Co-written and directed by Tommy Wirkola, Hansel & Gretel begins, quite literally, at the beginning. A brother and sister are taken, by their father, into the woods and left there. Cold and scared, they venture a bit deeper into the forest until they come upon a house made of candy and gingerbread. After eating pieces from it, a door opens. They go inside and find themselves captors of a hideous witch. Gretel must stoke the furnace; Hansel is being fattened up for slaughter. Anyone who knows their fairytales knows the “ending”: The kids overpower the witch and into the fire she is thrown. Fast forward, and we find that a grown up Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) are now leather-clad witch exterminators. They arrive in a small town that is plagued by child abductions, and set about the task of 1) finding the missing children 2) finding and killing the witch or witches involved.

It’s difficult to say anything positive about Hansel & Gretel. And, because I feel as if I’m doing a public service by spoiling the story – if it keeps one person from wasting their time and money on this film … – that’s what I’m going to do. The story, which is bland, predictable, and well-worn has, at its center, a diabolical witch (Famke Janssen) who is collecting youthful sacrifices. Why? There’s a blood moon coming, and if she kills the 12 children, each born during a different calendar month, on that “rare” day, she and her witchy cohorts can become impervious to fire. And, as we all know, fire is the best weapon against witches. There’s actually more to the story that involves why the brother and sister were abandoned in the woods, and why they are immune to witch magic/spells, but you can probably guess what that’s all about. And in the end, who really cares about these characters or their story anyway? Not I.

The problem is there are soooo many films – B-grade masquerading as blockbusters – like this; ones with similarly stupid “mystical” mumbo jumbo at their core; that I could scream. Just a few I can mention include Blood Creek, Black Death, Season of the Witch, Solomon Kane, and on and on. At least Blood Creek had a delicious performance by Michael Fassbender as an occultist Nazi. All Hansel & Gretel has is Jeremy Renner, who acts as if he reluctantly took this job as a favor to a dying relative or because he’s being blackmailed. He looks bored as hell. No personality. None. And Gemma Arterton, who, let’s face it, is cast only for her looks. When she spouts expletives and headbutts Peter Stormare, all I could think was “really? Don’t buy it.” Renner has a string of good to great films under his belt, so again, I have no idea why he’s stuck in this crap. I can’t say the same for “wooden” Arterton. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and Clash of the Titans, anyone? Making matters even worse is the fact that Renner is nearly 10 years older than Arterton, and yet, they are supposed to be about the same age. (He looks much more rugged.) And they have zero chemistry.

The rest of the cast is equally unimpressive. As a rule, I like Stormare, but here, as the Sheriff, he’s just a raving lunatic who spends most of his screen time having his nose broken. I won’t say much about Famke Janssen, who seems to be channeling Nicolas Cage. If she doesn’t get nominated for a Razzie, I will be disappointed. (It’s well known that she took this role to pay her mortgage.) Thomas Mann plays Ben, a “devoted fan” and future partner, I’m assuming, to the dynamic duo. His character is a horny bore; a guy who doesn’t know when he’s outworn his welcome. I kept hoping that a troll would crush him. And, finally, Pihla Viitala, who plays the film’s love interest. She’s a lovely Finnish actress, but whoever decided to give her that hairstyle should be slapped. Her character really wasn’t even needed. Even Renner couldn’t feign interest in her buxom-ness.

I am all for action, but not when a film is just a series of poorly filmed and choreographed fight sequences, I begin to switch off. A bit of story with that action is useful. And characters that we can care about or who are, at the very least, interesting. This film had nothing that makes it worth watching. I take that back. I applaud the costumes, designed by Marlene Stewart, which are Victorian meets leather fetish. A lot of thought went into the weapon design, too, and boy are there a lot of weapons in this film. The rapid-fire crossbow was a favorite. I can see it finding its way onto any zombie apocalypse preparer’s wish list. The score by Atli Orvarsson was notable. But then I usually like his work. The makeup and prosthetics were, sadly, pretty horrible, and only further “cheapened” the look of the film. I guess you can’t have everything.

I’m a bit saddened by the fact that Hansel & Gretel is so terrible and such a waste of time. It’s an American-European production with talent coming together from Germany, Iceland, Finland, Norway, etc., and I usually have my fingers crossed for anyone trying to get a film made “outside” of the system. I really shouldn’t be surprised that I didn’t like Hansel & Gretel, though. I found Wirkola’s “last” film, Dead Snow – (he’s made other films, it’s just that that was the one that got him a lot of buzz in the U.S.) – paint-by-numbers boring and highly derivative. Also, there seems to be trend in features. A foreign director may do just fine working in his or her native language, but often, when that same person makes his or her English language debut, the film is awkward, boring, or just plain awful. Wirkola seems to be continuing that trend. (I hate to say that Christian Alvart is the poster king for this.)

One last thing. While the titles were on, before the film had started, I saw the words: Produced by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, and my stomach sank. I considered leaving the cinema right then and there. I should have listened to my gut.                 Cannot stand.

The film begins with the words: Once Upon a Time, clueing us in on to the fairytale nature of what’s to come. In the first sequence, we see a distraught father (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) hurrying his children Victoria (Morgan McGarry), 3, and Lilly (Maya Dawe), 1, into a car, which he drives dangerously through the snow. (We learn that he has shot his business partners and his wife.) He crashes. Crawling from the wreckage of the car, he leads his children through the woods to an abandoned house. Inside, he breaks apart a piece of furniture and starts a fire. His children are scared and cold. But their ordeal has just begun. The abandoned house is far from uninhabited, and when the father decides to end his children’s lives, the entity takes action.

Five years pass, and the girls remain missing, despite the efforts of their uncle (also Coster-Waldau), who has essentially bankrupted himself in their search. And then, he gets a break: The searchers find the crashed car, the cabin, and the girls. But the girls have regressed and are feral; dirty, snarling creatures that crawl around on all fours. Back in “civilization,” they are taken to a hospital where Dr. Dreyfuss (Daniel Kash) examines them. Victoria (Megan Charpentier) eventually recovers some of her language skills, and reveals the key to their survival: An entity known simply as Mama. (She has fed them cherries and, I’m assuming from the images drawn by the children, wild animals.)

Mama is being billed as a horror film, and it is that. But it’s also a psychological, Gothic story about children and reluctant mothers; madness and loss. If you go to it expecting to be scared out of your mind, you will probably be disappointed. It reminded me immediately of a whole host of other films: Dream House, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, and even Case 39, so if you loathed those, avoid Mama. I liked the films that I just mentioned, and I really enjoyed Mama. I found it to be very atmospheric, and since I’m a lover of fairy tales, I was drawn into the story.

The acting was superb. I was impressed by Jessica Chastain, who is almost unrecognizable under a short black wig, Misfits and Ramones T-shirts, heavy dark makeup, and lots of tattoos. She plays Annabel, the beer swigging bassist for a rock band; a woman who is ecstatic to learn, at the start of the film, that she isn’t pregnant. This is the film’s reluctant mother, and she is literally thrown into the task of taking care of these wild and troubled girls. As the film progresses, she becomes an Earthbound alternative to the spectral Mama, offering the girls a real chance at family and love; normalcy. Without the inclusion of Chastain, Mama had the potential to be cheese central and a really sub-par effort. Coster-Waldau is another fine actor, who, to my surprise, is only in the film peripherally. Chastain is the center of the film, and she’s a tremendous force of nature. I like that she’s playing against type, and she’s successful at it.

