Chronicle

Director: Josh Trank
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan.
Written by: Max Landis (screenplay) Max Landis, Josh Trank (story).
Rated PG-13 for intense action and violence, thematic material, some language, sexual content and teen drinking.

I’ve never been thoroughly convinced that the found-footage genre has been a good thing for Hollywood. Instead of acting as a meaningful extension of the story, it’s typically employed as a cheap studio gimmick to minimize investment and maximize returns. Cloverfield is the only film in the genre that's really impressed me. Seeing it on the big screen is the closest a film has ever come to imitating the exhilaration of a roller coaster ride. Unfortunately, it still suffers from many of the shortcomings that have always held the format from achieving greatness: poor shot composition, limited perspective, vomit-inducing shakiness and that lingering question in the back of everyone’s mind, “Why don’t they just put the camera down and run away?”

DiCap... I mean, DeHaan delivers a fierce performance.

Chronicle circumvents every single criticism levied at faux-documentaries by making it integral to the story’s impact. High-school senior, Andrew Detmer (played to unsettling perfection by Dane Dehaan), is defined by his camera. He documents his every move, preferring to view the world around him through a window rather than dealing with the defects of his life head-on. His mother is slowly being eaten away by cancer. His father, an alcoholic, abuses him. He chronicles his interactions with them as a means to help him cope with the toll that it’s taken on his well-being.

The only person that Andrew speaks to is his cousin, Matt (Alex Russell), a self-proclaimed philosopher. He does his best to improve Andrew’s morale but he rarely prevails. It’s evident that their relationship doesn't really exist outside of Matt giving Andrew a ride to school – a place where he eats lunch alone and is bullied mercilessly. Carrying a bulky camera around on his shoulder doesn't help matters.

Experiencing the world from Andrew’s perspective is enthralling and never feels less than real, which is key to what prevents the film’s biggest conceit from falling apart. Eventually Andrew and Matt, accompanied by fellow classmate Steve (Michael B. Jordan), stumble upon a supernatural phenomenon and develop telekinetic powers. What could have been a jarring transition ends up feeling very natural because of how grounded the characters are. The illusion of reality is never once broken (except those LEGOs looked pretty fake.)

Chronicle is more than an absorbing character study, it’s an inventive take on the superhero genre because writer, Max Landis (son of John), drops the word “hero” from his vocabulary altogether. The boys here harbor no guilt for their newfound abilities, and do not insist on using their powers for good. They do what any average teenager would do: they wreak innocent havoc in the name of fun.

The three "afflicted" young men begin to develop a tight bond with one another. (So close, in fact, that when one is in trouble, the others are signaled with a nosebleed.) Andrew’s new-found companions and developing abilities act as a catalyst for his changing demeanor. His camera is no longer a scapegoat for his insecurities. Why hide behind a camera when you can levitate it? (which works wonders for composition, by the way). He trains his lens on himself and his friends, fascinated by the gifts that they've inexplicably received. He routinely pores over the footage for clues on how to unlock their true potential.

Josh Trank, in his directorial debut, has solidified himself as a filmmaker to keep an eye on. He excels at making intimate moments feel grand and is obviously very good at making his actors feel comfortable with one another. The three leads are having a blast and their interactions are a lot of fun to be a part of. For those of us who have seen the previews, it’s no surprise when Chronicle's more sinister undertones are unearthed. The shock is in how much you care about the severe repercussions of their ever-expanding powers.

To explain what I mean without spoilers, Chronicle is best viewed as an allegory for the dangers of teenage repression and isolation. I’m sure that many people will be able to identify with some of the struggles that our “heroes” have to endure; which is great because, ultimately, it cautions kids by showing them exactly what happens when you forgo the responsibility that comes with such great power. It also just happens to be a fun slice of pop cinema: the kind of film that can only exist when a studio takes a chance on new talent and unconventional themes.

