I saw more than 150 new movies in 2012, but even with the access my job affords me, it's impossible to see everything.
The following 100 films are presented in alphabetical order since I haven't seen them yet, although the five titles I'm REALLY kicking myself for missing are Amour, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Keep the Lights On, The Loneliest Planet and Oslo, August 31st.
If there's anything not listed that you REALLY think I should see, let me know in the comments section or on Twitter, and I'll let you know if it was ever under consideration. Also, if there are any release date issues or inaccuracies below, please cut me some slack, as it's impossible to know what's really eligible without an established set of criteria, which I don't hold myself to.
Please note that I plan to see movies such as The Attack, The Gatekeepers, Ginger & Rosa, Kon-Tiki, Mud, No, Reality, Shadow Dancer, Stories We Tell and To the Wonder in theaters in 2013. Some have appeared on others' Best/Worst lists because they screened at film festivals, but I managed to miss all of these despite attending both Sundance and Toronto.
Here's to catching up with these movies in 2013!
1. 2 Days in New York
2. 5 Broken Cameras
3. 28 Hotel Rooms
4. Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry
5. Alps
6. Amour
7. Bad 25
8. Barbara
9. Being Flynn
10. Beloved
11. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
12. Beware of Mr. Baker
13. Beyond the Black Rainbow
14. Brave
15. Bully
16. Call Me Kuchu
17. Captive
18. The Central Park Five
19. Chasing Ice
20. Chico & Rita
21. The Color Wheel
22. The Comedy
23. Crazy Horse
24. Dark Horse
25. Declaration of War
26. The Deep
27. The Deep Blue Sea
28. Detachment
29. Detropia
30. Elena
31. Everybody In Our Family
32. Extraterrestrial
33. The Final Member
34. First Winter
35. The Flowers of War
36. Footnote
37. The Forgiveness of Blood
38. The FP
39. Francine
40. Goodbye First Love
41. Green
42. A Gun In Each Hand
43. Headhunters
44. How to Survive a Plague
45. Hyde Park on Hudson
46. In Darkness
47. Indie Game: The Movie
48. In the Family
49. The Intouchables
50. The Island President
51. It's Such a Beautiful Day
52. Jiro Dreams of Sushi
53. Juan of the Dead
54. Keep the Lights On
55. The Kid With a Bike
56. King Kelly
57. Klown
58. A Late Quartet
59. Like Someone In Love
60. Lola Versus
61. The Loneliest Planet
62. Marina Abramovic: The Artist Is Present
63. Marvin, Seth and Stanley
64. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God
65. Miami Connection
66. Middle of Nowhere
67. Neighboring Sounds
68. Norwegian Wood
69. Now, Forager
70. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
71. On Death Row
72. Only the Young
73. On the Ice
74. Oslo, August 31st
75. The Patience Stone
76. People Like Us
77. Perfect Sense
78. Polisse
79. Quartet
80. Queen of Versailles
81. Red Hook Summer
82. Red Tails
83. Return
84. A Royal Affair
85. Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
86. Samsara
87. Scenes of a Crime
88. Searching For Sugar Man
89. Sleep Tight
90. Sound of Noise
91. Starlet
92. Tabu
93. Tchoupitoulas
94. This Is Not a Film
95. Trouble With the Curve
96. The Turin Horse
97. Turn Me On, Dammit!
98. Undefeated
99. The Wise Kids
100. Wuthering Heights
Friday, 4 January 2013
Check Out New Images From MAN OF STEEL, OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL And DESPICABLE ME 2
 |
| Click to enlarge |
I have to say that I think Henry Cavill is an excellent choice of Clark Kent / Superman. I don't know if anyone will ever top Christopher Reeve as the man of steel because he kind of set the bar incredibly high to begin with. But Cavill is certainly believable from everything I've seen thus far.
I think the imagery in Sam Raimi's OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is indeed great and powerful - and I've noticed a few tricks up his sleeve during the trailers that I think will play out very well in 3D (the B&W to color transition and the extra depth space held in the temporary smaller visual screen size) so I'm anxious to see if those creative touches light up the movie as I think they will.
DESPICABLE ME 2? Well what's not to like really. Love the characters. And those minions are the secret sauce of this franchise - there's more proof in the image!
Out of the three depicted in this post, I'll go with MAN OF STEEL as my most anticipated. More thoughts on upcoming movies are on my short list! Stay tuned.
MAN OF STEEL flies into theaters June 14, OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL opens March 8 and DESPICABLE ME 2 is slated for July 3.
Sources: USA Today
Escape to The Movies: "Les Miserables"
Thinkers and Believers: In Action
Hat-tip to io9
There are, fundamentally, two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers.