I’ve said this a million times, but child actors can be hit and miss. Too often, their lack of acting prowess can undermine the believability of a film or situation. Not these girls. They are pretty amazing finds. The blonde, blue-eyed, cherubim-faced actresses who play Victoria and Lilly at the beginning of the film are so adorable, it almost makes you sick to think that anyone could hurt or abandon them. (Seeing McGarry in those broken glasses and then waiting for her father to shoot her … just heartbreaking.) Although Charpentier has the most lines, and her character undergoes the biggest transition, Isabelle Nelisse, who plays Lilly, makes the biggest impression. Having been abandoned at 1, her character has no real language skills, and she is the one most attracted to/attached to Mama. When she smiles, she reminded me of an E.T.-aged Drew Barrymore. Cute as a button and really great with her body language. Some people have remarked that Lilly is often scarier than Mama, and I would concur. There is something incredibly off-putting/unnerving about seeing a 6-year-old child running around on all fours, eating moths, and playing tug of war with a dead woman.

Most of the people heaping praise on Mama are giving it only to Del Toro. Yes, he deserves a hearty slap on the back for seeing the potential in this concept and for, apparently, fighting for the ending. (A lot of people don’t like it. I thought it was honest; it was inevitable.) But the real kudos go to Muschietti, who with this film is making his feature film debut, and to the screenwriters Neil Cross and both Muschiettis – Andres and Barbara. Mama might not be a wholly original story, but it’s executed well, and has a bit more psychological “meat” to it than you might expect.  I found myself “moved” by several scenes in the film, and especially the ending. I liked that “Mama” wasn’t just a simple evil character; there was depth to what she meant to the girls and to the film. You felt sorry for her but were also afraid of her.

When it comes to horror, I gravitate toward supernatural and psychological horror, preferring these films to slasher/torture/monster horror. The sad thing is that good supernatural and psychological horror films are not all that plentiful, particularly not in the United States. I have learned, over the years, that some of the best ones are being made in Spain and Mexico. (The Japanese, and Koreans, used to excel at them, but seem to have shifted gears to highly stylized gore.) The British, when they pull their finger out, can also impress.

With the success of Mama, I hope that Muschietti continues working in this genre, and that he maintains the kind of quality that he achieves in this effort. He has great potential. Can’t wait to get Mama on Blu-ray and watch the extras.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty.
© 2012 – Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.

At the center of this hunt is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a woman who is recruited by the CIA right out of high school. At the beginning, she is merely an observer of torture. By the middle of the film, she administers torture. And by the end, she is the agent who has never given up. In her dogged determination, and absolute commitment to her cause, she is the one most responsible for the discovery of bin Laden and, thanks to the bravery and competence of Navy S.E.A.L. Team 6, his execution.

© 2012 – Zero Dark Thirty, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

A lot of controversy has swirled around Zero Dark Thirty, specifically around its “suggestion” that torture and detention were instrumental in the eventual elimination of bin Laden. It’s true, that in the beginning of the film, we see, and hear about, torture: Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, public humiliation, isolation, food restrictions, and beating. I didn’t, however, feel that these scenes glorified torture. Instead, these techniques seemed to be employed, primarily because of the nature of the enemy. This was, and is, a clandestine, and fanatical, group that seems impossible to infiltrate. Members are, as they love to say in Hollywood films, ghosts. Everything that the CIA does in the film seemed to come more out of desperation than anything else. And once the option for torture came off of the table, then they really seemed to flounder. If someone sees triumph in those scenes, he or she is watching a different film. I felt frustrated for them.

Controversy aside, Zero Dark Thirty isn’t really the film I was expecting to see. Not that I really knew what to expect. Since I read the announcement that Bigelow was making a film about the hunt for bin Laden, I didn’t really follow any subsequent updates. I guess that I assumed it would be action-packed and jingoistic; Rambo but with a more credible screenplay. That isn’t what I found.

Zero Dark Thirty is a very “un-Hollywood” treatment of the seemingly exhausting search for a very elusive character. Much of the film involves the interrogation of low-level al-Qaeda members, meetings of CIA officials, and a lot of paperwork and phone calls. If you are looking for high octane excitement, you should probably re-rent a Bourne film or the Expendables. (One man sitting behind me, snored through most of the film.)

Don’t take this as criticism. I found Zero Dark Thirty to be a fascinating, inside look at how the CIA works. It’s not all guns and glory. It’s tracking down leads, interrogating them, bribing them with expensive cars and millions of dollars, and then repeating those tactics for, in this case, 10 years. Real life isn’t about using high technology to pinpoint an enemy in five seconds, and then sending in a crew of adrenalined up immortals who crack jokes and spout one-liners as they spray bullets. It’s emotionally draining and tedious work. And I admire anyone who engages in that daily slog.

Zero Dark Thirty probably wouldn’t be the fascinating film it is had it had an inferior cast. Or a different director. Chastain anchors this film, and she does a majestic job of developing her character, physically and emotionally. Maya starts out as unsure and untested; she doesn’t seem to be in the right job; but by the end, she is a force with which to be reckoned. She’s strong, determined, and very confident. Hollywood is horrible for overusing certain actors/actresses, and, at the moment, Chastain is one of the “it” girls. Of the current crop, she’s one of the most versatile; someone who has the potential to have a long career. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine that the woman playing Maya is the same one who played Celia Foote in The Help. Chastain has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance in Zero Dark Thirty; if she wins, it certainly will be deserved.

As in most Bigelow directed films, the supporting cast is strong. Jason Clarke is a particular stand-out. He plays Dan, the lead interrogator during the first half of the film; he’s sort of Maya’s mentor. This Australian actor turned in another notable performance in Lawless, which, interestingly, also starred Chastain. Kyle Chandler has the thankless job of playing Joseph Bradley, a pen-pushing CIA bureaucrat. Jennifer Ehle lights up the screen as Jessica, a CIA official. And the always charming Chris Pratt plays a member of the Navy S.E.A.L team. Bigelow somehow manages to attract some very busy and extremely talented actors to her films even when they are only on-screen for less than 20 minutes and have very few lines. She did it with Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce in The Hurt Locker. In Zero Dark Thirty, she gets Mark Strong, Stephen Dillane, Mark Duplass, James Gandolfini, and Joel Edgerton to make glorified cameos. (Considering that Edgerton gets second billing, I expected him to have a much bigger role.) Blink and you will see and about miss John Barrowman. I didn’t even realize that Frank Grillo or Joel Edgerton’s brother, Nash, were in this film until I looked at the cast list.

And finally, all roads lead to Bigelow as the film’s director, and it should. It is her vision that makes this film what it is. Therefore, her Oscar snub is pretty indefensible. If a film is Oscar worthy, then so is the director. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Although I’m not her biggest fan, I admire and respect Bigelow for several reasons. One, she is one of the few women directors working on large budget films. And, most importantly, two, for refusing to be a stereotype. Rather than direct light, fluffy fodder – The world needs a lot fewer romantic comedies- she proves that women can make action films (Point Break) and military-themed films (The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty). And they can do it very well.

Zero Dark Thirty isn’t one of my favorite films of 2012, and I probably wouldn’t watch it again, but it’s engrossing, contains a powerful performance by Chastain, and centers on an important event in U.S. history. It’s also a much better film than was The Hurt Locker.

The movies singled out for this honor aren’t listed here in any particular order. A few of them are available on Netflix’s Instant Watch.

