The Worst Movies of 2012

Every year brings hundreds of bad movies. I avoid most of them, but every once in a while I’m particularly curious as to why they’re considered failures as such. Some are so mediocre, merely existing as a sort of cash-grabber, that they don’t rise above cynical entertainments; others, transcend badness as to rise to a nirvana of “what-were-they-thinking” awfulness. 

Here’s my top 10 worst movies of 2012: 

#10: American Reunion

Some films want to cash-in from nostalgia (see “Indy 4”) but they at least have to justify their existence from beyond just bringing back beloved characters. “American Reunion” doesn’t offer a convincing argument for a reunion making the whole movie utterly pointless. Plus, their ages strips them from the absurd oversexed shenanigans that worked  before. It feels kinda creepy and it’s not funny anymore. 

#9: Lawless

This movie had every chance of being a good movie, hell even a great one. But a dopey script, a wasted cast (that includes a Tom Hardy that seems to bark half his lines and hardly give a shit) and an unsure direction turns it into a tedious and uninvolving slog. It’s as if everyone was merely invited to a depression-era themed party. A big disappointment. 

#8: Twixt

“Twixt” is baffling. It’s an attempt from Francis Ford Coppola to jump on the 3D bandwagon with a strange story of a writer investigating a murder on a small town. Dream sequences are adrift in a pointless storyline and the 3D scenes (that actually invite you, in-movie, to put your glasses on) are laughable and completely unnecessary. This is one of those “what-were-they-thinking” pictures. 

#7: To Rome With Love

“Midnight in Paris” was one of my favorite movies of last year but Allen’s “To Rome With Love” seems to find it hard to find a reason to exist beyond giving Allen and his cast a nice holiday in Italy. It’s a depressing and unfunny farce with obnoxious characters (several stories are presented, none are interesting). I respect Allen for writing and directing a movie every year, but this one should’ve stayed on his drawer. 

#6: The Bourne Legacy

I’m a fan of the Bourne trilogy. They’re exciting action movies with enough political intrigue to keep us entertained but what really made them work was the poignancy of Matt Damon’s character. “The Bourne Legacy” reminds us how Damon and director Paul Greengrass were essential to their success. This one lacks a heartbeat, introducing dumb characters, drawn-out and pointless scenes and barely any action. Another one of 2012’s big disappointments. 

#5: Battleship

“Battleship” is loud and dumb and long and ridiculous. It takes its inspiration from “Transformers” but failed to even generate interest within its core audience (which I assume are pubescent boys obsessed with robots, girls and explosions). Some scenes made me laugh but on the whole I must say I was depressed as to see what Hollywood does with a big budget. Yeah, the effects are good but where’s the script?

#4: The Moth Diaries

I expect the story of this movie to sit comfortably on the shelves of “teenage supernatural fiction” in countless bookstores. As men we could fantasize about the possibilities of a story about attractive girls in a boarding school but instead we get soap opera material that might appeal to the Twilight crowd. A shame, coming from Mary Harron. 

#3: Rec 3 Genesis

I love the first “Rec” movie, liked the second one and expected to enjoy this so-called prequel. But, we get the rug pulled under our noses since this bears no resemblance to the others in the series. It tries to be funny but it isn’t, it tries to be poignant but no character is fully developed. It stops trying to be scary. In other words, it’s a big slap in the face to Rec fans. Hopefully the next installment will fix the rancid taste left by this one. 

#2: Red Tails

George Lucas wanted to make this movie for a long time but he should’ve waited a lot longer. It’s a historical epic drama that looks and sounds like a videogame with a cast lacking conviction and a terrible direction. Swap any one of the planes for X-Wings and one could easily imagine it taking place in Naboo. As adventure films go, this is a really bad one. 

#1: Post Tenebras Lux

I’ve written a lot about this movie and if I have to say something positive about it it’s that it is never boring. It might be laughably misguided, thematically opaque and narcissistic to its core but it’s never dull. I’m afraid people pass anything as art these days, which is comforting for the lazy but not so comforting to the artists. This movie might make it to a museum one day where a bunch of people will contemplate it and find its emptiness deep and poignant. Maybe. 

