John Likes Movies

Hell and Back Again

2012-02-15T10:18:00.001-05:00

Though structurally interesting, Danfung Dennis' Oscar-nominated documentary Hell and Back Again suffers from a number of small, frustrating problems that collectively hinder it beyond the point of recommendation. Most of these problems are personal ones to me, so this, more than anything I've written in a while, should be taken with a grain of salt. From an objective standpoint, Hell and Back Again is a fine film (though it's still imperfect). But there's a reason I've stopped "reviewing" (i.e. giving star ratings to) documentaries, and it's because it's hard to remove bias from non-fiction. So with that out of the way, I'll get into my thoughts on Hell and Back Again.

The film follows a dual chronology. The first begins in Afghanistan circa 2008, one of the deadliest times of the war. When Sgt. Nathan Harris is shot in the hip, he goes home with a metal pole holding his broken leg together. So his men keep fighting the Taliban (and trying to keep the peace with the locals) while he begins a different sort of fight. Not only is he physically torn apart, but he also struggles with adapting to everyday life again. Going to Wal-Mart is a bigger chore for Harris than any mission on the front. He's just a military man through and through, and life at home seems to slowly drive him mad.

We're given as much time with the soldiers still in Afghanistan as we are with Harris, which is both a positive and a negative for the film. On the one hand, we spend less time with Harris (more on that later). Unfortunately, the connective tissue is thin, and character identification is almost non-existent. If the film stayed in Afghanistan for its entirety (a la Restrepo), it could have been exceptional. Some scenes in there (like when the members of an Afghan village meet with a military leader to talk about their gripes) are fascinating. It's the Harris stuff that brings the film down.

Now, I get why Dennis approached the material in this way. Putting a deeply personal spin on war isn't necessarily new, but it has proven to work, and it should have here. Why it didn't work for me is because I had no way whatsoever of connecting with Harris. I blame this on his attitude and set of beliefs. There are a number of scenes in which he obsesses over his handgun—fine. Military men operate weapons every day and are trained to kill. I don't agree with this philosophy, but it's probably an inescapable one within that culture. What disturbed me was a scene like the one during which he mimics a Russian roulette game with a loaded gun—putting a bullet in the barrel, spinning it around, and telling his wife she'd be dead if they were playing for real. Oh, but it's just for show. It's not like he's pointing a loaded gun at her, right? WRONG. I don't care who you are, but that's completely unacceptable to me, and couple that with the scene in which he loses his temper with her while driving and the one during which she begins crying in a pharmacy and says she doesn't know who he is anymore, and I felt genuinely frightened for her safety. Not only that, but I was taken completely out of the film. Call me soft, overly sensitive, whatever you want. I just think behavior like that is deplorable, no matter what you've been through, and I lost any sympathy I had for Harris by the end of the film.

So is Hell and Back worth a watch? Well, if it wins Best Documentary (which it certainly could), you might feel obligated. I know that feeling. But it's not one I'm recommending. Watch If a Tree Falls for a more cohesive and less disturbing look at someone with a somewhat crazy viewpoint on an issue. Or watch Dennis' film and form your own opinion. Either way, you'll hopefully be watching more documentaries, which (even if I don't like your choice) is an objectively good thing.

A Call for Links

2012-02-13T18:13:00.000-05:00

I'm sure many of you recall my Criterion Collection Blogathon from last summer. I toyed with running another contest, but I decided on something else instead.

I'm going to start doing a monthly link share with all of your new Criterion reviews, lists, and posts. I'll post on or around the first of every month any new Criterion links all of you have. I'll be on the prowl, but I'll also take whatever you send me (johnlikesmovies@gmail.com). The only thing I ask is that the review is new. Please don't submit reviews you wrote a year or more ago. They should have been published after my most recent post.

That's it. First post will be up very early in March. Hope to hear from you soon!

Perfect Sense Review

2012-02-12T16:39:00.000-05:00

Michael (Ewan McGregor) and Susan (Eva Green)

wait for the end of the world in Perfect Sense.

3 Stars

Another year, another apocalypse movie. In Perfect Sense, however, the end of the world comes with a delicious twist. It's not another planet coming to destroy us (a la Melancholia), nor is it necessarily a Contagion-like epidemic. Rather, it's the sudden and inexplicable loss of our senses. Director David Mackenzie utilizes an approach that just killed Another Earth, another similarly-themed film, by focusing on the personal baggage of a pair of flawed individuals. But Mackenzie smartly never loses focus of his film's most interesting material, and as a result, it's easy to forgive the film's few flaws.

