. And with him as our eyes and ears, we see the big, wider world that's out there. We see its wonders (Galadriel, Rivendell), and its horrors (Gollum, Orcs, Trolls, and Goblins). But through it all, there is the recurring theme that Bilbo is a man who has a greater purpose than just sitting at home by his lonesome. And this, of course, is where The Hobbit nicely dovetails back to the greatest theme of all of Tolkien's work - "even the smallest ones can change the course of the future."

In all honesty, it's nearly impossible at this juncture to have a fully-formed opinion of The Hobbit. A key aesthetic / technical decision - to present it in 48 fps - was misguided in my opinion. But ultimately, that won't affect how the film stands the test of time. Perhaps some of the over-use of CGI will (the Orc leader Azog still looked too cartoony / CGI-ish to me). But mostly, the movie is a great blend of the themes and grandeur of LOTR with the smaller and more whimsical tone of The Hobbit as written by Tolkien. And the magic of the original trilogy is still there ... In the "Riddles in the Dark" sequence, where Bilbo first encounters Gollum deep beneath the earth (Andy Serkis is, of course, exceptionally fantastic, once again, as Gollum). When the company of dwarves, assembled at Bilbo's small home, begins grimly, hauntingly chanting the song of the Misty Mountains in unison. When we get our first and final glimpse at the dragon Smaug, in a teaser of a cliffhanger that gave me the same feeling I got after first watching Fellowship of The Ring: "I want to see the next movie right now." These magical moments elevate the film, make it more than the sum of its parts.

So no, I don't know how this new trilogy will stack up when all is said and done, or how it will fill out Peter Jackson's decades-long Lord of the Rings epic both as a prelude and companion piece. What I do know is that, even with its faults, there isn't a team I'd rather see helming this massive undertaking - no other filmmakers I'd rather see bringing this story to life.

My Grade: A-

HITCHCOCK Is a Fun Tribute to a Film Icon

HITCHCOCK Review:

- Its seems as though many critics are jumping aboard the "hate-on-Hitchcock" bandwagon, and I'm not sure why. While this true-life tale of the making of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" has its flaws, it also features an incredible cast, highlighted by two fantastic performances from Anthony Hopkins as Hitch, and Helen Mirren as the iconic director's wife and creative partner, Alma. I greatly enjoyed the tone of the film - framed like a modern-day episode of Alfred Hitchcock presents. Quirky, funny, and surprisingly touching, HITCHCOCK does drag and meander at times - but at the end of the day, it won me over with its telling of an important chapter in the master director's life.

HITCHCOCK is set in 1959. At that point, Hitchcock was a living legend. He had just released North By Northwest to great acclaim, and was unquestionably the "Master of Suspense." And yet, it was becoming harder for him to take creative risks, and he was perceived as some less as a still-vibrant creative force, and more as a cartoon character. After all, he was the grimly funny host of the TV program Alfred Hitchcock Presents (back when TV was seen as a much lesser medium than film), and he was no longer the fresh young ingenue - he was now sixty years old. Hitchcock wanted to surprise audiences and challenge himself, so he took on an adaptation of the book Psycho as his next project. Now, especially for the time, Psycho was pretty hardcore. The nature of the material scared off the studios and ruffled the feathers of the censors. But Hitchcock remained adamant that Psycho would be his next film - he put up his own money to finance it, determined to prove the naysayers wrong. The film also focuses on the role that Hitch's wife Alma played on Psycho and in her husband's career in general. Alma was Hitch's secret weapon - a creative heavyweight and a talented editor, Alma was a key part of many of the director's biggest films. And she stuck with him, even though doing so undermined her own career. The film explores the strain that the collaboration put on Hitch and Alma's relationship. Hitch fixated on the shapely young starlets in his films. Alma strikes up a flirtatious friendship with writer Whitfield Cook. And so the question becomes: can Hitchcock save Psycho, his career, his reputation, and his marriage?

Anthony Hopkins is really good as Hitchcock, in my opinion. Okay, so he doesn't exactly resemble the director, even with prosthetics that perfectly mimic Hitch's iconic silhouette. But he does seem to capture the right spirit. Hitchcock was a really unique, pretty weird guy - and so in turn Hopkins' performance is very unique and a bit weird. But I think it fits. Some may say Hopkins doesn't go deep enough. Some may say he looks silly with an added neck bulge and protruding gut. But I think Hopkins' performance - a bit cartoonish, but plenty captivating - fits the tone of the film. Equally great is Helen Mirren. She makes us believe in her relationship with Hitch. It's a weird one, especially by modern standards - seemingly sexless and passionless. But Mirren makes us believe in the couple as a sweet, grandparently duo of geniuses who thrive in each other's company. But she also displays her frustration with her husband with fiery scorn and pent-up sizzle. What I love about both performances is the way in which they capture the joyfulness of creative inspiration and accomplishment. While their personal lives are a strange brew of simmering resentments and hang-ups, all is overcome by the power of shared creative spark. To quote Alanis Morisette, it's intellectual intercourse.

