Oscar Obsessed

Reviews: Clash of the Titans & Greenberg

2010-04-03T19:04:00.006-05:00

Gods and Monsters

When James Cameron proclaimed his latest cinematic behemoth Avatar a "game-changer", I don't think he quite imagined the real consequences that would ensue. Instead of technological filmmaking being pushed further beyond the boundaries he pushed them, every studio is instead looking at the big bucks it earned and equating it to the high ticket price of 3D screens. Of course that's why the film made over two billion dollars; it had nothing to do with the level of storytelling, entertainment or the fact that Cameron shot it in 3D. Nope, it was just the price of the ticket. This has led to an outpour of new 3D movies, with the main problem being that most of these movies were shot in plain old 2D and later converted. An example this year was Alice in Wonderland, an okay movie not enhanced at all by the 3D. This is another one. Thankfully I skipped the 3D and probably saw a much better film.

Remade from the cheesy 1981 classic, this film tells a similar tale about Perseus and his battle against the gods. Sam Worthington, of the aforementioned Avatar fame, plays Perseus is his trademarked "everyman" quality. Perseus is part god, the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) who along with his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) plots against man after one city declares war on the gods. In order to get revenge against Hades for killing his family, as well as save the princess before the dreaded Kraken destroys the city, Perseus has to face many obstacles in order to save the day.

This was one of the films I was significantly looking forward to in the new year, and for my taste, it doesn't disappoint. Director Louis Leterrier has given us films like The Transporter and The Incredible Hulk, and of his entire filmography, this is without a doubt my favorite from him. His speciality has always been the action sequences, and here they all find the right intensity to strike. The action is very engaging and fun to watch. Even though his direction has to suffer through a very clunky script, I still found Leterrier's method of delivering action to be surprising to say the least.

The acting is an element that is give or take in this film. Apart from Worthington who delivers yet another similar performance in his arsenal, nearly everyone here is devouring the scenery. Neeson and Fiennes ham it up in their godly personas, and other players like Mads Mikkelson as an antagonistic hero and Gemma Arterton as an ageless beauty who assists Perceus in his quest are obviously reaching a bit far. But even that is an element that makes the film fun. It's a grand spectacle with an extra help of cheese, but that's what I like about it.

Now, don't get me wrong, this movie does have problems and most of it lies within the script. The story is poorly drawn out, the characters are flat (Arterton especially feels like a cheat in the script), the dialogue is corny and there are plenty of slow spots. But I know that these elements were present in the original film, and Leterrier and company do their best to try to improve them as much as possible. I feel that they've succeeded, and even though I can cite the major faults, I still can't deny I had a hell of a time watching it. And if you can, please see this film in the regular 2D. You'll have a better movie going experience and save money at the same time. Thank gods for that. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Hipster Replacement

For the last couple of years now, movie theaters seem to have been bombarded by new kind of anti-hero film. Batman is without a doubt the most famous kind, but the indie crowd seems to specialize in protagonists that murmur about as if they don't want to be the center of their own stories. Noah Baumbach might seem like the kind of director who specializes in this, but Ben Stiller might not be the first name to come to mind. Yet their collaboration has occurred for yet another anti-hero indie film, and the result for me is less than stellar.

Stiller has the title role of Roger Greenberg, a forty-year-old construction worker who's gone back to L.A. after living in New York to housesit for his brother while he is on vacation. Greenberg isn't that much of a likable guy, but he wanders about his listless life trying to develop while simultaneously not develop a relationship with his brother's assistant Florence (Greta Gerwig). His biting personality also tries to reunite love with an old flame (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and hold onto a shaky friendship with an old friend (Rhys Ifan).

I wouldn't consider myself a huge fan of Noah Baumbach, as I have only seen one film in his career. However, that one film I have seen, The Squid and the Whale, is one of my absolute favorites for capturing the dysfunctional while also providing wonderful characters to explore. For some reason or another, Baumbach never reaches that level here, and the characters he creates are flat, boring, meaningless and a little too whiny for my taste. Baumbach is a talented artist, but his actions feel too deliberate which makes for a meandering pace the degrades any momentum the film could build up.

Stiller I am less a fan of, though Tropic Thunder tried to restore some faith in him. The limitations of his character get in the way of Stiller to fully flesh out Greenberg, but there are several moments when Stiller can use his more quiet sensibilities to showcase real drama. At the same time, Still also handles the more energetic outbursts quite well. A blunt epiphany from a cocaine influenced Greenberg is the main highlight of the film. Gerwig is perhaps given the greatest character in the film, and I was impressed by her performance as one that feels very grounded, and I look forward to what she can do in the future. Ifan and Leigh are nice additions but wasted under limited screentime.

I was mildly looking forward to this film, but despite Michael Phillips's four star rave, I just can't get on board. All the pieces that make up the film are more than capable to deliver, but at the end of the day, not a single interesting character crosses our path, and that means more than watching some respectable actors perform against a few well executed, but sparse moments. Indies will never be without their anit-heroes, but I could do without this one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reviews: How to Train Your Dragon & Waking Sleeping Beauty

2010-03-27T19:53:00.004-05:00

Dragon Tale

It is no secret that in today's world of powerhouse animation, the biggest battles right now are being fought between Pixar and Dreamworks. More often than not, Pixar is the studio that comes out on top, as they should. After all, you cannot compare the likes of WALL-E, The Incredibles, Ratatouille and Up to films like Madagascar, Shark Tale, Bee Movie or even Shrek. Two years ago, Dreamworks did have a film that could have matched Pixar, one that avoided the contemporary pop culture references in favor of a good story filled with a rich landscape of character and visual. Kung Fu Panda couldn't upset that tiny, adorable robot that year, but it showed that this studio could deliver a film that was very satisfying. Their latest effort is further proof, one that isn't quite as good as the panda, but is very enjoyable and a feast for both the eyes and the heart.

The setting is a well-off Viking village in the distant past that is being terrorized by ferocious dragons. Viking leader Stoick (Gerard Butler) is the great commander who's a tough as nails but must deal with his meeker son, given the unfortunate name Hiccup (Jay Baruchel). Hiccup dreams to be a strong Viking like his father, so much so that he manages to take down the most elusive and powerful of the bunch known as Night Fury. But Hiccup can't bring himself to kill the creature, which he later befriends and affectionately calls "Toothless" because of its retractable dentures. Their relationship leads to Hiccup figuring out that the dragons aren't so ferocious as they seem, and his main struggle is to make the other members of the village, his father in particular, realize this as well.

Given the latest 3D boom, it's becoming more difficult to determine which films are necessary to see in that extra dimension, meaning which ones are absolutely worth the extra price. Alice in Wonderland wasn't; this one most certainly is. The greatest effect is the flying scenes, which will give obvious callbacks to Avatar. The visual intensity of those scenes are magnified by the creative use of 3D, and, much in another similar method to Cameron's film, is used as a tool to help immerse the audience in this world. The other methods of creating a real space of depth is also extraordinary, and this is one film that does benefit from that extra cost. I admire directors Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois for their creative use of the camera and visual landscape.

The voice talent, I will admit, could have been a little more forceful in the film, but they don't damage it completely. Baruchel's trademark shyness lends itself quite well to his character and Butler's booming oration goes hand in hand with his also. But secondary players ranging from America Ferrera to Jonah Hill to Christopher Mintz-Plasse to others feel as though they're a bit wasted in secondary characters with very little depth. The true magic in this movie is between Hiccup and Toothless, which seem to have taken notes from WALL-E and Up as to what can be accomplished through very little dialogue. The emotional moments between the two are warmly felt and come across very strong. It's the strongest portion of the film, and fortunately it is used to great effect.

The movie isn't perfect as there are some slow spots in the film, some lack in many of the secondary characters, not all the jokes land as squarely as others and the fortune cookie message may seem a bit simplistic at times. But so what; Kung Fu Panda had similar issues, and I still walked away loving that film. Like that one, this is another film that divorces itself from the usual Dreamworks tricks and instead focuses on story and characters. Added to it the tremendous visual landscape enhanced by the 3D and the amazing score by John Powell, and you've got a tremendously satisfying film. I certainly want to see this movie again, and trying for the gigantic IMAX format. Well done Dreamworks. Pixar, your move. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Beauties and the Beasts

It's an interesting notice when you get a film, or documentary to be specific in this case, that offers an in-depth look at a subject that has been present throughout your entire life but never quite understood to its fullest extent. I bet there are few people out there who are not aware of the impressive impact that classic animated Disney films had on their childhoods; it's inescapable. Those childhoods are usually divided into three sections now: the classic films of the 30s thru 50s, the rebirth from the late 80s to early 90s, and finally to the new decade where attention focused to the 3D animation branch known as Pixar. My early childhood was introduced heavily to the second era of Disney classics, and this film is a fascinating look at the tortured history leading up to those memorable films as well as the difficulty at even getting them made.

Made by two former Disney insiders, the film weaves the tale of how the animation department at Disney was nearly dismantled after a string of flops, most infamously The Black Cauldron, which went way over-budget and did terrible at the box office (it was beat out by the Care Bears movie). With that, the company brought in new management, with the three big players being Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Roy Disney battling each other to keep the company afloat. Disney made strides starting with The Little Mermaid (though, apparently, Oliver and Company did quite well), particularly when they brought in the song-writing team of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. This was a success that lasted all the way till The Lion King when Katzenberg resigned due to tensions between Eisner and Disney.

Despite being produced by people who had inside knowledge of these events, this isn't a glossed over version of the events, nor does it make it seem like the successes and failures of this company belong to one person. There's a fairly even handed attempt to keep the perspective as clean as possible, and to get such an objective look into a disguised messy situation is quite astounding. Director Don Hahn, the producer of films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, never goes for the jugular, or even the arrangement of the talking heads spewing into the camera. The interviews are heard off screen to some archival footage, giving them a lot more meaning and emotional depth.

Adding to all this, if you are simply a fan of Disney filmmaking history in general, then there's plenty of tidbits the movie shows that can put a smile on your face. For instance, there's something magical about seeing a young Tim Burton, who worked as an animator on Cauldron and Fox and the Hound, shooting a distraught stare into the camera while an upbeat voice calls his name offscreen. The greatest treasure I think the film offers is, at last, a decent look at what Howard Ashman created for Disney, and how his relation to the films as musical theatre (Ashman and Menken created the Little Shop of Horrors Broadway show) really brought Disney out of its hole. Unfortunately, Ashman died of AIDS in 1991, eight months before Beauty and the Beast was released, and the film's loving tribute to his work is very much appreciated from at least one person out there.

If there's one complaint I have against the film, it is that it ends too early. That's not to say the film is short, but its story stops right after Katzenberg left and they were still flying high with The Lion King. It would have been interesting to see what the effect of Katzenberg leaving truly had on the company, and how films like Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame changed production and Disney itself. But even though the film has an intentionally glossy ending, this is still a fascinating look at a company that many know through their work but remain elusive in other ways. It's funny, endearing and, most of all, will make you want to go back and watch all those old Disney films again. The romanticism of Beauty and the Beast, the first animated film ever to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, made me want to return to that film more than any other. That is what I call Disney magic. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: The Runaways & A Prophet

2010-03-23T20:09:00.008-05:00

Rock Pout

Among the few things that are certain in life, one is that audiences can never seem to get enough of the musical biopic. Make no mistake, even though we’ve seen a recent surge of this genre as Oscar-guzzling, baity projects from the likes of Ray, Walk the Line and even Dreamgirls (unofficially), this genre has had a long life stretching as far back as to the introduction of the sound era. Some of these pictures are good and others are a bit more cliched, but in the right hands, any of them can be successful. The latest outing takes a keen eye to this budding rock group in the seventies, and while it suffers from many of the same tired plot points of other films, it is bolstered by some fine performances that make it worth checking out.

The starting point is 1975, and hard, punk-rock is coming into its own. But ambitious, rebel artist Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart) is looking to revolutionize an industry that requires a shakeup every five years by starting an all female rock band. With the help of the extremely eccentric and flamboyant music producer Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon), she teams up with Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning) and three other rock out chicks to form The Runaways. The group never had a huge following in America, and actually found more success overseas in Japan. With any rock’n’roll group, there are abuses of drugs, sex and personal relationships all the way until the group was disbanded in 1979. Currie went back to a normal life, and Jett became a more famous name with her new more famous band Joan Jett and the Blackheart’s.

If you are one of the lucky few that have avoided witnessing the black hole of entertainment that is Twilight, I’d advise you to continue your abstinence lest your opinion of every Kristen Stewart performance be tainted. I do believe she is capable of being a good actress, and I constantly refer to Adventureland as an example. But I saw that film before I was even aware she was in those vampire films. Now it’s hard for me to judge if she’s an accomplished actress here because I keep getting recalls of her bland work in Twilight. I will say she doesn’t harm the movie any, and her presence in the film does add enough of the angsty intensity needed, but nothing about her never catches on. Shannon probably has the greatest range of character ticks, and even though a little bit of Fowley can go a long way, he still manages to find ways to make him funny and insightful.

However, the real performance to check out here is Fanning. It’s true that we’ve never seen Fanning take on such a hard edge character, but I think she handles the material beautifully. Those who still remember the eight-year-old Fanning pleading to be reunited with a mentally challenged Sean Penn might find some of the drug and sexual content rather jarring, and even I did in some instances, I still look at it as a very talented young actress transitioning to a very talented young adult actress. You’ll have to be ready to hear all the phrases on your list of “Things I Thought I’d Never Hear Dakota Fanning Say”, but it will be totally worth it to see such a mature and well rounded performance.

First time feature director Floria Sigismondi does have an interesting style as director, and she manages to keep the wild spirit of the era alive and crafts the more quiet, intimate moments well also. However, it’s her screenplay that is filled with the usual rock band cliches, and the story never becomes quite ambitious enough to break free from what would normally be seen in a dramatized “Behind the Music” television movie. Often times the predictability of the plot takes away from the some of the positive elements, and it is the major flaw of the film, that plus some poor shooting choices, but the performances do help tremendously.

I can’t say this is a great film, or even a great biopic based on the current standard, because of the pedestrian plot that follows the biopic rules to a tee, and the film goes on for a bit too long. However, because the film is saved by tremendous performances, particularly from Fanning, the film is worth checking out for that reason alone. This will certainly not be the last musical biopic, and there’s plenty of room for improvement. But, in the end, I still look forward to them all. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Foreign Aid

I know I say that with every Oscar season that I try to get to see all the films nominated, but there are always some categories that I miss completely before the awards are given out. The Foreign Language Film category is one that I usually don't see because these films are not released in Chicago in time. Not too many people know of these films nominated, but there's generally two well known films that get beaten out by a lesser known film that ends up taking the Oscar. For instance, in 2008, Waltz with Bashir and The Class were two highly acclaimed films that lost to the little known Departures. This time, A Prophet and The White Ribbon were beat out by Argentina's The Secret in Their Eyes. I have not seen Ribbon or Secrets, but I can say that judging by how strong this particular film is, I would say this film deserved to be called an Oscar winner.

The film centers on Malik, played by relative newcommer Tahar Rahim. Malik is a French-Arab who is sentenced to a six year prison sentence when he is nineteen years old. On the inside, he is taken under the wing of Cesar (Niels Arestrup), the veteran inmate with deep mafia connections from the Corsicans (close to Italy). After Cesar orders Malik to kill an inmate who poses a threat at an upcoming trial, Malik slowly rises in ranks, becoming his own mafia kingpin all within his prison walls.

There have been a lot of comparisons made about this film to the likes of The Godfather and Scarface. It's true that Malik goes through a similar transformation that Michael Corleone had, but fortunately Rahim is a talented enough actor for the character not to feel like a carbon copy. Rahim does a magnificent job at creating the complex change in character that Malik goes through, and it's quite an admirable job he does. Every scene of his feels authentic to the character, and he makes a good case for his name to be a recognizable on a global scale. Likewise, Arestrup is fantastic as the more villainous character, also showing many sides to a character that could have been one note. These two are the heart and soul of why the film works so much, even though other members of the cast, unknown to American audiences, are just as excellent.

Director Jacques Audiard always knows how to find the right balance to strike in each scene. When the quiet tension needs to slowly rise, the sly humor subtly sneaks in, the intense drama pierces the atmosphere, it is all delivered. The ambitions of the film never seem extraordinary, but Audiard direction and screenplay find the perfect way to tell this story. Even when some of the directorial choices seem a bit out of place, or give the film a strange beat to hold on, there's still a sense of the overall scheme of things, and the staging of the final moments of the film add a breath of astonishment that can only be achieved through such simplicity.

I know there's a lot of people who avoid the subtitles, and even those who don't mind them will notice a bit of difficulty trying to decipher the uses of three different foreign languages. But once again, I must beg you not to be afraid of the subtitles because you will discover a beautifully crafted film with fantastic performances from the two leads. I know I'm late on seeing this film, but the old adage of "better late than never" applies here. And I also know I'm cheating a little bit with this statement, but considering the movie didn't premiere in my city until March, I would say this is the best film of the year so far. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Reviews: Alice in Wonderland & Green Zone

2010-03-18T18:08:00.004-05:00

Blunderland

Despite the obvious limitations that many attribute to him, I still remain a loyal Tim Burton fan. I still credit his wild imagination as the starting point for my current love of the cinema. While his style has gotten a little predictable over the years, I continue to look forward to his films, and believe that he can make great ones in that vein. His fantastic adaptation of Sweeney Todd dazzled me beyond belief, and I am still convinced that he deserved to take home the Best Director Oscar. The next item on his list is this yet another quirky reinvention on an old classic near and dear to so many childhood memories. What he gives us a fantastic visual spectacle that is often brought down by a tedious pace and one very strange performance.

Burton's Alice is not so much a remake of the original Disney animated classic but more of a continuation, almost inspired by Spielberg's Hook. Alice, played by newcommer Mia Wasikowska, is now a nineteen year old being put on the path of forced martial status by her family. But her fascination with the bizarre leads her back to a forgotten Wonderland (now called Underland), where the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has taken over with a tyrannical rule. It is up to Alice, teaming up with Johnny Depp's super eccentric Mad Hatter, to defeat the Queen's most horrible creature in order to return the world she used to remember back to the way it was.

Even if you believe Burton to be a predictable hack, I can tell you that his visual style is not one that is arbitrary. Burton's direction is very controlled, and he continues to show the usefulness of that spectacle here. He floods the screen with vibrant images that make it all the more fascinating to behold. Unfortunately, the screenplay by Linda Woolverton is really a mess, riddled with an odd pace of serious and dramatic, an off brand sense of humor and a climax featuring an action sequence that its director could never handle well in any film he's done. Plus, there's an unusual amount of eye-gouging in this film.

The actors here are capable of providing good work, but their limitations are pretty much the ones seen in the Star Wars prequels; when all you're reacting to is a green screen, then it's hard to have a great connection. Wasikowska provides a good center to the film, but I have to admit I never found her to be mindblowing. Bonham Carter, probably the only member of the cast who is a standout, does give the film energy and passion desperately needed. Other smaller parts like Anne Hathaway as the Queen's much nicer sibling, Michael Sheen as the tardy white rabbit and Alan Rickman as the mellow caterpillar are fine additions, but aren't used to their greatest effect.

Then, there's Depp. Don't get me wrong; I like Johnny Depp. He'd be an Oscar winner for Pirates of the Caribbean if I had my way, and I even enjoyed his odd choices in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when other didn't. However, his choices here always strike a wrong chord. His screen presence is undeniable, but the character he creates is often annoying like nails on a chalkboard. I applaud Depp's ambition to make the character different, but I also think he shows us why the Mad Hatter has always been a secondary character.

There's plenty to admire in this film, but there's also plenty to dislike. I like many of the performances, and Burton's visual spectacle does impress many times, but the script is lacking, Danny Elfman's score feels lazy, the 3D is pretty lackluster and Depp brings down the film to a halt in many scenes that feel unbearable. I remain a loyal Tim Burton fan, but even I can recognize when something isn't working. He's got other projects on his slate, and I hope he can deliver in the future. Here, it never comes together entirely. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Mind Field

After 2009 wasn't quite living up to my expectations, I remember making a list of all the releases that 2010 had to offer and became very excited to enter that new year. Three of the films on that list were The Wolfman, Shutter Island and Alice in Wonderland, and all of those films disappointed. I was beginning to lose hope that the promise this year gave early on was not going to be fulfilled. This film was also on the list, and given the latest efforts concerning Iraq War dramas lately, I was still skeptical on the success of the film, and early word of mouth seemed to add onto the fear this movie would fail as well. Having seen the film, I'm very happy to report that this is the first 2010 release film I've seen, that I was looking forward to, that actually did not disappoint.

Matt Damon stars (obvious from the poster) as a U.S. Army officer named Miller who is on the ground in Baghdad in early 2003. The quest for Saddam Hussein's WMDs are in full swing, but Miller is noticing that the sites provided by a secretive source named "Migellan" keep coming up empty. So Miller, bouncing between a pencil pushing Neocon (Greg Kinnear) and an investigative reporter (Amy Ryan), goes on his own one-man quest to find the true answers as to what is going on. The rest, as they say, is regrettable history.

Paul Greengrass has been the man who has mastered the docudrama approach, his most successful effort being the superbly crafted United 93. Greengrass's strengths have always been that his projects feel real, and even though the shaky camera can sometimes give you a bit of a headache, it is still used as a tool to enhance the apparent realism that is being offered. It's interesting how his direction can seem controlled and loose at the same time, but it always appears that he is a man that knows what the goal of a scene should be, an element he has shown even in his Bourne action vehicles. However, Brian Helgeland, usually an accomplished writer, provides a script is often riddled with hindsight proselytizing and subpar dialogue. The script isn't a tight as the direction, but it's merely passable.

Damon is an excellent actor, and he shows how again how his intense presence does wonder to fulfill his character's needs. After giving two bland performances last year, it is refreshing to see how Damon can balance the action heavy set pieces with the somber emotional moments that can still seep through. While actors like Kinnear, Ryan, Brendan Gleeson as an American intelligence officer on Miller's side, and Jason Issacs as a ground soldier against Miller are very talented, the story doesn't feel like it gives them particularly much to do. Still, they make good on their limited screen time and work well given the limitations.

I won't deny that the film has some chinks in the armor, as the script is lacking and some of the characters are a little lacking on substance, there are still great things to behold here. Grengrass and Damon do deliver a tight thriller that finds a way to tastefully tell a woeful tale. I'm glad that just when I thought I had misjudged this year, there is a film that does fulfills a bit of that promise. I just hope the rest of the year cane make good gain ground after a series of broken promises. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Post Oscar Analysis

2010-03-07T23:35:00.002-06:00

So yet another year has come and gone. For this event, The Hurt Locker ended up taking six Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow. Her win makes her the first female director to win this award. Coming in second with three wins was Avatar, and following with two each were Precious, Crazy Heart and Up. Outside of that, the acting awards predictably went to Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock (first person to win an Oscar and Razzie in the same year), Christoph Waltz, and Mo'Nique.

