"The Perks Of Being A Wallflower"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: John Malkovich, Lianne Halfon, Russell Smith
Directed by: Stephen Chbosky
Written by: Stephen Chbosky
Starring: Logan Lerman, Dylan McDermott, Kate Walsh
Summit Entertainment

3.36/5 Stars
Consensus: While it has its great moments the film is ultimately depressing and hits way too many buttons that are way too close to home. Sappy acting and poor directing made the film suffer a great deal, but its worth at least one watch and has several redeeming qualities including a great script and other powerful moments that are engaging and emotional.

Plot: We follow a quite and shy freshman by the alias of "Charlie" (Logan Lerman) as he begins high school. Charlie is friendless and suffers from depression, he is taken under the wings of upper-class men "Patrick" (Ezra Miller) and his step sister "Sam" (Emma Watson). Charlie develops feelings for Sam and eventually must learn to cope with his troubled past with the help of both her and Patrick.

Directing: Although it has its good moments, its clear author and director Stephen Chbosky is a relative new comer and just getting his feet wet. Overall he did a good job, especially for an entry level director, but there were parts of the film that were seriously lacking, specifically the main character seemed very wooden and didn't seem to understand his relationship with the other characters terribly well. This could be in part because he is a relatively new actor, but it didn't seem like a ton of time was given to directing him either. Again there were parts that were well done, its by no means totally awful, it could have used more attention to detail however. ***1/2

Acting: Emma Watson is as splendid as ever, as is Ezra Miller, but everyone else is horrendously sappy and Hallmark-esq. Its extremely tacky and unappealing. The entire cast seems to be picked from a soap opera or recruited right from high school theater. This is notably bad when compared to Miller and Watson who are stellar together, and (Watson) clearly has already had much experience with film acting. This was probably the low point of the film, and in their defense, high school drama films are difficult to pull off without much sappiness, since the entire situation is sappy to begin with. So is the nature of high school and the drama that is incurred there.  Because of this it makes the acting entirely bearable, but still unappealing in the end. Watson isn't even at her best, Miller could have benefited from better directing, but still does a great job, and everyone else is trying so hard to be good they come off like they are trying really hard to be good, and not doing a super good job at it.... **1/2

Editing: This aspect was extremely well done and well placed, especially several upsetting, but well placed and important scenes, wherein Charlie has flashbacks to his early childhood. The semi-linear editing mixed with flashbacks and voice-over narrative were effective and one of the key things that brought life to the film. Another well done scene, wherein Charlie gets into a fight in school, but blacks out, is also well done. We see the footage the initially gets blacked out, from the fight, later on as Charlie has a mental breakdown and flashbacks to his early childhood. Possibly the best element of this film was the well done editing. ****1/2

Art Direction: It looks and feels like the early 90s in Pennsylvania. Nothing is too stand out-ish, the Rocky Horror Picture bits are especially well done costuming. But nothing is so breathtaking or gorgeous we stop and say "wow the art direction in this film is so good!" it passes though. ***1/2

Cinematography: Like the art direction, nothing especially stands out. One thing that was bothersome was how hard they tried to make the film look like a super indie film. Although it technically is, it is also based off a novel many consider a modern classic, and it ironically becomes generic when you TRY to make your film look indie and low-budget. It lacked a lot of appeal in that aspect. For the most part it followed suit of the acting, very sit-com-ish and nothing super spectacular. ***

Screenplay: Ironically the actors are given very good dialogue and prose. This was another extremely good aspect of the film, its just unfortunate that the actors weren't given a better director to help them deliver the great lines they were given. You'd expect this from a novelist like Chbosky, he did a great job interperting his novel into a film, if he hadn't directed the thing as well it might be even better. Or even if he had co-directed. The best line in the movie, and the most emotional, "in that moment, I swear we are infinite" the dialogue and prose is very tragic and poetic and extremely well written dialogue that makes sense and fits each character. So its a problem of poor directing mingled with inexperienced, but potentially good actors with a great script. *****