1. Skyfall – This James Bond film has already passed the $1 billion mark and is the most successful Bond film ever. And yet, I was kind of disappointed in it. Considering the high point that was Casino Royale, I expected more; maybe I expected something different entirely. That said, I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and Skyfall had its moments. It contained some very important “reboot” moments, such as the establishment of a new Moneypenny, a new Q, and M. Great performances by Dame Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, and Javier Bardem, and some lovely locations, including China. Not my favorite Bond, but I won’t hesitate to watch it again.
2. Flowers of War – When I found out that Zhang Yimou had a new film in the works, and that he had cast Christian Bale, I was very intrigued. Would Bale be speaking Mandarin? Would his part be a cameo? He actually plays a Westerner trapped in Japanese-occupied China, and he ends up helping, rather reluctantly at first, a group of young girls and prostitutes survive. Overall, I found the story to be compelling, and Bale’s performance noteworthy. His character starts out as pretty unlikable but by the end, he’s the complete opposite. Some harrowing moments.
3. Haywire – Steven Soderbergh’s attempt at a Bournesque action/thriller with a female lead is pretty fast-paced and action-packed. Lots of amazing cameos by Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, Bill Paxton, Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, and Antonio Banderas. I wouldn’t mind seeing this becoming a franchise. Gina Carano was pretty great.
4. Chronicle – A sci-fi film about three teenagers who discover an alien object. Their encounter with it gives them, for lack of a better description, super powers. The film felt a lot like a small budget superhero origin story, but that’s not a bad thing. The film’s scene stealer is Dane DeHaan, who plays the teen who “goes bad.” Better than The Dark Knight Rises.
5. The Hunter- Set in Tasmania, this film is about a mercenary, played by Willem Dafoe, who is hired by a biotech company to track a Tasmania tiger, an animal believed to be extinct. I found the story intriguing, the cinematography breathtaking, and the performances very subtle. This is an odd film, and one I didn’t really think I would enjoy. Also stars Sam Neill.
6. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel – The British are filling the void left by Hollywood’s “aim for the Tweens” mentality by making films about seniors in all sorts of outrageous circumstances. In this case, a bunch of “seniors” pack up and go to India, to live at The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. The cast is, they always are in these films, exemplary, and includes Dame Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, and Dame Maggie Smith. Sometimes very funny; other times, touching and sad.
7. The Avengers – Josh Whedon assembles a plethora of superheroes, including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye, so they can join forces to fight Loki. I found this to be a bit over long, and I was disappointed with its scarcity of Thor, but the film, once it got rolling, had some funny exchanges, and one of the best Hulks (Mark Ruffalo) on celluloid. Robert Downey Jr. is reason enough to see this comic book adaptation. (I recently asked my husband which was his favorite film this year. Avengers it was.)
8. Trouble with the Curve – I boycotted this after Clint Eastwood made an ass of himself talking to a chair that was supposed to be President Obama. But, I tend to be more forgiving when the films come out on DVD. Eastwood plays a baseball scout who’s losing his mojo because of old age. Amy Adams plays his very successful daughter, a lawyer with abandonment issues. I know that people have taken potshots at this film, but I really enjoyed it. It’s unusual to see a sports themed film about a father and daughter, and the acting is quite good. I actually felt sorry for Eastwood’s crusty character. Getting old is a bitch. Justin Timberlake is so cute and adorable in this. Such a charmer.
9. The Words – Bradley Cooper plays Rory Jansen, a struggling writer who will do about anything for success, including passing off another man’s manuscript as his own. (He finds it in a briefcase that his wife bought for him in Paris.) The novel is a runaway hit; a critical darling, and he is catapulted into the limelight. Unfortunately, the real author is still very much alive. I found the story to be pretty interesting, and the acting is very good, especially Cooper and Jeremy Irons, who plays the author. Some notable supporting performances by Dennis Quaid, Ben Barnes, Michael McKean, J.K. Simmons, and Zoe Saldana.
10. The Day – A post-apocalyptic film about five survivors who converge on what seems to be an abandoned farmhouse. It isn’t. As this is a low budget indie with iffy actors –  Shannyn Sossamon and Dominic Monaghan – I had super low expectations. I ended up really liking it. Ashley Bell is amazingly kickass and Shawn Ashmore is really good. The violence is pretty intense as their foes are psychotic cannibals. You could do a lot worse than this one. Plus, it’s a very manageable 87-minutes long.
11. The Pact – Another indie horror film that surprised me. This one begins with the death of an abusive mother and the disappearance of one of her daughters. Returning home to investigate is the motorcycle-riding younger sister, played by Caity Lotz. Lots of strange, and later disturbing, things begin happening in the family house. Lotz has a lot of screen presence, and Casper Van Dien has a lovely cameo as a stubble-sporting cop. (He hasn’t aged a day.) Infinitely better than the overrated Innkeepers. Only 89-minutes long.
12. Arbitrage – Richard Gere plays a very rich man who is trying desperately to sell his company while also trying desperately to avoid being arrested for the “murder” of his mistress. At first, I found Gere’s character to be so objectionable that I nearly shut this off. But I stuck with it, and I’m glad that I did. Overall, it’s about how the very wealthy are above the law and reproach. Not that we didn’t already know that. But you can be reminded while enjoying notable performances by Gere, Tim Roth, and Susan Sarandon.
13. Killer Joe – William Friedkin adapts Terry Letts’ very violent stage play for the big screen. The characters are a bunch of redneck opportunists who lack ethics and intelligence. Wind them up and watch them go. Phenomenal performances by Matthew McConaughey, as the titular Killer Joe, and Juno Temple, as a simple-minded innocent who becomes Joe’s “retainer.” The ending is bloody and disturbing and all kinds of wrong. Not for everyone, that’s for sure.
14. The Good Doctor – Orlando Bloom sheds his nice guy image to play an awkward residency student who becomes obsessed with a teen-age patient. Desperate to keep her around, he begins sabotaging her treatment with horrible consequences. The ending is a bit abrupt, and people might not like the fact that this is a lot like Arbitrage in that it, too, demonstrates how certain people, in this instance, people in the medical profession, seem to be above reproach. Bloom is good in a Norman Bateseque manner. He’s cute but no way would I let him near me with a syringe. Riley Keough, grand-daughter of Elvis Presley, is beautiful in a Pre-Raphaelite way. Good supporting cast, including Rob Morrow and Michael Pena.

Why not The Best of 2012? A few reasons: One, saying that they are the “best” makes other people confrontational. They start getting highbrow and trying to call me out for not including a bunch of obscure foreign and indie films. (Last year, I tried working my way through one of those “highbrow” film lists, and just about smashed myself in the face with a hammer to make the pain stop.) Second, I wanted to make a list of films that I enjoyed watching the first time, enjoyed watching a second time, and ones that I would watch a third or fourth time without getting bored. If the films are available on DVD, chances are high that I’ve already purchased a copy. The films are all four or five star efforts.

Before we get to the “meat,” let me say that there are a few films that I didn’t get around to seeing that might have made my list. Those include: Life of Pi, Flight, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty (seeing it Jan. 10).

Only the first four are in order, the rest of them, I had a tough time ranking.

1)      The Impossible – Until today, Jan. 6, Prometheus was my No. 1 pick. That was before I experienced the harrowing The Impossible, a film chronicling one family’s ordeal during the 2004 tsunami that hit Thailand. This film is incredibly moving and brilliantly acted. I was riveted throughout. I also think I cried for all but 20 minutes of its nearly 2-hour running time. Kudos to everyone involved, especially Tom Holland, Naomi Watts, and Ewan McGregor. This film deserves a lot of awards. I will see it again, but first I have to recover from the initial experience.

2)      Prometheus – One of my absolute favorite films of the year. The visuals blew my mind, and as for the story, I am still thinking about it. I know that this film took a lot of criticism, primarily because it wasn’t Alien. Ridley Scott’s return to sci-fi just about killed me with glee. I’ve already seen this five or six times, and if someone suggested it right now, I would watch it again. Michael Fassbender makes this golden.