In truth, there were actually very few surprises in this race. The only major surprise was probably Geoffrey Fletcher winning Best Adapted Screenplay for Precious over Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air. I actually do think that Reitman and Turner deserved it, but I also loved what Fletcher did on Precious (despite the insane amount of online hate for the film now). I know many are steaming at this upset, but I am perfectly content with it being winning. The only other surprises for came came in minor categories, such as the shorts and both sound categories going to The Hurt Locker instead of at least one going to Avatar (which I find to be a bit of a crime).

Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin reminded us why good old fashioned comedians can be a good choice for the Oscars. The jokes from them were very funny and it looked like they had a good chemistry. The show itself could have lost a few bits like the dancing numbers set to the scores, but I'd say that the ceremony was pretty good all in all.

Before I do a recap of the winners, I'm just going to say that this might be the last Oscars I get really excited for. One reason is because after watching them for so long, you finally realize all the self-congratulation, masturbatory excess the whole thing really is and it's sometimes disenchanting. The other is that, plainly put, I'm tired of the films I love not getting nominated. I realize that not everything can get in, but two of the films in that made my top five of the year were completely shut out. Eventually, I just grow tired of it. I'll still follow the Oscars, only with a little less enthusiasm as I once did. But for now, here's a recap of the winners:

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique - Precious

Best Original Screenplay: Mark Boal - The Hurt Locker

Best Adapted Screenplay: Geoffrey Fletcher - Precious

Best Animated Feature: Up

Best Art Direction: Avatar

Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria

Best Film Editing: The Hurt Locker

Best Cinematography: Avatar

Best Original Score: Up

Best Original Song: "The Weary Kind" - Crazy Heart

Best Makeup: Star Trek

Best Sound Mixing: The Hurt Locker

Best Sound Editing: The Hurt Locker

Best Visual Effects: Avatar

Best Foreign Language Film: The Secret in Their Eyes

Best Documentary Feature: The Cove

Best Live Action Short: The New Tenants

Best Animated Short: Logorama

Best Documentary Short: Music by Prudence

Final Oscar Predictions: The Rest...

2010-03-06T09:44:00.002-06:00

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Will Win: Up

Should Win: Coraline

-With Up making it in for the Best Picture lineup, it should have no issues with taking this award. Fantastic Mr. Fox could provide a possible upset, but I don’t think it’s very likely, even though Coraline is the most deserving out of all of them.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Will Win: Inglourious Basterds

Should Win: A Serious Man

-It’s a virtual coin toss between Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker, but I see them wanting to give something to Tarantino, and since he’ll lose Best Director, this is all he has left. But Boal remains a major contender as well. Of these nominees, A Serious Man should win, though the glaring omission of (500) Days of Summer is simply atrocious.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Will Win: Up in the Air

Should Win: Up in the Air

-Probably the only award the film will get, which is deserved, as it will recognize the film and Jason Reitman at the same time. Although a highly unlikely In the Loop upset would work for me as well.

BEST ART DIRECTION

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-Avatar’s visual spectacle should take an award here, and of these nominees, I’d say it’s deserved. However, Where the Wild Things Are should have been nominated and thusly should have won.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Will Win: The Young Victoria

Should Win: Bright Star

-This category has shown favor to the Victorian era costumery, but in terms of fitting into the fabric of the film (pun intended), Bright Star’s costume design were first rate.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

-The battle of “gritty” versus “pretty” make Avatar and The Hurt Locker seem like the only threats in this category, and I think the former will take it, though Richardson’s work on Inglourious Basterds could spoil as well. Among all the nominees, Harry Potter impressed me the most, though the very-little-seen Tetro had my vote since day one.

BEST FILM EDITING

Will Win: The Hurt Locker

Should Win: The Hurt Locker

-Yet another category where my personal winner, (500) Days of Summer, is not nominated. From this selection, I would choose The Hurt Locker, and I have a pretty good suspicion the Academy will as well.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Will Win: Up

Should Win: Up

-I’ve been trying hard to think whether or not I liked Giacchino’s score to Up or Star Trek more. I lean toward the latter, but since it isn’t nominated, I’d go with Up here, and the Academy probably will also.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Will Win: “The Weary Kind” - Crazy Heart

Should Win: “The Weary Kind” - Crazy Heart

-The Golden Globe curse is finally broken, and the song that has been winning awards left and right should deservedly keep winning here.

BEST MAKEUP

Will Win: Star Trek

Should Win: Star Trek

-I simply CANNOT understand how The Young Victoria is here and District 9 is not. With two weak nominees, the obvious winner is Start Trek, even though the work on The Road should have been recognized as well.

BEST SOUND MIXING

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-One more technical category for Avatar to easily take, though I wouldn’t be completely shocked if The Hurt Locker made a surprise win.

BEST SOUND EDITING

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-Yet another technical category for Avatar to easily take, though, again, I wouldn’t be completely shocked by a Hurt Locker upset.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-Yet another technical category for Avatar to easily take, this time no upsets though.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Will Win: The Secrets in Their Eyes

-Conventional wisdom says that The White Ribbon will win this, what with its multiple precursor wins, while others are also proclaiming the BAFTA winning Un Prophét could take it, and others are naming the Argentinean film The Secrets in Their Eyes to take it. The category is notoriously nutty, so my shot in the dark is Secrets due to a last minute surge in buzz.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Will Win: The Cove

-This has been the documentary that has gotten the most attention, and while I will concede that any of the other nominees could take it, The Cove just seems like it has the right amount of support.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT

Will Win: Wallace and Gromit in “A Matter of Loaf and Death”

Should Win: French Roast

-The Wallace and Gromit series has taken four of of five awards it’s been previously nominated for, and I don’t see any reason for it to miss again. However, the inventiveness of a short called French Roast won me over more.

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT

Will Win: The Door

Should Win: Instead of Abracadabra

-It is said that high production values are valued here. If that is the case, then the Chernobyl inspired The Door will probably take it. However, the wit and charm of the Swedish Instead of Abracadabra would get my vote.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT

Will Win: The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant

-A topical title is the only reason I’m predicting it. The emotional China’s Unnatural Disaster could possibly take it as well, but honestly, your guess is as good as mine.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Picture

2010-03-05T08:13:00.002-06:00

Will Win: The Hurt Locker

The Best Picture race this year is in total mystery. Because the Academy is using the preferential system for the Best Picture winner for the first time in a long time, this literally means that any film can potentially take this. I assume that in a tough battle between The Hurt Locker and Avatar, the former will take it, as it has the momentum of Bigelow and the fact that Cameron has been here before, plus Avatar’s dominance in the tech categories will probably be seen as enough of a reward. However, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air or any other film could potentially take this award. I make the call for The Hurt Locker, but this is a very unpredictable race.

Should Win: Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

This was at one time considered a front runner in a Best Picture race that was still finding its footing. But it peaked way too early and will unfortunately have to settle on a single win for Mo’Nique. That’s a shame because this film managed to pull me in more than any other film I had seen this year. Lee Daniels managed to make me believe in a story and characters that I was skeptical to enter into, but his service is fantastic. No other film this year reached me on an emotional level as this one, which I declared my favorite film of 2009. I’m not guessing a lot of Academy members would agree, but for me, this is the Best Picture winner.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Director

2010-03-03T10:06:00.002-06:00

Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Bigelow has been winning in almost every place she can win an award, and even though she lost the Golden Globe to her ex-husband, there is still a lot of strong support for her. The biggest tip in her favor is in two facts. One: she won the DGA Award, which proudly states it being one of the best predictors for who will eventually win the category at the Oscar. The second: if she were to win, she would become the first female director to take this prize. Oscar likes to feel “important” in their winners, and Bigelow would make the Academy seem like the progressive group it aspires to be.

Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

While The Hurt Locker is an imperfect film, weighed down immensely by Mark Boal’s meandering script, Bigelow is the reason why any bit of this film works at all. Her direction knows exactly how to amp up the quiet tension, and then how to indulge in the small character moments that showcases the intense, fractured lives of these men. Among this group of nominees, Bigelow is absolutely the most deserving for elevating her film by her efforts alone. Still, my heart will always belong to true winner in this category, Spike Jonze, whose Where the Wild Things Are created an emotional world that mesmerized me beyond belief. Alas, his name is not here, and Bigelow’s is.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Actor

2010-03-01T19:48:00.003-06:00

Will Win: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Here we have another veteran of the industry, recognized before with many nominations but never winning, getting his chance to shine. Bridges’s buzz came late in the game, but after taking all the right precursors, he is in prime position to take the Oscar. People like Bridges and they like his performance in the film. These will work in his favor and should give him the boost to be called that night. I can’t shake the feeling that Colin Firth or Jeremy Renner could pull an “Adrien Brody” and make for a surprising upset, but I feel the consensus says that Bridges will take it.

Should Win: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

The great thing about this performance is that even though it plays right into the “Always-Nominated-Never-Won-Before” scheme, this is still a worthy performance in Bridges’s career and would not be a consolation prize. Bridges shows once again why he’s a great actor, creating a fully fleshed out character that holds all the great passion and emotion we’ve come to expect from him. I have to say that this category is particularly strong (except for Freeman), and while Bridges just beats out Colin Firth in a photo-finish, my vote still goes to Jeff for continuing to provide amazing performances.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

2010-02-28T19:43:00.003-06:00

Will Win: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

Even after Bullock won the SAG Award, I was still hoping that the “Bullock vs. Streep” battle could still have plenty of steam left in the Oscar races. It still is tight between the two, but given the fact that The Blind Side managed a surprise Best Picture nomination, I think that speaks volumes to the amount of love the Academy has just not for her, but the film in general. Plus, she’s a nice personality, very popular, and grateful all the way. I feel this is her Erin Brockovich moment, and her time in the sun will come. I would also say that even if you didn’t like the film or her in it (myself included), you have to admit that seeing Bullock go from dark horse Oscar contender to full out Best Actress frontrunner is a pretty amazing story.

Should Win: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

You can keep “Team Sandra” and “Team Meryl”; I’m with “Team Gabby”! Sidibe manages to bring such emotion and depth to a character that I had no means to connect with. She brings humor and an uplifting attitude to a character that must endure the hardest of hardships imaginable. And to those who say she only played herself, look at her performance in this film and then look at her in interviews. This is a completely different person in each, and the fact that she not only could transform herself into this different person with a first time try, but that it would be as successful as it was, is an incredible accomplishment. She won’t get the award, but she truly deserves it, in my opinion.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Supporting Actor

2010-02-26T08:57:00.002-06:00

Will Win: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

They might as well rename this category as Best Villain in a Motion Picture, because the past two winners in this category (three if you want to stretch Alan Arkin) have gone to a memorable antagonist. It looks like Waltz is set to continue the trend here, as best-in-show reviews and a general sweep of all the major precursor awards have indicated thus far. I’d still be on the lookout for veteran Christopher Plummer to play on his seniority and grab one MAJOR upset (like Arkin or James Coburn), but the safe bet really is Waltz.

Should Win: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Among all of the imperfections I found in Quentin Tarantino’s often tedious and meandering film, there was one spot that went unblemished. Waltz is the main reason why I continue to be drawn to this film despite my lukewarm feeling to it as a whole. Waltz’s charm and tense intimidation gives life to what could have been a flat character. For every moment he is on screen, there is an excitement that fills the frame. He is the best thing in a movie that I grew restless with, and would be excited for him to take the award like it is predicted.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Supporting Actress

2010-02-24T17:26:00.003-06:00

Will Win: Mo’Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

There are many people who remember a time when there was a question as to whether or not Mo’Nique could take this due to rumors she wasn’t campaigning hard enough and seeming like she didn’t want the award. Well, those days are long gone. She has been gracious at every award show she’s attended, and has truly let the performance speak for itself. This is a situation where people are awarding her not because she asked for it, but because the performance deserves it, and she should continue that streak all the way to the end.

Should Win: Mo’Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

If you came to me as far back as two years ago and said that a co-lead from Soul Plane would be in a position to become an Oscar winner, and that I would agree that person deserved to win, I would have called you crazy. And I would have sought to have you committed if that person was Mo’Nique. But I have to say that her performance is incredible: agonizingly cruel yet subversively sympathetic, she creates a character that will be remembered for her monstrosity that played well with a complex core that showed itself in true passion at the film’s end. I never thought I’d want to hear the phrase, “Academy Award Winner Mo’Nique” ever in my life, but so the day has come.

Review: Shutter Island

2010-02-22T19:14:00.003-06:00

Shutter Down

I was so ready to leave the rather mediocre year of 2009 behind, and get onto the new one ahead. I looked at the onslaught of new releases and was so ready to see many new movies being released. This one caught my eye particularly because it was supposed to be released in early October of last year. Unfortunately, the studio didn’t have enough money for an Oscar campaign, so they pulled it and dumped it in the barren wasteland of February. I didn’t like it, but at least it gave me something to look forward to early in the year, and with so many great elements going into the film, I surely thought that this talented group of people would have to work mighty hard to make this movie be anything but magnificent. Well, the lesson to be learned here is never doubt anything, as this film certainly isn’t terrible, but it is well below the level of quality I expected from this masterful cast and crew.

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, who also wrote the source material for Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, the story revolves around US Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), who is sent to investigate the disappearance of a mental patient on a tucked away institution on a far-away island. Mark Ruffalo accompanies him as his fresh new partner, and the pair begin their investigation, which comes across some seedy characters including the hospital’s top physician Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), the deputy warden (John Carroll Lynch), the chief warden (Ted Levine), another dubious, German doctor (Max von Sydow), as well as able body character actors like Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson and Jackie Earle Haley as other members of the hospital’s ward.

We all know that Martin Scorsese is a genius of filmmaking, and his talent is one that is unmatched by a large majority. Scorsese also knows how to work well in many genres, particularly the pulpy mystery like this one is. There are a lot of moments where Scorsese does do a fine job at creating an eerie mood of suspense and dread, and uses many of the technical elements to his advantage. However, it still feels like many times Scorsese can’t quite figure out what pitch to set the film at, and what we get is a pretty unbearable first twenty minutes when the over-the-top, grandiose setting seems to overpower the narrative and a last act that moves at a crawl and is bogged down by countless mono-a-mono explanatory conversations. These moments work rather well in the book, but have a difficult time translating to the screen.

But still, I would say that while the beginning and end are at major fault, there are some things in the middle, right after the first trippy dream sequence Daniels has featuring his recently departed wife (Michelle Williams). There’s quite good use of Robert Richardson’s stylish, theatrical lighting to create an uneasy mood, and the suspense can be featured quite well. Unfortunately, there are many moments where the tone switches drastically, and we linger on many scenes that either don’t seem necessary or overindulge too much on audience misdirection that could have been toned down. A side note is this film has some of the worst uses of green screen backgrounds.

Now, the ending is something that affects this movie, so I will talk about it, but I will also include the spoiler warning. So, WARNING!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! THERE’S A SPOILER COMING UP IN BOLD LETTERS SO YOU CAN’T MISS IT!!! ALRIGHT, YOU’VE BEN WARNED THERE’S A SPOILER WARNING!!!!

The final reveal is a rather weak twist, one I thought was pretty weak even in the book, but the novel never let the audience catch on that quickly. The film tries to plant hints that can either be interpreted as Daniels is grieving for the lives loss at a death camp he liberated during World War II or his dead children at the hands of his wife whom he killed and caused him to be in the institution all the time. However, the use of the death camp was an absolute minimum in the book while the film exploits the images in excess. Also, the final scene that shows what really happened goes on for far too long, especially after we’ve had many characters explaining what already happened (not to mention the supposedly drowned little girl can clearly be seen to be moving on the lawn).

As is usually the case, the cast is the last thing to go wrong, and the performers are good here, even though DiCaprio feels as if he’s just rehashing his Depahhted accent. Ruffalo, Kingsley, Haley, Clarkson, Sydow, all are terrific actors, but they feel wasted in such a plodding film that never gives them great moments to shine. The film is so concentrated on the mood, tone, and concealing of that big twist that it never takes the time to let the actors breathe life into this material. This is truly a wasted ensemble.

Scorsese is capable of creating pulpy mystery/suspense films, and a very good example would be his remake of Cape Fear, which I thought was actually superior to the original. But that had complex characters circling around a plot that wasn’t devoted to the last act. That’s the issue with this film; it’s too focused on misdirection and never lets intellectual thought and reason seep in. As much as it saddens me, this is not a great Scorsese film and becomes yet another disappointment in the new decade. The next film that I had high hopes for is Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, and I really hope that one can at least live up to some of its hype. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Review: The Wolfman

2010-02-13T21:10:00.005-06:00

Howling Wolf

I find it hard to believe myself that I made it nearly a month and a half into 2010 without seeing a new film. Much of my time at the beginning of this new decade was spent playing catch up to some late release 2009 films that were just making their way into Chicago. I know that I meant to get to films like The Book of Eli, Daybreakers, The Edge of Darkness, and a number of other films, but they all went by the wayside while I indulged in seeking out films like The Last Station and repeated viewings of Avatar. But I finally get to one, and this was also a film that I had been looking forward to seeing, despite the production being plagued with problems. Well the long wait for a 2010 release is over. Unfortunately, the wait for a good film for the new year is still on, as this film is arguably one of this early year's greatest disappointments.

Benicio Del Toro, certainly looking the part, is the wolfman himself, Lawrence Talbot, a Shakespearean actor who returns to his ancestral home in response to the death of his brother. He reunites with his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) and starts a connection with his brother's fiancee (Emily Blunt). While digging up information about his brother's death, he is bitten by the wolf, which of course leads to him becoming a werewolf himself. Hugo Weaving also steps in as Detective Aberline (yes, that Aberline) who is determined to solve the mystery of these brutal killings.

I am a big fan of the original film, and while I wasn't expecting this to be a carbon copy of the original, I was expecting a film to have some kind of cohesiveness while paying some kind of homage to the original film. Director Joe Johnston and writers Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self do provide some interesting character moments and a few sparse, well played action sequences. However, most of the time spent in this film is given to a cluttered mess of conflicting tones and themes. Most of the action that happens lacks energy and overindulges in a bloody, gory scene (seriously folks, this is one violent film). The weak story, cluttered with flat characters, is joined by distracting editing, dark lighting, a bombastic score from Danny Elfman, and a showdown climax that is just ridiculous.

This cast is very talented, but they do nothing in this film. Literally. It feels like everyone just showed up to their costume fitting, went right to the set and read their lines from cue-cards. Del Toro phones in a bland performance that never once capitalizes on the emotional and psychological complexities that a werewolf story can provide. This is one of his worst performances. Hopkins also goes bland here, while also going in and out of a cockney accent. Blunt is virtually wasted in a nothing performance and Weaving, while providing a few good moments with his character, mostly seems like he's doing Agent Smith with an English accent.

Despite some people feeling this would be a bad movie from the get-go, I was really looking forward to it. However, those involved wasted an opportunity to create a moody, stylish Wolfman film for the new age and instead made a film that's light on scares, entertainment and intelligence. The cast is talented but useless, and the execution takes all the wrong turns. Hopefully next week's newest 2010 release, Shutter Island, won't be as big a disappointment as this was. *1/2 / ****; GRADE: C-

Review: The Last Station

2010-02-07T01:51:00.004-06:00

Bore and Peace

As much as I try, there’s always a couple of films I fail to see before the announcement of the Oscar nominations. Generally, I try to see all the potential Best Picture nominees, as well as the acting nominees as well. Even though Maggie Gyllenhaal was a surprise to some, I had seen her due to Jeff Bridges’s work in Crazy Heart. This film boasts two nominees for Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately the film didn’t reach Chicago until after the Oscar announcement. But now it’s out and I have seen it, and while there are some admirable things about it, the film eventually loses steam by the end and concludes with rather disappointing results.

It is near the end of the road for famed Russian author Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer), and many members of his political movement towards peace and equality are urging him to change his will to renounce his material possessions and give the copyright laws on his works to public domain. The movement’s plans are undermined by Tolstoy’s wife, Sofya (Helen Mirren), who wants her husband’s possessions to stay within the family. Tolstoy’s good friend Vladmir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) sends out an ambitious activist named Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) to spy on the dysfunctional family and report back on progress.

I think the start of this film feels is rather strong. Writer-director Michael Hoffman does a credible job at setting up the look and texture of the world, as well as establishing the political atmosphere of the time, as well as the stakes that come with it. There’s a world of subtle suggestion that allows the world to completely take over. But the film doesn’t hold onto that for long, and eventually slips into a muddled pace that runs on a worn out plot. That is coupled with some soap opera histrionics that tend to clash with the more quiet moments the film established earlier. By the time the end comes, it feels like a long journey that dragged itself to the end, which is a shame considering the delicate care the first half of this film managed to keep.

As I’ve already mentioned, Mirren and Plummer have received nominations from the Academy, but I would say that neither of them really deserve it. These performances do show their great range and talent as actors, and they also manage to work well off of eachother. However, there are often too many scenes of Plummer becoming a little too subdued in his reclusive character, while Mirren overindulges far too often of on giant explosions of energy, which I’ve always found counter-productive in a career whose best work has been in restrained films like Gosford Park and The Queen. Honestly, the best performer here is McAvoy. I would say this is his best role of his career, and he manages to showcase all the right emotions to all the right ways. He feels like the most grounded and realistic character in the film, and he is the greatest asset for it.

The direction isn’t terrible, the production and costume designs are great, the score has a timeless sense that fits perfectly, and the acting for the most part is pretty good. There are things I like in this movie, but ultimately it doesn’t carry it all the way through. It squanders a good first half hour with a meandering, muddled second half that gets diluted further by histrionics. Fortunately, I don’t see Mirren or Plummer winning, but at least I fulfilled by duty for this picture. The only one left is to see Woody Harrelson in The Messenger. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Reaction to the Oscar Nominees

2010-02-02T08:36:00.001-06:00

It’s amazing that even in a year of ten nominees, the Oscars can still manage to throw one film or omission into the mix that still manages to piss you off royally. These are some of the nominations and a few thoughts I have on the nominees.

Best Picture

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

-I can say I feel pretty good about this category except for one film. I got 9 out of ten, but that one I missed is one I’m guessing a lot of people missed. The Blind Side came out of nowhere and showed up here, completely undeserving in my humble opinion. If they wanted a populist film, why not go with Star Trek? They do this to me every year.

Best Director

James Cameron - Avatar

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Lee Daniels - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

-With all those recent roundtables of these five, I should have known that Daniels would have made it in, and I’m fine with that. No major complaints about these nominees, though I can’t stress enough how sad I am that Spike Jonze couldn’t have gotten more attention.

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Colin Firth - A Single Man

Morgan Freeman - Invictus

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

-A predictable roundup that was pretty much expected by everybody.

Best Actress

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

Helen Mirren - The Last Station

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

-Another predictable roundup, but with The Blind Side making a surprise Best Picture nominee, this solidifies Sandra Bullock as the Oscar frontrunner (boo!)