There is also a great lineup of supporting actors. Michael Stuhlbarg (apparently in everything now) as Hitch's loyal agent, Kurtwood Smith as the antagonistically prudish MPAA censor, and Danny Huston as Whit - the smarmy would-be suitor to Alma. Toni Colette is a lot of fun as Hitch's put-upon assistant, as is James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins, the skittish actor who portrayed Norman Bates. The movie also features a great turn from Scarlett Johansson as the remarkably well-adjusted leading lady Janet Leigh. ScarJo mixes movie-star charisma with down-home sensibility to make Leigh come off as the sanest person in the movie - very much game for all of Hitchcock's intensity and personality quirks, but not afraid to talk straight with him. Jessica Biel is also pretty good as second banana Vera Miles - Hitch's would-be leading lady who feuded with the director over his controlling nature. Overall, it's an amazing cast.

Now, where HITCHCOCK fumbles is in its use of flashes to serial killer Ed Gein, the real-life basis for Norman Bates. The movie awkwardly uses Gein as a sort of muse / nightmare for Hitch, with Hitch having visions of Gein that both terrify him and motivate him to press onward with his movie. These imaginary sequences fall a bit flat though. A lot of this is because most of the film doesn't really explore the nature of the director's fascination with the morbid and the macabre. Most of the movie isn't really about that - so these sequences feel out of place and jarring. They pose a lot of questions about Hitch's psyche that seem largely tangential to the rest of the film.

The other stumbling block here is just the rather disproportionate time spent on creating a melodramatic rift between Hitch and Alma, as opposed to showing us the really fun stuff - the making of Psycho. Don't get me wrong - I really like the relationship between the couple, and the fireworks and chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren are fantastic. But there are moments where the storyline might have worked better as a running theme more in the background of the movie - where a subtler approach might have worked better. The fact that every petty squabble between Hitch and Alma is given such melodramatic weight at times gives the movie too sitcomish of a tone. Meanwhile, the bits that reveal how Hitchcock envisioned the famous shower scene, how he cast Norman Bates, how he at first protested the iconic soundtrack but then embraced it - are all really cool and interesting, and leave you wanting more of the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Still, there are moments of sublime fun where it all works really well. I really like Sacha Gervasi. I loved his first film, the rock-doc Anvil: The Story of Anvil, and he shows signs here of potential greatness in the world of scripted features. In fact, the movie's whole third act really recovers from a mid-movie slump and delivers the goods - I was riveted as we finally see Psycho come together, as Hitch's innovative marketing ideas go into effect to make the movie's premiere an event, and as Hitch proudly watches the first audience view the film - conducting their symphony of screams from outside the theater doors.

HITCHCOCK's self-aware, playful tone may turn off some, but I found it keeping with the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock. The man is a larger-than-life icon whose presence still looms large, so I enjoyed the film as a tribute to he and Alma, and didn't mind that it didn't dive too deep into the mind of the master. This is a great showpiece for Hopkins and Mirren, and a fun treat for anyone who appreciates Hollywood history.

My Grade: B+

LIFE OF PI Is an Incredible Voyage

LIFE OF PI Review:

LIFE OF PI is a movie I've been turning over in my head for the last week since I saw it in the theater. On one level, it makes a clear, strong impression from a visual standpoint. The movie is drop-dead gorgeous, totally stunning in 3D. Some of the imagery in the film is some truly next-level $@%&. If you want to see the new standard-bearer for eye-melting storybook imagery in 3D, go see Life of Pi as soon as you're able. At the same time, what wasn't as immediately clear to me was to what extent the movie succeeded on a narrative / thematic level. I honestly was quite taken aback by some of the late-game twists in the story, and I was left with a nagging, persistent feeling of "wait, what?" after seeing the film. What did it all mean? At first, I had a somewhat negative reaction to the film's ending. I was mentally prepared for a certain kind of story, and what I got was something different. And from a purely dramatic perspective, there's no doubt that the ending of the film is a comedown from the sweeping highs of that which comes before. Don't worry, I won't spoil anything here. Suffice it to say ... after many days of rolling LIFE OF PI around in my head, I've come to the following conclusion: I give Ang Lee a lot of credit. I believe that he made some very deliberate, calculated decisions about how to present this film. And I believe that Ang Lee's creative choices here result in a film that willingly sacrifices some pure entertainment value for poignancy and philosophical depth. This is a film that will spur endless discussions, that will be shown in classrooms, that will lead to many spirited debates about truth and faith. And so I salute Ang Lee and LIFE OF PI. Not only is the film - based on the novel by Yann Martel - a visual marvel, but it also has a surprising thematic depth. While the visuals are easy to get absorbed in, the film's message and meaning prove to be a worthwhile challenge to explore.

LIFE OF PI utilizes a narrative framing device in which a Canadian writer seeks out a local legend in order to hear his story. That legend is Pi Patel, a tranquil, spiritual-seeming man of Indian origin. Pi tells the writer that his is indeed a larger-than-life tale, and that it is a story that will make the writer "believe in God." And so Pi proceeds to tell his tale. Pi begins with some anecdotes about his childhood - about his quest for spiritual insights as a boy growing up in India (he was a Hindu, Christian, and Muslim all at once), and about his early experiences living at the zoo that his father owned. Eventually, Pi's father decides to sell the zoo and its animals and emigrate to French Canada. Pi and his family board a boat that carries not just them, but all of their exotic animals - monkeys, tigers, lions, birds, and more. But when a horrible storm wrecks the ship, all hell breaks loose. Pi finds himself alone, stranded on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean - alone except for one companion, a fearsome Bengal Tiger (amusingly named Richard Parker due to a clerical mix-up), who has also found his way on to the lifeboat.