Scene City #19: "Amour" (Haneke, 2012)

Most films about old age find tenderness by creating a sympathetic portrayal of death. "Amour" might be the first movie in shattering the naive paradigms of dealing with a person whose decease is slowly destroying every remain of her former life.

This is a cruel and humilliating experience and director Michael Haneke never lets us off the hook. He wants us to live every moment of sorrow and despair–– every nightmare, every sense of hopelessness. And by being this cruel he forces us to empatize with a man trapped in an impossible situation of heartbreak. 

Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, as Georges and Anne, give tremendous performances. We believe completely in their marriage and when she starts behaving erraticly we know for sure it is the beginning of the end in her life (Haneke's first scene involves the police finding her corpse lying in bed). The movie is set almost entirely in their apartment, a setting that becomes ever more claustrophobic as the situation turns for the worse. We see the decay in every painful detail as Georges forces himself to take care of his wife after he promised he wouldn't abandon her in a hospital or asylum. I understand this man and I even understand his daughter (played by the great Isabelle Huppert), who still clings to the hope of getting back the woman that no longer resembles her beloved mother and who doesn't agree with her father in keeping her in their home. She wants to help, to not only cope with her family's grief, but be a part of this difficult journey. She only makes it worse because she can't possibly understand this kind of pain. 

I'm not one of Haneke's regular fans. He usually makes films that are too cold and cerebral to generate much emotion but he is a unique voice in contemporary cinema. I still think, every now and then, about "Caché" and the mystery surrounding its static scenes (including the reveal at the end). And with "Amour" I find myself going back to this couple, this terrible moment in their lives and think that I've never seen grief portrayed this realistically. Haneke has made a visceral fiction that never rings false. He's so cold-blooded in his approach that we start wishing for some cliche, some violins or a simple reassurance of security as if any happy ending were possible. 

"Amour" is worth of every accolade it has garnered and I sincerely hope the Academy rewards Emmanuelle Riva's devastating performance (one that will not be topped be any actress this year) but frankly it is a work of such emotional endurance that I wouldn't want to experience it again. 

Scene City #18: Killer Joe (Friedkin, 2011)

The Smiths embody the very definition of “trailer trash”. They are rednecks with ambitions of financial greatness who get caught up on the most idiotic criminal scheme this side of Jerry Lundegaard in “Fargo”. Once they decide to pursue this stupid plan they hire Joe Cooper, a detective with a side job, he murders people. 

Chris is the son with lots of debts, Dottie is his virginal sister and Ansel is the father who remarried and doesn’t seem to carry any kind of weight in his own household. Chris wants to collect the insurance by killing his mother, who apparently no one will miss. 

How this story plays out seems lifted directly from sleazy tabloids but “Killer Joe” isn’t a cheap stab at a redneck thriller. It’s a nightmarish and cold-blooded portrayal directed with brutal precision by William Friedkin and acted to perfection by its strong cast. 

It seems that 2012 has been a breakthrough year for Matthew McConaughey (he was also very good in “Bernie” and “Magic Mike”) but Joe Cooper is, by far, the best performance of his career. He projects a cool and detached menace and has some scenes of haunting power (including the infamous fried chicken scene). He is surrounded by other brave performances but the best might be by Gina Gershon as a cheating wife (who should, along with McConaughey, get Oscar nominations if the Academy took any chances with films like this).

A lot of people will hate this movie. It doesn’t take any punches and it’s unrelentless in its bleakness and brutality. It oozes atmosphere and terror within its morbid restrains. 

Whatever one feels about it, its hard to deny its powers and the commitment of its performers who create some of the most memorable characters I’ve seen in a while. This is one of the best movies of the year. 

Scene City #17: Cosmopolis (Cronenberg, 2012)

I haven’t read Don DeLillo’s “Cosmopolis” but based on David Cronenberg’s adaptation I can understand those who have called it unfilmable. After all, it follows a yuppie on his quest for a haircut aboard a limousine and his multiple encounters with people who seem to speak in dark and obscure semi-philosophical tirades (the film features cameos from Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton and Paul Giamatti, among others). Not much happens in the movie and the motivations get lost in a miasma of unpenetrable dialogues and slick visuals (this is apparently some futuristic landscape that doesn’t differ much from our own). 