Best Supporting Actor

Matt Damon - Invictus

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

Christopher Plummer - The Last Station

Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

-All the wishing in the world couldn’t keep Matt Damon from getting nominated for an extremely bland performance in an otherwise bland movie. Doesn’t really matter, though, because Waltz is going to take it, as he should.

Best Supporting Actress

Penélope Cruz - Nine

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Mo’Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

-Cruz making it in is a “meh” response for me, but Gyllenhaal making the cut was a nice surprise. Recently re-watching Crazy Heart gave me a feeling that she might get in, and it’s rather nice to see. Doesn’t really matter, though, because Mo’Nique is going to take it, as she should.

Best Original Screenplay

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

The Messenger

A Serious Man

-The only major beef I have here is (500) Days of Summer missing its only chance at a nomination. A great film that deserved to win here, personally for me, is a great injustice, especially when the mediocre scripts to The Hurt Locker and Up are there in its place.

Best Adapted Screenplay

District 9

An Education

In the Loop

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Up in the Air

-That fifth spot was always in flux, and I am thrilled that it went to In the Loop. My one longshot shout-out that actually got a nomination.

Best Animated Feature

Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Princess and the Frog

The Secret of Kells

-Anyone else notice how quiet the room was when The Secret of Kells was mentioned? That’s just because no one knew what the hell this movie was about. Me neither.

That’s it for now. A full list of the nominations is available here.

Shout Out to the Longshots

2010-02-01T00:07:00.001-06:00

With the Oscar nominations being announced tomorrow morning, it’s time to do my usual list of films and performances for the top eight categories that I wish will get nominated but have little to no chance at all to being called. But I love them so much that I have to make one last shout out to the longshots.

Best Picture: (500) Days of Summer

A purely delightful film that always had me smiling and appreciating its unique storytelling. Director Marc Webb showcases a strong showing of talent in the creation of this film, and the performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are marvelous. A screenplay nomination seems assured, but I would be very delighted if the film is recognized on the whole.

Best Director: Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Nearly all the credit for this wildly inventive, surprisingly emotional journey taken throughout the film is deserved to Jonze. I was absolutely amazed at how Jonze was able to take admittedly thin material and create a world that was so rich in emotion and complexity. Too few have been singing praises for Jonze’s work, which is a shame, because his achievement with this film is precisely what great filmmakers are able to do.

Best Actor: Sam Rockwell - Moon

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was also a performance that I loved and wish would get nominated, but the one guy that everyone seems to love, rightfully so, is Rockwell. One-man-shows on film are difficult to pull off successfully, but Rockwell manages it in a performance that strikes the right amount of energy and emotion to not feel gimmicky. Too bad his minimal campaign, along with five solid picks for Best Actor slots already, means he’ll probably be left out. But it would be a great success story if he managed to unexpectedly sneak in.

Best Actress: Maya Rudolph - Away We Go

Not everyone responded so warmly to this film as I did, and I recognize some issues with it. Even still, her performance is the key for anything in this film working at all. After seeing her comedic run on SNL, I was completely amazed at how well she was able to translate so much emotion by conveying so little in her performance. By the end, she was the one guiding reason to see this film, wonderfully balancing humor and pathos.

Best Supporting Actor: Alden Ehrenreich - Tetro

I could go with either him or Peter Capaldi from In the Loop, but since this is about the longshots, Ehrenreich is a longer one than Capaldi. Which is a shame, since about five people actually saw Tetro in theatres and missed out on a great breakthrough performance from an actor who delivered a complex character on all the right notes. Fortunately, this is a great start to his resumé, but I wished more could have enjoyed it like I did.

Best Supporting Actress: Bailee Madison - Brothers

I admit that Brothers isn’t without its issues, but the performance from little Madison, who plays Magurie’s eldest daughter, was so good it’s almost scary. She manages to outact nearly everyone in her scenes, and her performance would rival even some pretty good adult ones out there. I see a long, great career for her, and the best showcase for it is here.

Best Original Screenplay: Bright Star

I’m not going to say much since this longshot is actually impossible (the Academy incorrectly declared it an adapted work, so it can only seek contention in the Adapted Screenplay category). I just want to say that true fans know this is an original work and how the stylish flare of Jane Campion should be recognized in this category.

Best Adapted Screenplay: In the Loop

Peter Capaldi is hilarious in his deliveries, but it’s also the screenplay as a whole that makes the film work so well. Every line is delivered in a quick bout and the situations that are set up demand an intellectual ear that will keep you laughing all the way through. It’s one of those films that’s easy to slip through the cracks, but a great team of writers allows the pace and energy to always remain at the right spot.

That’s it until tomorrow morning. Can’t wait to see who the actual nominees will be!

Final Oscar Nominations Predictions: Best Picture

2010-01-30T23:57:00.005-06:00

With ten nominees this year (sigh), I'm going to give out two alternate picks for this category. This is the final stop before the exciting announcement on Tuesday morning.

Best Picture (Predicted 10)

Avatar

The biggest hit of the year, not to mention of all time, is being admired on so many levels. A surprise Golden Globe win means that people are willing to give this film a lot of credit.

District 9

The passionate support for this film is starting to come out at just the right time, and with an expanded field, this seems like a possibility.

An Education

I’m expecting this to be the European hit that shows up at the Oscars, and since Carey Mulligan has a lot of support, that might translate to the film on the whole.

The Hurt Locker

A huge critical hit with a pretty good shot at a Best Director win. That should mean no trouble at all, for a nomination at least.

Inglourious Basterds

Another film with a passionate base of supporters. It’s been a long time since a Tarantino film made it this far, and this will probably be another one.

Invictus

Even though Clint Eastwood has fallen out of favor a bit with the Academy, this is still a respected project that seems too baity to be ignored. If all else fails, a convenient space filler.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Even though the buzz has died significantly, there’s still a lot of passion for the film, as it has shown up in many other top categories.

A Serious Man

In a year of five nominees, this would be a tough sell. In a year of ten, you have a well respected film from a directing duo that commands so much respect from the industry.

Since this decision for ten was partly in response to WALL-E, the logical animated film would be the one from Pixar, which still has a lot of positive notices.

Up in the Air

A critical darling that has at least one award sewn up. This would be safe with even just five.

Alts.

A Single Man

Granted, I admit that this is an extreme longshot. However, I can’t quite shake the feeling that the Academy might like this movie more than some people might believe. The performance from Colin Firth is revered, but I think it’s just a gateway into discovering the film as a whole. If this film isn’t called, then I won’t be surprised. Still, I have a gut feeling that the Weinstein presence might tip in this film’s favor on Oscar morning.

Star Trek

If this film manages to get in, this will be the slot that gives credit to The Dark Knight as the populist movie that gets an Oscar nomination. Like District 9, this is another sci-fi flick with a lot of passionate support. The only reason I don’t see this film quite making the cut is because I think there are other films that have a lot more support than this one. That doesn’t mean I don’t see this making it in over any number of films like Invictus or District 9 or even A Serious Man, but I also think it’s understandable if it’s snubbed.

Final Oscar Nominations Predictions: Best Director

2010-01-29T17:56:00.002-06:00

Best Director (Predicted 5)

James Cameron - Avatar

He deserves credit for creating one of the biggest hits and history, and an Oscar nomination will be a reward, not to mention the Golden Globe win helped a lot.

Neil Blomkamp - District 9

Generally there’s a surprise nominee somewhere in this category, and since District 9 has a lot of passion, I can see him sneaking in.

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

She’s a definite lock and on her way to becoming to becoming the first female director to win.

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

A resurgence in popularity has led Tarantino to another road to be nominated, with a lot of passionate support.

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

Unlike Juno, he’s been showing up in enough precursors to indicate that he won’t be a surprise nominee this time.

Alt.

Lee Daniels - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

His DGA nominations is certainly a strong indicator, but Precious has fallen out a bit lately. It has shown up in enough categories to warrant a Best Picture prize, but Daniels’s work as director has generally been shut out. It's very likely that Daniels could brush by Blomkamp, or even Reitman, but his probable recognition in the Best Picture category might be his only prize.

Final Oscar Nominations Predictions: Best Actress & Best Actor

2010-01-26T15:00:00.007-06:00

Best Actress (predicted 5)

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

As much as I want to doubt it, her Golden Globe and SAG win means that this is catching on. I guess she is due, anyway, and might even spoil the Oscar (and I do mean spoil).

Helen Mirren - The Last Station

A respected actress who is bound to stir up that European base that recently has been shown to be very powerful for certain films (i.e. The Reader).

Carey Mulligan - An Education

While her buzz has been dying significantly, she’s still a pretty good bet for a nomination as the young new talent with a brilliant career ahead.

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

She’s a breakthrough star in an emotionally invested role. Her charm and powerful performance is enough to get her into the top five.

Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

It’s a popular performance in a popular movie. Besides, Streep doesn’t need help getting nominated for this thing.

Alt.

Abbie Cornish - Bright Star

Even though she’s been absent throughout pretty much all the precursors, this is still a performance that a lot of people have passion and admiration for. I could certainly see a situation where she sneaks by Mirren, or even Sidibe. I’m not sure how likely that is, but I see it as a strong possibility for her as a surprise nominee.

Best Actor (Predicted 5)

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

He is slowly emerging as the man to beat in this race, and he just might finally get that prize.

George Clooney - Up in the Air

He delivers another trademark Clooney performance, and this time it works in a well favored film for the Best Picture lineup.

Colin Firth - A Single Man

The buzz isn’t what it used to be at Venice, but he’s still got a lot of respect and admiration. Plus, he’s never been nominated before.

Morgan Freeman - Invictus

It’s a role that Freeman was born to play. As such a great actor in a respected part, it’ll be hard for the Academy to not nominated him.

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

He’s a breakthrough actor this year, and he benefits from the momentum that his film is getting now. People really like this performance.

Alt.

Viggo Mortensen - The Road

Everyone sings praises for Mortensen when they talk about this film. However, they also sing about the mixed responses and poor financial success the film has taken in as well. Even though he’s a respected actor who could very well get in, his film on the whole is keeping him back. Not to mention, if he did get nominated, who would he replace? All the top five guys seems like locks to most, and nobody seems ready to fail. Freeman is about the only one I can see getting left behind, but even that feels unlikely. Mortensen may take it, but the odds are very much against him.

Final Oscar Nominations Predictions: Best Supporting Actress & Supporting Actor

2010-01-24T23:48:00.006-06:00

The Oscar nominations are a little more than a week away, which means it's time to finalize the predictions for whose name will be called as a nominee. There's usually a surprise here and there, so I'll try to do my best.

Best Supporting Actress (Predicted 5)

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Ar

She has kept popping up in all the right precursors, and since the film is bound to be a Best Picture nom, it looks like she’s safe.

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

See Vera Farmiga. Plus the NBR win.

Mo’Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

The most certain and definite lock in this category who is on her way to actually win here.

Julianne Moore - A Single Man

She’s got a lot of respect in the industry, and I have a feeling that some Academy members are liking A Single Man more than they let on.

Samantha Morton - The Messenger

Every time she gets nominated, it’s a surprise. I’m betting she’s the one surprise in this category in a film that’s quickly gaining traction.

Alt.

Penélope Cruz - Nine

Despite Nine getting obliterated by the critics, Cruz seems to be the only person who keeps popping up at the award shows. Since they know of her from her win last year, it could be a possibility for her to grab a weak spot away from Morton or Moore. Still, her film’s critical and financial flop doesn’t bode well, but she could very well be called.

Best Supporting Actor (Predicted 5)

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

His buzz seems to have come out of nowhere, but now it seems like people are discovering the film and really liking it. That and his success with Zombieland means this is a good year for him.

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

My wildcard pick for this category, as the people who have seen this film really, REALLY love his performance. He might get just enough top votes to sneak in.

Christopher Plummer - The Last Station

The veteran of the group who has never been nominated before, and with such a dominant role in the film, it plays in his favor.

Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

Even though the film tanked, Tucci’s performance still garners attention. It’s the showiest performance in the film, not to mention he also got acclaim for Julie & Julia. A well respected actor by actors.

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

What’s to say here? He’s the great screen villain, a brand new talent for American audiences, and he is absolutely amazing. This is the role that’s now tailored made for this category, and there’s little to actually stop him winning.

Alt.

Matt Damon - Invictus

At this point, Damon actually seems like a pretty good lock, particularly since he’s gotten all three major precursor nominations (Critic’s Choice, Golden Globe, SAG). However, in the end, Damon doesn’t have a lot of high support for this performance, and the votes he gets will probably be considerably low. Damon’s star power could still give him an edge, especially over McKay, but I see him succumbing to other actors with a more passionate base.

Review: The Lovely Bones

2010-01-16T21:50:00.003-06:00

Loveless

It's never a good sign when a film is pushed back from its initial release date. This film popped up in a few theatres in New York and Los Angeles in mid December and was supposed to go wide on Christmas Day. But then the early word on the film was resoundingly negative, and the studio decided to put a hold on the wide release date in order to shift the marketing campaign from its original adult oriented audience to one that included tween-to-teenage girls, like the ones who give their last allowances to see the next Twilight picture. The story focusing on a strong, young female (absent in that other series) may be appealing to many girls. It's a notion that is appealing to me, as well as many other aspects of this film. However, this film is clearly a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and this whole film lacks severely in emotion weight.

Based on the huge bestseller by Alice Sebold, the film tells the tale of fourteen-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who was brutally raped and murdered by her serial killing, pedophile neighbor (Stanley Tucci) in the winter of 1973. Departed from this world, she now exists in a land known as the "In Between", a world that literally lies between Heaven and Earth. There she indulges on her own dreamlike sensibilities while watching her family coping with her death (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz play her parents, Susan Surandon her boozy grandma) as well as watching her killer down the street.

Peter Jackson may seem like an odd choice to direct this film, but as seen with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson is a director who is capable of balancing compelling character drama with marvelous visual spectacles. But here, he never finds the right balance. The scenes in the In Between feel lifeless and flat, thanks to some subpar visual effects, which translates to not much purpose for the story and a static part of the film. The scenes amongst the living also feel hollow in their presentation as no clear motivation for any character can be established. I refuse to believe that Jackson is incapable of producing a world that gets an audience invested that doesn't exist in some far off land. This just isn't the film.

But the problem extends deeper than just Jackson's direction. The script, co-written by Jackson and his fellow Rings writers Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens, never quite captures the right tone and pace for a successful adaptation. The exposition to the film feels rushed and spotty, and from then on, the film switches in tone all too frequently and never settles on which world is more appealing. The script pushes a lot of these characters to superficial levels and wastes many of the talent. The villain's final comeuppance is also quite disappointing as it fails to deliver a satisfactory conclusion in correlation to his horrendous crime.

The lovely young Ronan delivers a strong performance trying desperately to work with material that really doesn't want to work back. She continues to show a lot of strong emotion that she can bring to such a rich character, certainly making good on a promise she made more than two years ago with Atonement. The other major performer in this film Tucci, an actor who delivers great work in nearly every film he's in, and here he manages to create the correct mode of disgust and tension. Tucci's on track of getting his first Oscar nomination, and while I don't think this film is the best use of his talent, it's certainly one that showcases what a reliable actor he is. Wahlberg and Weisz are also good actors, but they feel wasted in roles that never fulfill the right emotional depths, and Surandon feels downright out-of-place in a role that provides awkward moments of comic relief that feel unjustified.

There are some things to admire in this film, and there are specific moments in which Jackson finds the right way to bring the tension (specifically, the first meeting between Susie and her killer, and the suspense between him and her sister when she breaks in his house looking for evidence). But in the end, the film never comes together to create something that is to get excited about. It sits on the screen and never jumps off to become a well rounded piece of cinema. Even the best aspect of the film, Brian Eno's brilliant score on its own terms, is such an oppressive force in the film that it suffocates the images and dilutes the emotions. This was once thought to be a serious Oscar contender, and now it looks like only Tucci will carry the film to the Kodak. Maybe the tweenage girls will eat it up. I just know it isn't something that's on my menu. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Golden Globe Predictions

2010-01-15T23:24:00.002-06:00

With the Critics Choice Awards over with, the next big event is the Golden Globe Awards, which I am very much looking forward to this year. I like these crop of nominees and with the addition of the great Ricky Gervais hosting, it can only be a pleasant evening. Though, for the first time, I find myself at a loss in predicting most of these categories. One to really watch for is Best Drama Actress. That and the SAG should help provide some much needed clarity in probably the most uncertain category right now. I'm thinking I might actually get a majority wrong, but we'll see. Here are my thoughts on the film awards.

Best Picture (Drama)

Predicted Winner: Up in the Air

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Picture (Musical/Comedy)

Predicted Winner: (500) Days of Summer

Possible Upset: Nine

Best Actor (Drama)

Predicted Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Possible Upset: George Clooney - Up in the Air

Best Actor (Musical/Comedy)

Predicted Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - Nine

Possible Upset: Matt Damon - The Informant!

Best Actress (Drama)

Predicted Winner: Carey Mulligan - An Education

Possible Upset: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

Best Actress (Musical/Comedy)

Predicted Winner: Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Possible Upset: Meryl Streep - It’s Complicated

Best Supporting Actor

Predicted Winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Possible Upset: Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

Best Supporting Actress

Predicted Winner: Mo’Nique - Precious

Possible Upset: Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Best Director

Predicted Winner: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: James Cameron - Avatar

Best Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Up in the Air

Possible Upset: Inglourious Basterds

Best Original Score

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Avatar

Best Original Song

Predicted Winner: “The Weary Kind” - Crazy Heart

Possible Upset: “Winter” - Brothers

Best Animated Feature

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Best Foreign Language Film

Predicted Winner: The White Ribbon

Possible Upset: Broken Embraces

3rd Annual Blog Awards

2010-01-13T02:46:00.005-06:00

**winner**

Best Picture

(500) Days of Summer

Crazy Heart

**Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire**

A Serious Man

Where the Wild Things Are

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

James Cameron - Avatar

Tom Ford - A Single Man

**Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are**

Marc Webb - (500) Days of Summer

Best Actor

**Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart**

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Colin Firth - A Single Man

Joseph Gordon-Levitt - (500) Days of Summer

Sam Rockwell - Moon

Best Actress

Abbie Cornish - Bright Star

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Maya Rudolph - Away We Go

**Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire**

Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Best Supporting Actor

Peter Capaldi - In the Loop

Alden Ehrenreich - Tetro

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Alfred Molina - An Education

**Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds**

Best Supporting Actress

Marion Cotillard - Nine

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Mélanie Laurent - Inglourious Basterds

Bailee Madison - Brothers

**Mo’Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire**

Best Original Screenplay

**(500) Days of Summer**

Away We Go

Bright Star

Moon

A Serious Man

Best Adapted Screenplay

Crazy Heart

In the Loop

Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

**Up in the Air**

Where the Wild Things Are

Best Animated Feature

**Coraline**

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Mary and Max

Ponyo

Best Art Direction

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

Sherlock Holmes

A Single Man

**Where the Wild Things Are**

Best Costume Design

**Bright Star**

Inglourious Basterds

Sherlock Holmes

A Single Man

Watchmen

Best Cinematography

Crazy Heart

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Nine

A Single Man

**Tetro**

Best Film Editing

**(500) Days of Summer**

The Hurt Locker

Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

Best Original Score

**Avatar**

Duplicity

The Lovely Bones

Star Trek

Best Original Song

“I Don't Know” - Crazy Heart

**"The Weary Kind" - Crazy Heart**

“We Will Have Won” - Fifty Dead Men Walking

“Cinema Italiano” - Nine

“Help Yourself” - Up in the Air

Best Makeup

District 9

Drag Me to Hell

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

**The Road**

Star Trek

Best Sound

**Avatar**

Crazy Heart

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The Hurt Locker

Star Trek

Best Sound Editing

**Avatar**

District 9

Drag Me to Hell

Star Trek

Where the Wild Things Are

Best Visual Effects

2012

**Avatar**

District 9

Star Trek

Where the Wild Things Are

Top 10 Movies of 2009

2010-01-10T21:16:00.003-06:00

Well, it's that time of year again when we start making our top ten list of movies of the year. All the major critics had done this already, but since I do not have unlimited, free access to films, I was forced to postpone my list. I've seen over 80 movies this year, and some were good and some were bad. Here's what I consider to be some of the year's best. First, here's my list of honorable mentions; this would by my 11-20 list.

Honorable Mentions: Brothers, Capitalism: A Love Story, An Education, Inglourious Basterds, Fifty Dead Men Walking, Drag Me to Hell, Tetro, Coraline, Moon, Star Trek

10. UP IN THE AIR

Despite being severely overpraised, this is a very enjoyable and satisfying picture, one that leaves you grinning and pondering all the way through. Jason Reitman is getting better with each new film, and I can’t wait to see his next movie which will probably be the masterpiece I’m looking for. Still, I did find this film quite entertaining, and the performances from George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick help as well.

9. THE HURT LOCKER

Another film that is the victim of overpraise but also manages to find some great elements to provide. Kathryn Bigelow does deliver a tight drama within her direction, knowing exactly what moments require tense suspense and which ones require quiet drama. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty deliver strong performances as well. If it weren’t for the mediocre script, this would be the masterpiece that everyone else thinks it is.

8. AVATAR

After a twelve year hiatus, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not James Cameron could deliver on a film of this proportions. Well it looks like he proved them wrong. What we got from him was not only an extremely entertaining film from a vast visual spectacle, but, I would argue, an interesting story to go along with it. Some of the dialogue’s execution is an issue, but I think Cameron has created a new classic that indulges both on action and story.

7. A SINGLE MAN

This is a very impressive debut from a filmmaker who has a great eye for visual storytelling. The pallet of the film is drenched in a gorgeous 1960s tone that is captured to perfection. However, the one thing that does make this movie outstanding is the performance from Colin Firth, who is able to capture so much depth and emotion from very little movements. His scenes with Julianne Moore are also terrific, and the film even finds a bittersweet ending that fits perfectly.

6. IN THE LOOP

If you haven’t heard of this film, then I urge you to look it up immediately. This is an incredibly smart and sophisticated satire that looks at the US and UK politics leading up to an unnamed conflict in the Middle East. There are a lot of quick rifts throughout the screenplay, and the performance by Peter Capaldi delivers some of cinema’s best use of cursing. I found very few breaks in this film to not laugh, and I hope others can also. Good news is this film will be available on video on Tuesday, so go out and see it.

5. CRAZY HEART

I’m glad everyone is clinging onto Jeff Bridges because he does deliver a career best performance, one that is charming, emotional and complex without being too showy. But I would also say that this film offers more than just Bridges. First time writer/director Scott Cooper also creates a film that encompasses a world that is filled with tragic redemption and surprising hopefulness. Many people call it a country music version of The Wrestler, but I actually prefer this film over that one.