Pi's story becomes one of desperate survival, with the dual challenge of finding food and shelter, and also of living in tandem with a man-eating tiger. Ang Lee depicts these struggles with incredible dynamism, emotion, and intensity. The tiger is CGI, but after overcoming the initial uncanny-valleyness of it all, it's amazing how real Richard Parker begins to seem. Even more amazing is the acting from Suraj Sharma, as teenaged Pi aboard that boat. How he was able to channel so much emotion and genuine-seeming fear, desperation, and determination while acting opposite a CGI beast, I do not know. But he is pretty remarkable in the film. There is a real relationship between boy and beast that develops over the course of the film. Although again - that's part of Ang Lee's magic trick. The film itself posits a central question of whether the Tiger has a soul, or whether we simply superimpose our own humanity onto its primal existence. On a meta-level, the same is true for us, the audience. We imagine a real bond between Pi and Richard Parker, but is there one? And isn't the tiger just a CGI creation anyways? The movie is constantly using its story as metaphor - leaving us to wonder about what is real, and what is illusion.

On the visuals ... Wow. The 3D pops in ways that most live-action movies haven't. Part of that is due to the stunning, storybook-like scenes that Lee crafts. Some are serene and haunting (a nighttime encounter with a legion of glowing jellyfish), some are kinetic and terrifying (a swarm of leaping fish attacking Pi like locusts). In fact, the whole movie is in some ways incredibly intense and at times scary and disturbing in how it depicts nature as a tempestuous, chaotic, force. I know I may never look at the ocean the same way again. Seriously though, many parts of this movie made me feel genuinely uneasy - it's definitely not all rainbows and moonbeams.

I mentioned that Suraj Sharma is really excellent as the teenage Pi who we spend time with for the bulk of the film. Given how much of the movie he has to carry, it's some really admirable acting, that I think merits consideration come awards season. I also really liked Irrfan Khan as the older, adult Pi. In the framing sequences, he exudes an enlightened calmness that helps add perspective and context to the story. Plus, Khan is just a great storyteller, and the story of Pi's oceanic adventure is all the more captivating as framed by his older self's narration.

The biggest point of contention on the film will be how the framing device is used, and, in particular, the film's ending. Again, won't spoil anything here. But I will say that I still wonder if the final ten minutes or so of the film could have been told in a more dynamic manner. Like I said, after all of the visual marvels we have seen over the course of the film, the decision to have the last ten minutes play out in such a bland, almost boring manner seems odd. Of course, it's a calculated move by Lee - a way to make a meta-point about the nature of the film's narrative. But still ... you have to wonder if the point might have been made in a way that was more of an exclamation point, and less of a head-scratcher.

This has been a year of movies that have grand thematic ambitions, but never quite coalesce into anything more than a jumble of stray ideas and musings. I'm thinking of movies like The Master, Killing Them Softly, and even Prometheus. But I put LIFE OF PI a leg above those films because I feel like there is just a bit more real wisdom in it for those who study and discuss the film to discover - more genuine meat to chew on. Unlike the other films I mentioned, PI didn't fade from my thoughts after a day or so. It's sticky. It's got mind-melting imagery that will be burned into your brain, as well as genuinely interesting philosophical questions at its core. I think that some of those questions come, ever-so-slightly, at the expense of narrative momentum. But I still, ultimately, found this to be a completely fascinating film - one that is genuinely unique and even risky - in its subject matter and in how it brings to life Martel's book. LIFE OF PI is one of the finest films of 2012 - a journey into nature, and a journey into the mind.

My Grade: A-

RISE OF THE GUARDIANS Is A Fun, Imaginative Adventure

RISE OF THE GUARDIANS Review:

- Imagine a pseudo-superhero team comprised of such make-believe children's icons as Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny (!), The Tooth Fairy, and The Sandman. Imagine that Santa is a badass brusier with "Naughty" and "Nice" tattooed on either arm, and that The Easter Bunny is an Aussie dude-with-a-'tude who wields a boomerang as a weapon. Those geeky enough to smile at this premise will get a kick out of RISE OF THE GUARDIANS, a new Dreamworks animated film that imagines childhood fantasy figures as earthly protectors who must guard the world's children from the likes of evil baddies like The Bogeyman. The thing is - even though the film might outwardly appear to make these beloved icons edgy or gritty, the movie is actually very sweet and whimsical. The visual style is actually very storybook-esque, rendered in gorgeously-animated CGI that looks amazing in 3D. So don't be fooled by the slightly comic bookish character designs - RISE OF THE GUARDIANS does have plenty of action and adventure, but at the end of the day it's a relatively simple, kid-friendly tale about belief and imagination.

The film's protagonist is Jack Frost - a supernatural entity who wields the power of ice, wind, and cold. The movie's mythology establishes that the world is filled with these super-powered wonders - each made into what they are by the mysterious Man in the Moon. These beings are invisible to the average person, but can be seen by kids if enough children believe in them. Jack Frost, sadly, is totally invisible - despite the fact that he loves nothing more than helping and having fun with kids (unbeknownst to the kids, him being invisible and all). He starts snowball fights, crafts cool ice-patterns ... he even causes Snow Days. But Jack's life takes on a new purpose when he is recruited to join The Guardians - an elite assemblage of mythical beings, dedicated to protecting the world's children from any threat of evil. As it turns out, Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, etc. need Jack to help do battle with the Bogeyman, aka Pitch Black. Pitch's scheme is to gain power by making kids believe in *him*. He'll do that by interrupting Easter, thwarting the Tooth Fairy and her army of sprites' nightly visits to kids, turning the Sandman's dreams into nightmares, etc. In Jack, Pitch sees a sort of kindred spirit - a fellow "invisible" who kids laugh off as imaginary.