Cronenberg is a fascinating director and I can see what attracted him to this material. There’s an underlying eroticism, sporadic violence, some awkward moments (as seen in the "prostate examination inside the limo" scene) and a bunch of characters who seem to wander aimlessly. So, why did I enjoy this movie?

First of all, it’s because of Robert Pattinson's performance. I confess myself one of those incredulous to Mr. Pattinson acting abilities after watching him in the “Twilight” series. He usually plays dark and brooding (an almost James Dean wannabe) but actually comes out more like awkward and constipated. Much like Edward, his character here is also a mysterious vacuum of emotions but Cronenberg takes advantage of his Twilight persona y creates a nuanced effect that compliments the story (what little there is of it), much like what PT Anderson did with Adam Sandler on “Punch-Drunk Love”. Pattinson is hypnotic and reveals layers previously unseen (there might be a future for him beyond teenage fodder). I also liked the cold and detached direction that doesn’t offer any kind of arch or even explanations (the movie might need multiple viewings to fully understand its purpose but few will venture to watch it more than once).

“Cosmopolis” isn’t for everyone; even for Cronenberg fans it remains somewhat impenetrable. But it’s an interesting work from a fascinating filmmaker and proof that Pattinson can really act. I might go watch it again one of these days. 

Scene City #16: The Bourne Legacy (Gilroy, 2012)

“The Bourne Legacy” is a baffling experience for fans of the Bourne trilogy since it feels like a poor man’s version of the real thing. Tony Gilroy, writer and director of the film, seems to misunderstand the appeal of the series and changes gears by transforming an action-packed premise into an unbelievable chore to sit through; a chore of 135 minutes long where there’s virtually only one action sequence and it arrives at the 100 minute mark. 

There was an emotional gravitas to the previous movies that made them compelling. We were discovering the conspiracy at the same time as Jason Bourne and once he, and the audience, knew the truth about his involvement in the shadow organization we became invested in his redemption. The movie wasn’t about government covert missions and assassins, it was about a man with great resources trying to uncover his past. And, it was an action movie through and through. 

This time, our protagonist is one Aaron Cross (played by Jeremy Renner), an agent who just needs his pills to survive. The training program supplies pills to all of its agents in order to give them superhuman skills or, just in case, to get rid of them. They apparently are injected with a virus with the pills acting as antidotes (it’s all murky and somewhat contrived). Cross never develops a personality or feels in command of the story as Gilroy gives equal importance to the role of a doctor played by Rachel Weisz. She is a target for assassination since she worked in the lab that treated the agents but is more annoying than useful and the movie dedicates way too many scenes to its flat and unconvincing characters. 

In an attempt to give continuity, Gilroy patches scenes of the last movie into the fabric of this one and gives glimpses of earlier characters (he also shamelessly creates a twist at the end that invalidates the closing scenes of the previous movie in case there’s a sequel). By stripping this flimsy link, the movie would have had nothing in common with its predecessors. 

“The Bourne Legacy” proves how vital were Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon to the series. The frenetic editing along with the incessant beat of its soundtrack brought urgency and momentum, thoroughly lacking here and since there’s no emotional investment whatsoever, it quickly becomes a bore. It is a waste of talent and an awkward sequel/reboot of sorts that doesn’t engage. This is one of summer’s most disappointing movies. 

Scene City #15: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan, 2012)

There are striking motifs in Christopher Nolan’s Batman series that demand thoughtful analysis and debate. After all, he’s basically creating a parable of a crumbling society whilst juggling with a mythology that sometimes flirts with camp and whimsy. Nolan’s “Batman Begins”, its first chapter, felt like a breath of fresh air after Joel Schumacher’s disastrous last installment (the infamous “Batman and Robin”). And while Schumacher went to the extreme of kitsch and goofy action, Nolan started from scratch taking the origin story and injecting it with deadly seriousness, giving gravitas and poignancy to Wayne’s transformation into the Caped Crusader. I thoroughly enjoyed Begins as an introduction to the dark and gritty crime fiction that the series, masquerading as a super hero movie, really was. 

