Movie Review: Man of Steel

Between the movie's sub-60 freshness level on Rotten Tomatoes and my lukewarm response toward the trailers, I wasn't expecting to have a great reaction to this. Most of what I saw beforehand suggested a hard-SF spin on Supes; another in a long line of DC superhero movies embarrassed of being a DC superhero movie. But it turns out while Warner's marketing department might be having cold feet, Zack Snyder was making a comic book flick through and through.

Sure, this is a different interpretation of Superman and Krypton than Donner's. And, yes, the costume looked better with the red shorts (I suspect the director secretly agrees: there were very few shots showing Kal-El's waist clearly). But, overall, this adaptation of Superman felt as valid and as authentic as any live action version that came before it. Maybe more so.

All the talk about this being a new version of the story is bull. The Superman on display here is one generations of comics readers have imagined. It's a darker spin than we got in the older movies, but it's nothing new to the comics, where Superman has had to face incredible odds - and often stark reminders of his limitations - for a long time. On some level, this is the story Superman II tried to tell in 1980... it just does it much better.

The movie opens on Krypton and puts to rest any concerns about them taking too serious an approach. This is pure, unapologetic Burroughs science-fantasy. And it's fantastic.

When Krypton blows, the linear story-telling goes with it. Much of the movie is a series of vignettes, feeling almost like a silent picture at times. The movie's actually at its best when it embraces this, using images to build a cohesive world, characters, and tone. It doesn't quite succeed in delivering a fully cohesive narrative, but it doesn't really need one. Superman was never really about stories, anyway.

Man of Steel struck me as fundamentally true to the character and mythos of the world's first Superhero. Just as importantly, it delivered easily the greatest Lois Lane we've gotten outside of the Timm/Dini animated series.

This is absolutely worth checking out. It's got some issues - you'll roll your eyes at least a few times before the end credits roll - but the movie delivers a live action portrayal of comics' first hero a lot of us waited a long time to see.

Here's hoping Warner Bros. moves forward with plans to expand this into a fully realized DC live action universe, including a new Batman, Green Lantern, and - for the love of God - a long overdue Wonder Woman movie.

Only, if it isn't too much to ask... maybe give Superman his shorts back for the sequel.

Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

J.J. Abrams' second Star Trek movie is more or less just what you'd expect: it's a very big, very loud summer action flick that mines elements from the original series and movies and rearranges them into a modern cinematic experience. It's sort of the big-budget Broadway musical version of Trek: operatic, a tad melodramatic, and about as subtle as a space ship crashing into a city.

Oh. It's also a hell of a lot of fun. That last part's kind of important: like the first installment, this is pure summer escapism. If you're in the theater looking for something else, you're either in the wrong place or the wrong era. Sorry.

Part buddy comedy and part action movie, Into Darkness is fairly unrelenting. It throws jokes at you faster than most slapstick (and with far more success), even as it manages to ratchet up the excitement. The effects are as good as in part one, and the action is even better. The returning characters do an even better job filling the shoes of the original cast than they did in the first movie. Sure, the movie is riddled with plot holes... but who cares?

Let's see how much I can talk about the villain without delivering any major spoilers. For the past year or so, there's been a question as to the identity of the movie's bad guy. Abrams consistently refused to answer, which only fueled speculation. By the time the movie was released, neither answer would really have felt satisfying or shocking.

Going in, I was irritated Abrams had bothered keeping this a secret. Walking out, I thought he was a genius. It was slight of hand: while we were busy speculating on this one little detail, he'd managed to distract us from asking about the rest of the movie. Our premise was wrong, anyway. The figure we'd been wondering wasn't exactly a villain in the traditional sense: he was a character in the movie. And a fascinating one at that.

Interestingly, Into Darkness addresses (at least superficially) one major critique of the first film: that it wasn't about anything. In the style of the original picture, this was actually a metaphor for a contemporary issue. I doubt it will silence the critics complaining this still doesn't feel like Trek, but they were always a small (if vocal) minority of fans, anyway.

In short, it's a great summer action flick and worthy successor to its predecessor (actually, I think I liked this one even more than part one). It's also a good omen: apparently, Abrams' success wasn't a fluke, which bodes extremely well for the future of Star Wars, the next franchise he's taking on. Hopefully Trek will find someone competent to pick up where he left off.