When GUARDIANS gets overly talky and expository, it can drag a bit. And some of the dialogue is a bit overly-emo - the kind of stuff you might see in a Super Nintendo-era Japanese role playing game. But when the film relies on imagery to tell its story, it can be flat-out eye-melting. Some of the fantasy worlds shown here - Santa's workshop, the Tooth Fairy's fairy kingdom ... are rendered with the utmost detail and imagination and sense of wonder. Guillermo del Toro is listed as a producer on the film, and you can see his creative influence in how well-realized the various fantasy-lands are. Even when we only glimpse them briefly, they feel fully-formed and alive. The character design is a little garish in some cases (Santa, the Easter Bunny), but I actually really liked the look of the film overall - Jack, The Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman are all really cool-looking, as is Pitch. And there are lots of fun touches that make the characters feel unique - the choice to have the Sandman be mute, expressing his thoughts with sand-constructs, is pretty interesting and fun.

But Santa is still a highlight of the film, because Alec Baldwin voices him in such a fun manner - giving him a boisterous, Russian-accented voice that really sells the character and makes him likable. Same goes for Hugh Jackman as the Easter Bunny - he wins you over by selling the character 100%. Isla Fischer is chirpy and sweet as the fast-talking Tooth Fairy - and again, she makes what could have been a lame/cheesy character feel likable and interesting. As Pitch, Jude Law amps up the sinister-factor and does some classic badguy voicework. Finally, Chris Pine is very good as Jack Frost. I was actually surprised that it was Pine voicing him, as Jack is a far cry from the tough, confident characters that the actor is known for. While Jack has a lot of the movie's most cringe-worthy "oh woe is me, what is my meaning in life?" dialogue, Pine makes sure that Jack ultimately comes off as more empathetic than whiny.

Again, the visuals in the movie are often pretty awesome. Soaring flying scenes, spectacular fantasy landscapes, kinetic battle scenes, and artistic, evocative imagery make this one of the prettiest animated films I've seen in some time. There is a level of detail in the animation that's pretty remarkable, and I also found the action to be incredibly well-choreographed ... resulting in some fairly epic confrontations between good and evil.

I guess I will mention though ... that these sorts of movies always make me wonder, just a bit, about the message they are sending to kids. A major theme of the movie is that the kids' belief in the Guardians is what gives them power, with Pitch's evil plan revolving around discrediting the Guardians so that the kids no longer believe. Now, I am all for kids having imagination and wonder in their lives. But I always get prickly when a movie preaches that *all* kids should, of course, believe Christian symbols like Santa and The Easter Bunny - and for them to not believe represents a worrisome loss of childhood innocence. Anyways, it's just a pet peeve when movies present Christianity as a universal mono-religion when we all know it isn't (and tellingly, the scenes that show Santa hopping around the globe show him specifically in countries like England - we never see the Guardians in, say, India).

All that aside, I really liked RISE OF THE GUARDIANS. It's a fun, visually-breathtaking film that takes mixes child-like whimsy with a slight comic-bookish edge to craft a really cool, imaginative story. I was super-impressed by the amount of world-building and care that clearly went into this one, and found myself surprised at how won over I was by the characters. This is a film that is up there with some of the best animated films of 2012.

My Grade: B+

KILLING THEM SOFTLY Is a Pitch-Black Crime Comedy With Bite

KILLING THEM SOFTLY Review:

- Andrew Dominik made one of the best movies of the last decade in the underrated Western, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The man is clearly an ultra-ambitious director with little interest in sticking to convention, and is certainly a talent worth keeping an eye on. His latest film, KILLING THEM SOFTLY - his first since Jesse James - is another genre-bending boundary-pusher. It's a pitch-black crime flick that blends the uber-violence of Scorsese, the outlandish gallows-humor-laden dialogue of Tarantino, and the surrealistic, existentialist flourishes of the Coen Bros. The result is a fascinating, ultra-intense, often darkly hilarious movie that aims high, and that occasionally lives up to the size of its ambitions. Certainly, this ain't your run-of-the-mill crime flick.

In Killing Them Softly, we see the politics of American crime juxtaposed with American national politics. Namely, set against the backdrop of the 2008 financial crisis and near-economic collapse, we see a parallel sort of  crisis playing itself out in the Boston underworld. When two low-level hoods decide to hold up a card game - whose participants include any number of the city's most prominent mob members - they inadvertently set off a chain of events that threatens to disrupt the entire local crime infrastructure. We follow the money to the top of the criminal food chain, where enforcers and hitmen are brought in in order to clean up the mess, resulting in a flurry of violence intended to reestablish the status quo and get back to business as usual.