When I say that, I expect it to get your attention. That's why it's presented in such blunt, quasi-absolutist terms. I know the first thing that jumps into anyone's head when they see the world belief presented as an opposing-force to thought is that the presenter (me) is "attacking" or otherwise denigrating religious belief, which is one of the all-time great attention-getters (just ask Ricky Gervais.)
Of course, those who bother to read past the slogan will typically discover that I didn't specifiy religious belief (or scientific thought, for that matter) because I'm talking about human behavior in a much more broad sense - it's wholly possible (and, in my mind, just as ill-advised) to apply religion-esque blind, uniformed fealty to any worldview. Case in point: The long-held, anti-science hysteria against Genetically Modified Organisms ("GMOs") particularly in agriculture. I've been on about this before.
One of the biggest anti-GMO activists - partially responsible from the mid-90s onward - for both spreading "Frankenfood" hysteria and coupling it (to cancerous effect) to the mainstream environmentalist movement was a fellow named Mark Lynas. Well, guess what? A few days ago, in a lecture to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas recanted and denounced more or less the entirety of the anti-GMO movement and his participation therein, effectively joining ranks with the Norm Borlaug wing of planet-management.
In the world of eco-science, this is pretty huge. But what I like more than the result is Lynas reasoning for it: In order to better argue his other great intellectual passion, climate change, he had to develop a greater understanding of science. In doing so, he realized that his stance on GMOs was simply not supported by real science, and that he'd been clinging to beliefs (his words) to justify it.
Confronted with hard scientific evidence that what he had assumed was, in fact, incorrect; Lynas' actions were that of a Thinker: He accepted the truth, and now looks to undo what damage he did by spreading a lie in the name of erroneous belief. He's now setting out to actively campaign for the EU and other organizations/governments to ease their crippling restrictions against GMO crops.
Money quotes, from the lecture:
"So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist."
"This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it."
"So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths."
"It is not enough to sit back and hope that technological innovation will solve our problems. We have to be much more activist and strategic than that. We have to ensure that technological innovation moves much more rapidly, and in the right direction for those who most need it."
"If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you."
"So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."
Wow.
"You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably." Remove the issue-specific "feeding the world sustainably" part and you've basically got a template for my entire day-to-day worldview.
Lynas, of course, has much more pennance to make than just a grand speech to atone for the harm he helped bring about, but this is a hell of a start and he sounds committed. I hope this speech goes viral (it's likely being passed around like Gangnam Style by the biotech community already) and gets out there. For good or ill, the environmentalist movement lives and dies by publicity. It's time it dropped this crap and got the side of science and (more importantly) reason and reality.
There are, fundamentally, two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers.
When I say that, I expect it to get your attention. That's why it's presented in such blunt, quasi-absolutist terms. I know the first thing that jumps into anyone's head when they see the world belief presented as an opposing-force to thought is that the presenter (me) is "attacking" or otherwise denigrating religious belief, which is one of the all-time great attention-getters (just ask Ricky Gervais.)
Of course, those who bother to read past the slogan will typically discover that I didn't specifiy religious belief (or scientific thought, for that matter) because I'm talking about human behavior in a much more broad sense - it's wholly possible (and, in my mind, just as ill-advised) to apply religion-esque blind, uniformed fealty to any worldview. Case in point: The long-held, anti-science hysteria against Genetically Modified Organisms ("GMOs") particularly in agriculture. I've been on about this before.
One of the biggest anti-GMO activists - partially responsible from the mid-90s onward - for both spreading "Frankenfood" hysteria and coupling it (to cancerous effect) to the mainstream environmentalist movement was a fellow named Mark Lynas. Well, guess what? A few days ago, in a lecture to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas recanted and denounced more or less the entirety of the anti-GMO movement and his participation therein, effectively joining ranks with the Norm Borlaug wing of planet-management.
In the world of eco-science, this is pretty huge. But what I like more than the result is Lynas reasoning for it: In order to better argue his other great intellectual passion, climate change, he had to develop a greater understanding of science. In doing so, he realized that his stance on GMOs was simply not supported by real science, and that he'd been clinging to beliefs (his words) to justify it.
Confronted with hard scientific evidence that what he had assumed was, in fact, incorrect; Lynas' actions were that of a Thinker: He accepted the truth, and now looks to undo what damage he did by spreading a lie in the name of erroneous belief. He's now setting out to actively campaign for the EU and other organizations/governments to ease their crippling restrictions against GMO crops.
Money quotes, from the lecture:
"So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist."
"This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it."
"So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths."
"It is not enough to sit back and hope that technological innovation will solve our problems. We have to be much more activist and strategic than that. We have to ensure that technological innovation moves much more rapidly, and in the right direction for those who most need it."
"If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you."
"So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."
Wow.
"You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably." Remove the issue-specific "feeding the world sustainably" part and you've basically got a template for my entire day-to-day worldview.