Michael (Ewan McGregor) and Susan (Eva Green) are our Glasgow-based vessels for the apocalypse. He's a chef, she's an epidemiologist. They meet just before a sudden and perplexing outbreak which causes a fit of sadness followed by an immediate and seemingly permanent loss of smell. Susan and her colleagues have no idea what the cause might be, nor do politicians or other scientists. Panic begins to set in, but after a few weeks, people are used to it. During this time, Michael and Susan become intimate and share everything with each other—until the world is thrown for a loop again when terror, fear, and hunger overcome the entire population and the sense of taste disappears for good.

Still unsure of the cause, people move on, though there are big changes to daily routines. Without smell and taste, texture becomes a selling point for Michael's restaurant. And people cherish sounds and sights, unsure for how long they might still be able to. All the while, Michael and Susan go through an advanced course in couple's therapy. Their problems are generally common, but the urgency is obviously and understandably heightened. They're coping with issues of fertility, trust, and emotional availability, while also struggling with the problems their fellow humans have regarding the loss of their senses and the possibility that the world could be over. After all, without one's senses, what can one even do?

The way the senses are lost gives the film a natural rhythm, an effective pace that keeps things moving while also allowing just enough time for some intellectually interesting comments on what life without taste and smell (for example) would be like. To compare the film again to Another Earth, that one only examined the more science-fiction aspects of its story in theory. Perfect Sense moves along because of its premise. The love story is clearly secondary, and had it not been, I'm sure the film would be much less successful.

McGregor and Green are solid, though there's little about their characters to make them jump off the screen. They are regular people trying to find normalcy in a now extraordinary world. Their romance isn't one of cinema's all-time greats, but it's good enough that the film doesn't lose too much when the focus shifts back to them. I think the film's biggest fault is its length—only 90 minutes. With a little more time, we could have had either more time to explore the increasingly senseless world or greater depth to these two characters and their relationship. Both would have done the film a great service, but ultimately, it still works quite well.

The film has a very indie feel with a voiceover straight out of Beginners (except this one comes from Eva Green, not Ewan McGregor) and some slightly grainy, but very solid camerawork. The film's score is also impressive, though it becomes intrusive on a few occasions (especially the conclusion). And the writing, which manages to just avoid pretentiousness, is solid all the way through. Simply put, it's a good movie with a great premise and it's well-worth your 90 minutes.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close Review

2012-02-11T11:37:00.000-05:00

Oskar (Thomas Horn) is on an expedition with his friend,
The Renter (Max Von Sydow), in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

1 Star

Stephen Daldry's latest film, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, tries to make sense of one of the worst days—perhaps the "Worst Day"—in American history. It does so through the eyes of a pre-teen boy, who appears to suffer from Asperger's Disease. And what does it ultimately tell us? That New Yorkers are kind and resourceful people? That hands-off parenting is the best way for a child to get through an emotional crisis? That it's OK to go on the swings? Yes, Daldry's film is based on novel—a beloved one by Jonathan Safran Foer. But perhaps the biggest truth to be gleaned from its cinematic interpretation is that not everything on the page needs to make its way onto the screen.

The film is just a quagmire of devices and dialogue that sound so literary, they'll make your eyes roll, your head spin, and sometimes, your blood boil. Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) is our protagonist. A bright boy, he spends his time on "reconnaissance expeditions," which send him all over New York to solve something, like the mystery of the city's mysterious sixth borough. His father, Thomas (Tom Hanks), encourages these missions—he even sets many of them up—in order to get Oskar to come out of his shell a little more. But before Oskar can solve the mystery of the sixth borough, two planes are flown into the World Trade Center, taking his father and best friend away from him.

Flash forward about a year, and both Oskar and his mother, Linda (Sandra Bullock), are still grieving. Oskar holes up in a crawlspace where he secretly keeps the family's old answering machine with messages from his dad in the tower on 9/11. No one, not even his mother, knows these messages exist. One day, he musters up the courage to go into his father's closet, where he finds a key hidden in a vase. It's in an envelope with the word "Black" on it. Convinced "Black" is referring to a person and that the key will hold some clue to his father's death, he scours the New York phone books for people with that last name. And after mapping his journey out, and putting into motion all the lies necessary to keep his mother out of his hair, Oskar begins looking for the lock for his key.

The film's problems are manyfold, and ultimately, the vast majority of them lead back to Eric Roth's screenplay. Though he's written many fine films, including The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (one of my favorites from the last decade), his work here is almost unforgivable. It's as if no consideration was given to make Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close subtler or more cinematic. The shifts in tone from Oskar's very idealistic, almost fairy-tale-like quest to his discussions about death and his obsession with photos of men jumping from buildings is jarring to say the least. And the way he speaks is indescribably irritating. There are his quirks—like how he spews random facts while seeming like he's on speed. But there are also phrases that might seem OK in print but just don't translate well to film dialogue. He calls 9/11 "The Worst Day." He says of his quest that he's doing it so he can "extend his eight minutes" with his dad, a reference to a fact his annoying voiceover shares with us about the sun dying out. It just all seems so inauthentic and took me out of the film very early on.