Dominick is not subtle in how he juxtaposes the main story with the national financial crisis happening in the background. All throughout the film, we see and hear snippets of news coverage from 2008. We see George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama each weighing in on the ongoing economic firestorm. And as each talks of measures being taken to curb the problem, as we see Obama talk of hope and change, we in turn see a bleak, dark, criminal underworld that is both reflects and perverts the American Dream. Dominick takes a big gamble here - using political footage from 2008 so prominently means that he better have a damn good thematic thread that interweaves throughout the film. If he's trying to make a grand point, he better make it well. I think he only partially succeeds. I think most people will leave the movie scratching their heads, trying to connect the dots and wondering what, exactly, Dominick is trying to say here. In some cases, that's good - a work that invites discussion and open-interpretation can be a great thing. The problem is that KILLING THEM SOFTLY hits you over the head so hard with its juxtapositions that it seems to want to make a clear, easily-determined point. But what that point is, exactly - or what it all means - doesn't entirely register.

But ... forget about all that for a second. Because honestly, even if the political overtones don't 100% work, a lot of things in the movie do. Again, forget about the complaints above as I tell you that the real meat of the movie - the crime stuff - is mostly super-badass. There is a dark, dark intensity here that is edge-of-your-seat. And the humor - pitch-black - is great. Aided by a top-flight cast, Dominick crafts gripping heist scenes  and hilarious dialogue exchanges.

The plot of the film revolves around two career-criminal screw-ups - Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) who are convinced to attempt a risky, but potentially lucrative, scheme. The idea is that if they rob a high-powered underworld card game, no one will suspect them. Instead, they figure that the criminal higher-ups will point the finger of blame at a hood named Trattman (Ray Liotta), who tried to rob it once before. As it turns out, the robbery has numerous consequences both intended and unintended. It does indeed put the hapless Trattman in the hot-seat, but it also disrupts the regular card game now that the participants are afraid that they could be robbed at gunpoint at any time. The dissolution of the game, of course, creates a major financial vacuum in the criminal world. And so Jackie Cogan (Bradd Pitt) - a cool, collected, utterly ruthless mob enforcer, is brought in to straighten things out. Taking orders from a mysterious, well-dressed mob-lawyer (Richard Jenkins), Cogan recruits his best heavy - Mickey (James Gandolfini) to kill who needs to be killed and make sure that the money is once again flowing.

Let me talk for a second about the card game robbery that sets the movie's plot in motion. Wow - what a sequence. Mixing comedy (Frankie and Russell have yellow dishwashing gloves instead of regular gloves) and uber-intensity (any one of the heavy-hitters at the card table could whip out a gun at any moment and plug the two mooks), the whole robbery sequence pulses with the constant threat of danger. It's a bravura bit of filmmaking. Elsewhere, Killing Them Softly has some of the most darkly humorous exchanges I've ever seen on film. Frankie and Russell have a great dumb-and-dumber dynamic, and their dimwitted, drug-addled conversations are fantastic and funny. Same goes for just about every scene involving James Gandolfini's unstable hitman Mickey - a guy who sheds no tears over killing a man but who keeps getting broken up over the poor state of his marriage. He drowns his sorrows in an ocean of drinking, prostitutes, and lethargy ... which leads to a great contrast with Pitt's on-point, uber-cool Jackie. Pitt also has a great chemistry with Richard Jenkins - with Pitt's ear-to-the-street know-how coming up against Jenkins' ear-to-the-big-bosses bureaucratic bookkeeping. The various dialogue exchanges have a Tarantino-esque sizzle to them, and are consistently entertaining and clever - and often, as mentioned, really freakin' funny.

And the cast is basically perfect for this sort of thing. McNairy and Mendelsohn have an awesome comedic chemistry. Pitt's role isn't that different from others he's played, but we all know that Pitt is at his best when he's playing someone who's at least a little bit nuts. And Jackie Cogan - thought cool as a cucumber on the outside - is definitely at least a little bit nuts. He's a guy who will act all buddy-buddy before blowing your brains out, who will talk casually about beating the crap out of a guy the same as he would about running an errand. Ray Liotta gives Trattman a starry-eyed charm that makes it that much more hard-to-watch when he's set up to be the mob's fall guy for the robbery. A great turn from the crime flick veteran. Gandolfini is awesome here. He puts 110% into the role of Mickey, it's one of those acting jobs where the actor goes all-in, making every lip-curl, finger-point, and labored breath a part of the character. Jenkins - playing a character in some ways similar to the one he portrayed in Cabin in the Woods, is also reliably excellent.

Dominick lends most of the film a straightforward intensity, but he also tries for a number of artistic flourishes (in addition to the political excerpts). Some work very well (a slo-mo scene of Pitt gunning down a victim on the road), others seem like too much and go on for too long (an attempt to embellish Frankie and Russell's drugged-up conversation with lots of trippy fade-outs becomes more annoying than novel). But Dominick displays a lot of raw talent and exciting ingenuity here. It's clear the guy's legit - you just wonder if he is trying to do too much with a story that's essentially a pretty straightforward crime yarn.