4. A SERIOUS MAN

Leave up to the Coen brothers to deliver yet another film that you can’t quite get your head around but still offers up an intriguing subject. I’m still not entirely sure what I witnessed, but Joel and Ethan still provide a film that indulges on an intellectual level and dares you to dissect its crazy avenues. This is a movie that has a lot of re-watch value, something that even their Best Picture winner No Country for Old Men lacked.

3. WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

I was a little skeptical as to whether or not Spike Jonze would be able to make a sustainable feature film out of this literally paper-thin source material. But he pulled it off and pretty much made a $100 million art-house film. However, I think that’s the best way to handle this material, and every emotional point that is felt in that book is here as well. Jonze delivers a film that captures the sense of childhood, and I was amazed at how emotionally involved I got within the story and characters. Max Records also delivers a great performance that is without the feeling of gimmickry. A tremendous film indeed.

2. (500) DAYS OF SUMMER

A fan of the modern romantic-comedy I am not, but every once in a while there is one that comes around that offers a little twist that makes it enjoyable. Eternal Sunshine is one and so is this, a sort of Gen-Y Annie Hall that is constructed in a disjointed matter that is executed flawlessly by the screenplay and direction. The two leads, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, provide great performances. In particular, Gordon-Levitt is another actor who knows how to convey so much while doing so little. A sweet, funny and extremely enjoyable film.

1. PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL “PUSH” BY SAPPHIRE

It seems that the online community has now jumped ship on this film, but I will still beat my drum loudly for it. Throughout no other film this year did I become as emotionally involved with the characters, story and performances as with this film. Lee Daniels creates a movie that finds all the right tones to strike, and the performances are sublime. Newcommer Gabourey Sidibe shows a character that finds strength in humor throughout all her struggle, and Mo’Nique better take the Oscar for her monstrous portrayal as the worst mother in cinema history that still manages to find depth among the hate. I don’t care what all the haters say: this is the best film of 2009.

Worst of 2009

2010-01-07T00:36:00.002-06:00

Since I still have a bit of time before I can officially make my top ten of the year, as well as personal award selections, I'll just offer my selections for some of the lesser achievements of the year. I make a bottom five, only five because I see so few bad films that to extend that to five would include films I don't consider the worst of the year. Also are awards for individual "achievements" for films.

1. G.I. Joe

This is an action film that was completely void of any sense of fun, excitement or basic entertainment. The plot is ridiculous, the acting is atrocious, and saying that this is suitable entertainment for children is an insult to the intelligence level of children, especially in a day and age when kids have films like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and The Dark Knight to enjoy. Simply awful.

2. Bruno

No clever social satire here. Just 90 minutes of following a completely unlikable character who perpetuates homophobic stereotypes in a quest to make white Southern men uncomfortable. This film is absent of any charm and humility that made Borat a halfway decent success. Magic doesn't strike twice for Sacha Baron Cohen.

3. Transfomers: Revenge of the Fallen

What makes this film even worse is that I was actually a fan of the first film. But Michael Bay takes everything that was problematic about that film and amplifies it about one hundred times here. You've got a nonsensical, overly complicated plot, overwrought visual effects displays that drain on the mind, and not to mention those racist robots. One of the most unpleasant experiences at the movies that made a ton of money.

4. The Soloist

I simply love that Roger Ebert quote which says something to the effect that there are some bad films that could only have been made my very talented people. So is the case with this one, which takes a potentially inspirational story and turns it into a melodramatic piece of trite that goes on for far too long and overindulges on self-conscious musical interludes that service nothing to the film. What started out as a potential Oscar vehicle turned out to be a real disappointment.

5. Observe and Report

I've heard many people come in defense for this film as a great satire on the anti-hero film, but all I saw was a film that wanted me to think that a mentally disturbed, racist, bipolar jerk who date-rapes Anna Faris serves as meaningful entertainment. I guess I didn't get the joke, but I know plenty of other people that didn't get the joke either.

Worst Picture: G.I. Joe

Runner Up: Bruno

Worst Actor: Sacha Baron Cohen - Bruno

Runner Up: Seth Rogen - Observe and Report

Worst Actress: Malin Ackerman - Watchmen

Runner Up: Megan Fox - Jennifer's Body; Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Worst Supporting Actor: Joseph Gordon-Levitt - G.I. Joe

Runner Up: Ramon Rodriguez - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Worst Supporting Actress: Sienna Miller - G.I. Joe

Runner Up: Julie White - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Worst Director: Michael Bay - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Runner Up: Stephen Sommers - G.I. Joe

Worst Screenplay: G.I. Joe

Runner Up: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Biggest Disappointment: Inglourious Basterds*

Runner Up: Nine

*I should say that I did like Inglourious Basterds, and am a supporter for Waltz to win an Oscar, but I didn't want to just like a Tarantino film, I wanted to love it, and that is a disappointment for me. Certainly not a bad film, but one in which my level of excitement did not match my level of enjoyment.

Top 25 Films of the Decade

2010-01-04T00:43:00.028-06:00

Since everyone else has been doing it, I figured that I might as well join in the fun as well. It's time now for the obligatory top films of the past decade list. However, while most people are limiting themselves to ten, I decided to expand the list to twenty-five films. Some people are doing more films like thirty, fifty, and even Richard Roeper did one hundred. For now, I'll just stick with these twenty-five.

25. Mystic River (2003)

Dir: Clint Eastwood

A hauntingly disturbing yet beautifully acted tale that is one of Clint Eastwood's better films. All three leads carry their respective roles quite well and the rest of the supporting cast does an excellent job also. Once again, Eastwood's subtle direction allows you to slowly get invested into the storytelling and become completely emerged in this world. Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn (the last two won Oscars for this film) are fantastic. I still think Penn deserved his Oscar for Milk a little more, but this is still a very worthy film.

24. A History of Violence (2005)

Dir: David Cronenberg

The first couple of viewings of this film feel a little cold to the touch, but once you revisit this film more often, there's a real greatness working underneath. Cronenberg is one that always finds the balance of graphic violence and deep psychology, often times melding the two in the same scene. This is a film that reminds us why Cronenberg is so good with his camera, and another film that gives us yet another reason to love Viggo Mortensen, whose performance in this film reaches so many levels its scary.

23. Superbad (2007)

Dir: Greg Mottola

To put it simply, I can't remember laughing as much during a movie than this one. That statement is made even more significant by the fact that I usually detest films like these: the raunchy teenager sex comedy. The story isn't revolutionary, but there are so many good jokes and setups that I was smiling at nearly every frame. I remember championing a personal campaign to have the script nominated at the Oscars. This is the best film to come out of the Apatow factory and succeeded at being occasionally poignant, but constantly funny with a group of characters I felt I could pick out in any high school.

22. Zodiac (2007)

Dir: David Fincher

It's quite amazing how well this film operates on such a subtle level that you aren't even sure of it the first time out. Namely because David Fincher uses the visual effects in a way that few filmmakers do: to create a world that feels truer to life rather than a pixel spectacle. There are moments in this film where I can't believe they're on a green screen set, and to use the effects as a discreet tool is a bold step that deserves a lot of credit. I'd say this is Fincher's best film since Se7en and the procedural mystery plot that is drawn out is one that is in a constant state of intrigue.

21. WALL-E (2008)

Dir: Andrew Stanton

First and foremost, this is a beautiful looking film. The animation gets better and better with each new Pixar film, and the worlds created within this film are dazzling. What is also magnificent is that first half hour covered between two characters with very limited dialogue. Much like that beautiful montage at the beginning of Up, the more quieter moments in these animated films offers quite a bit of emotional depth. This is one of Pixar's best films, which almost means nothing considering their library. But this is one that I never stop enjoying.

20. 28 Days Later... (2002)

Dir: Danny Boyle

I suppose I might get some flack for choosing this horror films as one of the crowning achievements of the decade rather than Boyle's big Oscar winner. However, I really love how this film manages to take a tired genre, the zombie movie, turn it slightly on its head and instead make one that is exhilarating based not only on its ability to provide good scares but also for well rounded characters and a fantastic crop of acting. Though not really a zombie movie, this has been added to the genre anyway, and I think its a shining example of how you can take a genre that has all the rules and reinvent them slightly to get something the works the nerves as well as the intellect.

19. Memento (2000)

Dir: Christopher Nolan

In actuality, this film wouldn't be all that great if it were told chronologically, which means that the backwards storytelling can be perceived as a gimmick. Even still, this remains an achievement in filmmaking because Christopher Nolan manages to take that rather mediocre story and make it one that is completely engaging. This was the early promise from a filmmaker who was very much delivered on a strong career in the future by providing a long list of worthy credits. This film wasn't a game changer in its story but more in its capabilities of how to tell a story quite well.

18. Sideways (2004)

Dir: Alexander Payne

While I do give points to Superbad as the film I probably laughed at the most, it is Alexander Payne's very touching film that reaches a level that few comedies manage to get to. Like that previously mentioned film, this is one of the comedies where every single member of the ensemble fires on all cylinders to nab equal time for laughs. But they all get equal time for strong emotional moments in between the humor, and we get people that feel convincingly real. Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virgina Madsen and Sandra Oh have never been better, and the Oscar-winning screenplay is rich with the ironic sense of sad humor and joyful bleakness.

17. Capote (2005)

Dir: Bennett Miller

One of the best debuts I've ever seen, this is a perfect slice of nonfictional life that is expertly told. Bennett Miller, who has yet to make another film at this point, never indulges in flashbang set pieces or histrionic presentations. It's a very quiet film and hones in on Philip Seymour Hoffman's brilliant performance around a plot that, granted, is slow but at the same time creates a steady breath to become invested in the psychology of the characters. Every member of the production of this film should be proud, and while you can also find some enjoyment in the copycat that was released the following year, Infamous, this is the much better film.

16. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

Dir: Quentin Tarantino

While everyone else this year has been cheering on Inglourious Basterds, I think Tarantino's real achievement in the last ten years has been his second part of his revenge saga, a film so dramatically different in tone and style than the first chapter that I could argue a separation between the two. This is a film that indulges on the best sides of Tarantino: a presentation of both the wonderfully executed style of the technical aspects as well as the great dialogue as spoken by interesting characters. Thurman is terrific, but the real star of this film is the dearly departed David Carradine, who ended his legacy on a high note by giving us a character that was charismatic yet sadistic at the same time.

15. Monster (2003)

Dir: Patty Jenkins

Everybody knows about Charlize Theron's mesmerizing, physical transformation that earned her a very well deserved Oscar. However, this film offers more than just one great performance. Christina Ricci also delivered a tender performance for a character whose more meek personality clashed well with the vibrant roaring by Theron. This is also a film that treats its morally ambiguous character with some sense of decency. Mind you, we are never meant to believe that the murders committed by Aileen Wuornos should be condoned, but there is an earnest approach in the filmmaking that allows us to understand this damaged mind at a proximity few films are capable of approaching.

14. Collateral (2004)

Dir: Michael Mann

Of the many films to come out in the last few years concerning Los Angeles and the manner of its inhabitants, I would say that this is one of the best out there. This film starts and ends as a tight thriller, but also provides a sober look at L.A., perfectly capturing the excitement and melancholy. The first excursion into Michael Mann's obsession with digital photography is arguably the best, as it captures all the small details of modern night life perfectly. And even though Jamie Foxx wound up with an Oscar nomination for this film, Tom Cruise, playing against type, deserves the most praise for a performance that captures a villain who is smart, cunning but knows how to deliver on the intimidation and cruelty. This is actually the type of role that's been winning Oscars recently in the Best Supporting Actor category, and it looks like Cruise just missed the deadline.

13. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-3)

Dir: Peter Jackson

All three films in this monstrous series deserve equal recognition, and because each is another continuous thread of the other, its impossible for me to separate these films. Even the 11 Oscar win for the last one is agreed to be a representation for the entire series. Rightfully so, because Peter Jackson not only put an entire country on a world stage, but also turned a tremendous uphill battle into one of the most memorable cinematic experiences. These films stand as a testament as to what can be achieved by mixing great storytelling with exhilarating visuals. It should also be noted that the animated character of Gollum is what convinced James Cameron to do Avatar now, and achievements like that one are only a few of the ones that this series has accomplished in uniting the world around a single piece of entertainment.

12. The Dark Knight (2008)

Dir: Christopher Nolan

Say what you will about this film, it doesn't change the fact that Christopher Nolan presented a defining moment in the culture, and one that significantly changed the direction of where a comic book movie could go. He setup the groundwork in Batman Begins, but here he created a Batman that most had finally waited for: a Batman who operated in the real world and took on issues that seemed to parallel our own political scene. Nolan can't get enough credit for the success of this picture's tone, mood and excitement (even if AMPAS disagreed), but we of course cannot forget the marvelous performance of Heath Ledger's Joker, who gave us a turn on a familiar villain like we'd never seen before and gave him equal sides horror and humor.

11. Munich (2005)

Dir: Steven Spielberg

For my money, this is the type of Spielberg film that I prefer watching. I do like it when Spielberg for a little darker of a subject because I think it allows him to challenge himself a bit by trying to create a tone that isn't so cut and dry. Munich is perhaps his most underrated masterpiece, and one that offers a line of interesting philosophical questions against the guise of a tight thriller. This quest for the "correct" response against terrorism and a small dissection of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts offers a much more stimulating conversation than the current display of Jewish revenge fantasy that leaves a bitter aftertaste. I'm glad Spielberg did not indulge on that request, because he has made a film that is engaging to watch and even more engaging to discuss.

10. Y Tu Mamá También (2001)

Dir: Alfonso Cuarón

Looking at this film, it's almost amazing that this hasn't been remade into a slick, mediocre American version. After all, with a premise of two horny adolescents taking a road trip with an older woman who teaches them lessons of love and lust, that seems like it's destined for a dumbed down remake. Fortunately it hasn't so we can enjoy Alfonso Cuarón breakout American hit unspoiled. The dynamics between the three characters is fascinatingly portrayed and offers a deep well in which to mine great emotional depths. The sexual scenes are very graphic in this film, but each one of them is a moment of revelation, whether it be concerning to plot or an emotional truth to a character. This film not only gave us a great filmmaker who would give us more great films, but also opened the door to a new wave of Mexican cinema, allowing others like Guillermo del Toro and Alejandro González Iñárritu to follow suit.

9. Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

Dir: Clint Eastwood

Eastwood's streak continues here with, what I think, is his best film since Unforgiven. This companion piece to the earlier film Flags of Our Fathers, about that battle on the Japanese island during WWII, shows us why Eastwood is a master of film. Not only is this movie enjoyable for the ironic note of such an American icon directing a foreign film, it is also an intriguing study on war itself, and Eastwood gives us a fascinating portrayal of that struggle. He manages to show us that no matter what side is fighting, war carries the same amount of patriotism, fear, cowardice, loyalty and overreaching emotion without paying attention to who is pulling the trigger. This film doesn't glorify nor demonize the Japanese. Instead, it makes them full of the same emotions that the American get treated to in so many other war films, and that diligence seen on the other side is a comforting thought from a filmmaker who shows that he's still capable of creating a great work of art.

8. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Dir: Michel Gondry

Of all the contrived genres out there, the romantic comedy is the one I respond to the least. That is, unless I can see a film that turns on the execution a bit and gives me well rounded characters to become invested in. 2009 did have (500) Days of Summer, but even the greatness of that film is indebted to this one. The tracking of a romantic relationship is well told in the cryptic jumps from the fragmented mind of the main character to the slightly parallel world outside of his. Charlie Kaufman provided yet another great script, one that one him the Oscar, and Gondry's direction is one that is never flashy but always understands how to get the right feeling from just the right amount of gimmickry.

7. City of God (2002)

Dir: Fernando Meirelles

I have to admit that I don't revisit this film too many times. However, when I do, I get so wrapped up in this dazzling and gritty spectacle that it feels as if I'm experiencing it for the first time all over again. The violence in the film never feels staged or stylized, and the realistic nature to it is what makes the film carry a more emotional weight. At the same time, this film never makes all of its characters out to be total monsters, and instead gives us an idea of a how a group of people cope with an incredible amount of suffering and deceit. This is perhaps the best edited film of the decade, and Fernando Meirelles has yet to make a film that comes even close to the greatness he showed here.

6. Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Dir: Guillermo del Toro

I don't usually consider fairy tales to be the best direct reference for a film, but here, all the beauty, sadness and terror that make up those stories are perfectly embodied in Guillermo del Toro's excellent work of art. This films goes right into a place where few other films venture: the mind of a child. This film also treats that mind as one that is just as sophisticated and terrified as an adult, trying to battle the internal and external forces that are equally stunning and dangerous. This film treats both the real and fantasy worlds with the same amount wonderful art design and complexity within the emotions and plot. This is a beautifully dark fairy tale that reminds us why we tend to fall in love with those stories in the first place.

5. Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Dir: Ang Lee

Perhaps one of the most memorable Oscar movies around because it didn't win Best Picture. Now, I like Crash quite a bit, but it doesn't compare with this grand masterpiece. Ang Lee's subtle direction is still highly suggestive and very powerful. The performances from Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are career bests, particularly from Ledger, whose soft spoken character trying to hide a secret love has become one of the most memorable and endearing cinematic characters and a strong reminder at what film history had lost with his untimely passing. The supporting cast is also strong, the script is packed with emotion and the scenery is gorgeous. This is a hauntingly beautiful film that takes on the classic romance themes are presents them in a different way. Yes, it did succeed incredibly well on the social front by bringing gay issues to the mainstream, but above all else, this is a beautifully crafted film that is one of the greatest achievements of film that has ever been seen.

4. United 93 (2006)

Dir: Paul Greengrass

This was a story that seemed impossible to tell tastefully, and Paul Greengrass had an uphill battle to climb with a slight controversy regarding the timing of the film. But he managed to pull it off, and offered a film that paid respect to what happened on that day and the participants on that flight. With a docudrama approach and a cast of non A-listers, this is a film that feels real from beginning to end, and never exploitatively. This is another film that I don't revisit regularly, but I can say it is one that left a significant impact. I can no longer look at any 9/11 footage without acknowledging every personal story, and that is an achievement that very few films have accomplished.

3. The Incredibles (2004)

Dir: Brad Bird

This has remained my favorite Pixar film for quite some time, and every time I return to it, I'm reminded why. This is a film that really gets what it means to be a family film. There's elements for the kids, such as the bickering relationship between siblings and the colorful, fast paced action sequences. For the adults, there's the cool '60s design and delicate touches on grown up issues like mid-life crises and infidelity. But for everyone, there is a sweet story about the bonds of family, and how that unity can overcome any obstacle. It's a warm message that manages to seep through all the loud action that is also still very humorous. Brad Bird continues to this day to show that he is working on a level of animation that few can reach, and he still provides the best film that Pixar has ever done, which again, is saying quite a lot when looking at their library.

2. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Dir: Andrew Dominik

I have to say that I probably shouldn't like this film. For one thing, it's a western, one of my least favorite genres. Not only that, it's well over two-and-a-half hours. Not only that, but its also very slow paced. It seems like I should hate this movie, but every time I watch it, I am totally transfixed by the beauty of what's happening. This is the perfect example of a film that relies on great characters to propel the story forward, and with that, I can get lost within this 160 minute adventure unscathed. Brad Pitt gives a good performance, but Casey Affleck gives a lot of depth to a character that I'm still figuring out. Shot brilliantly by ace cinematographer Roger Deakins, this is a movie with haunting beauty that remains to be an extremely well executed character study. Give it some time, and I might even say this was the best of the decade, which is in a very close race with my number one pick...

1. There Will Be Blood (2007)

Dir: Paul Thomas Anderson

I admit that the first time I saw this film, I knew that what I watched was great, but I wasn't completely sure about the whole thing. It didn't win me over as much as it did other people, but I tucked it aside to see what it could do some time later. After many trips back, I'm still picking apart all the subtle layers that exist in this film, and I am constantly amazed at how much there is. Paul Thomas Anderson continues to show that his eye as a filmmaker is one that is unmatched in his ability to create a film that rewards one on an intellectual level by peeling back all the layers, which constantly adds another feeling of reinvention, as if you're watching the film for the first time yet again. One cannot also forget the amazing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, who also creates one of the best performances of this new century. Mark my words, in twenty, thirty, fifty years or so, this will be analyzed, discussed and hailed as a masterpiece in the same way that Citizen Kane is today. This is a film that's hard to get a first, but once you start to dive into its deep well, you won't be able to come up, lest you stop looking for all the little gems it has laid.

Most Anticipated in 2010

2010-01-01T01:52:00.004-06:00

First off, I'll say Happy New Year to everyone out there. 2009 has been a year of ups and downs, but on the whole I'll say it was alright. In terms of film, the beginning did seem to be plagued with terrible to mediocre films that didn't show much promise for making it a great year for cinema. But then, the last few months started to show some promise, and it evened the year out. It wasn't a fantastic year, but it was alright. However, there's still a few more films I have to see before I can officially make my top 10 list and personal awards. So for now, I'm giving my list of the ten films I'm most looking forward to this year:

10. Toy Story 3

Normally I'm not looking forward to an animated sequel, but you have to remember that this is Pixar we're talking about, which has had a pretty good track record on all of their films. Add to it the fact that the only other sequel they've done is Toy Story 2, a film that many argue to be superior to the original. I don't deny there's a lot of places they could mess this up, but I have faith in them for now.

9. A Nightmare on Elm Street

What I look forward to even less than a sequel tends to be a remake of a gory horror film, particularly from the era that's been producing lackluster remakes like Halloween and Friday the 13th. But I have to say I'm intrigued with this one, mainly because it's the only horror film that has had enough personality to distinguish itself. I'm interested in seeing what a great actor like Jackie Earle Haley can do with such an iconic role. I'm not expecting an Oscar winner, but maybe something that can be better than I think it should be.

8. Tron Legacy

The only reason I'm interested in this film is because after seeing that Jeff Bridges can still act his ass off in Crazy Heart, I want to see him in just about anything now. That and the updated visual effects I hope will provide a film that will more than likely be flawed but very entertaining at the same time.

7. Prince of Persia

I have never once played the videogame, nor am I a fan of this property. But, looking at this footage, I can't deny that this looks like one very entertaining ride. It's got all the ingredients for a good action film: a likable lead character, a humorous romantic relationship, a notable actor playing the villain, and a lot of cool looking action set pieces. Plus, I will go see anything starring Jake Gyllenhaal.

6. Clash of the Titans

This is actually a film I've been wishing they'd remake for a while now. I am a big fan of the original, but that film always suffered from the dated Ray Harryhousen claymation effects, which in 1981 was long after their heyday in the '30s thru '50s. To retell such a classic story with better effects seems like a terrific idea, not to mention a cast that includes Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as Zeus and Hades, respectively, is a great selection. Not to mention the Cracken looks amazing.

5. Shutter Island

It's a shame I have to list this as an anticipated release for 2010 since it was supposed to come out last year, only the studio didn't have the money for an Oscar campaign. But even though they've dumped it into the barren wasteland of movie releases from January thru April, at least this means we can hopefully get at least one great film. After all, when you mix Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley, Jackie Earle Haley, Mark Ruffalo, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow and a Dennis Lehane source material together, I can't see that going insanely wrong.