It doesn't help that Oskar just seems like a thorn in your side. He's quite intrusive and more than a little rude (he goes so far as to say he wishes his mom was in the towers instead of his dad...to her face). But I don't blame Thomas Horn, the young Jeopardy! contestant plucked from obscurity to portray the character, though it's not like he does exceptional work or anything. No, the blame still belongs to Eric Roth, who manages to make an 11-year-old with a mental disorder whose father was killed on 9/11 feel unsympathetic and completely unrelatable.

Stephen Daldry's direction is no better than Roth's writing. He doesn't really grasp the concept that 9/11 imagery isn't something one needs or wants to be hammered over the head with—especially when it's digitally altered to show Tom Hanks falling from a building. Really, there are moments in this film so tasteless that I couldn't believe what I was watching, other so obvious that I couldn't fathom how this guy earned three Oscar nominations for directing. Being pretty lukewarm on at least two of his previous features (I'll admit to being a fan of The Hours), I have generally lukewarm expectations for a film of his. I know now that if he tries to tackle another historical tragedy, I'll stay home.

On the acting front, the aren't really any performances worth writing home about. Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright play Abby and William Black, a separating couple who are the first people Oskar meets on his quest. Both are great, though they only get a scene or two each. Max Von Sydow, of course, earned the film's sole Oscar nomination outside of Best Picture. He plays a mute known as The Renter, and after a while, he becomes Oskar's closest confidant. I liked Von Sydow in the role, though it's not one I'd call challenging. He was much better a few years ago in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and I'd say all four of his fellow Best Supporting Actor nominees outdo him this year. Still, for a film with so few positives, his presence is welcome.

Tom Hanks is present mainly via flashbacks, but he doesn't do anything surprising or challenging. Ditto Sandra Bullock who has maybe just three scenes. Her lack of screentime shocked me, though her pretty average performance wasn't a major surprise. What was surprising, however, was the extraordinarily unorthodox parenting style hers and Hanks' characters employ. Again, credibility was severely strained as we watch them act unphased while their son is galavanting around Central Park after dark. Especially after 9/11, one would think a little more caution would be taken.

Though it's clear the film is aiming to wallop you with some emotion, its punches completely missed me. And though plenty of other reviewers agree, a decent chunk of Academy voters don't, as the film became the worst-reviewed Best Picture nominee in many, many years. I know it's the worst one I've ever seen. I didn't really know what to expect going into Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but I definitely didn't expect a film that was offensively bad, or one that would make me rethink the talents of nearly every person involved.

TOP 10: Best Picture Lineups

2012-02-10T18:39:00.000-05:00

Today's list comes with a big caveat: I haven't seen every Best Picture nominee in history; I'm not sure anyone has. So in writing this, I've made the decision to include a film's popular consensus and historical relevance as judging criteria. It's not something I'm thrilled about, but this was something I really wanted to write about, and I didn't see any way around it, unfortunately.

Alas, here's what I've come up with: The ten years with the strongest Best Picture lineups ever. Notice 2011 is not here. Well, I finally caught up with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and though I haven't had the chance to write about it yet, its inclusion in the lineup automatically renders this year ineligible for a list like this. But more on that another time. Enjoy the list:

10.) 1957
The Bridge on the River Kwai (winner)
Peyton Place
Sayonara
12 Angry Men
Witness for the Prosecution

Some years on this list made it based on the top-to-bottom strength of all their nominees. This is not one of those years—at least not for me. Perhaps Peyton Place and Sayonara are true forgotten classics, but I haven't seen them. Instead, this year makes it because of one good film (Billy Wilder's Witness for the Prosecution) and two all-time greats.

9.) 2002
Chicago (winner)
Gangs of New York
The Hours
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Pianist

Definitely not the most eye-popping lineup overall, but from top to bottom, it's very solid. Chicago is great fun and absolutely gorgeous. The Pianist and Gangs of New York are underrated masterpieces. The Hours is probably the weakest nominee, but it's a very well-acted piece of work. And The Two Towers, despite suffering just a little from middle-child syndrome, is epic filmmaking at its finest.

8.) 2009
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker (winner)
Inglourious Basterds
Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Unlike 2002, this isn't the best lineup from top to bottom as two films, District 9 and The Blind Side, shouldn't have even come close to the Best Picture conversation. Alas, the other eight films (this was the first year of ten nominees since 1943) are terrific. Of my top 10 films from that year, seven were Best Picture nominees. I think Up in the Air and Inglourious Basterds are destined to be classics, while my love for The Hurt Locker grows every time I see it. It was a very deserving winner.