“The Dark Knight” however, upped the ante and focused on madness through its antagonist. The joker, self proclaimed agent of chaos, is deliciously perverse and uninterested in money or power. His only goal is to poison the moral stance of Gotham’s citizens. In many ways he succeeds by transforming society’s one decent politician, through vengeance and hate, into a monster. Harvey Dent becomes the villainous Two-Face. 

There are four essential characters to the Dark Knight myth that have strong arcs in both films. One is Alfred, Wayne’s faithful butler and sometimes conscience. He reminds Wayne of his limits and even gives insight into the Joker when he only sees him as a petty criminal.  Then there’s Lucius Fox, hard working and honest, and a brilliant inventor (think about him as this series’s Q). James Gordon is the only link to the Police Department and one of the few fighting against corruption within the system. And then there’s Rachel Dawes, Wayne’s childhood friend and love interest. Rachel’s death becomes a catalyst for Dent’s transformation and for Batman becoming an outcast.

After years of speculation Nolan finally announced the third chapter, in between a barrage of crazy casting rumors that included Leonardo DiCaprio as the Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin. 

I confess a rooting excitement for “The Dark Knight Rises”, the so-called epic conclusion to the trilogy. Hype ran as high as it gets from moviegoers but fandom hit an all new time low with the death threats sent to the critics who weren’t impressed with the movie. I avoided spoilers and focused on the praise. Surely this movie had to be awesome. 

But after watching the film twice, I am a bit confused as for some of the decisions made by Nolan. It basically concludes the series by shaking the very foundations established by the first two. 

“The Dark Knight Rises” starts out 8 years after the death of Harvey Dent, whose downfall led to an act that has locked out most of Gotham’s criminals and established peacetime. Wayne has become a recluse, depressed on his failure to save Rachel and share a normal life with her without the burden of the mask. Meanwhile, a new villain arrives by the name of Bane, a bulky and powerful adversary with an intimidating breathing mask (that apparently releases a substance thats keeps him from feeling any pain). He is continuing the task of the League of Shadows and its founder Ra’s Al Ghul.

My problem with this premise is that Nolan takes leaps of faith with the established characters, sacrificing their importance in favor of introducing an array of new characters. Wayne walks around with a beard and a cane (with the speculation of a Howard Hughes-like behavior), Alfred senses a suicidal pattern but decides to tell him the truth about Rachel’s letter and leaves him. James Gordon remains in a hospital bed for a large chunk of the movie, after an encounter with Bane. And Fox isn’t as much an ally as a chaperone for Miranda Tate, the new director of the board for Wayne Enterprises.

Bane’s motivation remain a little shaky but lets just say he’s a torturer, with the intention of giving people control of their city for about 5 months before launching an atomic bomb on them. At the same time he destroys Batman’s body (including a shot of the iconic back breaker) and takes him to a prison on the other side of the world. 

One of the film’s flaws is with the visualization of the passage of time. Nolan doesn’t get a sense of dread within the months of anarchy y Wayne’s recovery feels oversimplified and contrived. Large plot holes overshadow the more interesting ideas and the film feels bloated. 

Among the new characters I liked was Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Blake, an honest cop who recognizes almost immediately Batman’s identity. Of course, he becomes one of the heroes of the movie and its clear from very early on who he is bound to become (hint: it starts with an R). 

I didn’t find Catwoman especially necessary although Anne Hathaway plays the part straight, respecting her story from the comics. I can’t say the same about Miranda Tate, whose gimmick adds surprise but also softens Bane’s ferocity and panache. 

At the end of the day, “The Dark Knight Rises” isn’t a bombastic failure but it is a disappointment that happens when expectations run so high. And while it may remain the lesser movie in the trilogy, it has some good moments (especially with its exciting climactic sequence).  It’s admirable what Nolan has created with his series, a three-act story that doesn’t strive for perpetuating sequel after sequel and remains the most powerful adaptation of the Caped Crusader to date. 

Scene City #14: Prometheus (Scott, 2012)

Few films have garnered such hype as “Prometheus”, Ridley Scott’s first foray into the sci-fi genre after 30 years. Early teases indicated a movie in the same Alien universe albeit not precisely a prequel or sequel to the series. Expectations were even higher after the first teaser trailer echoed Scott’s original “Alien” and showed amazing sights among its freak show of horror type imagery.