Lynas, of course, has much more pennance to make than just a grand speech to atone for the harm he helped bring about, but this is a hell of a start and he sounds committed. I hope this speech goes viral (it's likely being passed around like Gangnam Style by the biotech community already) and gets out there. For good or ill, the environmentalist movement lives and dies by publicity. It's time it dropped this crap and got the side of science and (more importantly) reason and reality.
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Plug
My good friend and fellow BOFCA member Dan Kimmel has written his first fiction novel, a scifi/comedy called "Shh! It's a Secret," due to be released this month. It's now available for pre-orders, if anyone would like to take a look...
Dan's a good guy, old-school scifi fan and more-than-generous helper to the newbie set in the Boston area movie-journalism game. Some of you might be familiar with his previous book, "Jar-Jar Binks Must Die."
Dan's a good guy, old-school scifi fan and more-than-generous helper to the newbie set in the Boston area movie-journalism game. Some of you might be familiar with his previous book, "Jar-Jar Binks Must Die."
THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 10: WARLOCK
In an article entitled The Nightmare After Christmas, Jason Dietz of Metacritic speculates on why movies released in January are generally so awful. He speculations include such notions as people are still trying to catch up on the blockbuster Christmas releases (ala The Hobbit) and aren’t looking to buy tickets for anything new, that January is too far away from awards season to release anything of substance, and the simple fact that a month full of blizzards tends to discourage moviegoers from leaving the house. But is it true, are movies that come out in January really so wretched? Well, let’s think about that. Past Januaries have given us such shining monuments to filmmaking as Bloodrayne, Alone In The Dark, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Elektra, Spice World, oh, and this…
So yeah, it’s probably safe to say that January has earned its reputation as the month bad movies go to in order to die a quick death at the box office. But hey, good movie, bad movie, those are just labels as far we’re concerned here at The B-Movie Catechism. What matters is if they entertain or not, and if the trailer didn’t already clue you in, Warlock entertains in bucket loads. How could anyone resist Julian Sands chewing up the scenery as a time displaced 17th century warlock running around in late 80s clothing. And just look at all those cheesy non-CGI animated effects. Plus, you have to admit that the MacGuffin in the movie is somewhat original. Sands goal is to locate the three sections of The Grand Grimoire (a real book full of incantations for summoning demons, currently garnering 4 1/2 stars in user reviews on Amazon) which allegedly contains the true name of God, a name which if read backward will destroy the world.
Yeah, I’m not sure how that works either. After all, Roman Catholics the world over celebrate the Holy Name of Jesus during Christmastime in honor of his circumcision and naming on the 8th day after his birth. But as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “We give honour to the Name of Jesus, not because we believe that there is any intrinsic power hidden in the letters composing it, but because the Name of Jesus reminds us of all the blessings we receive through our Holy Redeemer. To give thanks for these blessings we revere the Holy Name, as we honour the Passion of Christ by honouring His Cross (Colvenerius, "De festo SS. Nominis", ix). At the Holy Name of Jesus we uncover our heads, and we bend our knees; it is at the head of all our undertakings, as the Emperor Justinian says in his law-book: "In the Name of Our Lord Jesus we begin all our consultations". The Name of Jesus invoked with confidence brings help in bodily needs, according to the promise of Christ: "In my name They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover". (Mark 16:17-18) In the Name of Jesus the Apostles gave strength to the lame (Acts 3:6; 9:34) and life to the dead (Acts 9:40). It gives consolation in spiritual trials. The Name of Jesus reminds the sinner of the prodigal son's father and of the Good Samaritan; it recalls to the just the suffering and death of the innocent Lamb of God. It protects us against Satan and his wiles, for the Devil fears the Name of Jesus, who has conquered him on the Cross. In the Name of Jesus we obtain every blessing and grace for time and eternity, for Christ has said: "If you ask the Father anything in my name he will give it you." (John 16:23) Therefore the Church concludes all her prayers by the words: "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ", etc.”
Neat, huh? But nowhere in all that does it mention that if you say His name backwards it’ll wipe out all of existence. Maybe they just left that part out. Or maybe it was just Hollywood hooey, since the world apparently survived long enough for Warlock to spawn two sequels and a video game. That being the case, it should be fairly safe for everyone to celebrate today by reciting the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus (which we’ve discussed before). Besides, what else are you going to do? Go to the movies? Please, it’s January, have you seen what they’re releasing this month? Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters? Storage 24? A Haunted House!?! I think I’d rather stay at home, say the prayer, and risk the end of the world instead.
"Evil Dead" Red Band #2 (UPDATED)
UPDATED: Had originally linked to the first trailer, fixed.
The "Evil Dead" remake is probably going to be awesome, and we need to start accepting that:
The "Evil Dead" remake is probably going to be awesome, and we need to start accepting that:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)