3)      The Hobbit – Another film that made me giddy with delight. It reignited my Tolkien fanaticism, but in a good way. It really is just another way of retelling LOTR but with dwarves, but I don’t care. I love Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the eagles, Gandalf, and the brown wizard who rides a sled pulled by rabbits. My little geek heart is chuffed.

4)      Les Miserables – A deeply moving cinematic treatment of the Broadway musical. I wasn’t keen on everyone’s singing, but what they may have lacked in vocal ability, they made up for in emotional depth. Hugh Jackman had me bawling during the first scene; Anne Hathaway delivered the emotion K.O. I’ve never cared for Eddie Redmayne, but his singing prowess has me rethinking that. Excellent costumes, production design, and cinematography. Another Oscar hopeful.

5)      Jack Reacher – I’m a Tom Cruise fan, so get over it. I like this character a lot, and the film has a rocket ride of a car chase in it. Overall, it was an intriguing mystery and a fast-paced action film. And it was pure genius casting Werner Herzog as the villain. He is badass scary.

6)      Argo – After seeing this period thriller, I rented Gone Baby Gone, which I had skipped out on seeing. Ben Affleck is an amazing director, and even though you know how this is going to turn out, you white knuckle it throughout. I was exhausted by the time it was over. Can’t wait to buy this.

7)      Hitchcock – Alfred Hitchcock was one of my favorite directors when I was a child, so I was looking forward to seeing this the minute the first trailer appeared. Having Sir Anthony Hopkins playing him was the icing on the cake. This movie is a few things: A “documentary” about how Psycho was made, and it’s a love story between Hitch and his wife, played beautifully by Helen Mirren. The cast is great. I enjoyed this more than I should have.

8)      Looper – I just watched this again on Blu-ray, and it didn’t lose any of its appeal. It’s not as much about time travel as it is about being selfless, and how those sacrifices can save the world. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors. He’s great in this. Writer/director Rian Johnson impresses.

9)      Brave – I had heard lukewarm reactions to this, so I didn’t bother seeing it in the cinema. Big mistake. Ultimately, it’s about how miscommunication, and expectations, can drive a wedge between a mother and daughter. The ending made me weepy, and, let’s face it, I loved the mom as a giant bear. Those red-headed brothers and their mischievous antics gave me a chuckle.

10)   Woman in Black – I can imagine that no one else will include this on their list, but I really loved it. It’s a great Gothic tale that features a creepy, big, water-surrounded house filled with horrible wind-up toys with big staring eyes. Shudder. Daniel Radcliffe is lovely in this, and I adore the “off” woman who treats her dogs like children. The only thing I didn’t like about this was the ending.

11)   Dredd – A vast improvement over the Sylvester Stallone original. I will admit that I like a good shoot-em-up, and this has so many bullets flying that it made me dizzy. Karl Urban is also a favorite. At first, I wasn’t too sure about the inclusion of his willowy sidekick, but as soon as her “powers” kick in, I was enthralled. Another film that is being purchased the day it comes out.

12)   Bourne: Legacy – The original Bourne trilogy is about the most perfect action/adventure franchise on this planet, so when it was announced that Matt Damon wasn’t going to be in the fourth installment, I was a bit sour. That said, Jeremy Renner is excellent. A superb motorcycle chase sequence, and a lot of fast-paced action. The first 20 minutes reminded me of The Grey, which is also on my Fave list.

13)   Silver Linings Playbook – I was skeptical of this when I saw the trailer, thinking it was just another romance between a middle-aged guy and a 20-year-old, but I was wrong. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are serious Oscar contenders with their roles as two “broken” people helping each other to heal. The finale dance competition felt a bit cliché to me, but otherwise, I really enjoyed this. Still thinking about it a few days later.

14)   Ted – I avoid comedies as much as possible, but there is something about Seth MacFarlane’s sense of humor that appeals. And, I’m a sucker for Mark Wahlberg and foul-mouthed Teddy bears. Giovanni Ribisi isn’t in the film very much, but he is a scene stealer. I laughed a lot while watching this.

15)   The Grey – Another film I avoided because of all of the negative talk. When it came out on DVD, I rented it, and then I bought myself a copy. The first 20 minutes or so, which contain the plane crash, seriously traumatized me. This is a gritty and honest film about life and death. Great monologue near the end of the film as delivered by Liam Neeson.

16)   Perfect Sense –I had never even heard of this romance/sci-fi/drama when I rented it from Redbox. All I saw was Ewan McGregor’s name, and that was enough for me. It’s an unusual film about a contagion/virus that attacks a person’s senses. As each sense disappears, the main characters – played by McGregor and Eva Green – must learn to adjust/adapt. I found it fascinating because I have never really thought about how much enjoyment we get from our senses, and what life would be like without a sense of smell or taste. This film really made me think. It reminded me of Blindness, a film I also loved.

17)   Lawless – So much hate from people about this Prohibition-era film, but I really liked it. Even  with Shia LaBeouf as a main character. What I loved, I guess, was Tom Hardy’s character and performance, and Guy Pearce’s character and performance. I dig director John Hillcoat, like some people dig Terrence Malick. The Proposition and The Road are both highly recommended.

18)   Men in Black: III – After the travesty that was MIB:II, I thought it best to sit this one out. And then it came out on DVD, and I decided to give it a shot. Hilarious, yes, and even touching. I’m not a Will Smith fan, but he had me laughing as did Josh Brolin who does an uncanny Tommy Lee Jones. Some great supporting performances by Emma Thompson and Jemaine Clement. I bought this on DVD the day after I watched it.

19)   Resident Evil: Redemption – This franchise is kind of hit and miss for me. The last film, Resident Evil: Afterlife, got me so angry that it nearly had me slapping strangers outside of the cinema. I had about written the whole thing off, when I decided to see Redemption.  (I’m an easy mark. What can I say?) While watching it, I kept thinking “wow, this ain’t half bad.” I just rented it and watched it again, and liked it even better than I did in the cinema. It isn’t original or award-winning, but it has a “game play” coolness about it, and Milla Jovovich looks amazing. I only wish I could be Alice with all of her fury and badassness. I’ll be watching this again. (The opening, which is in reverse, was also fun to watch.) [Update, I recently rewatched Afterlife, and I have changed my opinion of it. I'm thinking of buying all five films on Blu-ray. I think I like them more than I had thought.]

20)   Coriolanus – Not one of my favorite Shakespearean histories, but when Ralph Fiennes plays the titular character, and directs, it suddenly moves up in my estimation. Fiennes gives this a modern twist, and casts Gerard Butler in opposition. Watch for a cameo by Vanessa Redgrave.

21)   Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai – I love the 1962 original, and even though I’ve not enjoyed director Takashi Miike’s work in the past, I was so impressed with his 13 Assassins that I thought I would give this a look. I rented it for $9.99 on Amazon, and found that that money was well spent. Some of the scenes are difficult to watch – a guy disembowels himself with a bamboo sword – and the story can be a bit melodramatic, but this is wonderful remake.

22)   Total Recall – Like Dredd, this one improves upon the original quite significantly. There is plenty of action and cool special effects, and it feels like something that Philip K. Dick might approve of. I really like Colin Farrell in this, and this is the first time I’ve appreciated Jessica Biel. Kate Beckinsale acts like a lunatic. Bought my copy last week, and enjoyed watching it again.