And that's why KILLING THEM SOFTLY is so fascinating, and a movie that is well worth checking out despite its flaws. If left to its own devices, the story of Jackie Cogan and the darkly-absurd inner-workings of America's criminal underground may have made for a compelling little film. Guys like Scorsese have taken such stories and made them multilayered American parables, without ever needing to get overtly political or on-the-nose with their broader themes. But Dominick swings for the fences, and tries to make a mini-epic out of this relatively compact and small-scale story. It could have worked ... maybe. But I don't know if he convincingly made me believe that the crime story in Killing Them Softly was somehow a microcosm of America or the financial crisis. Still, I suppose the movie does make the point that even crooks can feel the squeeze when the economy is hurting, and that there is indeed a hidden, shadowy layer to the great American economy that is co-dependent on the same institutions and rides the same ebbs and flows as any other business. Point being - the film says some interesting things, some funny things, and some pretty damn bleak things about America ... even if what it says never feels totally cohesive. But there is still a cerebral quality to the sex drugs and violence that tinges the film's nihilistic tone with a bit of thought-provoking intellectualism. It's a very interesting experiment - and we need more movies that take these kinds of swing-for-the-fences risks.

My Grade: B+

LINCOLN is a Striking, Still-Relevant Slice of American History

LINCOLN Review:

- A few years back, director Steven Spielberg and writer Tony Kushner blew me away with their tour de force work of historical fiction, Munich. Now, the two have teamed once again to craft a film that is at once a record of history, yet also vibrant, urgent, and relevant to today's world. Kushner's scripts seem to challenge Spielberg in a way that other writers don't, and have now led to two films that are two of the most unique - and in some ways un-Spielbergian - of the legendary director's career. Munich was a grim, gritty, violent thriller - lacking the boyish optimism of other Spielberg-directed films. LINCOLN has some of that trademark optimism - it's a much more classical movie, a lighter and more uplifting film. But it also feels like it might be the talkiest film of Spielberg's career - a movie that is about intense conversation, debate, and oratory much more so than it is about flashy set-pieces. And yet ... the two create soaring drama around what is essentially a political movie - a Civil War-era version of The West Wing. Aided by an all-star cast of some of the best living actors working today - including the great Daniel Day-Lewis doing incredible work as Abraham Lincoln - Spielberg crafts a near-classic that is a worthy entry in his personal cannon, and surely one of the year's absolute must-see films.

Despite what its title may imply, LINCOLN is not really a broad biopic of Abraham Lincoln, but instead a more narrow-in-scope look at Lincoln's struggle to pass the 13th amendment during the closing months of the Civil War. Feeling that a victory in war would only feel whole if accompanied by a universal end to slavery, Lincoln wages a separate war in the halls of congress to convince his fellow politicians to see it through. He does so at a time when the country was fiercely divided (sound familiar?), and in the midst of an incredibly bloody and vicious conflict. Not only that, but Lincoln himself had his own issues at home - he and his wife were still feeling the emotional damage from the death of their youngest son years earlier, even as their elder son himself wants to enlist and join the war - despite his parents' protests.

Daniel Day-Lewis is quite simply phenomenal as Lincoln. The role has some of the same period-piece showiness of his Oscar-winning role as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. But ultimately, it's less broad and more grounded - with more moments of nuance and subtlety. And yet ... this is surely an iconic portrayal. Day-Lewis just has a way with certain line readings where he can take a simple turn of phrase - "Shall we stop this bleeding?" and make it into a phrase worthy of the pop-culture lexicon. And that's to say nothing of the actor's chameleon-like ability to disappear behind a role. It's incredible. He simply *is* Abraham Lincoln here, and it's a stellar, definitive performance - one of his all-time best.

That said - wow - the lineup of great actors in this one is staggering, and many have scene-stealing moments that won't soon be forgotten. This is a stacked cast, top-to-bottom. But first and foremost, the man who people will be talking about is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens - the fiery Republican congressman who made abolishing slavery his passion. We've grown used to seeing Jones as the stoic hard-ass of late, so it's a treat to see him let loose and play a character who is prone to blustery rages and incendiary rants. While Lincoln is the measured diplomat, Stevens is the battleaxe - and there's a fantastic Obama/Biden-esque relationship between the two. Of course, Lincoln feels just as passionately about the evils of slavery as Stevens - but Lincoln knows that he has to wade through a lot of muddy water to achieve his endgame, and so his need to reign in Stevens becomes a constant challenge.

Sally Field is also quite good as Lincoln's wife Mary Todd. She has one of the more melodramatic characters in the film - Mary Todd, here, is an emotionally fragile but spirited woman, weighed down by the burden of her position, and still traumatized by the death of her son. The relationship between her and Abe helps give a broader emotional context to the film, and also emphasizes the toll that being President during such a  tumultuous period took on not just Abraham, but on his family.

Like I said, the rest of the cast is staggeringly good. It felt like all the great TV dramas had a representative in the cast, each with at least a standout moment or two. From Deadwood and films like Winter's Bone was John Hawkes. From Boardwalk Empire and A Serious Man, the great Michael Stuhlbarg - who has perhaps my favorite single moment in the movie - when his congressional swing vote proves pivotal in the 13th amendment's passage. From Fringe and Mad Men, the always-awesome Jared Harris - playing none other than battle-weary Ulysses S. Grant. Lee Pace of Pushing Daisies is in the mix. Walton Goggins, so great on Justified, makes Clay Hutchins a charismatic figure. David Costabile, Gale on Breaking Bad, is also good as an obstinate advisor. Meanwhile, Hal Holbrook is great as a wizened emissary Preston Blake, James Spader adds some comedy as one of Lincoln's lieutenants, David Strathairn is solid as the Secretary of State, and Jackie Earl Haley lends menace as a Confederate general.