CGI/Special Effects: There was a cool scene where a character does acid and everything blends together and time gets trippy. Outside of that we are gratefully without CGI!!! Hurray for indie films and indie budgets!!!! *****

"Django Unchained"
2012
R
Produced by: Harvey Weinstein, Reginald Hudlin, Bob Weinstein, Michael Shamberg, Stacey Sher
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
Weinstein Company

3.86/5 Stars
Consensus: While it has its brilliant parts, Django Unchained is a far cry from Tarantino's best. It often feels exploitative of black suppression and slavery, and lacks a lot of the intelligence of previous Tarantino films, but in the end manages to be an entertaining spaghetti western.

Plot: Recently freed slave, "Django" (Jamie Foxx), seeks to free his wife with the assistance of his liberator "Dr. King Schultz" (Christoph Waltz) who is also a bounty hunter. Together Django and Dr. Shultz participate in bounty hunting and vigilantism to earn enough money and means to free Django's wife, "Broomhilda" (Kerry Washington).

Directing: Tarantino is gore obsessed as ever and maintains his ever notable auterism. That said he felt, in many instances, that he was just throwing things from all his other movies together so we could see them all at once. In this case a lot of the previous creativity, innovation, and stylistic relentlessness found in previous Tarantino films was lost and it felt just like a rehash of all his old films. From a director as legendary as Tarantino you'd expect more than just rehashing the same and more of the same. There were, naturally, some brilliant choices within the film. One scene wherein a raid of rich white southerners against Django and Schultz is being made we note several of the men falling, stupidly, off their horses. We suddenly jump back in time and see the men before the raid discussing how difficult it is to see through their KKK-esq masks (the film is set pre-Civil War so miserable groups like the KKK hadn't been formed yet). Moments like this made the film feel more original and more what you'd expect from Tarantino. If he had focused more on moments like this, rather than disgusting scenes of torture and human deprivation  while still including the graphic gun fight violence the film would have benefited greatly. As it were, it mostly felt extremely exploitative. In the same way it would have been disgusting to see Nazis abusing and torturing Holocaust victims to death in Inglorious Basterds(2009) it is likewise disgusting to see rich white southerners torturing helpless black slaves to death via dogs or castration or forcing them to fight to the death, whatever the case its in extremely poor taste in this film. See one or two Nazi atrocities that are mildly graphic, then kill a bunch of Nazis throughout your film in a joyfully stylistic manner, that's cool, see ample atrocities against slaves with not as much vengeance you've just become exploitative of an entire races suffering and suppression over a period of hundreds of years. Its wrong to proliferate on such with such little tact or repercussions within the film. Another comparative to Inglorious Basterds is that there was a defined good guy, and a defined and clear bad guy with no morals. Its hard to empathize or pity a man who is willing to kill another man in front of his 6-year old son after being coaxed and promised money. Or abuse his fellow slaves relentlessly all for a cover to get to his wife. While this isn't the low point, his enemies are far more a-moral, we also see Django blast a women away for no reason other than that she was a bystander to the oppression around her. There wasn't enough build up or character attachment to Django, and its hard to cheer for a hero in a spaghetti western who isn't all about vigilantism, the rescue of the poor and oppressed, and getting his man. Django in the end just seemed blood thirsty and jaded. Schultz seemed to lose all his intelligence from the beginning of the film towards the end of it, until he goes from being smart, witty, and resourceful, to stupid and impulsive. Overall the film is disappointing and not up to par with Tarantino's standard. Content set aside, the directing just felt like the same old tricks under a different setting. Its good directing, but Tarantino seemed more focused on trying to disgust the audience then building characters or empathy towards them.  **1/2