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

I think I saw Ben Kingsley give the best performance of his life yesterday. Not in Iron Man 3, though he was good there too, but in an interview on The Colbert Report where he lied his ass off about the character he was playing, The Mandarin. I don't want to go into too much depth, but the big screen adaptation of The Mandarin had a lot of parallels to the Dark Knight Rises's portrayal of Bane. The difference was that Iron Man 3 was competently written and directed, and it owned the rather substantial changes it made to the character. I know there are a lot of fans who hate what they did with Iron Man's most iconic villain, but I kind of enjoyed it. I was more irritated by how they treated Maya Hansen, honestly.

Iron Man 3 is a bizarre movie, but I think I understand how it came to be. Imagine you're an executive putting together plans for this. Note that this is happening before Avengers hits theaters. You have no idea that it's going to have the largest opening weekend of all time: you don't even know whether it's going to flop. So you hedge your bets. Avengers, like Iron Man 2 and Captain America, is made for the die-hard fans, the ones more interested in the Marvel Universe than Tony Stark. You want to be prepared for the possibility the public is going to reject the connections in that Universe.

So you put together a movie that isn't about them. It acknowledges what's happened (in fact, the events of Avengers had a major impact on Tony's personality), but the expanded Universe didn't really show up, even when they probably should have: where was S.H.I.E.L.D. during all this?

In short, this one wasn't made for the comic geeks: it was made for fans of the first movie who didn't like part two. How was Marvel supposed to know those people would love Avengers?


I saw this with a bunch of friends who - like myself - are major fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think all of us would name Avengers as our favorite movie of last year and Iron Man 3 as one of our most anticipated movies of this year. We're certainly not alone - there are a lot of Marvel geeks out there these days.

So... did we get what we wanted from Iron Man 3? Well, I'm not actually sure what we wanted. Maybe we wanted to be wowed, like we were for the Avengers. The movie didn't deliver that: it probably couldn't have. What it did deliver was a series of more modest surprises and twists, all wrapped in an classic Shane Black action-movie package.

As a pallet cleanser, it was kind of fantastic. It was what it claimed to be: a stand-alone film set apart from the rest of the Marvel Universe. It featured some great dialogue, and some amazing action sequences. Were they contrived? Of course - this is Shane Black, after all - but they were exciting and well executed. This was funnier than the previous installments while simultaneously being the first in the trilogy that didn't feel like a comedy: I was invested in the fights to a degree I haven't been in this series previously. The heroes felt more mortal, and the villains felt more threatening.

Was I bothered this was less a Marvel movie than a Tony Stark one? A little, honestly. But it was still a hell of a great summer action movie, and I'm no less excited about seeing Thor: The Dark World in November.

Huh. I feel like I'm forgetting something important about this movie. What could it be?

Give Us Your Worst, Part 19: X-Men: The Last Stand

I last saw X-Men: The Last Stand (more commonly known as X-Men 3) when it was in the theaters. Even with the generally low reviews and lower expectations, I found the movie a massive disappointment at the time, for reasons I'll get to in a moment.

In the meantime, I've assembled every other movie in the franchise on DVD - including X-Men Origins: Wolverine which I picked up for a buck or two last Christmas. When I came across a used copy of Last Stand on a clearance rack for three bucks, I felt obligated to complete the set. Besides, I wanted to include it in this series.

Overall, my reaction hasn't changed significantly since the first time I saw it. The movie is bad, but its most serious issues are in context: it seriously damages the franchise and fails to meet even a fraction of the promise of the previous installment. But I don't find it anywhere near as painful to sit through as most people report. Frankly, I think this is orders of magnitude better than Origins: Wolverine; again, setting aside the damage Last Stand does to its source material and Singer's franchise.

On its own merits, the movie is more bizarre than anything else. Essentially, this is Brett Ratner trying to prove he can handle serious material. For those of you unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes mess that led to Last Stand, here's a synopsis: Bryan Singer made the first two X-Men movies for Fox, despite serious problems with the studio (they cut half a year of production from the first film, gave both ridiculously low budgets for their exposure, and held off on green-lighting the third despite the fact the second was immensely successful). Singer got a better offer from Warner Bros. to make Superman Returns, so he took off.

As soon as Singer left, Fox fast-tracked The Last Stand. They cycled through a handful of directors before setting on Brett Ratner, who was willing to agree to a release date before Superman Returns. They also killed Cyclops off screen in the first fifteen minutes of Last Stand, presumably in retaliation for the actor signing on as a supporting role in Singer's Superman.