At one point, Andrew identifies himself as the apex predator, calling his seat at the top of the food chain. In a way, I think that’s the perfect way to describe Chronicle. It is the apex of the found footage genre. The only complaint that I could possibly impose on an otherwise brilliant film is that the climax feels a bit bigger than the film that it’s in. In keeping with the found footage look we hop from various recording devices -- ranging from cell phones to security cameras -- to frame the action. Unfortunately, it ends up undermining the otherwise powerful conclusion with unnecessary choppiness (and in some cases, seems to abandon the shooting style altogether.) However, this small distraction doesn't prevent Chronicle from taking its seat on the throne as king of the genre.

4.5 out of 5

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Director: Brad Bird
Starring: Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Michael Nyqvist.
Written by: Josh Appelbaum,  Andre Nemec (Screenplay), Bruce Geller (TV series).
Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.

I grew up on action movies. As a child with a hyper-active imagination, the intricacies of plot and acting didn’t matter much to me. I was just there to see the every-man action hero prevail over the seemingly insurmountable evil that stood before him. I craved fistfights, explosions, and one-liners, but most of all, I wanted to live through these icons and believe that I too was capable of something extraordinary.

"Did I leave the stove on?"

Regrettably, these films are an endangered species. Sure, we’ve got a superhero for every color of the rainbow now but it’s not always easy to relate to the tribulations of genius billionaires (both bat-clad and iron-suited alike) and adolescent web-heads, especially when their adventures rely so heavily on whimsical powers, supernatural villains and special effects.

Enter Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, a refreshingly old-school action flick whose sole goal is to dazzle its audience, not through CG wizardry but through the humanity of its stars (and the insanity of Tom Cruise.) The tension is relentless, the set-pieces are thrilling, and the team dynamic among Cruise and his cohorts is compelling enough to make-up for the film’s lack of a memorable villain.

The story’s simplicity is mind-boggling: Dude's got nuclear launch codes. Stop dude with nuclear launch codes. That’s it. Oh, and then there’s Ghost Protocol: that ominous fine print that reads something like, “Should your mission be compromised, the government will disavow any knowledge of your existence.” You’ve probably heard something to that effect in numerous spy films before, but here the plot device is actually put into motion and brilliantly ups the stakes for our heroes by leaving them without back-up.

The Cruise Crew

Ethan Hunt (Cruise), the man that redefines the term “impossible,” is back with a team comprised of: the butt-kicking babe, Jane (Paula Patton), the wise-cracking hacker, Benji (Simon Pegg) and the unwitting “analyst,” Brandt (Jeremy Renner). Pay no heed to my back-of-the-box descriptions of these characters. They all defy the pitfalls of action-film clichés by being fully-developed people with conflicting feelings regarding the extreme situation they’ve been put in. Each one is personally invested in the mission beyond the world-ending consequences should they fail.

Unfortunately this attention to detail also makes it glaringly obvious that the antagonist, Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), is as flat and docile as his name might imply. Arguably, the villain should be the most interesting character in an action film. The hero can be excused for lacking a defined personality because he/she acts as the avatar for the audience. The bad guy, however, should always act as the good guy’s MacGuffin -- driving them indefatigably towards their goal -- by taking a unique stance against something that is universally accepted as “good.”

A truly great villain can even evoke sympathy towards their plight by truly believing their actions are to the benefit of mankind. This is something that is hinted at throughout the film but, ultimately, it doesn't work. Hendricks harbors none of the characteristics of a great nemesis. He lacks menace. And his rationale for why he wants to destroy the world is never elaborated further than “life needs to start over sometimes.” It’s incredibly frustrating to see such a provocative philosophy go to waste in an otherwise top-notch thrill-ride.

See what I mean?

Though I will admit, said thrills do almost make up for this oversight. Director Brad Bird (making an undeniably impressive live-action debut) has streamlined the Mission: Impossible franchise into a breathless adrenaline generator; able to turn even the simplest of tasks -- such as hopping onto a meandering train cart -- into an opportunity to keep the viewer on edge. Bird and co. hop from set piece to set piece at a dizzying pace and compromises nothing in the process. There are at least three scenes here that rival the best that similar films have to offer.