Acting: Now this is up to par with any other Tarantino film. DiCaprio (Calvin Candie) is particularly fun to watch, if not a bit uncomfortable, because of how well he fit his role as despotic, racist, plantation runner. Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen) is also especially good in his role as tired, old, backstabbing butler who is a despicable traitor to his race. Jamie Foxx does good with the poor direction he is given to his character. Waltz however appears to be an exact re-write of his character in Inglorious Basterds, he does a good job, to a degree, but is uncomfortable to see him try to put the same intelligence and wit into his character in this film, which is less intelligent and gives him a far inferior role, that ultimately results in his stupid, and emotional end. The actors do a great job, considering how neglected they appeared to be by their sadistic director. ****1/2

Editing: You can always count on SUPER AWESOME EDITING from a Tarantino film, and you get it in this one. Especially the clip of the Southern raiders preparing to attack Django and Schultz, you originally see them going to raid what appears to be the bounty hunter's camp, you notice several people fall off their horses and think to yourself "thats weird, but kinda funny" and don't think much of it. You're shown enough that you start guessing, but its not until the brilliant back in time cut where you see the hilarity and importance of the men falling. Other classic Tarantino moments such as big lettering across the screen to introduce or explain location/character and fantastic cut-aways make for some of the highest quality editing in town. Very well composed. The use of old grainy VHS looking film for Django's flashbacks was also cool. The best part of this film. *****

Art Direction: It looks as spaghetti western as it gets. Its nothing to totally blow your mind away, there are some well designed sets, and they wanted it to be a mimickry of, well... a spaghetti western, only set in the south. The art direction is good, it feels like the south through the lens of a b-western film whilst maintaining all that a-list shine and splendor you come to expect from Tarantino. Nothing to change your life though. ***1/2

Cinematography: Another especially appealing aspect about this film was the great camera work. The scene wherein Django kills a man in front of his son looks beautiful. Framed by Django and Schultz's shoulders we see an extreme far shot of the man and his boy working in the field, Django pulls the trigger, we see the smoke from the gun and a few seconds later the smoke and dust of the bullet hitting the wanted criminal as he collapses and his young son runs to be by his side. This and many other shots were in extremely good taste throughout the film, although many shots and angles again seemed borrowed from other Tarantino films. While it is good to establish auteur-ism that fans can be familiar with, it is bad to just rip off the same exact thing from previous films. ****1/2

Screenplay: The screenplay seemed to lack the majority of the intelligence and wit of Pulp Fiction(1994) and Inglorious Basterds, there weren't many intelligent build ups and things were painfully obvious and sometimes disgusting. The excessive use of the "n" word was also a big turn off, and again felt extremely exploitative and in painfully bad taste (outside of Samuel L. Jackson(Stephen) who makes cursing an art). Overall the same problems existed within the screenplay that existed with directing. It ultimately lacked almost all of the witty banter you'd expect and was replaced with brutal and tasteless torture/violence. There wasn't a smart plot, it was super straight-forward, no deep plot or fantastic tie-ins. That said, compared to your average screenplay it is extremely well done (I expect an Oscar nomination for best screenplay, despite my personal complaints) it's just sub-par for Tarantino. There are enough brilliant moments within the film the exploitive nature can be overlooked to some degree. Characters such as DiCaprio's are extremely well written, and there is a painful amount of attention to detail and character development. You have a pretty good idea just who these people are, and it is a creative plot, or how to rephrase? A predictable plot that goes obvious places that is given a depth and creativity most writers/directors wouldn't but Tarantino does. There must be concessions for this. Therefore... ***

CGI/Special Effects: Considering its intentionally a spaghetti western and is supposed to parody off this, the  effects look great. Super stylized, tons and tons and tons of gore. Tons. So it looks fine there isn't tons of CGI which is always a good thing. Most of the effects are blood spraying relentlessly as people get shot and that looks just splendid. One explosion looked a little fake (during the famous raid scene I'm so frequently mentioning) so that's the only flaw I can find. ****

"Three Cups of Tea"
Written by: Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin
2009
Penguin Books

4.25/5 Stars
Consensus: True or not (and it appears mostly true, just exaggerated or guessed at in some parts, sloppy and unfortunate but not totally damning), Greg Mortenson's story of the beginning of CAI (Central Asai Institute) is both compelling and interesting. Its a good read and especially important as it offers an alternative to fighting the war on terror.