Watching Ratner attempt to fill Singer's shoes is weird. He fails, of course, but damned if he doesn't give it his all. The movie is filled with numerous asides and sequences clearly intended to instill a sense of gravitas and drama to the story. The result is mostly just funny, but at least he put in the effort.

The best part of the movie is Magneto. Despite working with a moronic script, Ian McKellen manages to remain interesting: no small feat. There were a handful of other sequences I enjoyed: I still say the danger room Sentinel fight at the beginning is kind of fun.

I mentioned at the start that I left the theater mad, despite going in expecting the worst. The reason wasn't what was in the movie, so much as what was absent... namely, Phoenix. Setting aside the fact Ratner completely undercut the character's concept, he couldn't even give us the visual of Jean Grey manifesting the fiery form that was promised at the end of X-Men 2. More than anything else, that pissed me off. I wanted to see the Phoenix brought to life, even if it was in the middle of a bad movie. Ratner couldn't even give us that.

Fox threw more money at The Last Stand than they spent on the first two combined, and the result wasn't half as good as either. It derailed the franchise, which is only now recovering (thanks in no small part to Singer's return). That said, this often gets high placement on lists of the worst superhero movies ever made, and I think that's a stretch. This is bad, but I'd take it over Wolverine, either of the two recent Punisher movies, Blade Trinity, either of the Schumacher Batman movies, Barb Wire, The Spirit, and others. It's bad, but there's much worse.

Futures Market 2013

Another summer is almost upon us, which means another set of summer movies is on the way. It's become tradition around here to have a look at what's on the horizon and what it'll take for me to see them. As always, I could care less about anything that isn't geeky in nature, so we'll just be filtering those out.

Here's what's coming:


May 3

Iron Man 3
Projected Tomatometer: 87%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: NA - I'm seeing this movie

The first of Marvel's post-Avengers flicks is coming right up, and there's a lot to be encouraged by: the writer/director, Shane Black, might be the world's foremost authority on snappy dialogue, the footage we've seen looks fantastic, and we're finally getting the Mandarin in a movie. If there's one area of concern, it's that Black is largely inexperienced as a director - he's actually only made one previous movie, and it certainly wasn't a big budget feature. Granted, that movie was Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a fantastic noir picture.

All signs point to this being great, but I'm trying to keep my expectations properly managed. Regardless of what critics say, I can't imagine I'll be anywhere else on opening weekend. I'm really looking forward to this one.


May 10

The Great Gatsby
Projected Tomatometer: 75%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth, bad weather

The trailer for this certainly piqued my interest. The fact it's directed by the same guy who made Moulin Rouge! doesn't hurt either. While that's hardly my favorite movie of all time, I have to admit to really enjoying the over-the-top style. If this can deliver an experience like that, I might have to check it out. Well, unless the weather's nice: then I might have to spend that time outside.


May 17

Star Trek Into Darkness
Projected Tomatometer: 88%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: NA - I'm seeing this movie

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the critics - or anyone else, for that matter - says: there's no way my wife would let us skip this. Not that I'd want to. I really enjoyed J.J. Abrams's first installment. Sure, everything except the characters is closer to Star Wars than Star Trek, but who cares? It's a hell of a lot of fun, and the casting was just about perfect.


May 24

EPIC
Projected Tomatometer: 45%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer of 85%, Some Indication this isn't Crap

Some of the early imagery for this movie was incredibly promising, and elements of the premise - while certainly derivative - were pretty intriguing. But then the snails started talking in the trailers, and expectations plummeted. On top of everything else, this is being made by Chris Wedge, the guy who made Robots and Ice Age, so I'm not exactly anticipating greatness. The trailers for Robots also looked pretty, but it wound up one of the most disappointing experiences I've ever had at a theater: I want some guarantee this is better before I consider investing my time and money in what's almost certainly going to be another disappointment.


June 7

After Earth
Projected Tomatometer: 25%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer of 80%, Good Word of Mouth, No Stupid Twist Ending

I'm actually bucking trends in predicting a Tomatometer of 25%: Shyamalan's movies have been following a fairly consistent trend of being 40% lower than his last film, which would give this a score of about 4%. But, at some point, you have to assume that Shyamalan will take steps to correct his downfall, even if it requires something drastic. Like, say, listening to other people's opinions.

The trailers for this look fine, but even The Last Airbender had decent trailers. My guess is that this will be pretentious SF fare that's a little better than his last four movies, but not good enough to matter. Maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised, though.

