The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

A first-rate thriller with Damon playing probably the most compelling role of his career (which is to say nothing of the incredible performances turned in by Jude Law and Phillip Seymour Hoffman). What makes Tom Ripley so fascinating isn’t that he’s a great con-artist, but a decent one whose marks do all the heavy lifting for him. In the shallow world of rich young Americans vacationing abroad, everyone builds their own identities, which means Tom fits in even more than he realizes. Jude Law’s character plays jazz despite a lack of talent because he wants to be a person who plays jazz and has enough money to make that happen. Self-absorption is what allows Tom to so quickly infiltrate the ranks of the rich, which makes this feel like Being There reimagined as a thriller.

It has all the hallmarks of a late-Miramax big-Indie movie, so there are moments here and there when, like Tom, the film is trying to pass itself off as something it’s not: an art film. Mostly these are seen in the ending, the weirdly token way homosexuality is dealt with in the film and the blunt and ham-fisted visual metaphor of Tom’s broken reflections, but when the film is content on just being a thriller with a compelling central figure, it really shines. I imagine the stink of prestige film is why this isn’t cited as often in “1999 was a great year for cinema” reminisces, but I’ll take a Mr. Ripley over 30 American Beauties and Magnolias any day. A-

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Never been a fan of Lord of the Rings, always been a fan of the book, never been a fan of 3D, always been a fan of Martin Freeman. In general, I think I’ll end up preferring this trilogy to the last one because (most) of those films’ portentousness has been replaced by actual goddamned whimsy. I will always prefer Wizard of Oz/Phantom Tollbooth kind of fantasy to the ones where serious people stand in big halls and talk about A Million Proper Names I Don’t Give A Fuck About. Why is that so prevalent in fantasy? In none of my fantasies do I watch nymphs talk about foreign policy.

There’s nothing in The Lord of the Rings trilogy that made me as giddy as the troll scene, or the introduction to the dwarves, or the introduction to Radagast the Brown. Even perfunctory-feeling moments like our heroes being captured by the goblin king show much more personality than similar scenes in LotR. That said, the pacing is atrocious, with every scene feeling twice as long as it needs to be. Most tragically affected by this is the Riddles in the Dark scene where, failing to find a way to make the staunchly verbal moment cinematic, Peter Jackson just follows every riddle with a solid minute of a character “um”-ing and “uh”-ing until the answer comes to them. What feels like a delightful interlude in the book becomes an inert dead spot in the middle of the film.

As for 48 FPS, I dunno. On the one hand, when combined with 3D the level of artifice is so immense that everything, even the actors, look like CG. I often felt like I was watching FMV’s from a late 90’s CD-ROM. On the other hand, at least the 3D effects didn’t look like total shit in this movie, unlike every other 3D movie I’ve ever seen. I imagine I could get used to it, even if SCIENCE SAYS OTHERWISE. C+/B-

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

UGH, what a giant and worthless piece of shit. There are so many reasons to punch this movie in the face, it’s hard to know where to start. I think I’ll just shout them at the world, in no particular order.

*JUST BECAUSE YOU CAST TWO MOVIE STARS IT DOESN’T MEAN WE GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEIR CHARACTERS FALLING IN LOVE.

*JUST BECAUSE A MOVIE IS LONG, BORING, AND FEATURES ONE OF THOSE PIECE OF SHIT PLINKING PIANO SCORES DOES NOT MAKE IT OSCAR-WORTHY.

*JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS HIGH CONCEPT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A STORY WORTH TELLING.

*JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT AN EXCUSE TO PLAY AROUND WITH STATE-OF-THE-ART SPECIAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL (SURPRISE SURPRISE) LOOK LIKE SHIT FOUR YEARS LATER DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD MAKE THAT MOVIE, FINCHER.

*JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ABLE TO SHOE-HORN SOME TOPICAL BULLSHIT LIKE KATRINA DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD.

*A SHITTY “CAN I TELLL YOU A STORY?” FRAMING DEVICE IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR A PROPER SCRIPT STRUCTURE.

* JUST BECAUSE ERIC ROTH SHITS OUT A SCREENPLAY DOESN’T MEAN YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE IT, HOLLYWOOD. CHECK FIRST TO MAKE SURE IT’S THE INSIDER OR MUNICH, NOT SOME PIECE OF SHIT LIKE THIS OR EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE.

*JUST BECAUSE A MOVIE HAS ALL OF THE ABOVE OSCAR-BAITING QUALITIES, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO NOMINATE IT FOR RANDOM OSCARS, ACADEMY. TARAJI P. HENSON DIDN’T DO SHIT TO EARN THAT NOD AND YOU KNOW IT.

*DON’T CAST CATE BLANCHETT AND TILDA SWINTON IN THE SAME MOVIE. THAT SHIT’S JUST CONFUSING.

Wow, that felt really good. D-

The Gift (2000)

A failure on nearly every level. Though, surprisingly, Keanu Reeves is pretty good. D

Hanna (2011)

First great movie of the year. The trailers don’t nearly let on to how funny, interesting, and wonderful this movie is. Reminded me a lot of Besson, and not just The Professional, but this is probably better than any of his films. B+