Spielberg shoots the movie in dark tones that evoke the pre-electric era's dimly-lit rooms and halls. As always, he masterfully uses light and shadow to create mood. And he frames the film's various debates and conversational pieces with drama and intensity - so even though this is a small-scale movie (with, perhaps, Kushner's background as a playwright having an influence), there's rarely a lack of theatricality to the precedings. And on the few occasions where we do glimpse scenes of Civil War battles, Spielberg bombards us with quick, sensory-assault flashes of the bloody horrors taking place just beyond the boundaries of the nation's capitol.

Kushner's script, meanwhile, is filled with colorful language and fantastic dialogue exchanges. There's a poetry to the words being spoken here - and though the use of period-appropriate language can occasionally be challenging to follow, it lends an authenticity, and a gravity, to the film. Plus, you get to hear some fantastic insults (mostly hurled at the House Democrats by Thaddeus Stevens). Still, some of the film's best moments are its quieter ones. One scene in particular, in which Lincoln pauses to pontificate with some of his young staffers - relating Euclid's mathematical principals to politics - are among the movie's highlights. Of course, this isn't a cold political procedural by any means. There's a real beating heart to the film (hey, this is Spielberg, after all). We see how the passage of the amendment becomes a source of hope and a rallying cry for the African-American community, and how this is anything but a normal piece of legislation. It's a line in the sand for America, with reverberations still felt today. LINCOLN brilliantly captures what a moment this was for the American people - a bookmark in history in which the law of the land finally reflected its spirit, after decades of embarrassing and shameful inequality. To that end, there was an aura of urgency and necessity around the amendment's passage, and that is reflected in Lincon's narrative. This was a must-win not just for Lincoln's political career, but for the preservation of the American spirit and the American dream.

Is LINCOLN an ultimate-triumph, career-best movie for Spielberg? I wouldn't go that far. It's a bit draggy in sections of the first and second acts. The movie does an only-okay job of properly introducing its sprawling cast of characters, and so we end up spending too much time scratching our heads wondering "who's *that* guy again?" On that note, I wish we could have gotten a bit more insight into some of the film's potentially-interesting characters (all played by amazing actors), who seem to get very limited screen time. James Spader, John Hawkes, Walton Goggins - would have been nice for these guys to get a little bit more of a chance to shine. I also thought that the film's ending was a bit flat. The true climax of the movie is the nail-biting vote on the passage of the amendment - and so everything after that feels a little tacked-on. I guess I wanted a little bit more of an exclamation point on the film - but the wind seems to go out of its sails a bit in the last ten minutes or so. A lot of these issues may stem from the fact that, originally, this was to be a much more sprawling account of Lincoln's life and death. The part that we got is truly fascinating and great story in and of itself, but things do feel a little rough around the edges - there's still some evidence that this version of the story was sort of cut and paste from a bigger, more comprehensive version (which would probably be great fodder for an HBO miniseries).

LINCOLN is a towering movie. The performances are just thunderous, and Spielberg gives a real emotional depth to what is, on the surface, a political procedural. But Kushner and Spielberg never fail to highlight the meaning and broader significance of this moment in political history - and deftly draw striking parallels to our own era and its all-too-familiar strain of socio-political struggles. And so this story feels incredibly necessary and vital - a mirror-image of our country's past, matched with its continually turbulent and evolving present.

My Grade: A-

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Is Gold

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Review:

- I went into Silver Linings Playbook knowing very little about the film, and I came away fairly shocked by how great of a movie this turned out to be. Throw away any preconceived notions about the film based on its marketing - this is a dark comedy that definitely does not fit neatly into any one genre. There are elements of screwball and romantic comedy, shades of psychological character studies, and bits of slice-of-life quirkiness. But the sum total is an unexpected surprise - one of the year's flat-out funniest films, and also one of its most joyous and applause-worthy. There's a Little Miss Sunshine-style vibe to this one, and the  film's pleasures are felt all the more deeply thanks to the outstanding, awards-worthy cast. David O. Russell has made a great film in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. I mean, look, most people will tell you that I have a strong distaste for overly sentimental rom-coms that go for cheap melodrama. But I'll admit, I wanted to stand and cheer as this movie raced towards its well-earned climax.

Like many, I don't know why, exactly, but I've developed sort of a distaste for Bradley Cooper over the last several years. Maybe it was ill-will from the annoying Hangover franchise, maybe it was the endless string of lame starring roles of late, but I wasn't running to see a prestige flick with Cooper in the lead. After seeing Silver Linings Playbook ... scratch all that. Cooper is phenomenal in this one, playing Pat, a mentally-ill guy freshly released from the psych-ward - trying to restart his life, going back to live with his overbearing parents in small-town suburbia. As Pat, Cooper is a tightly-wound ball of chaos - speaking in an awkward, unfiltered manner that makes those around him cringe. Cooper brilliantly shows Pat in various degrees of psychosis - at times, you can see him reigning himself in and doing his best to fit in. Other times, he comes unspooled, lashing out, lacking social graces, becoming fixated and obsessed with certain things or ideas. David O. Russell's adapted screenplay of the novel by Matthew Quick gives Pat all sorts of recurring fixations - a song that drives him insane with rage whenever he hears it, for example. But Pat isn't just some crazy guy - Cooper and Russell mold him into a fully fleshed-out character that feels real and plausible, even if his particular brand of crazy isn't necessarily "real-world" crazy. But I give Cooper a ton of credit - this is easily his best screen performance ever, and it's one that casts him in a new light as a legitimately great actor capable of Oscar-worthy turns. I am now a Bradley Cooper fan.