Much Ado About Nothing
Projected Tomatometer: 92% (86% current)
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Eh. I'll probably wait for Netflix. But I'll hate myself for it.

I kind of love that Whedon's follow-up to The Avengers - the 3rd biggest movie ever made - was to film a black and white adaptation of a Shakespearean comedy in his backyard with his friends. The thing is, as much as I love Whedon's work, and as much as I love that this exists, movie tickets aren't cheap, and I can't see myself getting my money's worth.

If I hear this is really REALLY good, I might go see it, anyway, but... I don't know. As much as I want to support the guy, this really feels like something I should be watching from the comfort of my home through a streaming digital service I'm already paying for.


June 12

This is the End
Projected Tomatometer: 50%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer 75% and Good Word of Mouth

I'm not sure what to make of this. There are some great sequences in the trailers, but there's also a lot of stuff that just seems stupid. I'm also baffled as to why there are so many comedies about the end of the world coming out this year.

If I hear that this is more than a loosely connected string of dirty jokes and self-deprecating humor, if there's actually a story here, then I might check it out. Otherwise, I'll just keep enjoying the trailers and assume I'm getting the best scenes, anyway.


June 14

Man of Steel
Projected Tomatometer: 70%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Whatever. It's Superman - I'll see it regardless.

The question here is whether Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan cancel out each other's flaws or magnify them. Snyder's a master of visuals, but he clearly never figured out how to tell a compelling story. Nolan's generally a good storyteller, but his movies lack the style a superhero flick requires. There's some potential for a great collaboration here, but I'm not entirely optimistic. The trailers have been mediocre so far. We've seen some cool moments, but very little suggesting either of these guys has much love for Superman's mythology.

This one's kind of a wildcard. But better or worse, I'll be there. It is Superman, after all.


June 21

World War Z
Projected Tomatometer: 50%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth.

I never read the book this is based on, but most of people who have seem to be saying the trailers look nothing like it. That's not usually a good sign (though there are exceptions). I think I'd be having flashbacks to I, Robot if there were anything memorable in that movie.

Monsters U
Projected Tomatometer: 90%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Better than 80% on the Tomatometer

So far, Monsters U looks pretty good. The trailers are funny, and the info they've leaked on the expanded world is cool. But Pixar's time as undisputed king of animation certainly seams to be waning, and it's hard to get excited about another sequel that doesn't rhyme with "The Bincredibles". That said, doing a prequel is a good way to go this time, and everything we've seen is promising. Still, I think everyone - probably even the folks at Pixar who must have greenlit this BEFORE Cars 2 came out - are wishing there was an original concept coming out of that studio this year instead.


July 3

Despicable Me 2
Projected Tomatometer: 72%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Score of 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, happen to see part one first.

I still haven't seen Despicable Me, despite having heard it's pretty good. Ultimately, neither movie looks great to me, though. If I start hearing this one's fantastic and part one appears on Netflix... well... maybe I'll give the series a chance. No promises, though.

Lone Ranger
Projected Tomatometer: 45%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: 80% or split decision with glowing positives

I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of a new Lone Ranger movie. The character was one of the most influential proto-superheroes, and it's a shame he's fallen out of favor (same goes for Zorro, The Shadow, The Phantom, and Green Hornet). But... there's not a lot of indication this is going to do the character justice. I actually liked the trailer for this when it first aired, but the more I watch it, the less I like it.

While I want the character to make a comeback, I'm just not seeing much indication this is going to be anything more than mediocre, and I'm sick of supporting mediocre movies. I'll be watching the Rotten Tomatoes when this opens, though: maybe it'll turn out better than it looks.


July 12

Pacific Rim
Projected Tomatometer: 88%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Anything better than 50% or a few good recommendations

A lot of people are in love with the footage that's out there; to be honest, I'm not one of them. I like what I've seen, but none of it really has me geeking out the way I do every time I see a trailer for Iron Man 3 or Star Trek. That said, I have a lot of faith in del Toro, and I am looking forward to seeing this. I love a good giant monster movie, and there aren't a lot out there.


July 19

Red 2
Projected Tomatometer: 64%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth and a chance to see part 1

Another case where I missed part one and haven't gotten around to it yet. I've heard it was decent, so long as you go in with modest expectations. If I get a chance, I'll try to see part one and decide if it's really worth going to see the second.


July 26

The Wolverine
Projected Tomatometer: 58%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: NA - I'll probably see it regardless. Then quite possibly regret it.