The high point of high points is the much-hyped Burj Khalifa climb, where Cruise clambers up the side of the world’s tallest building. You might want to bring an inhaler, because it’s every bit as asthma-inducing as the ads will have you believe. The vertigo-afflicted among us have been warned.

Renner has exceptional balance

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is so much fun that it forced the kid in me to claw his way to the surface. I can imagine myself reenacting the insanity onscreen by climbing up trees, chasing down neighborhood kids on bicycles and fighting for an object that will “save the world.” For me, that’s the best praise I can give an action film. Sure, the plot isn’t anything original. And maybe the villain doesn’t live up to the standards set by the likes of Hans Gruber and the Terminator, but when you have a movie as expertly made as this, it doesn’t matter. Ghost Protocol ranks among the classics of the genre and is easily the best film in the M:I franchise

4.5 out of 5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (U.S.)

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Robin Wright.
Written by: Steven Zaillian (Screenplay), Stieg Larsson (Book).
Rated R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.

David Fincher first solidified himself as a director of merit with the 1995 film, Seven (sorry, Alien 3.) The grimy, atmospheric thriller about a serial killer whose victims exemplified the Biblical seven deadly sins was both a critical and commercial success that catapulted his career into the Hollywood stratosphere. He would return to the murder mystery genre with the 2007 film Zodiac to similar critical albeit less commercial success. Now it’s 2011 and Fincher is once more dipping into the well with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Luckily for us, the auteur is as smooth as he's ever been.

His fluidity is reflected most apparently in the camera’s lens. Each shot within the film is meticulously framed and flawlessly executed, rarely relying on the modern convention of handheld cameras. As a result, the camera never bobs or shakes. An uneasy tranquility pervades each and every scene, perfectly capturing the gloomy subject matter.

Nestled snugly within Fincher’s frames is a tight and compelling mystery. Disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is hired by the wealthy and mysterious Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet, who vanished some 40 years ago. And then there’s the titular girl with the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara); the woman hired by the Vangers to pull the background check on Blomkvist. Eventually, their paths converge and the mystery kicks in proper; more on that later.

Before they meet we’re treated to a lengthy expository section detailing the backgrounds of both our hero and our heroine (not to mention the loony Vanger family.) During this portion of the film their stories can feel a bit disassociated: Blomkvist is beginning his investigation, and attempting to escape from his libelous past, by moving into a shack on the Vanger family’s personal island. Salander is dealing with the repercussions of the failing health of her legal guardian. The result of which puts her in the “care” of lawyer Niles Bjurman who uses his position of power to sexually abuse her.

Like I said, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo takes longer than most films to build up its momentum but it certainly doesn’t detract from the overall story. It serves as a means to excellent characterization for all parties; the most involving of which is, of course, Salander. Rooney Mara really came out of nowhere to snag the role and it's easy to see why. She’s fierce, fearless, and nothing less than real; able to convey Lisbeth’s inner animosity and instability without sacrificing the vulnerability that defines her pathos.

Her introspection and idiosyncrasies have most likely led to her profession as a computer hacker (and an exceptional one at that.) When Mikael decides that he needs a research assistant, the Vangers naturally inform him of Lisbeth’s expertise. The two then plunge headlong into the absorbing and complex tale of murder and misogyny. It’s fairly disturbing stuff but it’s morbidly fascinating and your investment in the characters ensure your investment in their investigation, along with the dark places it leads them.

See what I mean! No cell phone coverage!

