It has been well over three months since my last movie review, so I thought at the very least you deserve some sort of explanation. While I have seen some movies over the last few months, they have been relatively few and far between, and I haven't seen any really good ones.
The newest Die Hard movie worked hard to be worse than its predecessor, and actually exceeded that mark; becoming one of the worst movies ever made.
Jess and I watched "Beasts of the Southern Wild" on DVD prior to the Academy Awards, and were greatly impressed with Quvenzhané Wallis' performance. I'm not sure whether she has a promising career ahead of her, but she was well cast and powerful in an eye-opening film.
Speaking of the Academy Awards, I was glad that "Argo" won as much as it did; while it wasn't that impressive of a film, it was the best one I saw last year, so at least the members of the Academy get it right occasionally. Jess and I DVRd the awards show, which is the best way to go; the next night we skipped all the acceptance speeches and all the boring documentary (and the like) categories.
Jude and I saw the new GI Joe movie a little while back. It was significantly better than the first, but that's kind of like saying "getting punched in the stomach is better than getting your fingernails pulled out"... it's all relative.
Probably the best movie I've seen in the last three months has been a certain Blu-Ray that I received for Christmas; "To Catch A Thief". Two elements stand out which I would like to share with you; firstly, it defied my notion of what a Hitchcock film can be. It wasn't necessarily suspenseful, there was a mystery, but instead of creating a foreboding atmosphere, Hitchcock allowed the story to develop through the dialogue of his characters. It was amazing to listen to the sharp, witty conversations between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, only later to realize that Hitchcock was using it as misdirection. Secondly, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography was a pleasant surprise. Once again, I had never thought of Hitchcock as being concerned with such things; this film was so visually rich that I must conclude that it also was part of an elaborate scheme to divert my attention from a somewhat obvious conclusion. Why can't they make movies like this anymore?
On a closing note, I thought it would be fitting to mention the passing of Roger Ebert this past week. I had a practice of writing reviews of movies I watched, posting them online, and then heading over to Ebert's page at the Chicago Sun Times to read his review. His ability to explain the movie-watching experience is unparalleled. Whether I agreed with his opinion or not seldom mattered, even if I had liked a movie he rated poorly, at least I could understand his reasons. He also had a wonderful ability to explain why he had enjoyed a movie even though he understood that it had failed to meet his standards of what a good movie should be. That kind of honesty, not caring what other critics might say, not concerned with what is "cool", is rare in the field of film criticism. I am really going to miss reading Ebert's take on the movies I see.
Please note that I recognize that I haven't explained why I haven't written in the last few months. I never really intended to talk about that, it was just a catchy opening sentence.