This is another wild card. The first Wolverine movie remains - in my humble opinion - the worst in the X-Men franchise (and, yes, that's counting X-Men 3). I get the impression the studio realized they'd released something abysmal, though, and has set out to correct their mistake. Going with a new director was a good step; getting Singer to produce it was even better. But is it enough? The footage we've seen so far has been pretty mediocre, though the same could be said about the First Class trailers, and that was awesome.

I'm keeping an open mind about this, but I'm not getting my hopes up yet.


August 2

300: Rise of an Empire
Projected Tomatometer: 18%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: A decent score on Rotten Tomatoes and good word of mouth

God, is that coming out this year? I liked 300 well enough as a ridiculous action movie, but I don't think anyone other than Frank Miller actually wants a sequel. Look, I like Frank Miller's work in the 80's as much as the next comic geek, but I'm pretty much over it now. His era is long gone, and it's been a long, long time since he was associated with anything good.

I know nothing about the director of this, other than the fact there isn't much to know. I suppose he could be some kind of genius, and the movie could be fantastic. If I hear that's the case, I'll be there opening weekend. But I'm certainly not holding my breath.

August 7

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
Projected Tomatometer: 40%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer above 90%

I didn't see the first of the Percy Jackson movies, nor did I have any interest in seeing the second. Then the trailer came out. Turns out, Nathan Fillion is in this one. The thing about Fillion is that he makes anything interesting. I'm pretty sure he's incapable of being filmed without doing something entertaining. Is that enough to make me rush out to the theater? Of course not. But it is enough to make me pay attention to the movie's reviews.


August 9

Planes
Projected Tomatometer: 45%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer around 90%

This is a spin-off of a Pixar movie originally intended for a direct-to-DVD release that was upgraded to theatrical but is being released without the Pixar logo: that's probably not a good sign.

To be fair, Toy Story 2 was originally going to video, but that was done by Pixar. Actually, I'm unclear what "done by Pixar" really means these days. I've heard John Carter was originally going to be released with the Pixar branding before they switched it over to Disney (I wonder if it might have done better business with Pixar's name attached). Regardless, I can't help but suspect if Planes was anywhere near Pixar quality, it would have a Pixar label attached.

Also, the trailers look pretty bad.

Elysium
Projected Tomatometer: 75%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth

District 9 was cool, but it certainly wasn't as intelligent as I'd hoped. Yeah, it was message-driven science fiction, but the actual story was pretty simplistic. It was also Blomkamp's first big budget movie (well, medium budget is probably more accurate, but he got his money's worth), so there's a good chance he's had some time to refine his writing skills.

I'm expecting this to be good, but I don't want to get my hopes up for anything more yet. Dark science-fiction is an easy genre to do well and a difficult one to do really well. My problem is I'm bored by the former. I give superheroes and adventure flicks more slack, I know, but that's how it is. The thing is, I love great SF: if this can deliver that experience, I'll be thrilled. But, like I said, I don't want to get my hopes up.


August 16

Kick-Ass 2
Projected Tomatometer: 60%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth from trustworthy sources (i.e.: people who didn't love the first one).

A lot of people loved Kick-Ass; I didn't. In fact, I felt completely underwhelmed and disappointed by the movie. But, to be fair, there were a couple extenuating circumstances. Kick-Ass was preceded by a large-scale online campaign featuring tons of footage. I think I saw at least half of the scenes with Hit Girl and Big Daddy before walking into the theater, so all I had left was the story, characters, and dialogue... none of which were really all that good.

Also, while I'm not overly squeamish, I don't really need to see people blown up in industrial microwaves or churned through car crushers. Just not my cup of tea. All that said, Hit Girl was an awesome character, and I am at least intrigued by the idea of another movie featuring her (Kick-Ass, on the other hand, I could take or leave). I'll see what people say and decide whether I want to see this in the theater or just wait for Netflix. Right now, I'm leaning towards the latter, but that could easily change.


August 23

The World's End
Projected Tomatometer: 91%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth, good trailers, and/or good reviews. Really, just give me a reason to go, and I'm there.

This was a straightforward projection: both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have a Tomatometer score of exactly 91%. While it's statistically unlikely the third collaboration will get the same score, imagine how embarrassing it be if I guessed something different and it got 91% again. I just can't take that chance.