The atmosphere is juxtaposed with a very past-meets-present aesthetic. Lisbeth and Mikael work in old, weathered buildings yet have modern technology at their disposal to aid in their research. They’ll search through dusty, disheveled libraries to find documents and pictures which they’ll scan into their laptops for added utility. It works as a subtle parallel to the Vanger family history and the mystery itself (it may even offer a clue!). As more of the past is brought into the present, more of the enigma is brought to light.  From the opening credits (a visually-arresting scene that plays to Karen O and Trent Reznor's thumping Led Zeppelin cover) to the final scene, it persistently feels like the past is attempting to prevent the characters from pursuing, or submitting to, their future.

There’s an unexpectedly thrilling climax here but it’s almost undone by the prolonged epilogue. It doesn’t exactly bother me. I’m all for closure (which you don’t really get anyway) but I couldn’t help but be taken out of the experience a bit as I watched the film slowly crawl to a close. You reach a point of catharsis and then you’ve got twenty or thirty minutes to go as the movie resolves the unresolved and you twiddle your thumbs.

Minor pacing issues aside, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a thoroughly engrossing thriller. It’s the rare big-budget film that’s unapologetically made for adults. The central narrative is complex, the characters are morally ambiguous, and the themes are potentially unsettling but, like the biting cold of Sweden, it consumes you. Only in the case of Fincher’s film, you don’t want it to let go.

4 out of 5

Inglourious Basterds

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent, Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, Daniel Bruhl.

Written by: Quentin Tarantino

Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.

Contrary to the previous film I reviewed, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds takes a more over-the-top approach to its World War II setting. The characters are colorful, the situations are often absurd and, despite its moments of gravity, there’s plenty of humor throughout that gives this film a greater sense of levity than most war films. Tarantino’s film is like watching a comic-book western set within Nazi-occupied France.

Watch out for this guy.

I’ve seen the film twice now. The first time I watched it, I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. It wasn’t what I expected. For a film called Inglourious Basterds, you really don’t see too much of them. They serve more as bookends to the film (Not counting the brilliant and incredibly tense prologue.) Also, I found the dialogue to be well-written but a bit self-indulgent. The seemingly incessant discussions of German cinema seemed to be less like entertainment and more like Tarantino showing off his knowledge (and obvious affection) of film.

Now that I’ve watched it a second time I enjoyed it a bit more (maybe because it was midnight when I watched it the first time.) When I kept my expectations in check, the dialogue didn’t feel quite so pretentious, the two-and-a-half-hour runtime didn’t drag as much, and viewing it as more of an ensemble piece helped to curb my initial disappointment. There was still some lingering dissatisfaction though. The myriad supporting characters are so well fleshed out but we only get to know something like four of the nine, or so, Basterds. Some of them don’t even have speaking roles.

...and don't give him any milk.

Those that do speak, however, ignite the screen. Brad Pitt is hysterical as Southern bootlegger turned ruthless Nazi scalp-taker, Aldo Raine: leader of the Basterds. His gruff accent, combined with a plethora of witty one-liners and overt facial expressions make him the comedic highlight of the film. However, that shouldn’t be seen as a slight against Christoph Waltz and his Oscar-winning portrayal of SS Col. Hans Landa. He’s able to elicit a hefty helping of laughter coupled with a seething layer of menace. You never feel safe when he’s on-screen because you’re never really quite sure what he’s going to do next.

That’s really the best thing about Inglourious Basterds. It’s always looking for ways to subvert your expectations. It’s something that I initially didn’t embrace but, once I did, it turned out to be a fun yet slightly bumpy ride. The film may seem insensitive regarding its subject matter, impartial to its characters, and detached from its narrative but, in the grand scheme of it all, it mostly works because it holds your attention in ways that few movies can: by always keeping you guessing; which is why I’m going to defer from going deeper into the story and let you go see it for yourself.

4 out 5

Schindler's List

Director: Steven Spielberg

Starring: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes.

Written by: Steven Zaillian (Screenplay), Thomas Keneally (Book: Schindler's Ark).

Rated R for language, sexuality, and actuality violence. 