23)   Battleship – I know I’m going to get shit for this inclusion, but suck it. I had originally avoided seeing this in the cinema because everyone had been beating it up, and I only rented it on a whim. “How horrible can this be?” It was not horrible. It was great fun. I enjoyed this film so much that I cannot tell you. The story is absolutely ridiculous, and the first 10 minutes feels like the screenwriters were copying characters/situations from Top Gun and Point Break, but the special effects are awesome, and the intensity is pretty great. What I probably liked most was the fact the Americans get to fight side-by-side with the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. And this is a mainstream, pretty patriotic, Hollywood film! Subversive! Tadanabu Asano is one of my favorites, so the fact that he has as much screen time as he does just made me all the more happy. A great way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

24)    Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter – Another one that took a lot of fan boy drubbing. As I haven’t yet read the book, I didn’t see this with any expectations. All I knew was that Abraham Lincoln was killing some vampires with an axe. And that, my friends, is awesome. I’ve seen this twice already, and actually liked it more the second time. I love Rufus Sewell, Dominic Cooper, and Marton Csokas, and they make excellent vampires. Lead actor Benjamin Walker, who looks like Liam Neeson’s son, is a great find. Sometimes I have a problem with “style over substance” director Timur Bekmambetov, but what he did in this instance was just fine by me. This reminded me a bit of Priest, another film I loved and the world hated. I do have a talent for liking movies that no one else does.

25)   Seeking a Friend for the End of the World – I loathe Keira Knightley, so let’s just get that out of the way, and yet, I have included a few of her films on my year end lists. This one lands here, not because of her, but because of Steve Carell, who I find very charming and appealing. This is an apocalyptic film that’s sometimes funny and sometimes very sad. The ending made me bawl like a baby. I didn’t even expect to like this, so it was a shock to me how much it affected me.

26)   People Like Us – Another film I avoided in the cinema. (Are you seeing a pattern?) I rented it because of Chris Pine, and loved it because of his amazing performance, but also because this film has a lot of heart. I should have known it would be good. After all, it’s co-written by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, two of my faves. Michelle Pfeiffer and Elizabeth Banks round out the greatness of this dramedy.

27)   Dark Shadows/Frankenweenie – Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors, and I never miss one of his films. That said, I didn’t see Dark Shadows in the cinema. I rented it, not expecting much, and ended up really enjoying myself. I liked the retro quality to it. And Johnny Depp was perfection. As for Frankenweenie, it’s an animated remake of a very early, but live action, Burton film. It pays homage to classic horror films, and is for anyone who has loved and lost a dog. I was sad to see that this sweet film was largely avoided by the masses.

Seth MacFarlane as Ted and Mark Wahlberg as John in Ted
© 2012 Universal Pictures

Flash forward a few decades, and Ted and John (Mark Wahlberg) are still best buddies. John now works for a car rental company, and is about to celebrate his 4-year anniversary with Lori (Mila Kunis). And Ted (voiced by MacFarlane) … well, let’s just say that he is far from his cute and cuddly, sweet-voiced days. He’s now a pot-smoking, beer-swigging, pop culture-absorbing, womanizing, foul-mouthed, very adult, bear.

Lori loves John, but she is learning the truth of the adage: “two’s company; three’s a crowd.” She wants her boyfriend to grow up; and that means putting away childish things, specifically to get the bear to move out. But is John capable of letting Ted go?

Ted is, no doubt, a polarizing comedy: You will probably love it or hate it. I fell into the former category, but then I’m a long-time MacFarlane aficionado. I’m still watching and laughing at Family Guy and American Dad after all of these seasons. It really helps to like those TV shows, too, because Ted is, in many ways, a live action, and uncensored, version of Family Guy. Ted, the character, is a mélange of Peter Griffin (who has no idea how to filter his thoughts or actions, and is incredibly infantile) and Brian. The language is pretty frank and raw, so if you are easily offended, you probably won’t like it. Outside of the MacFarlane universe, Ted’s level of raunch is on par with 40-Year-Old Virgin, which I also found to be hilarious.

Seth MacFarlane as Ted and Mark Wahlberg as John in Ted
© 2012 Universal Pictures

What I liked about Ted, and why it appears on my Best Films of 2012 List …

Mark Wahlberg. I just like the guy. He’s a versatile actor – he can intimidate with the best of them (Contraband), he can emote and break your heart (The Fighter), and he can make you laugh (Date Night; The Other Guys). Even when he’s cracking skulls, you get the sense that deep down, he’s sweet. That sweetness and tenderheartedness comes through in Ted. He really wants to make his relationship work, but he’s also devoted to his plush pal. He has great chemistry with Kunis and with MacFarlane. I hope there are more collaborations to come.

Seth MacFarlane. He’s an incredibly talented guy. He sings, writes, acts, and, with this, directs his first live-action film. He and I are roughly the same age, and we must have watched a lot of the same TV shows and movies. For those unfamiliar with his work, he makes a lot of pop culture references. A lot. Some are accessible to all, but some are pretty obscure and could be lost on those who are much younger. Or those who don’t watch a lot of TV and movies. There are the obligatory references to Star Wars and Indiana Jones, which, unless you are a troll living underground, you will “get.” But there are also ones that are more time specific. For instance, one of the most hilarious gags is a recreation of the dance floor sequence from Airplane. Flash Gordon, the Sam J. Jones/Max von Sydow must-watch disaster from the 1980s, is actually a significant part of the plot. References to, and sometimes disparaging comments are made about, the Adam Sandler film Jack and Jill, Brandon Routh, Cheers, Corey Feldman, Ed McMahon, Alf, and Frankie Muniz. This is one thing that I love about MacFarlane – the references.

Ted. There’s something very lovable about him. Yes, even when he’s dry humping the scanner in his check-out line. (Cracks me up.) I don’t know if I would want this Teddy Bear to come and live at my house – he reminded me a bit of Baby Herman in Who Framed Roger Rabbit – but I loved him all the same. In fact, I found myself getting angry at Lori for trying to break up John and Ted’s relationship. The end of the film damn near traumatized me! One of the reasons I became so attached to him is he is so life-like. At first, I wondered if he was animatronic. (He’s a bit like Teddy from A.I. Artificial Intelligence.) Kudos to the designers who created him. And I hope a sequel to this film is in the works. (I also love MacFarlane’s voice.)

Giovanni Ribisi. He plays Donny, a creepy, Ted-obsessed guy who wants to acquire the stuffed toy for his rotund son. His character plays a significant role in the second half of the film, and once he showed up, I began to think that the “love triangle” story wasn’t as interesting as the “I must have Ted at all costs” one. I almost wish that that had been the main plot of the film. Less romance; more Pee Wee’s Big Adventure but with a bear instead of a bicycle.  (I may have imagined it, but there seemed to be some references to Silence of the Lambs and The Rocking Horse Winner in those scenes.) I applaud Ribisi for taking his character all the way. I will never get that disturbing dance to Tiffany’s I Think We’re Alone Now out of my mind.

And Patrick Stewart. This British thespian narrates the “magical” story of how John and Ted came to be friends in way that’s both touching and hilarious. (He goes off on a very funny tangent about Apache helicopters.) Why would Stewart lend his talents to such a raunchy comedy? He, of course, does the voice of Avery Bullock, Stan Smith’s boss at the CIA, on American Dad. Some of the things he says on THAT show, and some of the things his animated character does … makes you forget all about Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Professor Xavier!

Stewart isn’t the only American Dad/Family Guy employee showing up in Ted. Kunis provides the voice of Meg Griffin on Family Guy. Patrick Warburton, who lends his voice to Joe on that same program, has a small role in Ted as a guy who is confused about his sexuality. (Ryan Reynolds has a cameo as Warburton’s boyfriend. Reynolds guest starred on an episode of Family Guy in which he “was lusting” for Peter.) Alex Borstein, who voices Lois Griffin, has a small role as John’s mom. Other celebrity cameos come courtesy of Ted Danson – he talks about the size of Woody Harrelson’s penis – Norah Jones, and, Tom Skerritt, in what could be the most absurd cameo of all time. Flash Gordon himself turns up:  Sam J. Jones; his hair parted in the middle. Could this be the beginning of his big comeback? I don’t know, but he certainly was a sport to be in this film.