Plot: We follow Greg Mortenson in his real life journey to build schools for impoverished Muslim children in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Prose: The prose is that of a "matter-of-fact" journalistic sort and for good reason. It does well to clearly explain and create pathos for Mortenson and his foundation, the Central Asia Institute (CAI). Most effectively it followed debate format in favor of Mortenson, whilst following his mission i.e. at the beginning of the book we are told briefly who Mortenson is and why this book is about him and that he is tall, then it briefly goes over many people's feelings of his shortcomings. After giving concessions to his antagonists it then proceeds to tell his story and does a marvelous job at creating sympathy for both him and the children he helps. It was interesting and easy to read prose. It wasn't the gorgeous borderline poetry you get from the likes of McCarthy or Bradbury and frankly, its a good thing it isn't, it paints a wonderfully vivid picture of Pakistan while still being easy to read and not getting hung up on minor details. Relin, as he states at the beginning of the book, is a journalist, so one would expect the prose to be good, to the point and articulate, and it is. It feels very much like reading a newspaper, only better because the story won't get old in a week. ****

Character Development: By the end of the novel you feel like you are best friends with Greg Mortenson and you find yourself inevitably rooting for him and his cause. People like Haji Ali (Mortenson's mentor) come to life and you can almost hear their voices inside your head, you feel a connection to them. Especially considering these are real life people an incredible justice has been done to them, but its not without its flaws. People like Dr. Marina, Mortenson's ex-girlfriend in the plot are villianized unnecessarily and other heroic characters such as Mortenson's wife, Tara Bishop, aren't given enough page time. Especially considering Tara's role in Mortenson's mission she ought to have been given more attention, what about the many lonely nights she spends with her children? The missed days, the heroic and noble sacrafice this women gives to her husband every day ought to have been given more attention and less to villianizing people like Marina. ****1/2

Originality: Well, you can't get much more original than what happened to you in real life. Assuming it did happen, a subject that is now highly disputed and controversial (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363068n) as it appears Mortenson exaggerated parts of the novel. That said there is no doubt that he is doing a lot of good in the middle east, at least to me. Hopefully, the allegations made against him are simply his mistake of exaggerating the truth to try and help a group of people that he loves. If so that is an unfortunate mistake, but we all make them and Mortenson does help thousands of hopeless children. That said most of allegations made against him require rather... shady sources. It seems exaggerated and hyped up. The misuse of funds is very serious, and as far as any research can be done we don't see Mortenson moving to a condo in Manhatten Beach and driving Italian sports cars especially. My personal conclusion is that he exaggerated and fish told a story to try and make himself, and his cause sound better. While this is wrong, if he apologizes we need to lay off him and recognize that he still does and has done a great amount of good in the world. Slandering him and over-hyping fish stories only serves to sensationalize and criticize someone who is doing plenty of good and made a few mistakes. For all we know, the media is lying and the likes of Jon Krakauer, Mortenson's chief accuser, had their toes stepped on and are seeking to defame and sensationalize someone who didn't do things their way or play by their book. Keep an open mind and be extremely ready to forgive someone who has done so much good is what I say. The most devastating of all this controversy is co-author David Oliver Relin's untimely and tragic suicide. Frankly this whole controversy is suspicious, suicide via blunt force trauma to the head sounds fishy(http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/03/entertainment/la-et-jc-david-oliver-relin-three-cups-of-tea-mortenson-20121203). Wouldn't you render yourself unconscious before you could ultimately die? There is a ton of fishy things with the story, it will no doubt be brushed away quickly but suffice to say it seems unlikely that Relin committed suicide as much as was murdered. By who and for why remains to be seen, and for all I know never will be seen, black coats tend to like that sort of thing, but the fact that he is dead is both tragic and undisputed. *****