Schindler’s List tackles the Holocaust in a manner unlike any other film on the subject. Its unflinching portrayal of one of the world’s darkest moments in history really gives you a sense of how truly horrific an experience it must have been. I've sat through many a history lesson, seen countless films, and even “experienced the war first-hand” in some WWII-based games, but nothing has ever stirred up the emotions from within in the way that Steven Spielberg has with this film. For anybody that truly wants to understand the tragedy, and just how deplorable -- or how selfless -- human beings can be, this film may be the window into history with the best view.

The horrors within are significantly amplified by Janusz Kaminski's Oscar-winning cinematography.

The handheld look and black-and-white composition (though there are brief flashes of color) make Schindler’s List feel like a documentary. For me, it not only greatly contributes to the grim reality of the situation, it makes the film timeless. It would probably be impossible to guess when the film was made simply by looking at it.

The parameters of Schindler’s List are full of paradox. It’s horrifying and uplifting, intimate but epic, stark yet beautiful. It puts the audience through the wringer and, by the end, you may harbor feelings of anger, depression or even exhaustion, but you may also be inspired, even humbled, by the images

you’ve endured. Spielberg’s film runs the full spectrum of emotions, and no matter how you ultimately feel in the end, you can rest assured in knowing that you witnessed something truly extraordinary.

Within the film, the platform through whom you’ll experience these emotions comes courtesy of protagonist Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson). The audience sees the events of the film through his eyes, and his experiences and reactions reflect that of the audience. In the beginning, Schindler is merely trying to benefit from the war, using the persecuted Jews for cheap labor. He’s aware of the genocide, but doesn't fully realize the gravity of the situation until he witnesses the massacre for himself. It is then that he uses his newly acquired wealth and his position of power to help save as many lives as possible. A cause that the audience grows more than sympathetic for as they witness Schindler’s transformation from war profiteer to the savior of more than a thousand lives.

Vital to Schindler’s efforts is his unnerving friendship with SS Lieutenant, Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes). Goeth is the film’s primary harbinger of death. It’s by his authority that most of the film’s horrors are carried out. Schindler is cautious to befriend him but, in doing so, is able to subtly manipulate Goeth into contributing to his cause.

This scene is undeniably powerful

It feels strange to praise a man’s acting when his character is so despicable (and based on a real person), but Fiennes manages to pull off one of cinema’s most vile villains. What’s even more remarkable is in the way that you feel an odd flash of pity for the man who murders with such indifference. Neeson’s role as Schindler is less flashy but is pulled off with the same commanding presence and a bit more dynamism. When they share the screen, you won’t blink. Watching the two size each other up is one of the film’s few moments that will have you sitting with a smile on your face.

Though Schindler’s List was released in 1993, I’m still going to forgo discussing major scenes in detail. Though I doubt there’s much I could do to lessen the film’s impact, I'm not even going to risk it. Doing so would be a major disservice to the audience, the film, and the people depicted within. One thing to keep in mind though: the film is very graphic. The camera never cuts away during scenes of extreme violence, mutilation, and humiliation. Spielberg’s never allowed the film to be censored and I applaud his conviction. Sanitizing the experience of those affected by such circumstances would diminish everything the film stands for.

I don’t know how Spielberg and company pulled off such a tremendous feat. Filming on location in Europe, constructing enormous sets, making everything look great in black and white, keeping up with over 100 speaking roles, directing no less than 30,000 extras, and having it all encompass over three hours of film (all while completing post-production on Jurassic Park) sounds incredibly overwhelming. The crew's work ethic alone is enough to inspire. Luckily, for film-lovers such as me, their exhaustive effort speaks for itself. Schindler’s List may be one of the most important films ever made. It’s not only important for the art-form it represents, but also for a greater understanding of history and human nature. In the right context, anybody can benefit from seeing this film.

5 out of 5

Drive

Director: Nicholas Winding Refn.

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman.

Written by: Hossein Amini (Screenplay), James Sallis (Book).

Rated R for strong brutal bloody violence, language and some nudity.