Rosamund Pike as Helen and Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher.
© MMXII Paramount Pictures Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Jack Reacher, a fictional character created by Lee Child, stands well over 6-feet, weighs more than 200 pounds, and has blonde hair. How do I know this when I haven’t read a single Child novel? Because the fans of the character keep banging on about these facts. When the news came out that Cruise was playing Reacher, the backlash could be heard round the world. There is even a Facebook page called Tom Cruise is not Jack Reacher. Do I really care that Tom Cruise isn’t a colossus with blond hair? No, I do not. I like Tom Cruise. I like his films. And, I really liked Jack Reacher.

Jai Courtney as Charlie and Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher.
© MMXII Paramount Pictures Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

I don’t know how much of Reacher’s identity is tied to his body, meaning does being built like a living Hulk doll make him who he is? Or is Reacher who he is because of his attitude and demeanor? If people think that being large means being a badass, they haven’t seen Jackie Chan, Jet Li, or Bruce Lee – all of who are shorter than or the same height as Cruise – in action. And I take offense at those who take potshots at the film just because Cruise isn’t 6-feet or taller. (I’m talking about you David Edelstein, of CBS Sunday Morning.) I don’t want this to be a review that transforms into apologetics, but it infuriates me. It’s low, unprofessional and juvenile. Grow up. (Lee Child obviously didn’t have a problem with the casting. He has a cameo in the film! Also, I’m sure those checks cash really well.)

Werner Herzog as The Zec in Jack Reacher.
© MMXII Paramount Pictures Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Now on to the film itself, and why it worked for me. I like the character. He’s intelligent, no-nonsense, resourceful, practical, unattached, and can beat the crap out of anyone. He also doesn’t suffer fools. Does Cruise play this character convincingly? Yes. I admire the fact that Cruise is an athlete, who performs his own stunts. He has a compact frame that looks like it can deliver a powerful punch. These fight sequences are beautifully choreographed and believable. In this universe, Reacher isn’t a gun-toting, macho He-man; when he’s not memorizing serial numbers on weapons or dates on quarters, he’s taking care of baddies with his fists. He’s a bit like Jason Bourne, and I really worship at the altar of Bourne.

I really appreciated, and I do mean REALLY appreciated, the fact that writer-director Christopher McQuarrie kept the romance out of Jack Reacher. There are no sex scenes and no useless nudity. It’s just action and solving crimes; just the way it should be. There is some romantic/sexual tension between Reacher and Helen, the defense attorney, but it never comes to fruition or becomes distracting.

I’m an action fan, and I found these action sequences to be very edge-of-the-seat stuff, especially the high octane car chase. And really, how can you go wrong when that chase involves a gorgeous, red and black Chevrolet Chevelle SS? (Some other really beautiful classic/muscle cars can be seen in the film.) At the end of the movie, Reacher even drives a car backwards at high speed, using only an in-dash monitor for guidance.

Overall, the casting director did a good job of assembling some well-known and lesser known actors. Robert Duvall, who plays the owner of a shooting range, trades some great lines/has some memorable scenes with Cruise. Relative newcomer, Aussie actor Jai Courtney, held his own against Cruise. I’m now excited to see him play the son of Bruce Willis in A Good Day to Die Hard. Oyelowo and Jenkins are solid actors, as is Pike, who I always remember as the fencing Bond girl in Die Another Day. But the greatest casting choice was to get German director Werner Herzog to play a Russian, who also happens to be the film’s chief villain. And what a villain he plays. Shudder. Scary guy. (True Blood fans will recognize Michael Raymond-James; he plays a minor bad guy.)

Finally, even though McQuarrie has had more experience as a writer – he is the man behind The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie, and The Tourist  – he seems to have the potential to become a great director. With Jack Reacher, only his second film, he gets everything right. Under his direction, Cruise has created a memorable character who manages to have a few humorous moments in the midst of some intense ones. McQuarrie keeps the tension taut and has good pacing; the film never once dragged for me. Especially in light of the recent shootings, the opening sequence was probably more difficult to watch than it would have been otherwise, but it’s a necessary part of the plot. No way around it. As uncomfortable as it is, it’s effective and shot well. (Caleb Deschanel is the cinematographer, so of course it is.) The car chase, too, is done very well; reminiscent of some of the great chases from the 1970s.

I would love to see Jack Reacher become the next action/crime/thriller franchise. I worry, though, that the fanboy backlash could hurt it. As could the unfortunate timing of its release. Not only does it have to go head-to-head with The Hobbit (!) but the recent shootings might also make people stay away. According to IMDB, it cost $50 million, and took in $15 million on its opening weekend, which isn’t bad. The overseas market might be more accommodating. We’ll see after it opens in the U.K. in two days and the rest of the world at the beginning of 2013. Fingers crossed. There are plenty more Jack Reacher books from which to choose!

You can imagine my absolute apoplexy when it was announced that Scott was returning to sci-fi, specifically the Alien universe, after more than 30 years. I followed all of the news: Who was being cast, who was writing it, what it would be about, and finally, what it would be called … originally Magellan, eventually Prometheus. My excitement built. And then it was opening weekend, and I secured my ticket. Not since Avatar have I been so absolutely enchanted. When it ended, I wanted to see it again. And I did. (I saw it, in the cinema, in both 3-D and standard.) For some reason, I never got around to reviewing the film. I have since purchased it on Blu-ray, and have watched it a few times with and without commentary. (I started the nearly 4-hour-long documentary this morning.)

As of Dec. 28, 2012, it is still my favorite film of the year. (The Hobbit came close to knocking it from No. 1 to No. 2.) I know that a lot of people complain about Prometheus, and have Tweeted pretty rotten things to one of the screenwriters, Damon Lindelof. But I won’t budge. I love it, and that’s the end of it. (I became so obsessed with the film that I’ve since purchased The Art of Prometheus and have a Weyland Industries T-shirt that I wear with pride.)

For those who haven’t seen the film, it is essentially a prequel to the Alien universe. It centers on Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), scientists who are convinced that humanoid aliens visited Earth long ago, and that they left behind a map to their planet.  Desperate to seek our “origins,” they convince billionaire industrialist, Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), to fund an expedition into space. Joining them on this voyage is company man Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), an android named David (Michael Fassbender), pilot Janek (Idris Elba), and various scientists/specialists, including geologist Fifield (Sean Harris) and biologist Millburn (Rafe Spall). Rather than being a “monster on a ship killing people in nasty ways” kind of movie, Prometheus attempts to ask “the big questions,” including who we are, and from whom do we come.

The original script was crafted by Jon Spaihts, who seems to be a very smart and articulate guy. Unfortunately because this was his first feature, the studio got nervous and ended up bringing in another writer, Lindelof of Lost fame. Scott, apparently, also had considerable input. What emerges from the collaboration of these three is a screenplay that is often way more confusing than it needed to be. (Watch the deleted scenes, and you will wonder why they were excised. They clarify the story to an infuriating degree.) Did I have problems with the story? I did, without a doubt. Did some of the characters get on my nerves – Um, Elizabeth “the Evangelical” Shaw – most definitely. But, in the end, did that ultimately destroy my love of this film? No, not in the least bit.

So, what the hell is my problem? The reasons I love and adore Prometheus are pretty simple. First, while I was watching the film, I was absolutely overwhelmed by the visuals. And I mean that in a good way. Several sequences blew my mind: The holographic Orrery, the disturbing emergency medical procedure, and David doing just about anything. I am a purely visual person, and I love feeling as if I’m being transported to another place and time. Everything from the costumes to the alien designs captivated me. Scott is back, and it makes me so happy.