Now that I’ve seen “Prometheus” I am fascinated by its implications, both as a result of the Alien link and the philosophical questions on the origin of life. Audiences expect answers but Scott answers questions with even deeper questions and, on retrospective, the movie is chockfull of apparent narrative plot holes, shaky motivations and bizarre notions that will frustrate casual viewers. And yet, “Prometheus” is such a masterful exercise in suspense and atmosphere that, for long stretches, it hardly matters that it doesn’t make a lick of sense. We hardly see movies on this scale both in concept and execution (and even less frequently during the summertime of dumb and crass blockbusters).

It is impossible to review “Prometheus” without digging deeply into spoiler territory. The film starts with a curious sequence showing a white tall humanoid getting exposed to a strange substance that alters his DNA. It isn’t clear whether he’s on Earth or another planer (many things remain unclear in this movie). We then join the Prometheus, an expedition ship that lands on a moon and carries a team that includes a couple of scientists, an android and the usual assortments of ready-to-die fodder. They are led by an executive of the Weyland Corporation (another link to Alien).

What they find on the moon and how it manages to get onboard will provide even more debate and frustration but the creep factor turns to eleven once we reach the cesarean section scene that offers one of the most memorable moments of the year. There’s yet another link to Alien at the end but how that particular creature developed out of the space jockey and the incubation of the other tentacle monster remains vague (a repeated motif that might or not be revealed in potential sequels).

Visually, “Prometheus” is an astonishing experience and the cast fills each role nicely (the obvious standout is Michael Fassbender as the android David, who may or not have a secret agenda of his own). Whether repeated viewings will be rewarding remains a mystery but as a spectacular tent-pole picture it remains colossally exciting. This is one of the most interesting movies of 2012.

Scene City #13: 21 Jump Street (Lord, Miller, 2012)

Some remember their high school years fondly; the friendships, the parties, the overall sense of teen hedonism and irresponsible mischief. I, however, am not too fond of it; as an ineffectual, anti social geek, my hours were spent usually in front of a screen (watching movies, TV shows or playing video games).

But the more I think about it the more I am convinced that it would, actually, be fun to go back to high school (with my adult sensibilities in high gear, of course). “21 Jump Street” presents us with the two classic stereotypes, the nerd and the jock, and does something interesting; it swaps roles on their adult life so the nerd gets to enjoy popularity while the jock gets to appreciate geekdom.

The movie is yet another big-screen adaptation of an old TV series (starring a young Johnny Depp apparently; I never saw it). The reason why many of these adaptations fail miserably is because they can’t distinguish the fine line between homage and parody (and that’s why camp can’t be reproduced, but merely mirrored or made fun of). “21 Jump Street”, however, works mainly because it is a very, very funny movie (something I did not expect based on its trailers). It plays like a usual Jonah Hill vehicle (think of “Superbad” meets cop-buddy bromance) but it gives the supporting cast laugh-out-loud moments that almost steal the show. Just wait until you see Ice Cube playing the archetypical angry black dude.

There’s some good acting in the film; the surprise being Channing Tatum, who’s usually as stiff and charismatic as a wood plank but here shows real comedic timing and good chemistry with Hill. I’m surprised at how much I enjoyed “21 Jump Street”. It’s a comedy filled with drugs, booze and dick jokes that’s actually really funny. In other words, it’s a riot.

Scene City #12: The Avengers (Whedon, 2012)

Since “The Avengers” is the culmination of a series that started with Marvel’s “Iron Man” followed by pictures devoted to The Hulk, Captain America and Thor (not to mention “Iron Man 2”), it’s only appropriated that I, first and foremost, confess myself a fan of the comic book mythology that spawned these films. I got to understand the superhero golden age through the pages of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and while they weren’t always quite the rousing success, they were certainly always fun. With this I don’t mean that I’m necessarily a fan of the movies; while the first “Iron Man” was a genuinely exciting adventure, its sequel felt like a quick cash-grab to get to “The Avengers”. “The Incredible Hulk” with its sort-of reboot/sequel mentality (mostly to counter the bad reception of Ang Lee’s version) was underwhelming although “Thor” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” were mostly fun popcorn movies (I especially liked “Captain America” since there’s a special place in my heart for WWII adventures where Nazis are complete buffoons).