4. Iron Man 2

I was pleasantly surprised at how well the first Iron Man turned out, with Robert Downey Jr. creating a superhero that was off the cusp just enough to feel fresh and be next to Gwyneth Paltrow who turned in her best performance in years. The only thing it suffered from was a weak villain. Now with the additions of Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell, I'm thinking that might not be a problem this time. Downey in particular continues to prove that his status as not only an A-list star but also a great actor is well solidified now, and I look forward to just about anything with his name on it.

3. Alice in Wonderland

My fanboy heart for Tim Burton will never stop beating, and while it does look like the same stuff he's been doing before, I can't lie about being totally amped up to see this film. Particularly since my fear of it being a direct remake of the original Disney film is now gone. With another weird performance from Johnny Depp, and a host of other great actors filling the screen, I am very much excited to see how Burton will distort another childhood classic of mine. I just wonder if he can piss off the same amount of people as he did with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I

I still think that if Warner Bros. really wanted to, they could do this in all one movie. But I know there's so much material in that last book that it's almost justified. Either way, the start of the last chapter of this very successful franchise is high up on my list for this year. Every new Potter adventure gives me another reason to love going to the movies, and knowing all the dramatic events that happen in the last book, my mind is conjuring up some wild images as to what this film can do.

1. Inception

I still know pretty much nothing about this project. What is basically selling it to a lot of people are a bunch of cool looking images over an eerily boastful score, the vastly assembled cast and the reputation of its director. But that really helps me get excited for a film when that director is Christopher Nolan and the cast includes such greats as Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine. The hush-hush nature of the project also peaks my interest incredibly, and since Warner Bros. is also giving this film the IMAX treatment, that also makes me think this project is pretty big on their list. It's certainly big on mine, and I can't think of any other film I'm looking forward to the most this new year.

In a little bit, I will probably have my top 25 films of the decade up, followed as soon as I can by my top ten of 2009 and personal awards selections as well. Happy New Decade everyone!

Holiday Reviews

2009-12-30T17:20:00.001-06:00

Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie's flash-bang adaptation of Arthur Canan Doyle famous character offers some enjoyment in a few well staged action sequences and a great comedic performance by Robert Downey Jr. as the title character, as well as Jude Law as a more thuggish Dr. Watson. However, you have to try to get over a convoluted plot, an uninteresting villain, a bland love interest, and Ritchie's over-the-top direction that brings the film to a screeching halt in too many places. With all that, I can't quite say that you should seek out this film, but give it some time when it comes on video, then you might have a good time. The only real reason to recommend this film is for Downey Jr. and, to a lesser extent, Law. The rest of the cast, as good as Rachel McAdams and Mark Strong are, feel wasted under Ritchie's misplaced direction and Hans Zimmer's unimpressive score. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Crazy Heart

A lot of people have described this as the country music version of The Wrestler, and there are a lot of plot points that borrow heavily from that film. Jeff Bridges has the role of Bad Blake, a singer who was on top at one point but is now playing second rate venues. There's also a budding love interest with a reporter (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and glimpses of a fellow musician (Colin Farrell) who was a protégé of Blake and took off financially while Blake was left behind. Even though all of this sounds familiar, it all comes together to make a truly great film. The center of it all is Bridges's performance, which engulfs a lot of warmth and passion and creates a character that succeeds at every emotional point. Gyllenhaal, Farrell and a brief appearance by Robert Duvall are well played and writer/director Scott Cooper creates a film that feels genuine, energizing and completely enjoyable. Bridges delivers a career best performance for one of the best films of the year. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Nine

Being Oscar season, it is yet again time for another movie musical based on a popular Broadway play that itself was based on a famous, non-musical film. This one's source material was inspired by Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, one of the best films ever made. This musical adaptation, sadly is not, as it tells the uninteresting tale of a famous Italian director named Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) balancing shooting his next film with his messed up personal life and the many different women in it, which include a fashion magazine writer (Kate Hudson), his wife (Marion Cotillard), his mistress (Penélope Cruz), his costume designer (Judi Dench), his muse (Nicole Kidman) and his mother (Sophia Loren). All of them collide in a film that is a complete mess. Rob Marshall, who directed the Best Picture winner Chicago, directs this material just about the same, but the problem is that the material is dull which leads way to a showcase of poorly staged musical bits against overwrought, melodramatic Broadway showtunes; each musical number feels like a participation in excess, offering very little to the characters and drowning the movie in its own style. The only good things to point out are the quirky new song "Cinema Italiano", Dion Bebee's cinematography, and Cotillard's performance, the only performer who strikes any emotional resonance. Truly one of the most disappointing films of the year, and one that squalors its reputation from the talented cast and crew. ** / ****; GRADE: C

It's Complicated

If you saw Nancy Meyer's previous films like Something's Gotta Give and The Holiday, then you'll know the pace this film operates and come out enjoying it at the end. The love triangle plot is nothing new, only this time it is transported to the middle aged community as Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin), who has remarried to a younger wife, start up an affair almost a decade after their divorce. The other complication is that Jane's architect, Adam (Steve Martin) is also having feelings for Jane. In all aspects, it is Streep that makes this sitcom material work, and her abilities as an actress continue to show what a great talent she is and incapable of giving a bad performance. Baldwin and Martin are also quite funny in their roles, and there are also some good supporting turns by the children of Jake and Jane, even though they are written kind of one note. The big exception is John Krasinski in a role that usually goes to the family's best gay friend but here is awarded to the son-in-law, and he scores some good laughs in the film. Meyers's direction is a little off at some points, and the pace isn't always feeling right for a film that come close to overstaying its welcome. But in the end, it's a nice, fun and light piece of entertainment that is sure to please the crowd that has already been flocking to these types of films. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Avatar & Me and Orson Welles

2009-12-23T11:43:00.001-06:00

Blue Moon

So the wait is finally over. After months, and quite honestly what felt like years, of buzz and teases, we are finally treated to the real thing. I went in with a heavy amount of suspicion and skepticism, as I generally do, with this film. Anything that is this talked about should have the thought in the back of your mind that it's going not going to live up to your expectations. And as the lights dimmed, and I had my Urkel style 3D glasses wrapped around my head, I was just laying back ready for anything to show up on the gigantic IMAX screen. What I was treated to was Dances with Wolves meets FernGully. However, do not be mistaken by that comparison. I fell in love with this film for offering an abundant visual spectacle against a story that is both parts exhilarating and tedious.

It's one hundred and fifty years into the future, and Earth is going through an implied energy crisis. The solution is to mine a precious mineral out of a distant moon called Pandora. The problem is that the natives, twelve foot, blue creatures called the Na'vi, aren't willing to give up their home without a fight. A private corporation uses some military men to do the dirty work, leading the pack with Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang). On the diplomatic side is Sigourney Weaver and her "Avatar" program, which uses lab grown Na'vi bodies to link up to the human mind. Sam Worthington is paraplegic marine Jake Sully whose deceased twin brother was a part of the Avatar program. This allows him to use the Avatar successfully. What happens from here is a budding romance between Jake on one native named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and a final battle between the Na'vi and the military forces.

James Cameron is a man that seems incapable of making a bad film. However, he's gotten a bad rap, justly I'm afraid, for his tardiness on delivering a new narrative film after the mega success of Titanic twelve years ago. But here he reminds us why he's such a celebrated filmmaker. Cameron's eye as a director is one that is rich and visually stimulating, and he constantly fills the frame with a wealth of interesting images. Cameron is a man who knows how to tell an interesting story and let his characters help guide the story among the exceedingly excellent visual effects.

Still, I would have to say that the premise of Cameron's script is better than the actual execution. The film is peppered with corny dialogue and the final battle carries on for quite a while. This has been an issue with all of Cameron's scripts, and his invention and imagination as a director is sometimes undermined by his shallowness as a writer. However, this isn't to say that the script is bad; in fact, there are many moments in which the story and premise offer interesting paths to take. It's in the execution of the dialogue and the overindulgence in some of the set pieces that gets in the way of it becoming a perfect film.

Worthington has been popping up here and there for a while, and he was undoubtedly the best thing in Terminator: Salvation. Here he presents another performance that embodies that everyman quality that is essential for an action movie. Worthington is slowly becoming a household name, and his performance is one that is easy to become involved in the story. Other players like Weaver, Saldana, Lang, Joel Moore as a fellow Avatar compatriot, and Laz Alonso as a high ranking Avatar warrior are also good additions to the cast, though a few like Giovanni Ribisi as the weaselly corporate big head is a little off. But then, this isn't a film to see for the acting.

But, there is an element to the acting that is worth seeing. The greatest mark the film has to offer is the performance capture used to its fullest advantage. All the emotional markings on a face, both grand and minute, are perfectly captured here. I think this is where Zemeckis and his company wants to go in his films, and even though I like his films, there shy in extreme comparison to what is achieved here. You feel these computer generated characters in the same way you would respond to a live action one, and as the film goes on (and on, and on), you forget you're watching a CG creation. That is a miraculous gift a film can bestow on an audience.

Some of the scripts flaws do prevent it from being a truly great film, but there's enough here to offer a great time at the show. The visual spectacle alone makes this a film worth seeing, but there is also enough in the story and acting that keeps one in the seats at all times. I wasn't sure exactly what to expect before I walked in, but after I walked out, I knew what I had seen was fantastic, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this was a marvelous film from a genius in the medium. Congratulations Mr. Cameron, just don't take another twelve year break for us to get another reminder of that genius. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Acting Out

I've talked a lot about whether or not a single good performance is enough to recommend an entire film. This comes up in many films, mostly comedies. Though some recent examples have included The Reader and The Road. Both of those movies had powerhouse performances from their leads, but it ultimately wasn't enough to recommend the film as a whole. This is another film that features one great performance. However, there's also enough here within the rest of the ensemble and the execution of the film to find a very enjoyable movie.

Zac Efron, most known to tweeners everywhere as the headliner of the High School Musical franchise, plays Richard Samuels, an ambitious high school senior in 1937 New York with dreams of fame, fortune and acting. While downtown, he crosses path with a theatre company putting on a modernist retelling of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the man directing the play as well as starring as Brutus is a young Orson Welles (Christian McKay), a good four years before he became a huge success with the release of the now classic Citizen Kane. Welles is an egotistical maniac, but extremely brilliant, and the entire company tiptoes around his erratic behavior. Samueles also has a budding romance with the Welles's chief assistant Sonja (Claire Danes).

The main reason to see this film is because of McKay. It's a daunting task trying to take on a role of someone as known as Welles, and McKay does a perfect job. He captures the voice and look of Welles, but he doesn't simply do an imitation. He makes Welles an actual character, not just a dramatic set piece in the background. McKay puts in an incredible amount of passion and energy, to the point where it actually feels like your watching the famous actor/director on the screen once again. He gives us as Orson Welles that we've always remembered, and it's a commanding performance deserving of all its acclaim.

The rest of the cast is good, though nowhere near the level of greatness that McKay offers. Efron is trying to breakout of his trap in the Disney musicals, and he does show enough charm and likability to be taken seriously as an actor. Although, if he wants many good notices in the future, it would be nice to have him get roles that don't shoehorn in unnecessary musical numbers, as is done here, particularly when Efron's popstar voice doesn't gel well with the '30s atmosphere. Danes is all smiles and charms, and she gives another well done performance here.

Director Richard Linklater and writers Holly and Vincent Palmo perfectly create a world in that feels genuine to the time period, but there are times when the story feels like it meanders, and the goal at the end of the picture doesn't feel like its that important. The execution of the play is fascinating, but it doesn't feel like there's much value there. The whole film has a lot of whimsy and charm, but there isn't much beyond the surface. The story isn't much and the only thing that's here is pretty much here is a group of individuals trying to put on a play that never reaches the sense of importance or greatness that the film is telling us. Still, it's a trip that is enjoyable pretty much all the way through.

The film's far from perfect, but there's still plenty to enjoy in this film. The cast is able to carry the premise, and while the story isn't always on task, the atmosphere still plants you in a carefree world that feels genuine. Add all that to the miraculous performance by Christian McKay, who deserves an Oscar nomination, and you've got a film that mines plenty of praise to warrant a recommendation. I don't think this would be a great film without McKay, but it's a pretty good one with him. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Commentary: 2009 Chicago Film Critics Nominations

2009-12-18T23:11:00.001-06:00

A few days ago, the Chicago Film Critics Association named their nominations for the 2009 awards. Now, after this group gave so much love to The Dark Knight last year, I was so elated that I did a commentary and predictions on that race as well. In the end, I didn't know my Chicago critics as well as I thought I did. But since commentary on the Golden Globes and SAG Awards have been done to death, I'll take an in-depth look on the home front.

Best Picture

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

In the past years, this group has chosen films like Sideways, Crash, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and WALL*E as the top winners, sometimes making this category a difficult one to predict. Sometimes Chicago goes with the rest of the pact, and sometimes they decide to be an individual. Because Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker have been the favorites so far, I'm going to venture they're going to chose between the two of them. My guess is the latter. The mentions for A Serious Man and Where the Wild Things Are make excellent mentions, I don't think they'll have much traction.

Predicted winner: The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: Up in the Air

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Joel Coen, Ethan Coen - A Serious Man

Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

The second consecutive year in which the Best Director and Picture nominees are five for five here. With that, I'm going to give the edge to frontrunner Bigelow. Although, the Coens and Tarantino have been shown love here before, but I actually think the upset here will be Jonze, considering Wild Things's great showing, and it would be great if that ended up happening.

Predicted Winner: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Matt Damon - The Informant!

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Michael Stuhlbarg - A Serious Man

The absence of Morgan Freeman and Colin Firth make this a little bit more interesting, the this is still a race between the two that are also guaranteed nominations. I'm pretty confident that either Bridges or Clooney will end up taking it here, but considering Crazy Heart has only had an advanced screening, it's difficult for me to fairly judge. As of now, I'm going to say Bridges, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clooney ends up the winner here. Also, the Stuhlbarg mention is kinda nice.

Predicted Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Possible Upset: George Clooney - Up in the Air

Best Actress

Abbie Cornish - Bright Star

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Maya Rudolph - Away We Go

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

So glad about the mentions for Cornish and Rudolph, the latter in particular. These are two strong performances that deserved more attention than they got. That said, I don't see this group's pick being very different from the rest of the groups out there, so I'm going ahead with Mulligan. Maybe Sidibe might take it, but she's got the Breakthrough award going for her already.

Predicted winner: Carey Mulligan - An Education

Possible Upset: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Best Supporting Actor

Peter Capaldi - In the Loop

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

I love, love LOVE the nomination for Peter Capaldi. In the Loop was the year's best comedy, and much of that is because of Capaldi's shark like performance. I also like the mention for Christian McKay, who looks really great in his movie as well. I think it is pretty much confirmed that Harrelson will get a nomination, which is a little nice since all this buzz started with the NBR nomination. Needless to say, we have another year of Best Supporting Actor with four place holders to make way for the big winner.

Predicted winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Possible Upset: Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Best Supporting Actress

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Mo'Nique - Precious

Julianne Moore - A Single Man

Natalie Portman - Brothers

The one mention for Brothers should have gone to either Tobey Maguire or Bailee Madison. Portman is good, but the other two are incredible. Other than that, it's a pretty tame list featuring the usual suspects. Look for Mo'Nique to take another one.

Predicted Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious

Possible Upset: Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Best Original Screenplay

Away We Go

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

A Serious Man

Away We Go is a nice surprise, and about the only one here. Now, it would make sense to choose The Hurt Locker, but this is going to be my bold prediction against the film. I will actually call it for A Serious Man, only because it seems that some Chicago critics have complained about The Hurt Locker's script. However, if it did win, I wouldn't be surprised.

Predicted Winner: A Serious Man

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Adapted Screenplay

An Education

In the Loop

The Informant!

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

Again, another great mention for In the Loop and Where the Wild Things Are. While I think both of them could have good possibilities of pulling off an upset, I really don't see either taking it away from Reitman's script. Chicago has shown time and time again they love this guy, and they'll reward him.

Predicted Winner: Up in the Air

Possible Upset: Where the Wild Things Are

Best Documentary Feature

Anvil! The Story of Anvil

Capitalism: A Love Story

The Cove

Food, Inc.

Tyson

Predicted Winner: The Cove

Possible Upset: Capitalism: A Love Story

Best Foreign Film

Broken Embraces

Red Cliff

Sin Nombre

Summer Hours

The White Ribbon

Predicted Winner: Sin Nombre

Possible Upset: The White Ribbon

Best Animated Feature

Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Ponyo

The Princess and the Frog

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Coraline

Best Cinematography

Avatar

Bright Star

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Where the Wild Things Are

Predicted Winner: Where the Wild Things Are

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Original Score

Avatar

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Informant!

Where the Wild Things Are

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Where the Wild Things Are

Most Promising Performer

Sharlto Copley - District 9

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Predicted Winner: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Possible Upset: Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Most Promising Filmmaker

Neill Blomkamp - District 9

Scott Cooper - Crazy Heart

Carey Fukunaga - Sin Nombre

Duncan Jones - Moon

Marc Webb - (500) Days of Summer

Predicted Winner: Neill Blomkamp - District 9

Possible Upset: Duncan Jones - Moon

The winners will be announced Monday. Let's see how close I am.

Review: Invictus

2009-12-08T16:06:00.001-06:00

Hardball

Again, we have another film that the National Board of Review just devoured. While it didn’t claim the top Best Picture prize like Up in the Air did, it still managed to nab a shared Best Actor prize for Morgan Freeman as well as Best Director for Clint Eastwood. Now, this group is a big fan of Eastwood. Last year, this group gave him the Best Actor award for Gran Torino, and the year before he got Best Picture for Letters from Iwo Jima. I very much agreed with the latter, and violently disagreed with the former. Still, this group and I have that much in common when it comes to Mr. Eastwood: we both have a lot of respect for the guy. Still, we have another disagreement about a single film. They loved this one; I did not.

The film starts with Freeman’s Nelson Mandela and his recent release from a twenty-seven year prison sentence. Now he is the newly elected president of South Africa and is trying to accomplish the daunting task of uniting a country divided against the whites and the blacks. Mandela’s idea for unification is in the form of the country’s rugby team and their success of at the World Cup. Matt Damon is Francois Pienaar, the team’s captain who is pushing his team to an underdog victory.

The main reason, for me, why the film never quite gets to the point it needs to be is that the entire emotional crux of the film is based upon a game that I know nothing to very little about. The issue with this is that because most of the film's stakes rely on this premise, it's difficult to get into the emotional journey. Whenever something happens during the game, the only emotional cue to go on is the faces of the characters. After a while, you realize that movie is telling you how to feel instead of actually getting that emotional genuinely through the story. That emotional blockage goes away a little at the end with the climatic sports finale, but that is only because the end is relying on the many underdog/sport movie cliches.

My ignorance about rugby is an issue, but it's not an issue of the filmmaking. However, that's not the only problem the film presents. Anthony Peckham's script sidelines Mandela in his own movie, and turns what started out as an intriguing look at South African politics and the task of Mandela's challenges into a standard sports movie where the underdog triumphs in the end. The power of Mandela feels muted by the sports premise, and it is another misstep that causes the story to have a less emotional impact. It isn't a terribly written film (Gran Torino was), but it is one that doesn't feel like it has the right story in mind.

However, I will say that Eastwood shows us once again his versatility as a director. His approach is never flamboyant or flashy; it is stripped-down and grounded. His matter-of-fact way of directing is one that is seamless within any story, and there are even times when Eastwood allows us to become invested in either the sport scenes or the quiet emotional ones, like when the team visits the prison that held Mandela for almost thirty years. Though, I still don't think Eastwood has found effective use for his son Scott just yet, particularly when he gives him the character of the one who scored the winning goal for the team. Eastwood seems to have taken more time and effort with this film, and I am grateful for it.

Freeman is another actor that I have a lot of respect for, but I can't help but feel as if most of his roles now no longer require much stretch. It feels like the case here, but there are moments when you can see the good actor in Freeman coming out. The downfall is that his character doesn't feel like the center of this film. His screentime is the greatest, but the impact of the man is never really felt because of the story. Freeman gives a "good enough" performance as Mandela. The same goes to Damon, who most of the time treks through a harsh accent and shallow character. The only one here that really shines is Adjoa Andoh, who plays Mandela's chief secretary. She brings the right amount of energy and emotion to an ensemble that usually plays on one key.

There are a lot of things to admire in this film. I think Eastwood still shows that he's got a great eye behind the camera and allows you to somewhat get into the film. The performances for the most part are solid, though never mindblowing. There's also good work from Eastwood's regular cinematographer Tom Stern, and an upbeat score from son Kyle and Michael Stevens. But the film never finds the emotional ground needed to be a completely fulfilled movie. It's a great deal better than Eastwood's last film, but not quite there to be called one of his best. I guess this is just one more thing I disagree with the NBR with. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Reviews: Up in the Air & Brothers

2009-12-06T22:16:00.001-06:00

Layover Fights

Every year, there is always one film out there that seems to have almost universal appeal from critics and awards groups that I just can't fully get on board with. That's not to say that I don't like these films, but only that I don't believe them to be the cinema changing masterpieces that they are made out to be. For instance, last year's Slumdog Millionaire was a very well made film that won awards left and right, but I did not proclaim it the best the year had to offer. There's already plenty that this film and that one have in common, including taking the National Board of Review's Best Picture award. Like the other film, I don't think this one is the absolute best of 2009. Still, it is a well put together piece of entertainment that is quite difficult to dislike.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a cool and slick worker for a downsizing company that loans him out to different places to deliver the news of firings to the employees. Along the way, two major developments cross his path. One is that he is forced to take on newcommer Natalie (Anna Kendrick) under his wing, who has big ideas about revolutionizing the company with computer based firing but little knowledge about the intimate one-on-one touches in dealing with people directly. The other one is a complicated romantic situation with fellow frequent flyer Alex (Vera Farmiga).

As I said, this is a well crafted piece of entertainment that certainly shows the eye of a maturing filmmaker. This is only Jason Reitman's third feature film, following Thank You For Smoking and Juno, for which he never received much of the credit that instead went all to Diablo Cody. All three films seem to take rather dire situations and creates an endearing spin on them. Here, Reitman is able to take a depressing, ripped-from-the-headline premise and makes it funny and charming. He zips us around from place to place, never letting the pace get too muddled and presenting quite a keen eye as to what it takes to keep up with this story.

However, the story presents a bit of a problem. The script, co-written by Reitman and Sheldon Turner, based on the book by Walter Kim, seems divided as to which story it feels is more interesting. There's a big divide between the sentimental love story featuring a man afraid of commitment wanting to come around and the one about the analog player coming to terms in a digital world. The film can't decide which one is better, so it tries to take the best of both worlds and smushes them together. The downside to that is that the film is not able to develop one story enough to feel mature enough to be complete. What ends up happening is that the story tends to meander a bit and feels unfocused. Still, the script is still witty and insightful, even when it isn't sure which one it wants to be.