Second, I have a fetish of sorts for movies and TV shows about artificial humans, and the Lawrence of Arabia-watching, basketball playing, Teutonic David has swiftly become one of my favorites. He is sort of a mixture of David from A.I.: Artificial Intelligence and Roy Batty of Blade Runner. He’s highly intelligent and accommodating, but he is self-aware and exhibits a well-deserved feeling of superiority. Often in these films, humans treat the artificial beings as objects or tools, and David isn’t treated very well by the humans in Prometheus; they underestimate him. But because they fail to appreciate his experience, they make huge mistakes. For instance, Elizabeth is obsessed with meeting her makers, never realizing that David has intimate knowledge of what it’s like to meet one’s maker and how disappointing that can be.

I don’t know if I would have been so enamored with David had he been played by another actor. But in Fassbender’s hands, he’s stunning. He conveys so much behind his eyes and with a certain inflection of word. I adore Fassbender anyway, so … he could have spent the entire running time bleaching his hair and mimicking Peter O’Toole and I probably would have been transfixed. (I’m still convinced that Theron’s character was another android, but I haven’t found any additional evidence to support this theory.)

Third, even as flawed as Prometheus is in asking the “big questions” – it was a bit overly intelligent design for me – it presented some moments that gave me food for rumination. For instance, and this might be a spoiler, I really loved the sequence during which Charlie is infected. David could have just slipped the black, alien DNA into Charlie’s drink; an action that would have made him seem as nefarious/devious as Ash (Ian Holm) was in Alien. But he doesn’t. He asks Charlie a question about how far he would go to learn what he wants to learn. (Or something to that effect.) If Charlie had said, “Well, there are limits,” would David have infected him? I find that question really intriguing. There were other moments that left my brain whirring many days after I had seen the film. And I like that about it.

Fourth, even though they may have stumbled a bit, the writers/director/creative team did a nice balancing act of throwing a bone to fans while also giving them/us something new. We got some new, very cool, creatures, including the strange, many tentacled creature that appears near the end of the film, which was described by its creator as having a lot of vulvas; the waxy-faced Engineers that are a tweaked combination of Elvis Presley, the Statue of Liberty, and Michelangelo’s David; and that bat-like, wormy, very horrible water-dweller that has a penchant for mouths. (Lots of uncomfortable sexual stuff going on again.) As far as the “throwing a bone” part, as soon as that final creature made an appearance, some people in the audience cheered; and, of course, we get to find out that that “star jockey” isn’t a human/elephant hybrid, but that that’s his spacesuit.

As this is the end of the year, a lot of reviewers are compiling their Best of 2012 lists. So far, I think I am the only person who has included Prometheus. Sigh. I think that’s a shame. But then, they can have their Django Unchaineds, and I’ll keep marveling over my Prometheus.

I’m just so thrilled to have Scott back in the sci-fi genre that I can hardly contain myself. His visual style and direction make me giddy. I know that a sequel to Prometheus is in the works – IMDB has Fassbender and Rapace attached; I just hope that Scott will be back in the director’s seat. (Lindelof has already said that he isn’t writing. WHEW!)

5 out of 5 stars.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins.
© 2012 Warner Bros. Ent. All Rights Reserved.

As with anything, as time passes, a person’s passion for something wanes. When I wrote my book, Discovering World Religions at 24 Frames Per Second, I revisited the trilogy, but this time I maintained only a casual, academic interest. Even watching the ultra-long versions couldn’t catapult me back into that earlier frenzy. It was more of a detached, “remember how great those films were?”

Richard Armitage as Thorin.
© 2012 Warner Bros. Ent. All Rights Reserved.

When it was announced that director Peter Jackson would be returning to the Shire to make The Hobbit, I was mildly interested; hopeful. But then he left, and Guillermo del Toro came on board. He left, and union problems began. And on and on. There was so much start/stop/start again, that I lost interest; maybe not even believing that this film would happen.

Ian McKellen as Gandalf.
© 2012 Warner Bros. Ent. All Rights Reserved.

I don’t know if I was in a fugue or what, but I remember that when the trailer came out for The Hobbit, I was surprised that the film was already finished. And then it opened at the cinema. Again, I was interested enough to see it on opening weekend, but I wasn’t flush with excitement. That changed the minute that I saw Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), the Shire, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), and Gandalf (Ian McKellen). It was like I was a child on Christmas day being handed a puppy, a Star Wars figurine, and a Good Humor Candy Center Crunch bar. Queue the fanatic – she has returned from her slumber!

Hugo Weaving as Elrond.
© 2012 Warner Bros. Ent. All Rights Reserved.

The Hobbit is a “prequel.” It centers on the early adventures of Bilbo Baggins (played in his “youth” by Martin Freeman), specifically his attempts to assist a group of dwarves in reclaiming their ancestral home, Lonely Mountain. (It, and all of its treasures, has been taken over by a diabolical dragon named Smaug.) Gandalf the Grey also tags along. The film begins with the story of how the dwarves, at one time, had riches and power. But greed proved their undoing, and they were eventually scattered to the four winds. Wanting to restore his people and their kingdom, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) assembles a small, very unusual, group of 12 dwarves to fulfill that purpose. Along the way, they encounter Orcs a-plenty (many on the backs of Wargs), trolls, goblins, elves, and, deep in the crags of a mountain, Gollum (Andy Serkis).

I’m not going to go into the criticism that has been lobbed at The Hobbit, because I don’t agree with any of it. I was a bit apprehensive about the running time – nearly 3 hours – but I was so engrossed in the characters and their stories that I was actually disappointed when the film ended. More disappointed that we have to wait until next December to see the second part of The Hobbit trilogy. Trilogy, you say? But isn’t that a rather short book? Jackson and his writing team – Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens – are using the book’s extensive appendices – about 120 pages worth – to expand the histories, etc. I’m all for that. I honestly cannot get enough. I just rewatched the LOTR trilogy – all 10 or so hour’s worth – and was depressed when I didn’t have any more Hobbits, elves, orcs, Uruk-Hai, dwarves, Ents, humans, or wizards to watch. (I still need to watch all of the extras on those extended DVDs.)

What I loved about The Hobbit, and why it is my second favorite film of 2012, right behind Prometheus? As an uber-fan, it was comforting and nourishing to be in this universe again. It’s like being wrapped in a warm fleece blanket and drinking a warm cup of cocoa by a crackling fire on a cold winter’s night. The minute I saw Bilbo and the Shire, I got a warm feeling inside. And as much as I adore del Toro, I am glad that the film fell back into Jackson’s hands. He started this adventure; he’s the one who has to finish it. (The consistency of vision, I’m all for it.)

I really like Aragorn and Legolas, and was afraid that I would miss them. But I didn’t, because I found a few equally compelling (and attractive) characters in The Hobbit, specifically Thorin, the man who will be king; and Kili (Aidan Turner), the handsome dwarf who is handy with a bow and arrow. Before seeing him in The Hobbit, I wasn’t familiar with Armitage’s work. That might be just as well, because this is a defining role for him; he’s mesmerizing. His character is strong, brave; a great leader, but plagued by over-confidence. By the end, he becomes more humble and thus more likable. Armitage is destined for stardom. Since Thorin and Bilbo are the main characters, many of the other dwarves get lost in the shuffle. That said, I really liked the jovial, hat-wearing Bofur, played by the always great James Nesbitt; the heavily Scottish accented Dwalin, played by Graham McTavish, and the white, bushy bearded Balin, played by Ken Stott.