Everybody knew, however, that “The Avengers” would be the tricky one to get right. After all, this is the one where the characters find a common goal and try to defeat an Earth-menacing villain (the whole movie becomes, basically, a juggling act balancing the tones of very different characters). After all, if Tony Stark is somewhat cemented in the real world (albeit one of amazing technological breakthroughs), how does Thor fit in, with his demi-god presence and power? How could we accept a superman with a shield fighting next to a CGI bulking hulk? And how to explain the presence of Black Widow and Hawkeye, agents without any kind of superhuman skill? (Ok, I’ll grant that Hawkeye’s arrows are pretty powerful).

But “The Avengers” is a success and the praise has to go, mainly, to Joss Whedon. He is a man who has gathered a cult following with “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, “Angel”, “Firefly” and “Dollhouse”, a storyteller who understands how to craft a good story seeped in genre clichés, by turning its head on the typical archetypes. Most of all, he knows how to introduce humor amidst the drama and that’s the key to this movie. In a basic level, the whole mythology is absurd (as most comic books are) but Whedon knows how to build a “pressure and release” balance between heavy exposition and humorous action. There are truly some laugh-out-loud moments in “The Avengers”.

Every actor has found a comfortable niche within their characters. Robert Downey Jr. is all wit and dead-pan humor, Chris Evans is earnest and a natural leader and Chris Hemsworth is noble and mighty. Mark Ruffallo gets Bruce Banner right and for the first time, the filmmakers get the Hulk right. His scenes are some of the best in the film, proving that the Hulk is and always should be, a supporting character. Tom Hiddleston is a convincing monster as Loki, who’s always on the verge of redemption but never quite gets there. There’s surprising depth too within the relationships of Hawkeye and Black Widow and cool moments for Agent Coulson and Nick Fury (although I never quite liked the casting of Samuel L. Jackson).

“The Avengers” is a perfect summer entertainment filled with cool one-liners and amazing special effects. It’s well worth the hype.

Scene City #11: Shame (McQueen, 2011)

Morning. Brandon stares into space in his vast apartment in Manhattan. He masturbates in the shower, goes to work, masturbates in the bathroom, goes home, has sex with prostitutes and goes to sleep. Over and over, day in, day out. He is a soulless ghoul, the shell of a man with a disturbing addiction who shares no attachments and shows no feelings or remorse. His sexual life lacks any kind of pleasure and is as mechanical as it is shallow."Shame" observes him intently as we watch his soul being sucked into an endless void and it sure isn’t a pretty sight. Michael Fassbender and director Steve McQueen (who also collaborated in the powerful "Hunger") create a mesmerizing and hypnotic journey following Brandon and turning his life into a living hell.

One day he is visited by his sister Sissy (played by Carey Mulligan) who shares deep wounds and desperately wants to connect with his brother even though he feels threatened by her love, her caring and her insight into his damaged psyche. Sissy must know a lot about Brandon and their childhood must have been filled with traumas and repression but McQueen never gives us easy answers and avoids the motivations riddled with clichés of most dramas. This makes the movie a lot more powerful and provocative as we fill in the missing pieces.

"Shame" is not an easy movie to endure but it has brilliant performances and a depth hiding beneath its apparent empty core. For many, Brandon may resemble the prism of male fantasy in its fullest, filled with angst and repression and ultimately, shame.

Scene City #10: The Artist (Hazanavicius, 2011)

Silent films hold an eerie and indefinable power. I’ve recently watched “Metropolis” again and found it to be utterly hypnotic, casting a spell through the eyes of its performers. “The Artist” knows this and uses the faces of Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo to playfully recreate a silent film from the 20s while, at the same time, managing to subtly parody its own conventions. There’s a gasp once we hear sound in a dream sequence and I found myself watching with a cheerful grin during its final scene.

“The Artist” could be seen as a gimmick but there’s a good story behind its stylistic choices. We meet a star of the silent era about to enter his decline and the rise of a plucky actress on the birth of the “talkies” (the first talking pictures). Dujardin perfectly fits the role on what seems like a variation of the Douglas Fairbanks-type. He shows great screen presence (along with a fantastic smile) and seems already poised to win the Academy Award for best actor. And if he wins I hope he brings his four legged companion to the stage.

