The Place Beyond the Pines (Derek Cianfrance, 2012)

6.5/10
This is a movie that almost feels like a 3-in-1 package deal, like it's compiled from three intertwined stories. The problem is that the movie divulges all of its secrets and mystery in the first act, and then is left with little else to do but beat you over the head with its raison d'etre for the following two, excluding the occasional plot divergences to pad the running time.
Despite that, though, it's not a particularly boring film...the acting is top notch all around, the movie looks good, and the music is excellent (Mike Patton channelling Angelo Badalamenti?). But after about the first hour, there's not much less to do but wait around while Cianfrance gets exactly to where you knew he was going. The two words that kept coming to mind to think of how best to describe the film would be 'clunky' and 'overbearing'.

Evil Dead (Fede Alvarez, 2013)

7.5/10
I've never seen the original, so I can't compare the two. I went with a friend who's a diehard fan of the original, and he said the movie departed so much from the original they could have made a few more changes and had a brand new movie, without having to worry about comparisons to a cult classic. So why didn't they? Is this where Hollywood is at now, where we have to attach our film to an existing one if we ever hope to get it made? Yikes...
Incidentally said friend didn't like this remake, but I thought it was pretty good. Although honestly, the state of new horror movies is so pathetic that I think I call one good if it doesn't piss me off. Evil Dead didn't, much. Sure there's typical survival horror stupidity, but that's to be expected. The scares are good, the movie is incredible to look at (both cinematography and effects) and I felt it was pretty original, for what it is.
On the downside, the acting is terrible, the dialogue is stupid, the music (especially the "emotional" music) would be brutal for even a Twilight film, and the subtle nods to the original in certain musical cues and editing choices would have been better avoided altogether.
Despite all that, I had a good time. Not bad at all.

Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine, 2012)

8.5/10
This is a movie with a ludicrous premise, a ludicrous existence even, and naturally it's a ludicrous movie. Too weird to live, yet here it is. It's almost too easy to give this movie a positive review out of sheer autoresponse - a movie like this can only be a big inside joke, right? And no audience member wants to feel like they're not in on it, so I better say I liked it.
Well, not entirely. Indeed, I'll allow for the fact that this may just be Korine having a big laugh at everyone - the studios who spent money on it, the actors who think they're in something genuinely subversive, the audience who tries to find a deep meaning to it...all the way to the bank to finance his next project about old people humping trash. But I think if Korine's movies to date have displayed any consistency, it's his fascination with America (Americana?). If his scripts for Kids and Gummo explore America's suburban and rural near-retardation, isn't Spring Breakers just the other extreme of an identical exploration? There is a bit more plot to Breakers, although it's still pretty flimsy, and a lot more style (the neverending soundtrack is excellent). While the four girls are barely given a shade of personality, James Franco steals the show as the hip hop/gangster/savior/alien Alien. There's a scene involving Franco, the girls, and a brilliantly selected Britney Spears track that any other movie this year will be hard-pressed to top.
Say nothing else about Korine, he supplies indelible, twisted images in all of his films, but it's never been as much fun to watch as it is here. Even if it's more parody or pastiche than biting critique or commentary, it's a blast and needs to be seen to be believed.