I like to believe that I have pretty great taste in film. I take pride in knowing that there are very few people that I know personally who revel in the art of filmmaking the way that I do. However, it can be a bit alarming when the only thing that makes you feel secure in your belief of a movie’s excellence is the score on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s why I’m glad to say that there is one man I know of whose film preferences largely mirror my own. That man is David Sprouse: former assistant manager at the theater I used to work at (and all-around great guy).

Back in September, David had the chance to preview the film Drive. I (being a father and a student) was unable to attend. At the time, Drive was my most anticipated film of the year. The reviews were bordering on universal acclaim and the trailer often graced the screen of my (inept) Droid. So, needless to say, I was incredibly excited to hear David’s impressions of the film the next day at work, and here’s what he had to say:

“Stylish, but too emotionally detached.”

He awarded the film a three-and-a-half out of five (though, I noticed, he eventually bumped it up to a four).

I was crushed. Here I was expecting this year’s best film and David, my one-and-only film confidant, said it was merely good, not great. Normally I would consider this to be a fairly good score but this was Drive!

I hardly went to the movies when I worked there, so I wasn’t able to pass judgment on the film until this month when it hit DVD and I am happy to report that David and I have had our first disagreement (though, not really since he did technically enjoy the film).

To be fair, I can understand his criticism. First impressions show Ryan Gosling as a very cold, mechanical shell of a man. He’s simply the Driver. No name, no background to speak of, and no apparent emotions. He drives. That’s it. It’s as if he’s been stripped of his humanity and now exists merely as an extension of the machines he so effortlessly manipulates.

This poster is brilliant.

We are introduced to the man as he plays getaway driver. The scene is remarkably tense. It's  remarkable because it plays against your expectations. The Driver doesn’t tear ass fast and furious through the streets to evade capture. Instead, he coolly manipulates his pursuers simply by using the lay of the land to his advantage. It’s the antithesis of the frantic, cut-heavy scenes we’re used to seeing in modern action films and it works beautifully as Driver’s introduction.

Ryan Gosling has fashioned a modern cinematic icon with his portrayal of the Driver. He may lack personality, but he makes up for it in style. He’s rarely seen without a toothpick in his mouth, his driving gloves are always at his disposal should the need arise, and he never leaves the house without his trademark scorpion-adorned silk jacket. (Guess who I want to be for Halloween.)

The character is fascinating. I found myself dwelling upon his actions long after the film was over. So little is revealed about him over the course of the film yet Gosling gives him so much depth. The man rarely speaks, but his actions speak volumes.

Driver develops a relationship with the meek, baby-faced beauty Irene (Carey Mulligan), his next-door neighbor, and her son, Benecio. As he interacts with the family, we begin to see that the Driver does indeed harbor deep emotions; he’s just unable to communicate them. His attempts at conversation are almost pathetic due to his inability to express how he feels. It would be understandable to interpret the Driver’s behavior as “emotionally detached” but I prefer to see it as “emotionally stunted.” Something has happened to this man that has caused him to regress socially. We never find out what it is, but we see enough to understand and empathize with his circumstance.

There seems to be trouble in paradise when Irene’s husband, Standard, is released from prison. Standard’s reentry into society has threatened the well-being of the only two people that the Driver cares for. We soon begin to see that the Driver is prone to catastrophic outbursts of violence. Drive is a film that screams nuance (or is that whispers?) in all respects save for one: its unmerciful depiction of brutality. It’s hard to endure, and makes a case for the Driver’s introspective behavior. He’s afraid of what he’s capable of. This is key to the movie's best scene: a devastating descent in an elevator.

The plot is a rather conventional crime drama that is redeemed by its stylish presentation, the performances of its supporting players, and by the Driver’s noble cause. The film feels very much like it’s grounded in reality, due in no small part to the people that fill in the blanks left by the Driver.