It seems astonishing to have “The Artist” in the same year as such callow entertainments like “Transformers” and “Twilight”. How many of today’s kids have seen a movie in black and white, let alone a silent one? But the film seems to already be a crowd pleaser and destined to be the big winner at the Oscars.

2011 was the year of nostalgia as Scorsese’s “Hugo” and Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” seemed to cherish the past (“Hugo” was not only a love letter to cinema but also a cry in favor of film preservation). “The Artist” doesn’t gloat in any kind of ambition; it’s a fun film, meant to inspire curiosity for silent film but mostly made for audiences to enjoy a feel-good story. This is one of the most entertaining and charming movies of the year.

Scene City #9: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Fincher, 2011)

Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy is a sensation in the literary world, a smart and riveting series of thrillers featuring a fascinating female protagonist by the name of Lisbeth Salander. She is unlike any heroine in contemporary entertainment; with her piercings, tattoos and goth wear, she is a damaged creature living in isolation within a system of violence.

Larson’s books were adapted to Swedish films with Noomi Rapace playing Salander. Her performance was mesmerizing, going deep into her darkness and yet, creating empathy for the character. In “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” she meets Blomkvist, the disgraced editor of Millennium magazine who has been hired to solve the disappearance of a teenage girl almost 40 years ago. Their quest will involve a killer of women.

Of course, this seems prime material for David Fincher, who has done his share of movies about violent men but his take on this material seems somewhat redundant and overdone. He piles on the darkness with a claustrophobic feel and an invasive soundrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. This time Salander is played by Rooney Mara, creating a very different character from Rapace. Her Lisbeth is wounded and fragile, more victim than perpetrator and with a heavier emotional link to Blomkvist (played by Daniel Craig).

The movie starts with a brilliant title sequence that seems to conceptualize Salander’s inner violence (it also helps to have a rocking cover of “Immigrant Song” by Karen O and Reznor). But the energetic scene doesn’t reflect the rest of Fincher’s approach to the material. He keeps it surprisingly low key focusing on small and contained spaces and the dire and cold winter of Sweden. There are enough differences between the versions to avoid calling it a copycat (and some might argue that it’s a more complete adaptation from the novel). This version also changes the ending, and goes a bit heavy with its epilogue trying to tie everything neatly.

Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” isn’t one of his best efforts but it still shows great craftsmanship and as a thriller works very well. But, if one were to choose the better movie I’d go with the original (and its interesting sequels).

Scene City #8: Drive (Winding Refn, 2011)

He’s sometimes working at a garage, sometimes doing stunts for the movies and other times helping some dangerous folks but he’s mostly driving through the streets of LA. “Drive” is an existential action picture, one that goes through the motions of most genre films (dealing with the usual assortment of mafia stereotypes) but also one that sidesteps them by giving its hero a sense of cool detachment.

“Drive” is a cool movie, plain and simple. It has an electrifying soundtrack (by composer Cliff Martinez and featuring the catchy song “A Real Hero”), great performances (the most notable by Albert Brooks, playing his first role as a villain) and a bolstering directing style from Nicolas Winding Refn (one of the most exciting of European filmmakers, see “Bronson” and “Valhalla Rising”). In “Drive” his camera focuses intently on Ryan Gosling, playing a man of few words and controlled emotions but who’s capable of inflicting terrible acts of violence.

The driver (he isn’t given a name) lives in a lonely apartment next to a woman (played by Carey Mulligan) whose husband is in prison. He befriends her and her son and soon enough is entangled in a plot to help her husband once he arrives. But the details are almost collateral pleasures next to the sheer act of watching a movie of such marvelous control of tone. Once it’s over we kind of forget of the conventional plot points and remember specific scenes, like the driver’s first date, the explosive violence on an elevator and a sequence where he wears a stunt mask to stalk a mobster. Those moments burn in the memory and make the film into a sort of urban dreamscape of daring imagination.

“Drive” is one of the best movies of the year. It’s exciting and original and drenched in atmosphere rewarding multiple viewings.