There's not a lot of information out there about this yet. It's a buddy comedy occurring at the end of the world, which is a bizarrely common premise this year. I consider Shaun of the Dead absolutely brilliant and Hot Fuzz quite a bit of fun, so I'm certainly intrigued.

Honestly, I'm tempted to keep going: September opens with Riddick, the follow-up to the single greatest bad movie ever made. But there are a lot of geeky movies this fall. So, with that in mind, let's summarize May through August:

Movies I'm Going to See No Matter What:
Iron Man 3
Star Trek Into Darkness
Man of Steel

Movies I'll Almost Certainly See:
Pacific Rim
Monsters U
The Wolverine
The World's End

Could Go Either Way:
Elysium
Kick-Ass 2
The Great Gatsby

Long Shots:
Everything else

2012: The Top (and Bottom) 19 Movies

By my count, I saw 19 new movies this year which had theatrical openings. Note that I didn't say I saw 19 movies in the theater: I caught three of these at home. But I saw one movie three times, so it all balances out. As usual, I'm not counting older movies or anything that went direct-to-DVD.

What follows is a list from least favorite to most favorite. Note that's not the same thing as best to worst: that's a can of worms I'm not opening. A few of these are movies I never reviewed, but those are in the minority.

It probably goes without saying, but there are quite a few movies I should see but haven't gotten around to. I've heard fantastic things about Beasts of the Southern Wild, Lincoln, Wreck-It Ralph, Moonrise Kingdom, Cloud Atlas, and others, but I just haven't had the time yet.

Without further ado, let's begin:

19. Snow White and the Huntsmen
Dark Knight Rises pissed me off more, but this was by far the most boring experience I had in a theater. I'd been looking forward to this, too: I thought the trailers looked amazing. Unfortunately, they showcased every decent second in the film: the rest was bland and pointless.

18. The Dark Knight Rises
I considered putting this in last place, but that would have been disingenuous. The truth is, aspects of this movie were pretty cool. Okay, Catwoman was cool, and the rest kind of sucked. I appreciate that many people disagree, but... look. I've read a lot of Batman comics. I've seen a hell of a lot of animated series and direct to DVD movies. And, in my opinion - and I'm not alone here, by the way - the character is capable of much, much more. This felt like a Batman movie for people who don't really like Batman as a concept, who are satisfied with dismissing Bruce Wayne as a crazy rich guy who dresses like a bat. It's a movie that ultimately mocks the concept it's based on rather than taking it seriously. At least the Adam West series was upfront about it.

17. Prometheus
I know people who think this should be dead last, but I liked it better than Dark Knight Rises and certainly more than Snow White. It was a bad movie with good scenes. It's the kind of movie that kept oscillating between intriguing me and boring me. It really wasn't until the last act that I was certain I was watching something pointless. Numbers 18 and 19 never had me fooled.

16. Underworld: Awakening
I caught this on Amazon Instant Video a while ago. Hell, I'd forgotten it came out in theaters this year, but apparently it did. It wasn't awful, but it certainly wasn't remotely good. It's schlocky pulp, but that's all we have any right to expect from this ridiculous franchise.

15. Rise of the Guardians
There's a long story here. If you want to know said story, click that link. The short version is that I've got some very strong feelings about some of these characters, and I didn't think this movie did them justice. However, there was a good 'Jack Frost' story embedded in this thing, along with some solid visuals. It's kind of a mixed bag. That's not enough to make it a good movie, but it's sufficient to keep this from appearing any sooner.

14. Casa de Mi Padre
On some level, this is sort of the Will Ferrell equivalent of an art house flick. Ultimately, it was more a joke than an actual movie. And, yes, if you've seen the trailer, you already "get it." And, sure - technically - they could have just made the trailer without actually making the full movie. But the reason the joke is funny is that they made it anyway. I don't think this one's for everyone, but I had fun watching it.

13. The Pirates! Band of Misfits
Pirates was a solid little flick. It felt small, easygoing. Almost quaint. I never really got into it, but I don't think I was supposed to. If you missed this one in the theaters, it's a good film to check out on video. Actually, I think it'll play better on video, where there aren't so many expectations.

12. Looper
A lot of people love this movie; I just liked it. I had an enjoyable time in the theater. The telekinetic sequences were cool (and unexpected), and the movie was well put together. But... it just seemed so generic. Yeah, things like this don't get made; live-action, big-budget movies that mix several SF concepts in a single piece. Sure, we get telekinesis. We get time travel. But the two together in a single movie? But, despite that, none of it really clicked together. Nothing added up to more than the individual pieces. The time-travel conceits were poorly thought out. The telekinesis was ultimately just a mcguffin. And underneath the makeup, the premise was just Terminator meets 12 Monkeys. The fact it got made was impressive, but the movie itself... was just kind of good. With a little more work, I'm convinced it could have been as great as everyone seems to think it was.