Simplicity: Towards the end of the novel there are so many new characters and individuals it becomes difficult to keep track of who is who. But up to that point the story is straightforward enough. 1+1=2 and so forth. Its easy to understand and evokes an incredible amount of pathos for the people that are being written about. The many Arab names so foreign to an American were difficult to keep track of who is who and at what point their involvement became crucial. ***1/2

"Les Miserables"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Cameron Mackintosh, Debra Hayward
Directed by: Tom Hooper
Written by: William Nicholson
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway
Working Title Films

5/5 Stars
Consensus: Maintaining every bit of emotion and depth of the original play, while adding quite a bit to the original story, Les Miserables proves Tom Hooper's talent as a director and is the best picture to come out in 2012. Go see it. Right. Now.

Plot: In 19th Century France the musical covers a number of years and chiefly follows "Jean Valjean"(Hugh Jackman) a former criminal turned philanthropist who does his best to inspire and combat the poverty and despair surrounding him. There's a lot more to it than that, but that's as brief as I can get it.

Directing: Tom Hooper has again proven himself as one of the best new directors in the field. Taking on a project so popular, and with so much anticipation as Les Miserables puts a lot of pressure on Hooper, and he performs wonderfully. What was perhaps most appealing was the amount of authenticity that was felt from the original play to the film adaptation  As one of the most emotional plays to ever be released on Broadway, Hooper did a phenomenal job at maintaining that emotion through the film, and allowing actors the leeway to express themselves in the music by incorporating sing/talk into the songs. *****

Acting: Early Oscar predictions that Hugh Jackman gets nominated for best actor and Anne Hathaway (Fantine) wins best supporting actress as they both did knock-out jobs. Again, the raw emotion and misery of the original play is fabulously maintained by a more than capable cast. The two weak spots are Amanda Seyfried (Cosette) and Russel Crowe (Javier) who struggled with some of the material musically (Seyfried's shrill vocals and forced virbrato are laughable and remind of a Disney princess in say, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves(1955) rather than a serious Broadway opera) and Crowe appears so concentrated on hitting the right notes (which he does a fair job at, especially coming from a country background and with minimal training) that he stiffens up the rest of the time. The acting is still top rate and these criticisms come from having seen the original Broadway or company productions thereof several times. Hathaway and Jackman are so incredible they more than make up for Crowe and Seyfried's overlookable short comings. Oh Samatha Barks (Eponine) is really good looking too, and sings like an angel. *****

Editing: Perhaps the most gorgeous and notable scene is the famous "I Dreamed A Dream" wherein Hathaway gives the performance of a career which we are shown, up close, without a single cut. The mere brilliance of saying "this doesn't need lots of fancy cuts, its like this on the play and we need to absorb every last minute of this once in a lifetime performance of this song, leave it" is both gutsy, and extremely effective. Other brilliant sequences, such as "Master of the House" or "One Day More" which would seem at first, difficult to show on screen, come together in sheer genius due to the fine editing of the film. *****

Art Direction: The ability to dress actors so decadent and desperaging that in puts you on the verge of tears just to look at them in this already emotionally strung musical is talent to say the least. The Thenardiers (Helena Bohman Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen) are as despicably bad dressed as ever. The barricade with coffins out front was another stroke of genius. It is exceptionally pleasing when the art direction of a film is so incredibly well done and in such good taste as to add so much depth and beauty to an already gorgeous piece of art. The list goes on, nearly infinitely, to the brilliance of the art direction alone in the film. *****