Clooney seems to embody every character he has played up until this point, and it showcases what I pretty much have thought since the beginning: Clooney is quite a limited actor. However, his lack in range is forgiven when he is able to play a character that augments his personality, which shines a realistic and credible light. Clooney gets that here, and while to an extent I think it's a same extension of what he's been doing before, he still shows that he does it quite well. Farmiga, on the other hand, is always given one new character after another, and it's nice to see her shine in such a role that allows her to be a mix of humorous and mysterious. Kendrick does play her role well, but I couldn't help but feel as if her character doesn't serve much use than to push Bingham to his next emotional cue. She plays it well, but it's a role with not much purpose. Other bit players like Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Zach Galifinakis and Danny McBride offer a little bit of smile in their limited roles as well.

I'm not going to jump and say this is the best film of the year (an honor I still hold to Precious at the moment), but I will say I was thoroughly entertained. The performances are all pretty good, and Reitman's direction keeps the film at a nice pace, even though the jokes only land in square spots in the plot that is divided in its attention. I do believe Reitman's films are getting better and better as they go along, and maybe one day I will agree on the film that everyone seems to love that eludes my extreme praise. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Brothers at Harms

Over the past couple of years, we've seen plenty of films dealing with the current war on terror, with many of them focused pretty much on Iraq. Some of them have been mild successes (Stop-Loss, Lions for Lambs), but most have been critical duds and box office disasters. The reason why these films keep failing is because many of them are centered on one political point and not paying much attention to the acting and the characters. This film steers clear of politics, but that isn't the only change in mind it has. This fight moves from Iraq to Afghanistan, rather fitting given the coincidental announcement of the US's surging involvement. This is also one that finds a lot of rich characters to drive an execution that is nowhere near flawless.

A remake of the 2004 Danish film Brødre, the brothers of the title are Sam (Tobey Magurie) and Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaa). Tommy is the black sheep in the family, recently released from jail after a bank robbery and attending the last meal at Sam's home before he is shipped off for a tour in Afghanistan. While there, his helicopter goes down, and the army declares him dead. To help the grieving family, Tommy tries to shape up by proving himself to his tough Marine father (Sam Shepard) and being an impromptu father figure in the home of Sam's wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and her two daughters. Then, the family discovers that Sam survived his ordeal, and he returns home a very changed and disturbed man.

Jim Sheridan is a director who seems most comfortable with intimate family dramas that deal with melodramatic circumstances. In those moments, that is where he seems to find the right amount of emotions to build up, and the interactions between the characters feel quite genuine and real. However, when the film jumps from the quiet family moments at home to the events that happen to Sam under captivity, the film comes to a halt and the emotions are flat. It would have made the film much better if David Benniof's script cut out those moments because they never feel like they gel with the rest of the film. Having that out of the film would give more mystery to Sam's psychosis and would have made the emotional climax at the end that more powerful. Sheridan does what he can with those war scenes, but they are obviously not his strong suit.

Of the three leads, this film obviously belongs to Maguire. He's an actor that has been given dramatic work outside of the Spider-Man franchise, such as other great turns in Seabiscuit and The Cider House Rules, but he's never been given characters outside the mousy and sheepish qualities they usually posses. Here, Maguire is finally given a character that offers quite the amount of depth and grand emotion. It's a performance that constantly demands much from him, and no matter what the key, Maguire delivers it in strides. Gyllenhaal does well in this role, but I think he's applied himself to much more charm and emotion is other roles and doesn't present the greatest foil to Sam. Portman does give her character enough feeling for the audience to sympathize with her, and she does well in her role. Supporting turns from Shepard and Mare Winningham are quite endearing, but one is a true scene stealer. Bailee Madison plays the oldest daughter, and it is quite amazing how much she is able to pull you into an emotional center not quite seen in child actors. It isn't flashy or contrived; it is real, grounded and credible in a way that has a difficult time reaching adult actors, let alone children.

This is a far from perfect film, as I think the pacing to the film is always jilted by the war scenes and not every emotional peak reaches the destination that is required, along with some odd musical cues from Thomas Newman's score. But the powerful performances save it from drowning, in particular the remarkable turns from Tobey Magurie and little Bailee Madison. We may very well get an onslaught of new modern war films that look into the war in Afghanistan. If we do, then I'd say they have a pretty good starting point here. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Fantastic Mr. Fox & A Christmas Carol

2009-11-29T17:27:00.001-06:00

Fox is a Hound

There are some animated films out there that are to be admired solely for their attempt to tell an interesting story without being confined to the shackles of misleading marketing. For instance, there was a small Australian film called Mary and Max that came out this year. Like this film, it's stop motion but is nowhere near kid friendly. I didn't think the film was magnificent, but I applauded its attempt to be a little edgier without dumbing itself down to appeal to kids. Only in America, it seems, are animated films always sold as family fare. With this film, the marketing makes it seem like its for the whole family, but with so much quirk and slow jokes, I have a hard time believing kids will go all out for it. I am not a small child, and even I grew restless with this often humorous and tedious exercise.

From the book by Roald Dahl to the offbeat interpretation of Wes Anderson, the film centers on Fox (George Clooney), an ambitious and sneaky chicken thief who promises to settle down into a normal job after his wife (Meryl Streep) announces she's pregnant. Fast-forward tow fox years, and Fox is working as a newspaper writer and living in a hole in the ground with his family, now added by son Ash (Jason Schwartzman). But across the fields, three big-top farmers and their hordes of livestock tempt Fox back into his illegal ways, until they turn on him.

I admit that I'm not the biggest Wes Anderson fan. I do admire the style of his films, but sometimes it's all a little too quirky for me, and it tends to cover up some rather shallow characters. Even though Anderson has never worked in animation before or adapted someone else's work, this film still retains the offbeat humorous edge that all his films comply with. Some of the humor is right on and delivers a smile or light chuckle, and all of it is aided by the great texture the old-school style of stop-motion. Most of it, though, doesn't register much and instead overindulges a bit on the fancy. The script by Anderson and Noah Baumbach (big fan of his since The Squid and the Whale) doesn't have much traction in providing a concrete storyline to invest in from beginning to end. Not every character works, but I will say the script does offer a fair amount of funny lines and surprisingly poignant moments balanced out with ones that offer little and make a film under 90 minutes feel quite long.

The voice acting here is actually quite good, and is almost a saving grace for the film. Clooney and Streep provide the right amount of humor and sorrow in their characters, and find the balance quite well. Schwartzman's quite sarcasm and snippy attitude attract much glee, as well as Eric Anderson as the cousin who comes to stay with the Foxs and gets begins a rivalry with Ash. Michael Gambon also has some nice time as the most notable farmer, and his voice always pierces through the dull moments of the screen. Other talent like Wally Walodarsky as a meek possum friend, Bill Murray as Fox's badger lawyer, Willem Dafoe as an antagonistic rat are not present enough to get a good sense of their importance. Their presence on screen is enlightening, but not too much depth to their personas.

I don't think this is a terrible film, and in some parts of it I think it's quite excellent. I like the voice talent behind the film, I like the look of it, and I even think it's quite funny in some parts. However, there's just too many moments of slow patches and uninspired humor for me to fully recommend the film. I do applaud Anderson and his company for trying something different with the animated genre, something I wish more people were willing to do. If that were the case, then we'd get movies that are a little different from the rest, but still offers something just as good as the live action stuff. It'll be a good day when animated films can be looked at as not just family films, but just films. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

A Christmas Gory

The hate now brewing inside the film loving community against Robert Zemeckis and his new found love of motion capture animation is extremely palpable. With every new announcement of an upcoming Zemeckis project, the haters seems to be ready to pounce directly on his doorstep and tear his ideas to shreds. I can't quite figure out why, but my guess is that they feel the animation doesn't look realistic, which is Zemeckis's intention. That's not really an issue for be because I recognize that it's animation and I don't go in looking for a realistic face. I look for an interesting story, which is something that Zemeckis's two previous films The Polar Express and Beowulf have been without. I can't say the same this time as Zemeckis is working off of a universally praised story and comes up with a thing or two that is really inventive.

Everyone should know of what is perhaps Charles Dickens's most famous story about the stingy old miser Ebenezer Scrooge and his Christmas eve visits from three spirits that send him on a change in character to become a merry philanthropist. Jim Carrey inhabits the role of Scrooge, as well as the three spirits that haunt him throughout the night. Also showing up are Gary Oldman playing Bob Cratchit and Marley, Colin Firth as Scrooge's more joyous nephew and Robin Wright Penn as Scrooge's long lost love from the past.

The number of Christmas Carol adaptations are countless (my favorites are the Disney animated one with Mickey Mouse's characters and the updated Scrooged with Bill Murray), but this one manages to offer something the previous incarnations don't have. This is perhaps the closest adaption to the book, and a lot of the power and creepiness is retained through Zemeckis's direction. He handles many of the silent moments quite well, and manages to showcase all the right moods when necessary, whether that be suspense from the ghosts or tenderness from the sadder moments. I do think Zemeckis lets his faithfulness get in the way a bit, and sometimes allows the dazzle of the animation to take over from the story, particularly in an extremely out of place chase scene during the third ghost's arrival. Still, I think Zemeckis is getting better with each new film.

Carrey's Scrooge is helped both by the animation and his performance, and both do well at their respective jobs. Scrooge is always going to be a familiar character, so while his character arc is predictable, it's still fascinating to watch his sunken features change as the story progresses. As the ghosts, Carrey also does a good job with them, though I think he piles on the Ghost of Christmas Present on a little too thick. The older version of Scrooge obviously had the most attention, and other characters seem to look like similar molds of the background players, with the exception probably going to Cratchit, who bears a good resemblance to Oldman. We're still at a point where it's difficult to judge a performance here as credit to the actor or the animator, but both tend to do their jobs well here.

Zemeckis still has a bit of a way to go with this technology, but he has come a long way from the creepy children's eyes in The Polar Express. It's difficult for a film like this to have many surprises, but it manages to pull off quite a few, as it manages to provide the same amount of emotion from the other incarnations as well as adding a level of genuine suspense that has never been achieved before, unless I just didn't see another film adaptation of this film in which Marley's jaw falls off; I could be mistaken. Maybe Zemeckis can finally get it right with his remake of Yellow Submarine. I doubt it, but one can dream. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: The Road

2009-11-28T20:53:00.001-06:00

The Road Not Taken

Leave it to Hollywood to continue their duality of films in the marketplace. It seems like there's always going to be one film out about a particular subject matter, and then not too long after that there's another one. Take 1997, for instance, when Dante's Peak was followed shortly after by Volcano. The following year saw a back-to-back double feature of Deep Impact and Armageddon. Now this year we have another one, another in the realm of fighting global disaster. There is this film and Roland Emmerich's schlock-tastic 2012. Between the two, one definitely has a bigger budget, one definitely has better acting, but only one is comfortable enough to sit through and waste a few hours of your life. Sadly, it isn't this one.

Based on the well renowned book by Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men), this is another tale of a close knit group of people surviving a planet that has been torn apart by a global apocalypse. The specific event is never shown, but it has left the face of the Earth a barren, gray toned wasteland with bleak skies and raging fires. Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee star as a father and son trekking their way to the coast, constantly trying to avoid the elements, staggering starvation and aggressive, cannibalistic groups of surviving humans. Charlize Theron pops up in flashbacks as Mortensen's wife before he left home.

I am thoroughly convinced that Mortensen is incapable of giving a bad performance. Every character he takes on has such an emotional well that he mines to perfection, no matter how large or small the part. Here is no exception, and he gives a tender and complex performance of a man not on a definite mission, but only to make sure his son stays alive. From Mortensen, he remains a man that isn't completely figured out, but we totally buy he strength and sensibility. McPhee doesn't soar in every scene he's in, but shows that he's capable of delivering an emotional side. Also, the makeup and cinematography are pretty good.

And that is about the extent of the praise I can give this film. The main fault of the film is that throughout all it's fantastically bleak looking visuals, there's not too much in the story that convinces you to stay through it. Director John Hillcoat and screenwriter Joe Penhall offer some great touches here and there, with the direction offering an interesting angle and the screenplay giving some nice conversational dialogue, but the whole thing never goes anywhere. It's very meandering and finally leads into a misanthropic mess. It looks good on the surface, but underneath it all, there isn't much as these two characters go from place to place with not much significance in between.

The one other major problem is related to the acting, and that is the connection between Mortensen and McPhee is never felt to the extreme that the film needs. The two are good in their own right, but the bond between father and son in extreme situations never pulls us into the story convincingly. Then, when an emotional peak is met at the end, it feels cheap and contrived rather than feeling touching. That lack of a connection is also felt between Mortensen and Theron, making a handful of those scenes feel like filler for an emotional reveal that is never felt. Robert Duvall shows up late in the film for a brief role as a blind man who crosses their path, but he feels wasted and more like an opportunity to show off the makeup budget.

I don't rely on the adage that one good performance can save an entire film (see my review for The Reader to reaffirm that). Despite the best efforts that Mortensen tries to put on the screen, the rest just doesn't hold up. The direction feels aimless and allows the film to become quite long winded, and the severe lack of emotional connections between the characters is the main reason why the film doesn't succeed. It's strange for me recommend a Roland Emmerich film with a phoned-in cast over one more ambitious and starring Viggo Mortensen. But I guess there's a first time for everything, a phrase that Hollywood hasn't heard in quite some time. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Review: An Education

2009-11-25T23:03:00.001-06:00

World Hues

This has been one of the most elusive and, conversely, sought after films of this year for me. For the life of me, I'm not certainly sure why. The premise for the film is certainly not something completely out of the ordinary and upon first glance, at least from the trailer, it looks like a pretty tame presentation. Well, after a month of bitching to myself, the film has finally arrived at an easily accessible theatre. This isn't groundbreaking cinema by any measure, but this is a mostly well crafted piece of filmmaking that offers an intriguing story flushed out by its equally enjoyable characters.

Budding new breakout star Carey Mulligan has the leading role of Jenny. Jenny is the only child in a middle class, British home in 1961. Her restrictive parents (Alfred Molina, Cara Seymour), as well as her literary school teacher (Olivia Williams) hammer into her a strict schedule of school, music and language so that it all can lead to a hopeful destination towards acceptance at Oxford. She begrudgingly goes along with their plans until she one day runs into the stranger David (Peter Sarsgaard) in the rain. From there, David introduces her to a world outside of rigorous study: a world filled with expensive dinners, lavish gowns and culture at every turn alongside David's friends Danny (Dominic Cooper) and Helen (Rosamund Pike).

Nick Hornby is a well known writer both in the literary and Hollywood circles, but he's mostly known in the latter because of the former. Many of Hornby's published works have been turned into films (About a Boy, High Fidelity, Fever Pitch), but Hornby hasn't had too much practice at actual screenwriting. Here, he gets the chance and allows the story to unfold into some rich areas. It's all a bit rushed and awkward at the beginning, the story wanting desperately to leave the exposition, but soon the right rhythm is set and breathing room is established for the characters to develop. Hornby offers that usual light, British charm but also allows the script to become a meditation on '60s rebellion, generational hypocrisy and personal conflicts.

However, while the screenplay falters here and there, while mostly succeeding, the direction has a hard time finding the right place to strike. This is Danish director Lone Scherfig's first English language film, and while I am not familiar with her body of work, there is something about the execution here that feels off. It's not simply the problems of the beginning's rushed pace or the film's unwillingness to give up near the end. It's more basic problems like continuity mistakes in the editing and scenery. While they are simple slip-ups, it takes you completely out of the film and starts you on a direction away from the story. I have to say the direction is the weakest part because it feels rather amateurish, which is sad to say of someone as accomplished as her. Perhaps the old adage "practice makes perfect" applies here.

Mulligan has been getting a lot of press for her performance, and it is certainly well served. While the twenty-three year old (at the time) actress doesn't always seem like a sixteen-year-old, she fortunately has the talent to make you believe in a young body that is forced to grow up very quickly even when she emotionally isn't at that stage. Mulligan does a fantastic job at capturing the paradoxical mixture of certainty and confusion that propels her forward. She doesn't hit a single wrong note in this performance. Sarsgaard fits comfortably with an English accent, and lets David become a figure whose charm is easy to be distracted by and never becomes someone to fear. The same goes a bit to Molina, whose fatherly figure is never cartoonishly cruel and even allows a great emotional complexity to sink in. There are also nice supporting performances from Cooper and Pike, with Cooper providing a good amount of subtext and intrigue in his performance to allow admiration and Pike providing a real scene stealer of a comedic turn.

It's certainly not a flawless film, and you can even see some of those flaws as the film is being shown in front of you. However, the film is most certainly saved by a terrific ensemble, that also includes a brief appearance by Emma Thompson as the school's headmistress, as well as a script that is equal parts deep sophistication and light wit. The one film that always seemed to escape my grasp has finally landed, and I have caught it. Now there's only about a dozen more before the end is out. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: 2012 & Pirate Radio

2009-11-15T18:27:00.001-06:00

Apocalypse Now and Again and Again

You know, I had almost given up hope on old Roland Emmerich. I thought that his heyday as a great action director from films like Independence Day and The Patriot were slowly coming to an end. The Day After Tomorrow was a mild success, but it really wasn't his success entirely. And then there was 10,000 BC, a film that was so bad that I thought for sure that this was the final nail in the coffin, and the deliverer of the news that Emmerich's time as the new "master of disaster" had passed. Well, it might still be true, as Emmerich has stated that this will be his last disaster epic. But if it truly is, then he has gone out with a definite bang in this cheesy, over-the-top piece of riveting popcorn entertainment.

Like most of these types of films, and what is probably the best callback to those '70s flicks, there are a plethora of melodramatic storylines among an assortment of characters that circle around the natural disaster. The disaster this time is the destruction of the earth itself that happens to fall right on the Mayan calendar's prediction of an apocalyptic end to occur on December 21, 2012. The pseudoscience tries to explain that intense particles of the sun's rays are internally heating up the earth's core which is causing the crust to become unstable and produce massive earthquakes. Then that causes the polarity of the poles to shift and with it even greater tremors which then all leads to massive tsunamis all over the world.

The many subplots concern an out of work writer (John Cusack) trying to save his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), her new boyfriend (Tom McCarthy) and his kids, the lone scientist (Chewitel Ejiofor) going up against cold hearted politicians like Oliver Platt, a Russian billionaire (Zlatko Buric) and his own efforts of survival, the president (Danny Glover) dealing with the strained relationship with his daughter (Thandie Newton) and a little bit of Woody Harrelson's wacky mountain man who knows all the hidden government hidden secrets.

This whole film is what Emmerich has worked all his career for. Our modern day Irwin Allen is hellbent on destroying the earth a thousand different ways, and he does so here in some really spectacular manner. But it's not just that the destruction is so descriptive, it's that it is deliberately over the top extravagance. There's something fascinating about Emmerich's unabashed imagination at destruction, and the result is several action scenes that are incredibly over the top but ultimately fascinating in their path of great destruction. Emmerich does indulge in a little too much exposition, some flawed character types and a third act that adds one malfunction after another when the film should be wrapping up. But so what, nobody says this was a perfect film.

This is also not a film about the acting, but I will say that it isn't atrocious. In fact, Cusack doing an autopilot performance still manages to squeak out the charm enough for us to get invested with him. The same goes for McCarthy, a sometime writer/director (he make The Visitor, which didn't have even a tenth of the budget on this one)Performances from Platt, Newton, and Ejiofor seem so serious and good that they're almost out of place in this film. Peet and Glover give disappointingly bland turns, but Harrelson seems to be the only one who's having fun with this ridiculous film, and his brief screentime is some of the film's most memorable.

The film is filled with flaws and cracks, and some of them are as the ones that tear through Los Angeles. But on the whole, this is what going to movies is about. That fun, entertaining thrill ride and takes the mind on a roller coaster of effects. Emmerich has delivered just that in all its glory. Just when I thought he couldn't do it anymore, Emmerich manages to pull it off one last time. He says this will be his last, but can we really imagine him doing a little indie drama? That might be just as harrowing. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Cast Away

There was a movie that came out earlier this year that not too many people saw. That was Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock. Now, I liked that film, but I know some others that weren't quite too fond of it. I can understand that viewpoint because many people wanted a light, breezy comedy that would be accompanied by the sweet classic sounds of the era. Instead we got a heavy dose of character study that was followed by a third act that was tethered by faintly heard music and too much melodrama. I dug a good deal of that film, but many didn't, as was reflected in its poor critical and box office reception. Quite similarly was this film in its native England back in April, when it was called The Boat that Rocked. Since that time, it was given a trim, slapped with a new name and put out in American cinemas. I don't know how it compares to the previous version, but this film ends up being quite a fun ride and everything that Ang Lee's film should have been.

It's 1966, and the authoritative rule of the British government has zeroed in on rock and roll music as the element that is corrupting the nation. One politician (Kenneth Branagh) is in charge of shutting down a broadcasting ship in the ocean that is away from most on the onshore regulatory laws. On board is the head American DJ "The Count" (Philip Seymour Hoffman), along with another well known English one (Rhys Ifan), the ship's actual captain Quentin (Bill Nighy), Quentin's godson Carl (Tom Sturridge), who is the main focal character of the film, as well as other nutty character actors like Tom Brooke, Rhys Darvey (from "Flight of the Concords"), and Nick Frost of Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz fame.

A big deciding factor as to whether or not you're going to like this type of film is if you love the music as much as the characters and filmmakers do. For me, I don't know if I'm willing to die in a fight for The Hollies, but make it the Rolling Stones and The Who, maybe so. Needless to say that the music from this era has been part of my life for a long time, and the soundtrack is full of nostalgic energy (though there are a strange number of references to the Beatles without their catalogue being heard). Still, the film is also quite funny, and writer-director Richard Curtis's well placed blend of quirky humor among a sea of sophisticated accents keeps the film afloat.

Well, most of the time it does. Despite the trim, the film still carries on longer than it should, particularly at the end when the ship meets an unfortunate accident. The sequence is well shot, but feels overly dramatic and out of place when next to the light comedy that came before it. That scene also goes on too long. As well, the motivation behind Branagh's actions never seem quite clear, and he's seems to only exist as an uncompromising, square authority figure to rebel against. On the one hand, it's nice that the film doesn't get bogged down in elaborate details of the specifics on the government's issue and creates a real mindset that the '60s were really about just standing up against who was in charge. At the same time, it makes the fight to stand up have little value when the stakes aren't really made clear. It's a win some, lose some approach that falters the film slightly.