7.) 1940
All This, and Heaven Too
Foreign Correspondent
The Grapes of Wrath
The Great Dictator
Kitty Foyle
The Letter
The Long Voyage Home
Our Town
The Philadelphia Story
Rebecca (winner)

While 1939 often gets more love (and deservedly so, see below), the 365 days that followed it were pretty damn good, as far as films go. Rebecca is Hitchcock's only Best Picture winner, and it's a great one. However, he lost Best Director to John Ford for The Grapes of Wrath—another enduring classic. Foreign Correspondent happens to be one of my favorite Hitchcock films (a great year for him), while The Philadelphia Story and The Great Dictator show great comedies haven't always been written off by the Academy (Jimmy Stewart even won Best Actor for his great work).

6.) 2007
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men (winner)
There Will Be Blood

I really can't stand Juno, but the other four films are sensational (yes, I love Atonement...always have, always will). Besides just nominating great films, though, what's most noteworthy about this year is how many of them aren't typical Oscar movies. Juno, despite its flaws, is a very quirky comedy. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are cold, calculating neo-Westerns. And Michael Clayton is a throwback, 1970s-style thriller, though not necessarily the kind that typically got nominated for Oscars. So for those of you who complain about the Academy not embracing new styles of cinema (and really, if you want to complain about that, just stop paying attention), I'd take a quick glance at what they did four years ago.

5.) 1971
A Clockwork Orange
Fiddler on the Roof
The French Connection (winner)
The Last Picture Show
Nicholas and Alexandra

Another year, another pair of films I can't comment on (Fiddler on the Roof and Nicholas and Alexandra), but the other three? Amazing. I'll be writing more on A Clockwork Orange as I plow through my Kubrick marathon, so I don't want to get too much into that film. But The French Connection and The Last Picture Show are really great—and I think underrated—films. The former features one of my favorite scenes ever (the car chase), while the latter rubbed me the wrong way on first viewing, but my appreciation for it has grown exponentially since.

4.) 1939
Dark Victory
Gone with the Wind (winner)
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Love Affair
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Ninotchka
Of Mice and Men
Stagecoach
The Wizard of Oz
Wuthering Heights

Say what you will about Gone with the Wind (I'll say that half is great and the other half is extremely tedious), but it's one of cinema's most enduring films. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington will always hold a place in this poor idealist's heart, while Stagecoach is right up there with Once Upon a Time in the West as my favorite Western. Of Mice and Men and Wuthering Heights are films I haven't seen, but they seem to be well-regarded interpretations of two classic pieces of literature. Of course, there's also The Wizard of Oz. What else needs to be said?

3.) 1976
All the President's Men
Bound for Glory
Network
Rocky (winner)
Taxi Driver

Of all Sidney Lumet's great films, Network is my favorite. Ditto with Taxi Driver and Martin Scorsese, so those films could be up with three pieces of shit, and the year would still be in contention for a spot on this list. But All The President's Men also happens to be a classic (albeit one I'm not as crazy about as many others are). Rocky is, I think, an undeserving winner, but only because of what it's up against. I still say that film holds up and is a really fun watch.

2.) 1967
Bonnie and Clyde
Doctor Dolittle
The Graduate
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
In the Heat of the Night (winner)

If you haven't read Mark Harris' book, Pictures at a Revolution, you're doing yourself a disservice. The film looks specifically at these five films and details how they signaled a major shift in the old ways, bringing on the era known as New Hollywood. And just looking at the year before it (when A Man for All Seasons won Best Picture), it's easy to see why. There was, of course, one more traditional Oscar movie—the big-budget musical Dr. Dolittle. But the lineup also includes to solid, albeit dated, films about race relations, as well as two indisputable masterpieces. Bonnie and Clyde forever changed the way violence could be depicted in movies, while The Graduate is perhaps the most honest and relatable coming-of-age story ever.

1.) 1975
Barry Lyndon
Dog Day Afternoon
Jaws
Nashville
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (winner)

In the end, there was no question: This was the best year. Jaws still terrifies me. Barry Lyndon still mystifies me. Dog Day Afternoon still excites me (not in that way). Then, there's Nashville, which remains the blueprint for large ensemble pieces. And One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest manages to blend together everything I love about the other four films. Just think: Kubrick, Lumet, Spielberg, Altman, and Forman. How can that not be the greatest of all 84 Best Picture lineups?

The Killing Review

2012-02-10T10:58:00.001-05:00

George (Elisha Cook Jr.) sits with his manipulative wife, Sherry (Marie Windsor), in The Killing.

3.5 Stars

Though his later films would take us to space, the battlefront, the war room, and a very haunted hotel, Stanley Kubrick got his start in the seedy world of film noir. Killer's Kiss was his first foray into this genre, and though generally unremarkable, it gets by thanks to its director's ahead-of-its-time vision. The Killing, his follow-up to that film, ups the stakes and the style, and ultimately, feels more satisfying. It's far from Kubrick's best film, but as a neat piece of genre filmmaking, you could do a lot worse.