11. The Hunger Games
I like this movie, but I like it's success more. It was the year's first real home run, and it challenged a lot of old (and stupid) assumptions about movies. For example, that action flicks can't star a female lead unless she's there for sex appeal. Or that people won't flock to the theaters until May. It also cleaned up some of the book's issues with the setting. That said, there were questionable choices and sequences that just didn't translate. It didn't have the budget it wanted, and it wasn't one of the year's best movies. But it was definitely solid.

10. ParaNorman
Not enough people went to see ParaNorman. It's a cool little movie with a great opening, a disappointing second act, and a phenomenal showdown. It's uneven, but definitely worth watching.

9. Skyfall
I had a hell of a time deciding where this belongs. My initial reaction was extremely positive and for good reason: this movie pulls off something fantastic. But I held off reviewing it for a reason: absolutely everything I liked - nay, loved - about the movie is a spoiler. That said, enough time has passed. So, if you missed Skyfall, you might want to skip to the next movie on the list. Alright. As a story, Skyfall kind of fails. Miserably. The villain's generic, the plot's incoherent, and characters make idiotic choices at every turn. But none of that really matters, because this wasn't a story so much as a retrospective. It puts Bond back together, effectively rebuilding MI-6 into a near-perfect facsimile of the organization as it appeared at the beginning of Dr. No. Yes, that means 'M' dies and gets replaced by a man, but the actor is shockingly convincing as the character who appeared fifty years earlier. Likewise, Moneypenny (complete with a new origin) is amazingly similar. They cast a 'Q' who was reminiscent of Major Boothroyd before he was recast for From Russia With Love. Even Craig's bond evolved into one shockingly similar to Connery's as the movie went on. I really enjoyed watching that transformation play out; so much so that, had I assembled this list right after leaving the theater, it would have held the #3 spot. But as time passes, the missteps bug me more and more. The plot holes, the bad decisions, and a fairly disturbing seduction sequence that felt extremely out of character and a little misogynistic have become harder and harder to overlook. Ultimately, it's a movie I enjoyed, but I don't think it's holding up in the long term.

8. Chronicle
I missed this in the theater, and I'm actually glad I did. I'm sure I'd have enjoyed it there, but it felt like one of those movies that plays better on a small screen. I didn't get around to reviewing this, because there didn't seem much point: the critics got this one right. It was a great little film, driven by fantastic writing and some great performances. The format - found footage - did feel out of place, but it kept the budget manageable and was incorporated as well as could be expected. I highly recommend you check this one out if you haven't already. It's pretty cool.

7. John Carter
If they'd replaced Kitsch with someone who belonged in the title role, this would probably have made #3. As it is, I still really liked this movie. Dafoe really knocked it out of the park as Tars Tarkas, as did the army of computer nerds who brought him (and the other denizens of the red planet) to life. It was pulp at its purest if not quite its best. Here's hoping this builds a fan base on DVD.

6. The Cabin in the Woods
This is a complex little picture: essentially a dark science fiction comedy about horror movies. Critics loved it; audiences - particularly horror fans - did not. I enjoyed it quite a bit, which is why it's as high on this list as it is. I think if the last scene had been more memorable, it would be a few spots higher.

5. The Amazing Spider-Man
I keep going back on forth on this and #4. In the end, I asked myself which movie I'm more interested in re-watching, and I honestly think that's Brave. This version of Spider-Man was boosted by the shocking revelation that it was, in fact, a good movie. The idea they were retelling the origin story was a major strike against the movie, but they did a fantastic job rebuilding Peter Parker from scratch. This is a new Peter, too, completely different from Raimi's or any version I've seen in the comics. Normally, I prefer these things to stick with the source material, but the director clearly knew what he was doing. This isn't the Peter I know, but I was really fascinated by his story. As for Spider-Man... not so much. The superheroics were disappointing. The fights with the Lizard weren't bad, but I expect better.