As I’m not a person who came to Tolkien via his books – I am a child of the Ralph Bakshi travesties –I really don’t care if this or that character was or was not in The Hobbit. Therefore, I was delighted to see Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and the relatively uncorrupted Saruman (Christopher Lee) again. Speaking of wizards, Radagast (Sylvester McCoy), the brown, was a fun character. Kind of balmy and ecologically conscious. Another new, albeit briefly seen, character is the elf Thrandull, who I believe is supposed to be a relative of Legolas. He has long, white hair and rides an elk/moose. I couldn’t hardly believe that was Lee Pace. Such an impressive look.  Gandalf is one of the greatest cinematic characters of all time, and he couldn’t be better played than by McKellen. The same goes for creepy, cannibalistic Gollum. (According to the credits, Serkis is getting some behind-the-camera work.) Even though they aren’t “humanoid,” I was particularly thrilled to see the eagles making another appearance. And I can’t wait to see more of this necromancer. In short, I love all of these characters; love spending time with them.

I also found the story to be enthralling; a very “once upon a time” kind of thing. I particularly liked the history of the dwarves, which is a mini-morality story about greed and hubris. Elements of it seemed to be very Biblical. Almost like a dwarf version of The Book of Exodus or the story of King David. After the backstory is established, much like Fellowship, The Hobbit starts out fairly light and playful. The dwarves show up at Bilbo’s pristine house, and begin consuming all of his food and making a huge mess. I was a bit worried that the playfulness would continue. After all, the story was intended for children – Tolkien told it to his. Thankfully, aside from a grotesque run-in with some trolls, the story begins to grow much darker. Here’s to hoping it goes even darker.

I am not really sure why “fans” are complaining aboutThe Hobbit. If you step back and examine it, it is essentially another version of LOTR. You have a group of misfit characters, undergoing a dangerous quest. There is a king-to-be in the mix, a Hobbit who proves he’s braver and more important than anyone imagined, and a wizard who gets them through some pretty hairy situations. It’s also a good vs. evil story. I don’t even care that the two “films” are so much alike. I’m sure that had they all been completed, I could have remained in the cinema and watched all three Hobbit movies, and never once looked at my watch.

This fan was very chuffed, enthralled, captivated, enchanted, and transfixed by The Hobbit. I loved the costumes, the acting, the score by Howard Shore, the gorgeous landscapes (New Zealand again), and the film’s many “wow” moments. Sure there are flaws – I personally don’t like seeing snot coming out of a troll’s nose or bird shit plastered on the side of a wizard’s face – but oh well. Those gross moments were more than overpowered by such awesome moments as watching the brown wizard racing around on a sled pulled by rabbits, or listening to a riddle game between Gollum and Bilbo.

As with the LOTR films, I will be purchasing and repurchasing The Hobbit when it comes out in a variety of formats and versions, and I will merrily watch it at home a few more times. Then, inspired by the greatness of the film, I will probably feel compelled to rewatch the entire corpus. I know myself so well. When that day comes, I hope that I have a spare 25 hours.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars.

Helen Mirren (L) as Alma Reville and Anthony Hopkins (R) as Alfred Hitchcock.
© 2012 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Inspired by Ed Gein, the Wisconsin man who, among other things, dug up a number of female corpses and did disturbing things with their skin/body parts, Psycho was an unusual project for Hitchcock. Not only because this wasn’t his usual fare – he was best known for sophisticated murder mysteries/thrillers – but also because of the great lengths he had to go to get it made.  And if you want to know the extent of these “great lengths,” Hitchcock should be a film you see this holiday season.

Starring Anthony Hopkins as the titular lead, Hitchcock begins just after the cinematic release of North by Northwest. Looking for his next project, the 60-year-old is anxious and depressed that he’s already being seen as “replacable” and passé. Wanting to show that he’s still got it, so to speak, he turns his attention to a recently published, and very shocking, book by Robert Bloch titled Psycho. When he expresses his interest in it, he discovers that all of the studios have passed. Even though no one wants to make the film, Hitchcock perseveres, and with the assistance of his representative (Michael Stuhlbarg), he hammers out a deal that allows him to make the picture. But the project isn’t without a lot of obstacles: Monetary and personal.

Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh.
© 2012 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

But whereas, Hitchcock appears to be a historical, behind-the-scenes glimpse at the making of a, now, classic film, it’s actually much more than that. It’s also an unlikely love story. As the saying goes, “Behind every great man, there is an even greater woman.” And in this case she was Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), Hitchcock’s pillar of strength wife. A talented and very intelligent woman, she willingly took a backseat to her husband and even stoically suffered through his eccentricities, including his well-known obsessions with his blonde leading ladies.

I am a Hitchcock fan from way back. When I was a teenager, I took an interest in filmmaking, and my first real obsession was Hitchcock. I hunted down all of his movies on VHS and read about his films. And yet, in all of my reading I don’t ever once remember reading about Alma Reville. If she contributed to Psycho, and Hitchcock’s career, as much as this film suggests, then I’m thrilled that she’s finally getting the acknowledgement that she deserves. And who better to play such a dynamic and vibrant woman than Mirren? For that matter, who better to play Hitchcock, a notoriously “difficult” director who was majestically macabre and witty? If the world were a fair place, both actors would get Oscar nods. In fact, if there were an award for best ensemble, this film would be a strong contender. Ralph Macchio, who is on-screen about two minutes, is hilarious as screenwriter Joseph Stefano. Scarlett Johansson is a lovely and ultra-charming Janet Leigh. Her performance made me appreciate and like Leigh more than I ever have. It doesn’t seem possible that you could find an actor who could look like Tony Perkins and convey his odd personality (he seemed very uncomfortable), and yet James D’Arcy does an eerily fine job. What a bit of magic that it is to witness. Another exemplary performance is delivered by Michael Wincott as Gein. Back in the 1990s, the black-haired and gravelly voiced Canadian was the go-to guy for sinister bad guys. (He played Top Dollar in The Crow, Guy of Gisborne in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Rochefort in The Three Musketeers.) Then, he seemed to drop off of the planet. I almost didn’t recognize him in Hitchcock – gone is his cascading, raven-colored hair – but when I did, I thought “holy crap. That’s Top Dollar from The Crow!” Even Jessica Biehl, who I never thought was much use in films, is pretty smashing as Vera Miles. Kurtwood Smith is perfect as a pain-in-the-ass censor, Danny Huston is charming as Whitfield Cook, and Toni Collette is memorable as Hitchcock’s long-time assistant Peggy Robertson. The center, though, is held firm by Hopkins and Mirren, who exhibit amazing chemistry, and who give us one more example of why the British have taken over Hollywood. Study these performances, my thespian friends.

James D’Arcy as Anthony Perkins.
© 2012 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Hitchcock is one of those rare films in which everything converges to make something that’s very entertaining, intelligent, fascinating, and heartfelt. It sports an exemplary cast – headed by two British giants – has a fantastic script adaptation by John J. McLaughlin (from a book by Stephen Rebello), a perfect score by Danny Elfman, and fine direction by Sacha Gervasi. Maybe I’m biased because I’m such a Hitchcock fan, but I had a great time watching this film. And while the credits rolled, I was trying to figure out where Hitchcock ranked amongst my Fave Films of 2012. (I decided that it’s in the Top 5.) I’ll probably see it again in the cinema, and I’m definitely buying it on Blu-ray.

I can’t recommend Hitchcock enough, especially to those of you who are interested in the history of cinema. The bonus “feature” of this film is the heart at its center. It’s really a story about collaboration, sacrifices, love, no matter what form that takes; art and taking chances. I found it very empowering and uplifting.