The Killing outlines one of the greatest robbery schemes every concocted. Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden), a respected criminal just out of the slammer, is the architect. The mark: A race track. The loot: A cool $2 million. The crew: A bartender (Joe Sawyer's Mike O'Reilly), a corrupt cop (Ted de Corsia's Randy), the job's financier (Jay C. Flippen's Marvin Unger), and one of the track's cashiers (Elisha Cook Jr.'s George Peatty). It's Peatty that introduces the first wild card into the plan. His wife, Sherry (Marie Windsor), is two-timing him with a younger man, and the two of them decide to wait until the robbery is complete before ripping off the thieves and absconding away with all the money for themselves.

So Johnny formally begins preparing everyone and everything, including hiring one man to start a fight at the racetrack bar (Kola Kwariani) and another to shoot one of the racing horses (Paths of Glory's Timothy Carey). With just 83 minutes to tell its story, The Killing doesn't waste a single scene. And the film's anonymous narrator injects an even greater sense of urgency to things. The details he shares seem microscopic, yet he insists on sharing the exact time at which they all happen. Something about the approach is unsettling and adds quite a bit of tension to an otherwise standard noir tale.

Though Kubrick's approach is novel, and his shot selection is amazing, the rest of the film plays out predictably. Fans of The Asphalt Jungle will recognize its influence on this film (just like Pulp Fiction fans will notice how much The Killing influenced that film). It's a story from the bad guys' point of view. By and large, they're presented as smart, determined men. Some of them seem kind-hearted, others not so much. But none, not even Johnny, is infallible. Fate intervenes in sometimes funny ways, and despite plugging 90% of the plans holes, no one can plan for absolutely every potential pitfall.

The acting is a bit of an afterthought, but every man in the cast performs admirably. The one real noteworthy performance actually comes from Marie Windsor, whose Sherry has to be one of noir's most despicable femme fatales. She's pathological and feels no remorse whatsoever about stringing her husband along. The way she and her boy toy ultimately fit into this puzzle is one of the film's more surprising moments, but up to that point, she's as close to evil as anyone in this cast full of liars, thieves, and hitmen. Not an easy task, but Windsor is more than up for it.

For most directors, The Killing would be a once-in-a-lifetime film, but not Stanley Kubrick. With some of the finest cinematic achievements ever to his name, this film comes off as a little slight. It's a very engaging heist tale, just not the genre-defining work some of his other films are. Still, it's entertaining as hell, and its influence can't be ignored.

A Better Life Review

2012-02-08T20:37:00.000-05:00

Carlos (Demian Bichir) and his son, Luis (Jose Julian),

search for their missing truck in A Better Life.

3 Stars

Chris Weitz, director of The Twilight Saga: New Moon and About a Boy, isn't a name you'd expect to be attached to a humanistic drama about illegal immigrants, but his A Better Life is about just that, and it's a very mature piece of work. The film has gotten a great deal of notice for Demian Bichir's Oscar-nominated lead performance, and rightfully so, as it's the best thing about the film, but it works on a number of levels. It's a story about treating people right, even when you aren't treated that way in return. It looks very poignantly at a father and son trying to reconnect after drifting apart. And, perhaps most of all, it's about finding the will and the courage to do more than just get by.

Carlos Galindo (Bichir) is our window into modern Los Angeles, where an illegal Mexican immigrant can live a nice quiet life, as long as he stays out of trouble. So Carlos, a single father to Luis (Jose Julian), keeps his head down and works as much as he can so that he might one day be able to send his son to a better school. That's all Carlos hopes for. Luis, however, was raised around American culture and isn't satisfied with this meager lifestyle. He's therefore attracted to the local gang scene, where members can throw around money on expensive cars, jewelry, and with a little bit of luck, a Cribs-style mansion. These two very different attitudes cause a rift to grow between father and son, and this rift is becoming increasingly hard to bridge because Carlos works such long hours.

One day, Carlos' employer presents him with an opportunity. He's getting out of the landscaping business and wants Carlos to buy his truck and tools so that he can continue servicing his clients. Though he doesn't have a driver's license or enough money to make the purchase, he agrees (with the help of a loan from his sister) because this might just move him closer to the better life he's promised Luis for so long. But when his hired help ultimately steals the truck, Carlos finds himself in hot water and without any source of income. So he asks his son to help him search the city for their last real chance to make it in America.

The stakes in A Better Life couldn't possibly be higher, and as such, the actions of not only Carlos and Luis, but also Santiago (the man who steals the truck), are completely believable. Everyone has different sets of values, so it seems conceivable that each man would be willing to do something different to help his own loved ones. For Carlos, he values respect and fashions himself a man with real character. Luis, meanwhile, wants things. You can see dollar signs flashing in his eyes, which means he often takes his dad for a fool. Then there's this man Santiago. He seems a lot like Carlos—a kindly man that isn't afraid to give a little to get a little back. But he's also willing to cross lines that Carlos won't, to go that extra mile if it means a little more help for his family.