Much attention has been given to Albert Brook’s vicious portrayal of Bernie Ross, but my money for the best supporting performance goes to Oscar Isaac as Irene’s husband, Standard. His acceptance of the Driver plays against your expectations, and his affection for his family coupled with his longing for repentance makes his character all the more dynamic and sympathetic.

Any cinephile who relishes details will be in cinematic bliss with Drive; however, it’s not a film for everybody. Its lack of dialogue and exposition may prove frustrating for the average filmgoer and its sudden, extreme violence may provoke outrage amongst the more conservative audience members. I’d also like to point out that the licensed music, while thematically fitting, is incredibly jarring when you first hear it.

Overall though I believe Drive is an incredibly unique and emotionally-engaging experience if you give the film time to seep into your subconscious. The Driver is a character that begs to be dissected. Some, like my friend David, may interpret the character, and the film, as apathetic but I for one see him as a man who has, somehow, lost his humanity and is desperately attempting to reclaim it the only way he knows how.

5 out of 5

My Five-Star System

I will be utilizing the common five-star system with half star increments. I believe this system affords the most flexibility for gauging my opinion.

Let me break it down by rating and show you why:

This is heavy.

5 Stars: This denotes an absolute, must-see film; a complete mastery of craft on all accounts. A film like this truly envelops the viewer in a story and doesn't let them go, even after the credits roll. Obviously, these types of films are very rare, and we'll usually only see a dozen or so like this a year, but they're the reason you love the movies.

Examples: Back to the Future, Casablanca, The Godfather.

"I am above average."

4 Stars: This is the "almost, but-not-quite" category, which makes it sound worse than it is. A four-star review is still a recommendation, but it's lacking in some respects. Oftentimes, I'll award this to a film that has some minor pacing issues or if it feels like it would lose its kick on subsequent viewings.

Examples: The Avengers, Hunger Games series, Harry Potter series.

Yes, Cory. You most certainly are.

3 Stars: The three-star film is the average, easily-digestible effort that will probably be forgotten ten minutes after the credits roll. It's the kind of film that you don't mind watching on TBS one late afternoon when there's nothing else on. It's competently made, but doesn't strive for greatness. It exerts just enough energy for you to like it, nothing more. 

Examples: Comedies, Romantic Comedies, Cory Matthews. (Honestly, most movies fall into this category.)

However... this guy gets five stars.

2 Stars: This category is arguably the most frustrating to watch. You can tell that there were some great ideas, but few were executed well. It has a some redeeming qualities, and some people might enjoy the film, but overall you could do without seeing it. Many auto-pilot franchises fall into this category. See below

Examples: The Twilight Saga (any of them), Transformers (any of them), Expendables (you guessed it!)

Does anyone else think he looks like a weird, hairless cat-person?

1 Star: This is usually the result of a total lack of conviction from the cast and crew. This is the movie that you'd be reluctant to pick up out of the $5 bin at Walmart. One may be able to wring some entertainment out of this woeful exercise in futility by hosting a good heckling session but, otherwise, the film is a loss. Save your money

Examples: Most remakes, rehashes and reboots.

0 Stars: The great thing about my scale, as opposed to the one I'm used to using on Flixter, is that I can award no stars. It may pain me to do so but, sometimes, it's necessary. A 0-star film is so catastrophically horrible that it makes you doubt the art-form that you love. A film this bad can't even be enjoyed in a so-bad-it's-good way. The best thing for any film-lover to do is turn and run away from this unnatural disaster. Do NOT try this at home.

Examples: Manos: The Hands of Fate, The Happening, White Chicks 

Mark Wahlberg, pondering the future of his career while filming
"The Happening."

Disclaimer: My opinions, like all opinions, are subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that not all films are comparable. There may be a film that scored a 4.5 that I enjoy more than a 5. I'm here to judge the movie objectively on it's merits, not simply based on personal preference. Typically, films with a higher score are the films I enjoy more, but I have a few guilty pleasures just like everyone else. I could watch Tommy Boy on an endless loop, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a perfect movie. I just want everyone to keep this in mind.