Cinematography: Although a bit uncomfortably close at times, the cinematography of this film makes sense. Adapting a stage to screen anything is difficult, but how to pull off all the classic set ups from the play with cameras is challenging. Like the art direction the good use of cinematography helped add significantly to the story, where and how and so forth, elements that cannot be captured on stage as there is only one direction to face and so many ways to show character interactions therein. One particularly pleasing shot towards the end is of Cosette and Marius at the home of Marius' grandfather. They stand below (in a gorgeously constructed set) holding hands as grandfather stands above on a staircase, Jean Valjean is also present sitting beneath the staircase but to the corner of Cosette and Marius. The framing done here is astounding and deserves all the awards it can muster for best cinematography. *****

Screenplay: Well, the play has been running on Broadway for nearly 30 years, which is enormous, and brings everyone to the verge of tears after every single viewing that the listeners are engaged in. It is especially wonderful that every single song from the original play was included, as well as one additional song that was tasteful and made perfect sense. One of the most emotional and heart wrenching stories of all time, Les Miserables is the best written musical of this century. Its characters timeless and endearing, a plot that is intriguing and thought provoking, some of the best written songs of all time... well the screenplay is really really good one could say. *****

CGI/Special Effects: Any post editing CGI added was especially effective in creating mood and enviroment i.e. in "Lovely Ladies" wherein much of the background appears to have been added in post production. Outside of that, and a gorgouesly rendered CGI ship there isn't much to mention. *****

"The Adventures of Tintin"
2011
PG
Produced by: Kathleen Kennedy, Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish
Starring: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig
Columbia Pictures

4.93/5 Stars
Consensus: With stunning animation and a splendid plot this film retains the witty adventure of the comic books while maintaining its own place in the film world. One of the better children's movies you could watch, this was a successful and wonderfully done animation piece.

Plot: Journalist and adventurer "Tintin" (Jamie Bell) gets involved with a conspiracy to plunder gold and is, as always, on the case to get to the bottom of they mystery.

Directing: Spielberg continues to show his flair for kid's movies as he directs this fun film. The sense of adventure and quirky vib found in the comics is well translated onto the screen. In a film that could easily be campy and unlikable he manages to make an adorable and exciting film and walks the line between adventure and humor extremely well. *****

Acting: Andy Serkis(Captain Haddock), the man of a thousand voices makes this film as great as it is with his invaluable contribution. He is one of the greatest voice actors of the decade. With only voice he transforms characters into icons that we know and understand at fantastic levels previously unexplored. You can tell what an absolute kick all the actors got out of their roles and it makes the film just that much more adorable. *****

Editing: The transitions were just plain cool, and especially innovative for an animated flick. Transitions from the sea to the desert, from Belgium to the sea and so forth were all extremely well done. Most of the major cuts were fades rather than straight cuts which was also very appealing. *****

Art Direction: The animation was as well envisioned as the comic book. Its an animated so art direction doesn't exactly apply in the same way it normally would, but it was a beautifully created and envisioned world none-the-less. *****

Cinematography: The film looks good, mostly the super cool CGI they used stands out. There aren't any particularly spectacular shots that stand out in my mind, but its good nonetheless. ****

Screenplay: The screenplay managed to be intelligent and witty. It evenly incorporated several key elements commonly found within the comic books and was entertaining at every turn. There were no real flaws in it, but it lacked a fluidity and pace that one would hope for. Again, overall the screenplay is brilliantly imagined, but character dialogue lacks a lot of the wit, depth, and humor one could expect from such a high caliber film. ****1/2

CGI/Special Effects: The animation in this film is simply spectacular. Imitating Polar Express(2004) the film uses live actors as models and projects animation on them and around them, creating a spectacular world wherein the outrageous and animated can happen, yet grasping the semi-realism required to pull a film like this off. It also grants actors a better chance to get into character as they get to interact with each other, full body, and facial expression rather than being attached to a mic in a recording studio watching animation from a screen. This is in fact one of the best animated films I have ever seen and contains truly stunning visual effects. *****