All these competing philosophies collide in Carlos' head, with some of the positive and negative characteristics of each ultimately winning out and driving his actions late in the film. It's pretty sad to watch, actually, because we know his intentions are good, but viewed from an outsider's perspective and without emotion, he does some things that are wrong. At least this is able to set the scene for Bichir's big Oscar moment, which will come into clear focus as the film proceeds, but that shouldn't diminish from its impact. It's one of 2011's biggest tearjerking moments, and unlike some of the year's other films, it doesn't at all feel artificial. From beginning to end, A Better Life's heart is as pure as Carlos'.

Though writer Eric Eason deserves a great deal of credit for his thoughtful and moving screenplay, the lion's share of the film's praise has deservedly gone to Demian Bichir and his very complex and satisfying portrayal of Carlos. What's perhaps most interesting about it is the way he elicits great emotion out of us without showing a lot himself. Just seeing him stumble around hopelessly looking for the truck with his kind eyes and bomber jacket was enough to make me feel a little misty-eyed. Bichir's Carlos, however, is proud. Sometimes, that pride takes the form of resolve in the face of adversity. Other times, his pride is in admitting when he's failed or sharing his feelings with his son. There's just a lot going on beneath the surface. It's not showy, in-your-face acting that typically earns the lion's share of Oscar nominations. Having now seen A Better Life and the four other Best Actor-nominated films, I can say confidently that Bichir's work is right up there with Gary Oldman's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy performance as my favorite in the category.

The only real supporting performance of note is that of Jose Julian as Luis, and unfortunately, he's one of the film's weakest links. He's not exactly bad; I wouldn't go so far as to say he brings the film down. But a better performance from him could have made the film resonate more strongly. And it's hard to say exactly where he goes wrong. I guess he just feels less authentic than Bichir. Acting alongside someone who so effortlessly becomes his character can't possibly be easy, but I do with there was someone in this role who managed that tough task just a little better.

My last knock against the film is that it contains several really obtrusive musical cues and a score that belongs in a completely different film. But beyond that, A Better Life is a very solid film. It's not reinventing the wheel—it definitely shares a few things in common with Thomas McCarthy's The Visitor, among other films—but it does more than you might expect, and pulls it all off quite well.

The Grey Review

2012-02-07T20:55:00.003-05:00

Ottway (Liam Neeson) surveys the wreckage of his plane crash in The Grey.

3.5 Stars

Joe Carnahan has gotten a reputation for directing B-level action flicks—The A-Team, Smokin' Aces. But The Grey is a whole other animal. "Action" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe it, though there is a big crash sequence and a few wolf-fighting scenes. It's actually more a mix of a man vs. nature tale and a meditative drama about life and death. It's like Hemingway meets Bergman but with Liam Neeson at his most badass. All kidding aside, however, The Grey is the best January film I can remember. It also has a legitimate shot at my end-of-year top 10 list. Bizarre, I know, but it's just really damn good.

John Ottway (Neeson) is one of many members of an oil-drilling outfit heading deep into Alaska's wilderness for a job. Tragically, their flight there crashes, leaving all but seven men dead by morning. Ottway, whose job entails protecting the others from Alaska's natural predators, takes a leadership role, organizing the others and doling out the tasks that are most essential for their survival. When they realize that the cold and lack of food aren't the only things to worry about—that's to say they find out they are unwitting trespassers on a wild wolf colony—Ottway's knowledge and skills become even more essential. But to survive, they need more than just this one man. They need each other, and they need to find something inside them that will both vanquish fear and help them overcome the seemingly insurmountable odds against them.

As a piece of genre filmmaking, The Grey is well-choreographed and suspenseful, but a little familiar. With seven men (some of whom aren't very developed at all) in such an extreme setting, it's inevitable that a few will be knocked off throughout the film. Carnahan does surprise you with at least one of the deaths—not necessarily opting to kill the most anonymous character every time. But with so many interesting scenes and shots and conversations in the this film, the idea that we have to play your standard horror-movie version of musical chairs is a little disappointing.

Thankfully, the negativity ends there. With so many virtues to extoll, it's hard to know where to start. How about with the film's MVP—Carnahan. Here's a director I've never really gotten the appeal of. Though he's made a few bombs in recent years, he still has his fair share of loyalists from his earlier films like Narc—another film I don't really care for. Wherever you fall on Carnahan, however, only a fool would call him untalented after seeing this film. Besides crafting a gripping story that's told in a way that should satisfy both the mainstream moviegoer and your average art-house Joe, the sense of place, set pieces, dialogue, and shot selection all satisfy completely.