And yet, equally awesome is Jennifer Lawrence. This girl is mind-blowing. She's been consistently fantastic in everything she's done, and yet she's played completely different characters in each of her films so far. She's certainly never played anyone like Tiffany before. Her character in this film matches Cooper's crazy pound for pound. They're two peas in a crazytown pod. But Lawrence gives Tiffany a brilliant madness all her own. Like Pat, she is a wounded soul with a lot of darkness inside her. But Lawrence plays her a vulnerable yet badass, manipulative yet gullible, totally lovable yet scarily unhinged. It would be easy for this character to come off as just the usual manic pixie dreamgirl type. But Lawrence takes the character to another level ... making her fully-formed, fully-developed, with a subtlety and a nuance that is rare for this sort of character. Point being, she's far, far from just being the stock love-interest. It's her movie as much as it is Cooper's. And in fact, this is one of my favorite performances of the year so far. How often does a character start off as weird and semi-off-putting and then make you want to stand up and cheer for her by movie's end? Lawrence has the acting ability equal to any other actress out there - yet's she's also got the movie star ability to make audiences fall in love. What I'm trying to say is: can Jennifer Lawrence just be cast in everything?

Oh, and then there's Rober De Niro. Whoah. Someone woke the slumbering giant and lit a fire under De Niro - this is the best acting from him I've seen in years. As Cooper's father, De Niro plays a guy who seems to be  the level-headed one in the family, but who slowly reveals his own obsessions and mental instabilities. Like father, like son. His character sort of drives home the movie's central message - we're all a bit crazy, but if we stick together, we can shake off the cobwebs that keep us down and move forward with out lives. But man, De Niro is just great - he's got some moments of true hilarity in the film, and some that are guaranteed  to not have a dry eye in the house.

Jacki Weaver is also great as Cooper's beleaguered mom. So too is Anupam Kher as his beleaguered psychiatrist. John Ortiz is also a scene-stealer as Cooper's best friend Ronnie - married to a ball-and-chain of a wife (Julia Stiles), Ronnie is a great and often hilarious counterpoint to Cooper - a mild-mannered everyman on the outside, but with plenty of pent-up rage within. And, oh, I have to mention Paul Herman as Randy - De Niro's old buddy who constantly bets against his friend in a series of ridiculously escalating wagers. I found it incredibly funny - yet oddly touching - how these two old guys are in a fashion so cruel to each other, and yet they sort of thrive off of their competition and remain friends despite it all. Finally, Chris Tucker is in this movie. And he is actually really good, and fairly restrained (for Chris Tucker). As an escaped mental patient who is fiercely loyal to Cooper, he is a great asset to the film.

The film perhaps works best if you don't know a ton about the details of its plot going in. The story is told in such a way that a lot of plot insight is revealed gradually, with many twists as the film goes. It's a fascinating take on the Unreliable Narrator conceit, as the version of events we originally hear from Pat - about his reasons for going into the mental hospital, about his relationship with his wife, about his life in general - well, there's clearly more there than he initially divulges. And the movie becomes so engrossing partially because it's about the lies we tell ourselves, and about the need to break through and accept things as they really are ... not just how we perceive them to be in the fantasy-version of our lives that we've created. And therein lies one of the key distinctions between Pat and Tiffany. Pat lives a fiction - he's constructed a narrative around his life where he is the victim, the hero, the misunderstood genius. But Tiffany - she's comically upfront about all of her failings and mistakes.

Ultimately - yes, there is romance in this movie - but I'd argue that it's not a movie *about* romance so much as it is a movie about breaking through our inner cloud of chaos, and finding some sort of sanity in a mostly insane world. Just about every character in the film surprises by not being what they seem. And SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK surprises by being much, much better than perhaps it looks on paper. Director David O. Russell brings his A-game. The direction is at times personal and in-your-face, at times sweeping and cinematic. But it has a sort of ADD, chaotic quality that mirrors Pat's chaotic mind. I loved the script of the film as well. The dialogue is fantastic, and the script somehow feels both naturalistic and cinematic in the best way possible. My only main gripe - and I suspect this will be the gripe of many ... is that the ending of the film just feels ever-so-slightly too neat and clean. Given how complex these character are, I felt slightly let down that Russell sort of wraps things up in a bow as the credits begin to roll. Even just a single added moment - a reminder that, for these characters, things would always be at least a little messy and weird - would have helped. Don't get me wrong ... the feel-good moments in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK are some of the *most* feel-good, most well-earned, most applause-worthy moments I've seen in a movie of this sort. But most of the film balances out those moments with some real darkness and complexity and characters who you like and root for, but who also feel genuinely screwed-up and off-kilter. Mostly though, the film has a sort of gleeful chaos that reminded me of the uproarious family scenes in Russell's previous film, The Fighter.

With an incredible cast and a just-right mix of humor, heart, darkness, and quirk, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK was one of the big movie surprises of the year for me in 2012. I'll put it right up there towards the top of my list for movies of the year.

My Grade: A-