4. Brave

Brave was one of 2012's under-appreciated movies: sadly, there were quite a few this year. But the critical dismissal of this was as baffling as it was unfair. Brave was a really good movie. Its world was beautifully rendered, its characters were fun, and its themes complex (don't dare dismiss this as a simplistic story about fate: this movie's about the maternal instinct and female empowerment). Granted, it's not the movie most of us wanted. It's a comedy, not an action-adventure. But it's a really good comedy.

3. Men in Black III
I realize I'm in the minority here, but I really, really liked this movie. I suspect the producers are kicking themselves for not releasing this in the spring instead of summer. It couldn't compete with The Avengers, and as a result was largely ignored. But it was pure sci-fi. The old fashioned aliens were a lot of fun, and the time-travel was executed far better than in Looper. This also carried some real heart and whimsy. Between Griffin and the movie's resolution, this resonated a lot better than I'd expected it to. It provided a great standalone story, while adding depth to the entire series.

2. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
This was a great movie and an even better adaptation. It was a hell of a lot of fun, and I thought the characters were fantastically realized. The movie was funny, touching, and exciting. Sure, it was only the first third of the story, but that just means there's a lot more left to experience.

1. The Avengers
I'd hoped Joss Whedon would make this work, but I really had no idea if he'd pull it off. He's created some fantastic television in the past, but his one attempt at doing a motion picture was a little disappointing. In addition, his track record hasn't been spotless as of late (looking at you, Dollhouse). I went into this hoping for the best and got something better. Avengers was game-changing: it threw out decades of conventional wisdom on how superhero movies had to be made, opting instead to fully embrace the genre. It toned nothing down: this was comic-book mayhem on the big screen. This was a Hulk I'd never dreamed we'd see in live-action. This was Black Widow and Hawkeye at a level where they could stand beside a storm god without seeming irrelevant. In short, this was the superhero movie that showed the world why we love superheroes. And damn if it didn't work: this thing set almost every record there is. Even better, it's expanding the Marvel Cinematic Universe and even convinced Warner Bros. to move ahead with Justice League. The old rules are gone: this has raised the bar. Oh, and it was also the most fun I've had at the movies in years.

An Open Letter to Peter Jackson

Dear Peter Jackson,

How are you? I hope you and Fran are doing well, and that you're planning on doing something fun for the holidays. So then. I've got something I need to get off of my chest.

Where to begin? First of all, I'm a big fan. Love the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I even like King Kong, though I do think it would have benefited from a little editing. When I heard there was a Hobbit movie in production a few years ago, I was extremely excited. When I heard that Guillermo del Toro was dropping out and you were taking over... honestly, I was a little worried.

Sure, The Lord of the Rings films are some of my all-time favorites. And, sure, I love your work. But, the thing is, I've seen this before: a big genre director decides they know how to call the shots. Suddenly, they're their own producer, and no one's nixing their bad ideas.

The truth is, I got a little worried. Sure, I was still excited to be returning to Middle Earth, but deep down, I was concerned. Jump ahead to a week or two ago when the early reviews started to appear. While the Lord of the Rings had glowing reviews, these were far more mixed. Sure, it's still on the "Fresh" side of things over on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's close: 66% Fresh, as of this moment.

That was when I got really worried. I started to think that maybe you'd gotten full of yourself, that you'd lost perspective. I started to think you'd gone the way of Lucas, Cameron, Raimi, and others.

Well, I just saw The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey, and I think you know where this is going.

Mr. Jackson, I am so, so sorry I doubted you: that movie was fucking awesome.

Where to start? How about the opening 45 minutes that critics are whining about. As a lifelong Tolkien fan and geek, every second was an absolute joy. After a fantastic nod to your first trilogy, you transitioned right into The Hobbit. And that sequence was a pitch-perfect adaptation of the book, at least to my memory. My favorite part of the movie, in fact. The singing, the jokes, and the fun of the book were all there.

As the movie progressed, you walked a tightrope between Tolkien's book and your other trilogy, and you did so masterfully. Navigating the tonal differences must have been frightening, but I thought you pretty much nailed it. Can I find moments to nitpick? Sure. But nothing all that major.

I hesitate to judge the critics too harshly yet. You see, I sidestepped the largest issue: the 48 fps, which just about everyone despised. I saw this in 2D on a "normal" screen, so it's certainly possible my enjoyment was tied to that choice.

I'll know better after I see The Hobbit in a different format. Even if everyone's right about it detracting from the film, I'll always have the option of shutting my eyes and enjoying the music.

Oh, one more thing. The movie felt a little short to me. Can't wait for the extended cut.

Sincerely,
Erin Snyder