Everyone in this cast contributes quite well, and it comes close to breaking the normal comedy rule that one person is the showman while everyone else stands around doing their best to keep up. It almost does, but the singling out has to go to Nighy, with his light attitude and always on the mark responses. The rest from Hoffman, Branagh, Ifan and particularly Frost all have their moments of comedic showcase and add a great deal to the film. As the central character of the film, Sturridge plays the part well, but his character presents a fault. He's not the most interesting character on this ship, and it's a bit of a shame when the film deliberately wants to make him be that. His struggles of searching for his long lost father are not interesting, and when we get a cameo by Emma Thompson, who plays his mother, the film really feels like it comes to a halt.

The film's has got some faults in it, for sure, but most of the film achieves what it sets out to do. It's a nice, breezy comedy that equally indulges on the laugh track and the soundtrack. If anything, you should see the film for the music and Bill Nighy's wonderfully comedic turn, as well as some other members in that very talented cast. I don't expect Ang Lee to take any notes from this film, but he probably should. But then again, Curtis should also take some notes from Lee whenever he decides to hit it heavy on the drama again. That would be a win-win in my book. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: Precious

2009-11-08T22:31:00.001-06:00

Harlem Nights

I remember first seeing the trailer for this film and not being too enthused about seeing it. The story of an inner-city black youth dealing with a destructive home and encountering the few adults that decide to take an interest in her was a premise that always seemed present in the trailers, and to me it was just another story about peering into the downtrodden life of a black teenager. It's a story that has been done before, and I was skeptical that I would respond to it. Then the buzz from Sundance started to grow, and I became a little more interested, but was still wondering how a movie that seemed this predictable was able to garner so much acclaim. Upon finally viewing the film, I finally understood why so many people had latched onto this truly emotional and powerful film.

As the subtitle to the film clearly states, this is based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire, and it tells the story of Clairice "Precious" Jones, played by newcommer Gabourney Sidibe. Precious is overweight, illiterate, poor and has two children, both fathered by her own father. Her mother (Mo'Nique) is a monstrous woman who physically and emotionally abuses Precious with frying pans and degrading remarks about her image, along with the insistence to get her to get welfare. After Precious is kicked out of school, she attends a special class to help with her reading. There is where she meets the teacher (Paula Patton) who is the one who takes a liking to her.

What's particularly amazing about this film is that it continually allows you to get invested in the extreme melancholy of this world without it feeling too manipulative. There's a rich blend of forceful and delicate touches that director Lee Daniels institutes for this film. Daniels is most known for producing Monster's Ball, but I did not respond so warmly to that film as others. However, this is an effort that finds a much more sympathetic leading character and earns every heart-wrenching moment through a character that doesn't beg for that sympathy. That is the real key.

Newcommer Gabourney Sidibe is really amazing in this role. Her relatable persona and upbeat personality in the face of such horror is the real spirit of the film, and she infuses the film with an incredible amount of believability. She is funny, charming, depressing, and hopeful all at the same time. As the horrific mother, Mo'Nique has been getting a lot of press. I don't want to oversell her performance, but I do think she's very good in a role that requires you to despise her throughout and try to get some sympathy by the end. It might totally succeed, but she does a truly remarkable job at providing so much energy to a hateful person. And that is more than I thought I would ever say about the person who starred in Soul Plane and Phat Girlz. There are also nice supporting players from Patton, the many schoolmates in Precious's class, and even Mirah Carey in a deglamoured role as the social worker and far away from Glitter.

There are some times when this film comes dangerously close to histrionic melodrama. However, just when it's about to get to that point, it settles down and offers the drama to then unfold in the energy of the performances. Sidibe, Mo'Nique, their incredible cast and Daniels have to take credit for that. This is a film that may not look like much on the surface, but draws you into the many layers it hides. What is there is humor, tragedy, hope and what will probably end up being my favorite film this year. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Review: Where the Wild Things Are

2009-10-22T00:36:00.000-05:00

Wild at Heart

This film probably has the second greatest magic trick seen in film this year, right next to The Hangover's ability to make people believe that it was a successful comedy. Upon the very first glance, there's an assumption that a film based on a literally paper-thin source material might not meet the challenge of offering a film that is stimulating to the adult mind. Then, when you actually dive into the film itself, there's an uneasy pace about it that shifts dramatically from scene to scene, and it is a mystery if the film will ever find the right tone of consistency. But then, with a slight of hand and a bit of flash, the trick is pulled off. You suddenly start being pulled into this emotionally rich world that offers a buffet of topics to invest in. All this is done without you realizing what has happened, and you fall in love with ever second of the piece. It's perhaps one of the greatest tricks a film can pull off, and I'm glad to say that it has been successfully done here.

Maurice Sendak's uber-classic 1963 children's story has now become basic reading in almost every young child's library. There's hardly a person I know that isn't aware of the young, restless boy named Max, whose naughty behavior sent him to a fantastical island where giant creatures roamed. That incredibly simple story is the premise for this more complex storyline, which finds Max (played by the aptly named Max Records), the youngest sibling in what appears to be a divorced home. After a huge spat with his Mother (Catherine Keener), he runs away and finds a boat. That boats takes him across huge ocean waves and eventually to the island filled with those monsters. But here, they have personalities, like the ostracized little goat Alexander (voiced by Paul Dano), the couple in love Ira (Forest Whitaker) and Judith (Catherine O'Hara), the collective second-in-command Douglas (Chris Cooper) and the de facto leader Carol (James Gandolfini), who proclaims Max their king.

The question has been asked whether or not this is a children's film. I'd say yes and no, but that is a brilliant line that Spike Jonze walks on. It is true that the rather dark presentation of the monsters at times, particularly their very expressive faces, and the fact that most of the book's readers are adults now suggest that this is meant more for nostalgia. Jonze delivers well on that note. However, he also creates a world that seems through a child's gaze: most of the shots are at Max's eye level, and the sometimes erratic pace gives a parallel to a child's own ever changing emotions. The balance is well found through Jonze's direction.

It's particularly amazing how Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers have managed to take a sort of nothing story and turned it into a rich piece. The answer to that is they have not dumbed down their film to make it overly simple. Every emotional peak that appears within those few sentences of the story are revealed here, but they carry so much more emotional weight because the story has allowed the time and personalities to flourish. Jonze and Eggers have done the greatest service: paying respect to the source without being shackled by it.

Max is a very difficult character to try and pull off, and there are times in the beginning when it doesn't seem like Records lives all the way up to that challenge. Then, when he arrives at the island, he pulls you into a strong emotional core, made all the more impressive because he is conversing with creatures that physically cannot converse back. It's one of the few remarkable child performances that doesn't feel gimmicky. Also, every voice actor is perfectly cast here, and I wouldn't change any one of them. Dano's trademark shy voice works perfect for Alexander, Cooper's authoritative tone compliments Douglas's organized personality, and Gandolfini breathes every emotion he can into Carol and makes us care for him. Every outburst feels genuine, and the amazingly subtle visual effects for facial movements on large monster suits add to the wonderment.

I admit that I was a little weary in that first part, and I'm still not convinced it all works there. However, once the film gets going, it completely pulled me in, and before I knew it, I was laughing, happy, and depressed at all the right moments, and it all felt genuine to the film. Spike Jonze and his company should receive high praises for their work here (are you listening, Oscar?). They have taken a work that's as bare as bone and used it to create a world that I found just as complex as the so-called "real one" outside. Mr. Jonze continues to show that he is one of the industry's best magicians, and his latest effort, I think, is his best trick yet. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Review: A Serious Man

2009-10-10T18:40:00.000-05:00

Chosen Cones

In my humble opinion, I do not believe the Coen brothers can make bad very often. In fact, there's only one film of theirs that is fundamentally bad, and that would be The Ladykillers. Even one of their least involving films for me, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, still manages to impress at the very least on a technical scale. Lately the Coens struck gold, literally, with their 2007 Oscar guzzler No Country for Old Men and reclaimed their status as ace filmmakers after getting a little shaky post-The Big Lebowski. Even Burn After Reading is an underrated gem that makes a great companion piece to their greatest film Fargo. While thematically this film and that other masterpiece don't have that much in common, they do go together well because this film is the best since Fargo, and I'm well aware that glosses over the so-called Best Picture.

Part semi-autobiography, part reinterpretation of the Bible's Book of Job, the film circles around Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg). He's a normal man trying to deal with some abnormal circumstances happening in his life. His wife (Sari Lennick) wants a divorce and a spiritual divorce so she can remarry a family friend, so he moves out to a second rate motel. His application for tenure as a college professor is in jeopardy. A Korean student (David Kang) who attempted to bribe Larry for a passing grade is potentially suing him for defamation. Larry eccentric relative (Richard Kind) refuses to get his life together and stays in his home. All in the days leading up to his son's bar mitzvah. To try to cope with all of these escalating problems, Larry tries to seek out a trio of mysterious rabbis.

As good as a film No Country for Old Men is, I have to admit that it does not have a great amount of re-watch value. It's a style you get used to after a while, and the power of the filmmaking isn't retained. This film feels so packed with subtle plot points and nuanced character moments that there feels like there's a treasure trove of elements to discover. The Coen brothers set up the framework quite well, and their inventiveness with the camera continually draws the audience in. They perfectly capture the mid '60s feel, and their world is completely believable and credible, and that is an appreciative effort.

What also tends to happen in some Coen brothers films is that there is an accusation of them looking down at their characters and mocking them. That can be true to an extent, but on the whole, the characters that populate the film feel fleshed out and never exist solely on a caricature level. Also, in order to really appreciate the story, a basic knowledge of the story of Job's terrible plight. Having that in the back of your mind allows you to see some of the strong and subtle parallels to such a famous tale, and it is intriguing to see how the Coens transform the story and take it to interesting areas. On a note about the story, this does have an abrupt ending like No Country, but having the knowledge about Job gives you a better appreciation about that where the story ends and a realization that anymore would be overindulgent.

Stuhlbarg doesn't give a mind-blowing performance, but he fortunately doesn't sleepwalk through this role either. He presents a grounded character who feels believable enough for us to become invested in his struggles. Other members of the ensemble also deliver, like Lennick's deadpan aggressiveness and Kang's monotone aura. Kind is an endearing character, but I will lament that his character feels so limited that I would either have preferred him to have a more prominent role or be eliminated completely. Also, Kind is an actor who portrays the slightly different variations on the same character. However, he does it very well.

There are small quibbles I have with the film, such as Kind's character and the story meandering at some points, but they really shy in comparison to the many great things about this film. It is one in which the Coens put the ultimate faith in their characters, and it has a nice payoff. The story is fascinating, the execution is flawless and the ensemble truly delivers. I am of the honest opinion that this is the Coens' best film since Fargo, and I'm not ashamed to say that it is better than No Country. Unlike that film, this is one I want to watch many times over. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: Capitalism & Bright Star

2009-10-07T22:34:00.001-05:00

Capital Punishment

There are some figures throughout the world where the simplest way to describe them is their own name. Nothing seems to better sum up Michael Moore than the statement, "Michael Moore is Michael Moore." With that, you already know all the baggage that comes with that name: all the controversy, criticism, genius, entertainment and all the mixed emotions you can handle fall squarely in front of Moore's doorstep. His latest film is no different, and it is like most of his others. There's always some things you have to take with a grain of salt, but overall, Moore creates another compelling documentary that if any is bound to stir the conversation.

After tackling such big subjects as the GM Corporation, gun control, healthcare, and the entire Bush Administration, Moore now goes after a pretty broad topic, that of what the title blatantly tells is capitalism. Moore's thesis is that capitalism is an economic system that invites greed and corruption so easily that it is inherently evil and must be removed. What it is to be replaced with, Moore never really says, but gives examples such as numerous banking methods such as foreclosing on the homes of those barley making ends meet by jacking up monthly payments, taking life insurances out on employees so that when they die the bank inherits the payment, and cutting off final paychecks from a Chicago window making company that led to a famous sit-in and reversal of decision.

The one thing that has always clouded Moore throughout his career is that his documentaries have a difficult time being sincere, which is where they are the most effective. His first film, Roger & Me, still remains his best film because it wasn't about attacking partisan issues but more so about distinguishing between the social problems dealing with what is right and what is wrong. After getting muddled a bit with Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 (my least favorite of his documentaries), he seems to be getting back to that. Moore goes for more of a mouthpiece of mostly the poor, nearly bypassing the middle class. It is a move that shows a lot more compassion and credibility for Moore's arguments, and he continually presents thought provoking ideas usually dressed with really great comedic set ups (there's one involving Ronald Regan early in the film that is really funny).

However, the film isn't without the usual "Michael-Mooreisms" that detract from some of the film's credibility. Moore still paints his canvass with a far left brush, and his imbalanced attacks on Republicans versus Democrats don't give the biggest and fairest picture. Moore continues to be very manipulative in this piece, as his trademark moves of being shunned by security guards and getting close-ups on crying family members start popping up within the first ten minutes of the film. Also, Moore's coverage of that famous Chicago sit-in also has some shaky credibility because it seems a little too coincidental that Moore and his camera crew just happened to have insider access to this group just before they decided to protest. The film is still filled with Moore's usual tactics that often make him one of the most despised filmmakers working today, and sometimes this is justified.

Still, in the end, this is a wonderfully put together film that I would argue is Moore's best since his debut feature. The reason isn't really because of his message because, in the end, Moore doesn't really have a clear one to begin with. Eliminating capitalism won't solve what Moore's discussing, but that's a political conversation not needed here. What the film does offer is a plea that seems to be limited on partisan bias and even asks its own audience to join the revolution while more depressing economic tidbits run across the ending credits. It is true that, whether you love him or hate him, Michael Moore is Michael Moore. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Dead Poet's Society

I’ll admit that there are a few genres out there that I’m not the biggest fan of. The most notable for me is the modern romantic comedy, for which very few films have been made an exception. However, another genre that has difficulty in getting me invested would be the period piece, specifically the one set in Victoria England. There aren’t many films that take place during this time that I find fascinating or even willing to have be believe in their hollow characters that fill out the fluffy costumes. Even last year’s The Duchess had only one believable character (Ralph Fiennes). When it comes to this film, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on the characters, which is a huge plus concerning this often pretentious genre.

This is a tale of famous romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), who like all poets of his time was critically panned in life, but is now almost universally praised years after his death at the untimely age of twenty-five of tuberculosis. During his short time, he worked alongside a fellow poet named Brown (Paul Schneider) and struck a passionate love affair with an admirer, his neighbor Faye Brawne (Abbie Cornish). Their affair would last the final three years of Keats’s life.

What normally happens in these types of films is that there is more of an emphasis on the art design of the film and that leads to the films having very weakly developed characters that only pad the space between the sets and costumes. However, writer-director Jane Campion does something very different here. She keeps the scope rather limited and maintains a strong focus on Keats and Brawn. Because of this, there is time to flesh out the qualities of these characters, and they think and behave in believable ways. Campion’s script is witty, enthralling and passionate. While her direction is not quite as tight as her screenplay, she still does an admirable job at creating a world that feels real and credible enough for us to seek out the emotions in.

Whishaw is good enough in his part, although I do admit that it does seem like he’s striking the same chord with this character scene after scene. His speech or ideas never change and he seems like the caricature of the thin, pale, sickly looking writer. Still, he does present a charming character that we feel like is very easy to fall in love with. Beautifully opposite him, Schneider’s poet is crass and rude, but never feels forced to do so. His performance strikes all the right enough notes of a man frustrated with the conditions around him and the happier life that has been bestowed on his friend that has eluded him. He’s never totally nice, but you never believe him to be a cartoonish bully.

However, this movie really belongs to Cornish. She always presents a delicate amount of energy and passion when she moves across the screen. There is never a sense of overindulgence in her character, and she always strikes the right balance of forceful independence, love struck schoolgirl, and wildly depressed faux widow in equal proportion. Cornish is the key to the film’s success; she’s endearing and passionate, and hopefully that will translate into an Oscar nomination.

While there are many things to admire about this film, I would still point out some flaws that do hinder the picture a bit. Not every character is realized quite as well as Keats, Brawne and Brown. Faye’s younger sister, in particular, never quite seems necessary beyond her role as a comedic annoyance for Faye. I also think this movie on more than one occasion believes the word’s from Keats’s poetry are more powerful than the images, and a lingering shot of Faye’s funeral march for Keats loses some power when it drags for what seems to be as long as the third act itself is.

Still, this is a really remarkable film that genuinely surprised me at how much I ended up enjoying it. Cornish’s beautiful performance is the key ingredient here, but most of her co-stars and a very compassionate execution from Campion add to her contributions. I know there are many out there who have the same reservations toward this genre that I do. However, I urge you to take the chance because you’ll be pleasantly pleased. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: Zombieland & Paranormal Activity

2009-10-04T17:08:00.000-05:00

Land of the Lost

To be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of the zombie movie, whether that be the serious or comedic genre. I admit that George Romero's original 1968 Night of the Living Dead is a very chilling film that was effective at striking a very disturbing nerve. But aside from that, the genre has never quite hooked me because eventually, you figure out the formula and it all becomes quite predictable. To try and combat that, movies today have to turn that idea on its head in order to seem relevant. For me, Shawn of the Dead is a slightly overrated work and if you go back and look at 28 Days Later, it's not technically a zombie movie. Movies like the former are now a common method to make a current zombie movie, and it sometimes is hit or miss. That certainly sums up this film which has some good things clashing with some not so good things.

You know the set-up: humanity has been obliterated by a widespread disease that turns ordinary people into flesh-eating creatures of the night. As always, there are sparse survivors, and here all given names that describe their destinations. Jesse Eisenberg is Columbus, whose neurotic behavior and detailed checklist of survival tips has led him out of one dangerous situation after another. He meets fellow survivor Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a brass bully-type whose meant to be the foil to Columbus's meekness. They also cross paths with a clever, untrustworthy sister team, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin).

The first half of this film was actually really bothersome to me. The comedy never finds a great beat to follow, and the tone radically bounces back from campy humor to wound up terror. Director Ruben Fleischer and co-writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick have a hard time setting up a world to get invested in even with the surreal circumstances that have already been established. Then at the midpoint, a high profile star is introduced (you can go to the IMDb page if you want to know), and it introduces a deep breath of fresh comedic talent that is really effective. It is also the point where the tones transition more fluidly, and the emotional connections these characters have feel genuine. It's a shame it takes half of the film to get to that point, but once it passes, it really shows.

Eisenberg is sort of a poor man's Michael Cera, which is a label I don't like because he's insanely more talented than him. Here, he doesn't give a tremendous performance, but he possesses enough likable charm to take the lead in this role, and he is a relatable enough character for us to follow. Some of Harrelson's mannerisms seem like broad strokes, but he does deliver enough laughs. Really the best person here is Stone, who always brings charm and energy into every scene she's in, and supporting roles in Superbad and The Rocker.

Even though I didn't love Shaun of the Dead, it is without a doubt a much funnier and smarter film than this is. There are some good laughs, genuine thrills and one or two endearing emotional scenes that try their best to overcompensate for a rocky first half. Without a doubt this is not the zombie film that is going to get me invested in this genre. However, I will lament it is a noble effort. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Ghost Hunters

There's been a lot of buzz building that concerns this film. It's been an interesting process that started with the film being released in select thirteen cities. Then the word of mouth grew to such a positive strength that the studio decided to handle the release of this film a little differently. Regular people go to the film's website and "demand" it come to their cities. After a while, it finally came to Chicago, and I saw this film in a packed midnight showing, no doubt alongside many other patrons who heard the same things about this film. Like most things in life, it is the victim of some overhyping. However, that doesn't mean there are many things to admire here.

In a bare bones approach, the only leads here are Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micha (Micha Sloat). They're a seemingly normal couple who are living together but have been bothered by some unusual goings-on. Katie is convinced that it is part of a long history of disturbing, unnatural occurrences that have been following her throughout her whole life. Micha, being the skeptic, brings out the camera to try and record these events to see if something beyond the ordinary truly is going on. Needless to say, they experience something one more than one occasion.

This is meant to be a minimalist effort, and in today's world of Saw's numerous sequels that rely so heavily on blood and gore, it is really comforting to see a film rely on minor tricks in order to suggest an audience participate in its suspenseful mood. Writer-director Oren Peli does a very good job at creating tension using low rumbling sounds and moving objects, and it's always fun to participate in the collective stress of an audience. The two leads in this film are also grounded enough to seem believable, and their plights do connect.

Even with all those elements that are adding to this film, the entire project itself feels very underdeveloped. This was a film shot for $11,000 and was intended to be remade. I'd actually be in favor of a remake because, as it stands now, it feels more like an outline for a feature film. The night after night presentations, though effective, start to wear out eventually, and the character of Micha especially behaves in a way that is naive and moronic, and is incredibly unlikable. Also, the handheld digital camera look feels less like a mean to be natural to the plot and more an excuse to cover up their tiny budget. I would actually be in favor of a remake because I think it would allow these characters to become more developed and the pacing to become better stated to bring in the suspense.

This isn't a really great horror film, and in fact the amateurish look of the film gets in the way of it becoming that. The characters are only mildly developed and the premise does hold onto enough steam by the end. But it is a really special thing that has been presented here. This is a film that relies a lot on showing very little, and that is an element in horror films that is going away and it should be applauded for that effort alone. I think there's room to develop, but as it stands now, it's a good effort that does part of its job quite well. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Surrogates & Jennifer's Body

2009-09-27T17:22:00.000-05:00

Body Hatchers

Today, it seems that whenever Bruce Willis appears in a film, the barometer to use in gauging how much one likes the film is the use of his hair. Willis's hair seems to be always a curious case, and it really can't be decided which look is better for him. What does seem to be the case is that those films which showcases his clean shaven scalp seem to do better at the box office and score mostly high marks with the critics (i.e. Live Free or Die Hard and What Happened?). But, when he's forced into wearing an off-putting rug or even growing his own, the films tend to be duds (A Perfect Stranger, 16 Blocks, Alpha Dog, and others, though Sin City is an exception). Here we get the best of both worlds in a film that isn't without its flaws but is actually an interesting premise to digest.

Based on a graphic novel, the film finds a familiar sci-fi setup. In the future, a corporation has created lifelike avatars that have now semi-permanently replaced all human interaction. Willis plays a detective who, along with his partner Rhada Mitchell, investigates the destruction of two surrogate robots that also resulted in the deaths of their operators. His probing leads to an underground human resistance, led by a dreadlocked Ving Rhames, a super powerful weapon, and a philosophical exploration on humanity.

That last part is something that has been seen in other science fiction films, but I always consider it an interesting proposition. The ideas behind the film are continually stimulating, and it is interesting how director Jonathan Mostow plays off those ideas. He allows the surrogates to appear in a slicked up, almost plastic manor in their buffed skins and lifeless eyes in a way that feels convincing, while doing the opposite physique of the actual humans. Mostow does a lot better job at hinting at bigger ideas than he did with the third Terminator installment. Although his action scenes don't stack up quite as well as some did in Terminator 3, one can still get a good enough sense of sequences that are well staged and admire their intentions. But this film's strong suit is its ideas.