If Carnahan is the film's MVP, Neeson isn't far back in the running. This is the best performance he's given in many years. It calls upon him to appear physically imposing, though his character will be the first one to admit he's scared shitless by his predicament. Before the crash, he apparently went through some kind of relationship turmoil, which actually made him want to end his own life. But his later perseverance is credited greatly to this relationship, as well as a surprisingly effective poem written by his late father. These two things give him the strength he needs to draw on when he feels like God has abandoned him. One of the film's most powerful moments occurs when he cries out—no, begs—God for a sign that things might possibly get better. He's met, appropriately enough, with a wolf's snarl. That's the kind of bleakness presented in The Grey. That's the kind of physically and emotionally draining performance Neeson gives.

The supporting cast is made up mostly of unknowns, though Dermot Mulroney is on-hand as one of the quieter men in Ottway's party. He's actually good, albeit unrecognizable, as Talget—the man tasked with carrying the wallets of all the deceased. Frank Grillo plays Diaz, the token asshole in the group. He challenges Ottway's leadership from the outset, though his first face-to-face with a wolf shuts him up quickly. His arc feels predictable at first, though it grows richer the longer he's around.

The way The Grey discusses faith is also noteworthy. It certainly could have been cliche, especially in a film with a number of deaths. But Carnahan opts to not throw us a token evangelical who insists God will keep him safe only to die the film's most painful death. I sort of thought The Grey would go that route at some point, but it really doesn't. All the film's speeches and conversations—including Ottway's father's poem, which is just a perfect touch—feel authentic, adult, and definitely serve the tone well.

I wonder what would have happened if this film was released a month earlier. In a December that was, by and large, filled with minor disappointments, could The Grey have been a sleeper hit and a potential Oscar play? Maybe. But with a late January release, it can kiss any lofty expectations like that goodbye. Still, Carnahan and company should be proud of this film. It's a terrific technical achievement from beginning to end (the plane crash is absolutely exhilarating), and it manages to reach a level of dramatic maturity that most films of any genre rarely even strive for. January is typically a dumping ground, but 2012 certainly set a new mark for quality. And if the rest of the year's titles can live up to or come close to The Grey, it'll be a pretty special 12 months.

Project Nim

2012-02-06T16:04:00.000-05:00

On the surface, James Marsh's Project Nim, is about a group of people's quest to teach a chimp sign language. And if it was just about that, it probably would have been a great documentary. But it touches on so many other, very meaningful themes—most notably abandonment and selfishness—that one can't help but admire the hell out of it. It's actually the film's human characters that ultimately come under Marsh's microscope, and what we see isn't pretty. It is, however, very powerful. I wasn't as enamored as many others were with Man on Wire, Marsh's previous feature, but Project Nim is sensational.

Nim Chimpsky is the name of the film's featured primate. He was born on a reserve but moved at a very early age to a Manhattan brownstone where he was to be raised as a human child in a classic test of nature vs. nurture. The experiment's administrator is Dr. Herb Terrace, but he stays hands-off for the most part, instead relying on several different research assistants and students to look after and raise the chimp. They begin teaching him sign language, and a great deal of progress is made (Nim dresses himself and seemingly mirrors the emotional growth of a human toddler).

Despite the obvious intelligence and self-awareness that Nim shows, he's not entirely able to give him his natural tendencies. He bites when he doesn't get what he wants, causing more than one caretaker to leave out of fear of getting hurt. This, in turn, causes him to be moved from his first home into a more secluded one, and ultimately from that home back to the reserve where he came from.

What's sad is that these people can't seem to grasp that Nim isn't a person. He doesn't know any better. Yes, he's smarter than most chimps, but he proves completely unable to create a coherent sentence, nor can he express anything that isn't a statement of want or need. Nim isn't a conversationalist, which was ultimately what Terrace was going for. But does the chimp's failure to comprehend mean he deserves to be completely abandoned? Of course not, yet that's what most of those who raised him do.

Politics, money, infighting, and some twisted personal morals and boundaries ultimately stop the formal experiment and serve as the catalyst for Nim's abandonment. Nim acts out, but not in such a way that he can't be looked after. At his reserve, he thrives in the care of a kindly and patient hippie. But he's visited only once by someone from his childhood—Terrace, who goes only to get pictures and video of him with the chimp. Watching Nim rejoice upon seeing him is tragic because we know how it will end. And seeing the way Terrace later writes Nim off because the experiment didn't play out the way he wanted it to is a little sickening.

Project Nim, unlike some of the year's other great documentaries, was shortlisted for the Academy Awards, but it was ultimately left off the final list of nominees. Though I have yet to see all the nominees, I think this "snub" is a shame because it's a very emotional and mature piece of work. Marsh isn't a big name like Errol Morris or Steve James, but he's now made two very good-to-great documentaries in just three years. He also directed one of the Red Riding Trilogy films, and had a narrative feature (Shadow Dancer) debut to good reviews at Sundance this year starring Clive Owen and Andrea Riseborough. So in addition to being a fantastic film, Project Nim does something else: It puts all film writers on notice. Any list of the best working filmmakers (or promising up-and-comers) is incomplete without the name James Marsh on it.

