2012 in Film: My Favorite movies of the year...

We come to it at last, the great list of our time (err... our year).  Anyway, after plenty of foreplay, it's time to actually rattle off my picks for the ten very "best" films of the year.  As always, these are not the 'objective' "best" films of the year, but merely my out-and-out favorites of the last twelve months.  As always, we'll do the first ten films in alphabetical order, with a final summation for my personal pick for the top film of 2012.  Without further ado, onward and downward!

The Avengers (review/spoiler review):
Unlike a number of blockbusters that I've discussed elsewhere, this one actually got better with repeat viewings.  I nitpicked the first time around, found problems here and there during my initial viewing, but still found it to be a relative triumph of blockbuster film-making.  But upon additional viewings, I began to appreciate the coup that Whedon and company pulled off even more.  The minor problems (a clunky first scene, issues with how a major second act plot twist is handled, the lack of a specific lead character, the lack of a definitive climax) began to fade away into the sheer joy that is The Avengers.  The film is well-acted across the board, including a superb starring turn by Mark Ruffalo who makes Bruce Banner into the most interesting character in the group.  The plotting is relatively basic, but the picture is crackling with wonderful dialogue throughout.  The action sequences steadily improve as the film goes on, and the entire escapade has a casual hugeness ("Oh, we've got a giant invisible flying aircraft carrier?  Why not?") that reminded me of Richard Donner's Superman film (moments that would have been the main event for other blockbusters came off as blink-and-you-miss em action beats here).  The character arcs worked better the second time around, the musical score clicked into place, the second-act plot turn worked in the context of the film as opposed to operating as part of a long-running franchise, and a major character's selfless decision felt right.  The sheer excitement of seeing all of these already established heroes (established both in the comics and the prior films) doing battle side-by-side on a truly epic superhero showdown is only topped by how good it all is.  Whether or not it is a great film will no doubt be endlessly debated, but it is surely a great movie, one that I look forward to watching over and over again over the years.

Weekend Box Office (04/15/12): Hunger Games fends off Three Stooges, Cabin in the Woods, and Lockout.

In the third-to-last weekend before summer, The Hunger Games fended off a trio of "B-movies" to retain the top spot this weekend for the fourth time in a row.  But the ranking is arbitrary and the real news is (as always) the numbers themselves. There were three new wide releases this weekend and none of them were expected to set the box office on fire.  None of them did, although Fox had a surprisingly solid debut for the Farrelly Bros' The Three Stooges.  Despite painful trailers and an initial batch of lousy reviews, the film played well to family audiences and reviews seemed to improve as reluctant critics took in a matinee show and came out surprised.  The picture opened with $17 million, which is good for the third-biggest debut for the Farrelly Bros, behind the $22 million debut of Shallow Hal in 2001 and the $24 million debut of Me, Myself, and Irene in 2000.  Since Shallow Hal, the comedic directing duo have not had a film gross over $45 million in the US, so this spry opening should help them pass that particular benchmark even if it collapses next weekend.  Although it scored a rare 3x weekend multiplier, so it's not hard to imagine the film having token legs until summer arrives.   The film earned a B- from Cinemascore, with a 'C' from audiences over 25 but an 'A' from audiences under 18.  This $30 million production should be quite profitable especially when you factor in the seemingly invincible 20th Century Fox foreign marketing machine (this could easily be another Fox film that earns $60 million here but $120 million overseas).  While the Farrelly Bros have probably peaked critically and commercially, as long as they can bring in comedies at $30-40 million, they can probably do what they want for the rest of their careers.

Review: Cabin in the Woods (2012) is about as wonderful as you've heard.

Cabin in the Woods

2012
90 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The problem with discussing a film like writer/director Drew Goddard and writer Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods is that the very things that make the movie most worth discussing are the very things that should barely be hinted at.  So I will simply say that the hype and buzz are real.  The script is pulpy and intelligent, so clever is the writing and so surprisingly sympathetic are the characters that I would gladly watch a more conventional 'teens go to the woods and bad stuff happens' movie with this specific cast.  But as you learn within the first few minutes, there is a token twist to the seemingly generic proceedings.  What that is I will not say.  But I will say that what starts as something resembling a deconstruction of the last 10 years of horror films becomes a rallying cry against the sort of obsessively-anal dissection that makes up much of 'fanboy' discussion these days, often in the form of pre-release manufactured hype ("Ten clues found in the Dark Knight Rises poster... what do they MEAN?!?!").  But even if you don't feel like embracing its philosophical undertones, the picture operates in a skewed way as an endorsement of horror as a genre, both for its entertainment value and its social function as a healthy outlet for dealing with unpleasant ideas.  And oh yeah, it's also a funny and scary little gem of a movie.