Unfortunately, those ideas aren't always translated will by the script. Writers Michael Ferris and John Brancato feel rather lazy in their efforts to explain the plot in huge, painstakingly long monologues that spell out key plot events as if an audience couldn't figure it out on its own. The last act in particular, when everything has to fall in place, is really a drag and the final reveal seems a bit much and overindulges on a not-so-subtle hint of our current humanity.

I actually think Willis is quite good in a duel role here, even though he's cashing in his usual deadpan deliveries crossed with his mean stare. With all that, Willis is still an actor that brings energy to the screen (most of the time), and it's quite easy for the detective story to unfold and the dissecting journey to begin. Other players like Mitchell, Rhames, James Cromwell as the shadowy creator of the robots and Rosmunde Pike as Willis's wife do enough to hold their scenes in order to not bring the movie down but also not make the film anymore better by their participation. Except for Jack Noseworthy. I don't know why, but his presence always seems to light up a room in whatever film he's in, no matter how small the role. It's nothing major, but just something to be said.

The film has many seeds that could have grown into a really thought provoking film that also entertained on a sizable level. Some of those things are there in the premise and some action sequences. However, most of the movie is territory that we've already seen before and its been executed in better ways. The script is weak, the acting is passable but at least the direction seems solid enough. I can't fully recommend this film, but I think that if it ever passes your Netflix queue, you might find something of solace within a somewhat empty framework. But when it's over, there might be more of a disappointment than surprise. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Soul Food

The story of Diablo Cody could pretty much be separated into two contrasting descriptions. For those who admire Cody, she's the embodiment of the Cinderella story: a girl who wasn't born into the business but broke-out on her own with a witty script that caused all of America to fall in love with her plucky attitude. With all that, she even garnered an Academy Award and receiving vindication at such an early stage. Those who aren't fans relate her as a self-conscious, self-referential hipster whose dialogue feels like it's force fed indie quirk pulled the wool over the eyes of those who are less intellectual than the ones who liked There Will Be Blood. Then she took an Oscar without having to pay the dues of many other talented writers who have yet to receive such an honor. Cody's a polarizing figure indeed, but that shouldn't stop anyone from disliking her latest effort.

The Jennifer, as we all know by now, is the very attractive Megan Fox in one of those simple, generic, small Midwestern towns. Jennifer is the "it" girl at school, and her best friend is Needy (Amanda Seyfried), the geeky girl that still has no trouble having a boyfriend in Chip (Johnny Simmons). Jennifer and Needy are inseparable as friends and attend a small concert at the town's bar, whose lead singer is Adam Brody. But a fire at the bar confuses the two, and Jennifer is led to the band's van and they drive off. The next day, Jennifer arrives seeming much different. Her personality is always upbeat, she isn't always looking glowingly pretty, and she's possessed by a demon that needs to feed on flesh to survive.

I admit that I had some problems with Juno, but it was mainly that first twenty minutes when the dialogue tried too hard to be quirky and original. After that, the tone was brought down and that, plus Ellen Page's performance, saved it. Now if you take that first twenty minutes and make it an entire film, then you have Cody's screenplay to this film. There's no longer a sharp edge because the script is trying to cover several bases at the same time. It wants to mock horror films, teenage soaps, hormone manipulated relationships, and even indie, Emo rock bands. All good subjects, but not congeal well within the story, and the humor meanders without any consistency. When an intelligence level can't be reached, Cody reverts back to that hipster language that gets tiresome rather quickly.

Many have noticed a trend in which male writers are creating interesting stories for men to interact with one another but have been shallowing on providing the same level of sophistication for their women characters. This is true, but Cody is also guilty of the opposite. Her female characters are more complex, or have the possibility to be more complex, than their male counterparts. Michael Cera was almost treated as an afterthought, and all the boys in this film can be manipulated by the very mention of that three lettered word. There isn't a lot of confidence in the male characters here, and it allows the screenplay to cater to the female audience, and even that doesn't deliver enough.

As much as there are faults in the screenplay, the aimless direction by Karyn Kusama is not helping the case either. In short, it's completely flat and almost uninterested in its subjects. The pace is never set to a regular beat, and the sequences that call for action in particular are poorly staged. That fire at the bar is so badly shot and covered, that is feels like a fantasy sequence. That is true for most parts of the film. Kusama can get in a good suspense scene every now and again, but by the time the seventeenth false reveal shows up, our nerves do not become racked so easily.

Now I don't know what can be said of Megan Fox that hasn't already been said. She's very attractive; we get it. But it seems like the movie either doesn't or believes its audience is too stupid to get it. Every scene is a showcase of Fox's beauty, but never once her talent as an actress, if she even has any. She never makes Jennifer an appealing character, even one on a villainous vixen level. Seyfried also gives some charm, and she's quite a good actress (I adore her on Big Love). But most of the time she' just meant to be the kind protagonist and a foil for the evil Jennifer, who by the way, when it comes to be much talked about same-sex kiss between the two, acts completely out of character in a moment that is only meant to bring in the guys. Brody and an oddly placed J.K. Simmons score some laughs, but their jokes wear thin as well. The only redeeming character here is Chip. He's the only one who seems written for another movie, and thus the only one we can really relate to. Simmons isn't really out of place, but he's more like the only voice of reason in a film that isn't smart enough to self parody. He's literally the only likable character, and I wish there was more of him here.

I try to mix a little of both of those origin stories when I think of Diablo Cody, but all of that doesn't matter with this film. It's sloppy, poorly crafted, mediocrely acted and feels completely false. One or two good characters and a couple of frights are certainly nowhere near enough to like a movie. One might say it's enough to dislike it, and I'd agree. Another Cody creation deals with another catastrophic personality, but it actually manages to find people who seem relatable, and no matter how outrageous their problems grow, it always seems like their tethered to the ground. Showtime's The United States of Tara is a great example of that. This is not. ** / ****; GRADE: C

Reviews: The Informant! & Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

2009-09-20T22:15:00.001-05:00

Whistle-blowhard

There are few filmmakers who have had such a career as Steven Soderbergh. This is a guy who has had ups and downs, but always has an agenda. Even while most people like to say he's wasting his time with the ultra-slick Ocean's remake franchises, he uses the paychecks from those to pay for his ambitious, more intimately detailed smaller projects, usually shot on digital video and employing non-actors. The look of this film resembles his more polished films, as does his plethora of accomplished and well known actors here. However, what results is not something that is enjoyable even on a level that is respectable for this often tedious filmmaker.

Matt Damon, an Ocean's favorite, has the lead role of Mark Whitacre, a high level management guy working for Archer Daniels Midland, a huge agricultural company that specializes in lysine, a food additive. Among some of Mark's daily activities are checking in on the plants, going over the finances, and participating in illegal activities such as receiving kickbacks and sitting in on the company's scheme to meet with competitors in order to engage in price fixing. More so pushed by his wife (Melanie Lynskey), Mark turns informant for the F.B.I., and mainly reports back to two agents (Scott Bakula and The Soup's Joel McHale). But it doesn't take long for the F.B.I. to get suspicious of Mark, and he yo-yos his allegiance to the government and his company.

Some out there may not think I'm the foremost expert on Soderbergh, and I don't claim to be. I mean, I'm the guy who liked The Good German and Ocean's 13. I also think those were better movies as well. For as many problems as those films had, you could see the agenda and the considerable follow through. The Good German wanted the nostalgic style to overwhelm the senses and the caper film wanted to be a slick, ubercool, overindulgent piece of Hollywood schlock. For what its worth, I liked them. Here, Soderbergh's tone is never fully realized, and the pace of the film is often irregular, making the movie seem longer than it is. There's never anything that makes the film come alive off the screen, and it is not helped by the way Soderbergh has shot this (done under his pseudonym Peter Andrews). There's a sterile look to the film that traps the energy and dispels it.

Those faults are also translated to Scott Burns's screenplay, which becomes another in a long line of films to struggle at the attempt to make white collar crimes interesting. There are films that can pull that off, but those are examples where the crime was a means to showcase the characters. Burns's screenplay has little concern for the characters here, and there is hardly a trait that is recognizable to anyone. Every interaction lays still in a flat execution; there is nothing intriguing about these people. They all seem flat, boring and expressionless in the face of the plot's overly complicated structure. The one element of the script that is interesting is when we get these random narrations by Whitacre often about mundane topics. Those are fascinating because they give us insight into the personality of this character, something the rest of the film lacks.

On that note, the one standout would be Damon. We all know he's a good actor, and it is refreshing to seem him take on such an unlikely character. His conviction to this guy is compelling at times, often leading to moments of quick and intelligent humor that can transition well to his thought provoking analyses on life. However, Damon has ultimately been given a character who is uninteresting most of the time, and many times you can see Damon struggling to find enough freshness to bring to the character. With that, all the other characters circle around Damon looking like cardboard cut outs, giving hardly anything to this premise to make it worthwhile to watch.

I was tempted to give a slight pass to this film because of how Soderbergh operates. He isn't always looking for the approval of others, but wants to make a project he has faith in. Even his most frustrating films have a passion behind them. That is missing here as everyone seems to just wander around the film's premise with nobody actually diving into the water and find the treasure. The only one who tries is Damon, and I did appreciate that. But all the other elements, including the incredibly distracting score from Marvin Hamlisch that feels like a redone score to The Sting. I don't always expect to love every Soderbergh film, but I expect to have more admiration for his passion than I do with this one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Meat n' Greet

Usually, there is one animated film that generally impresses me in how well it is not only able to tell an interesting story that I can get invested in, but of course provides a great visual spectacle as well for me to gawk at. In the past, these films have included many well known Pixar additions like The Incredibles (still my favorite of theirs), WALL-E, Ratatouille and Fining Nemo along with some non Pixar movies like Monster House and even this year's Coraline. Here is another opportunity for an animated film to try and achieve that, and I can tell you it doesn't hit anywhere near those levels. However, what I can say is that given my low expectations for the film, this actually turned out to not be quite as bad as I imagined it would be. In fact, I thought it was quite enjoyable and a nice surprise.

Based off of the literally paper thin children's book of the same name, the film adaptation centers around the ambitious inventor Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader) living in the ultra-tinny island named Swallow Falls (I'd have gone with a different title given the film's dozens of unintentional double entendres concerning meat). Most of Flint's inventions never come to their realized goal, except one: a machine that turns water into whatever designated food is ordered. The machine goes up in the air and converts the atmospheric moisture into food for the town, which brings out a cute weather-girl (Anna Farris) for Flint to admire, his increasingly disappointed dad (James Caan), a tenacious policeman (Mr. T) and the greedy mayor (Bruce Campbell) who is the force that ignorantly dooms the town when the machine starts mutating the food into larger quantities.

I was not expecting very much from this film, and it isn't without its flaws mind you. The story itself is pretty basic and doesn't really try for anything new. Every character is predictable, the story arcs are clichéd, and there's an overindulgence on the visuals in the last act when the story itself starts to fall apart. At the same time, directors and adapters Phil Lord and Chris Miller provide more than enough laughs here, and what is surprising is that for every attempt at broad jokes for the kids, there are also smaller moments that exist within the quick banter of dialogue and tiny elements in the background of the frame, reminding me, admittedly, a lot of Airplane! and the Naked Gun series.

To be fair, not every joke works, and a big one would be the continuing use monkeys as humor. Take my word for it, the use of monkeys as a source of comedy is a lazy one that never has great payoffs. The jokes are the broadest they can be, and when they fail, as they often do, they fail big. The humor also isn't helped by the enormous visual spectacle at the end. Some of it looks really good, such as an impressive looking spaghetti tornado, but by the time we get to the climax, the phrase "too much of a good thing" come to mind many times.

Though I would say the voice acting in this film is on a memorable level, at least much more so than last week's animated release. Hader is a pure comedic talent, and he poses a lot of whit and charm in his role. The same thing goes for the sweet voiced Farris, the fatherly tone of Caan, the menacing dirtbag persona of Campbell and the self-consciously mocking tone of Mr. T. There's also a good group of supporting cameo voices from Neil Patrick Harris, Andy Samberg and Benjamin Bratt that add to the film's likability.

There are many moments in this film where it feels like its trying to hard, in the vein of being overly stimulated on the visuals and syrupy sweet on the heartfelt emotions. But underneath all that junkfood is a surprising core; one that manages to still pull you into the story as well as continually laugh at jokes that work well both on the broad humor as well as the subtle ones. That something this particular studio's last animated film, Surf's Up, managed to do well. While neither this film or that one compares to anything of Pixar, I think this is definitely showing promise for something to emerge as a serious contender in the future. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: 9

2009-09-13T22:03:00.000-05:00

Sack Attack

We are fortunate enough now that not all animated films aspire to the clean cut, family friendly standard that most people associate with Disney, even while Pixar is gradually trying to change that. This isn't to say that all animated films should automatically start being hard edge adult films. All that is being said is that when animated films are given the freedom to aspire beyond a specific, age defined demographic, what can usually emerge is an interesting story that is populated by much heavier and darker themes. Such is with this film, which does indeed carry that dark tone. However, it may still need to borrow a bit from some of the lighter films in terms of telling a decent narrative.

The world of 9 is a somber, abandoned, and apocalyptic one where the human race has been totally eradicated following a deadly war with a machine uprising (sound familiar?). All that remains are a group of living rag dolls each named by a number. 9, voiced by Elijah Wood, has just awoken to the devastation and bands together with the rest of the group to try to take down the vicious machines who steals the souls of the group. The highlights of the group include the stern leader 1 (Christopher Plummer), the eager explorer 5 (John C. Reilly) and the ostracized but vicious warrior 7 (Jennifer Connelly).

Shane Acker's original, Oscar nominated short wasn't a great spectacle by any means. However, what it was able to do so well was immediately implant you into a horrific world and be energized by the entire surroundings, and that included not a single breath of dialogue. That only goes so far in a feature length film, and at seventy-nine minutes, the films never gives a moment to really develop the surroundings or the characters. Its bleak, war time tone and dark subject matter would give fodder to even more interesting characters, and it would have been beneficial to explore those territories and allow the film to become a real achievement. Instead, Pamela Pettler's screenplay rushes the action and never lets us revel in the scenery or character development.

However, Acker does provide a credible job at giving us a dark world that is very captivating. While the story doesn't really give true enough credit, Acker still allows the scenery to become a magnificent portrait drenched in a green tinted pallet with a rusted overtone. He also stages some very placed action sequences that can really ramp up the excitement. In between those scenes, it is always a welcomed pleasure to observe a wide shot of the barren and destructive wasteland before it is automatically replaced by another action set piece or obligatory plot point reveal.

The voice acting is only okay, and it is never memorable. Wood has the lead, but his lines are so stale that he fails to make an impact. The same is said for Connelly, Reilly and other voice actor Cripin Glover. The only one who comes close to making an impression is Plummer, who is able to make a presence whenever his stern orator of a voice pierces the soundtrack. Still, all the voice talent is seemingly wasted, which makes a strong case for the film to have retained its atmosphere or stunning visuals, a pulsating sound design and absolutely no talking.

Even with the major faults of the story, I still found many elements to take solace in. Acker in the end still provides a film that keeps you interested during its entire, short duration and you will more than likely be invested in these characters' plight and surrounding areas, even when the screenplay seems less interested in doing so. The reason why some lighter animated films still dominate is because of their great attention to story detail. Some darker films can still be as good as their lighter counterparts, but they have to realize where it starts first. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Extract & World's Greatest Dad

2009-09-05T19:19:00.000-05:00

Work Overload

The talent of Mike Judge has always been one that is appreciated more on the small screen rather than the large one. For instance, television hits like Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill, a very personal favorite of mine, have garnered high praise and numerous well deserved accolades (well, at least for the folks in Arlen). However, his luck has not been quite so successful with feature length films. Office Space is a cult classic, which is another way of saying that it failed at the box office and later got appreciated through much less expensive channels, and Idiocracy barley registered a pulse with anyone. Chances are they will continue to pass up his latest film, which is a shame because I haven't laughed harder and in greater number for any other film I've seen this year.

The always wonderful Jason Bateman plays Joel, the manager of a factory that not only produces different types of extract, but an arrangement of wild characters. Chief among them are J.K. Simmons as another high ranking employee with a distaste for his fellow co-workers, Beth Grant as a nagging assembly line worker, and Clifton Collins Jr. as a tough-as-nails, desperately-wanting-to-be-made-floor-manager citizen who is met with an unfortunate accident. He's taken off the floor, and the extract company agrees to settle with him. That is until Cindy (Mila Kunis), a scheming grifter, walks in to persuade him to ask for more. The stress is a killer on Joel, who reveals his home problems with his wife, played the constantly amazing Kristin Wiig, to a zen-lite bartender played by Ben Affleck.

The film is so offbeat with they way its story meanders and its characters deliver their lines, that is very tempting to not like this film. I did try at times to resist the charm, but at the end of it all, it works. Judge is a man who knows how to create a world filled with average people dealing with average problems but trying to resolve them in a non-average way. He consistently makes every scene worth some kind of value. Not every joke lands and not every pacing to a scene works entirely, but I find it amazing how just when you think a joke or premise has worn out its welcome, there's a burst of energy right at the end that makes you appreciate most of what came before it. That's the sense of humor that I really like from Judge; it's not trying to be overcomplicated but it does look at a normal situation and asks how it would be solved by an abnormal chain of events.

It is really hard to make Bateman look bad. Even in something as terrible as Hancock, Bateman still comes off looking like the hero. His charm and witty delivery save every scene he's in and it's almost impossible not to like his deadpan sensitivity (fans of Arrested Development can attest). Kunis also brings her charm for a role that isn't much for the film, but is always a scene stealer, much in the same way the Simmons is for most of his films. And Kristen Wiig delivers another one of her understated performances that plays so well off of everybody else that I'm waiting for her to be given the lead in a comedy soon.

There are even characters here that don't seem like much but are saved by their actors. Gene Simmons plays an ambulance chasing attorney shaking down the factory, and while at first I thought he was putting on too much of a show, he eventually shows how funny that wild show can be, and he makes it work. Dustin Milligan is a gigolo named Brad who is sent to see if Joel's wife can be tempted by another man, and when at first his character is too one-note in how dumb he is, he eventually finds a comedic rhythm that ends up delivering very well as the film goes on. And Ben Affleck has a character that can be looked at as him trying to hard to become offbeat with his half-assed new age approach to drug abuse and relationship advice. But it didn't matter because I laughed at pretty much everything he said. The only character that does seem a bit off is an annoying neighbor played by David Koechner. He's funny at first, but his schtick wears out its welcome after a while.

If I had one real gripe against the movie, it would be that its main plot concerning Cindy and the takedown of the company is not as interesting as the smaller moments and even the stuff in Joel's domestic life. This is mainly a problem because Cindy is not given that much of a development and she never grows. I wouldn't normally say that's a big problem for a very supporting player, but for an actress as good as Kunis, it feels as if she deserves more time than the film allows. Having her play this role is good, but because it is so limited, it feels as if she should have a bigger part to play and the role ends up feeling a little wasted. Even though Kunis has fun with this role, and does make it memorable, it is a performance that is not proportional to the amount of screen time.

I do have a fondness for highbrow, sophisticated comedy, such as In the Loop, which I think is good enough to be honored with a Best Picture nomination at this point. In fact, I do think that's the type of comedy that we should be seeing more of. However, every once in a while, you just have to sit back and remind yourself that if a movie is described as a comedy and it makes you laugh consistently, then it did its job and your obligated to recommend it. Extract did that over and over again for me. Judge's script and a great cast sell a decent premise with minor missteps here and there. More than likely, this will result in a pass by major audiences and it will be a financial dud. Too bad, but I would definitely be an advocate for some people to discover this through less expensive channels in the future. But for right now, it's one of the funniest films I've seen this year. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Father Knows Best

Lately, the career of Robin Williams has been described as "hit or miss" as of late. I personally think that's not quite the right description. It's more like "five miles off or slightly graze." Williams's comedy career has taken a great left turn lately, and his most recent efforts have not provide the same amount of laughs his career did at what seems like a long time ago in the past. Even his occasional dramatic works usually fails to register a great impact, as One Hour Photo is pretty much the only one he succeeded at (I'd debate about Insomnia). However, Williams relies only on an understated comedic tone and genuine emotions to play off of a wonderfully inspired dark comedy.

Williams plays Lance Clayton, a mediocre high school teacher whose poetry class is quickly losing students. He has a secretive relationship with a fellow teacher (Alexie Gilmore) and he feels that relationship is strained by her adoring friendship with another male teacher (Henry Simmons). He's a sorry case indeed as his novels have all been rejected for publication and he has the world's worst son in Kyle (Daryl Sabara, a long way from Spy Kids). Kyle is a mean spirited, crass pervert who can't function on any social level. As much as Lance tries to have a decent relationship with his son, it never materializes. Especially when Kyle falls victim to an autoerotic asphyxiation accident. In order to hide the embarrassing death, Lance makes the scene look like a suicide and writes a deep suicide note. The story is picked up and the perceptions of Kyle quickly change to admiration, and Lance uses it to his own benefit.

Now there has been a lot of conversation and controversy surrounding that major plot point I just revealed, considering none of the advertisements mentioned this despite it being known during the festival circuit runs. After a long thought process, I decided to reveal it. Not only because it happens within the first act of the film, but also because it is impossible to have a legitimate discussion about this film without that reveal since the relationship between Lance and Kyle is not what the film is about. And I commend writer/director Bobcat Goldtwaith for taking that risk.

Instead of making this an average raunchy comedy about the mild mannered Lance butting heads with his perverted son, Goldtwaith has instead made a superior social commentary about the perception of a human being after death, made especially relevant after the death of Michael Jackson. The kind of forgiveness and positive memories that arise only after someone has died is an interesting notion, and Goldtwaith captures it all in a right comedic tone. He does allow the scope to widen a bit too much by the end, and there's a heavy handed scene at the end involving the song Under Pressure that doesn't strike the right tone with the rest of the film, but for the most part, he creates a world with sympathetic characters dealing with a premise that is all too familiar and executed very well.

This is also a great step forward for Williams as he provides a character that is not cartoonish but feels as if he has legitimate problems. His comedy feels smart and his emotions feel sincere. This is one of Williams's most sympathetic characters in a long time, and he shows off his skills as an actor greatly. Sabara is also really good in this role that I think is more complex than some give credit. He can be looked at as one note, but there is something in the way he gives a look or says a certain line that makes you believe there is a more complex being underneath the facetious nature. It's a performance than can be argued in terms of depth, but is generally agreed to be very funny. Another good character in the film is Andrew, Kyle's only best friend, played by Evan Martin. There's something to Andrew's shy and quiet personality that really makes his occasional banter with Williams really touching.

This might not be a film for everyone, because it does deal with some rather dark themes playing off of a comedic backdrop. However, this does what all the best dark comedies manage to do: it presents the comedy upfront while also allowing some emotionally tender moments to slip through. This film does that very well, and the smart script and capable cast are proof of that. This is definitely a sure fire hit for Williams, though I doubt his forthcoming Old Dogs will have quite the same effect. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+