The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975

2012-02-05T12:13:00.002-05:00

If nothing else, The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 proves there is such a thing as truth in advertising. Billed as the greatest hits of some found footage filmed during the titular time period, the film really is a mixtape. But not track on a mixtape is created equal. As such, I really dug some of what the film had to offer, but other segments left me cold and disinterested. It's certainly one of the more interesting documentaries of last year, but its unusual structure ends up being a point of both praise and detraction.

The seeds of the black power movement appear to have been planted around 1967-1968. It's during this time that we meet Stokely Carmichael, a charismatic leader of the growing movement. During a speech in Stockholm (the film is made by a group of Swedish journalists), Carmichael presents of vision of resistance that doesn't go so far as the ones Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan would extoll a few years later, but it's certainly different than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s call for non-violence. And after King is killed, Carmichael's words spread. They are picked up by a number of black activists from Oakland to Algeria, and the Black Panther Party is born.

The film gets less and less interesting the longer it goes on. I suppose that's because, for whatever reason, the origins of black power are more compelling than the way it loses steam. Clearly, people weren't ready for the radical change proposed by the leading thinkers of this movement. They preferred incremental or no change to an overnight systemic shakeup. That's all good, as far as real world politics goes. As a film watcher and writer, I naturally root for conflict, and the latter years covered by the film don't have a ton of it.

That's not to say the film is totally without merits after 1968. The Angela Davis interview (pictured above) is probably the highlight of the entire film and takes place well after the new decade starts. Also attention-grabbing is the way director Goran Hugo Olsson injects opinions on his native Sweden into the film. When a TV Guide article is published stating that Sweden has the most anti-American television shows, Stockholm is thrust into the spotlight of the black power movement. "Why is giving a voice to black power considered anti-American?" interviewees argue. "Good question" I'd respond.

Ultimately, it's hard to say if the film's structure serves it well or not. It's interesting, but the end result is a film that comes across as jumbled and unfocused all too often. There's a great documentary to be had with this found footage. This, however, is merely a good one.

Chronicle Review

2012-02-04T11:14:00.002-05:00

Three young men (Michael B. Jordan, Dane DeHaan, and Alex Russell)

enjoy their new superpowers in Chronicle.

3 Stars

With found-footage movies cleaning up at the box office over quite an extended period of time now, it seemed inevitable that they'd move past their horror roots and into other genres. Chronicle is the found-footage superhero movie, and it's one of the most unique movie-going experiences in years. Those expecting a low-budget Spider-Man will be disappointed. Though some of the themes are the same (the tagline for Chronicle could have easily been "With great power comes great responsibility."), it's looks and plays out more like District 9.

The three principals are loner Andrew (Dane DeHaan), his popular cousin Matt (Alex Russell), and the school's golden boy, Steve (Michael B. Jordan). Though they have little in common, they're brought together suddenly when, at a party, they find a strange hole in the middle of a field. Steve, always the adventurer, jumps down, followed by Matt, then Alex (whose handheld camcorder serves as our window into this world). What happens down there is unclear (the camera doesn't exactly agree with the giant glowing blue and red crystal they find), but the end result is what's truly mind-boggling: Andrew, Matt, and Steve have superpowers.

They're able to move objects telekinetically, though at first, even the slightest use of their powers results in a massive nosebleed. But they soon deduce that they need to condition their powers. So they start small—legos, baseballs, Andrew's camera. Soon, however, they're moving cars and flying, but the more powerful they become, the more fractured their new group is. Steve and Matt simply want to use their powers to make sure they've got it good at school, and for a while, Andrew seems content with finally being popular. But he's a very troubled young man, and starts to think of himself as some kind of evolutionary marvel. "The apex predator" he starts calling himself, and cool tricks and sight gags aren't enough to satisfy his appetite for power.

Yes, this is technically an origin story, but the similarities between Chronicle and Captain America or Green Lantern end there. This doesn't play out in any of the ways we've become accustomed to. The conflict that arises is a direct result of them, not some dastardly evildoer, and as such, there never really comes a time during which they need to harness their powers for the greater good.

Chronicle covers a lot over a scant 80-minute running time. It needs to create believable character arcs for all three individuals that cover some very extreme facets of their personalities. To accomplish this, director Josh Trank opts for this you-are-there style of filmmaking—found footage. It's not for everyone, and it's hard to argue that it isn't played out at least a little, but here, it undeniably elevates the material. It's hard to wrap your head around the concept at first, and Trank is forced to cheat on occasion, though his cheats are always explained and sometimes quite clever (especially during the film's climax). Still, the hand-held camerawork lends a great deal of intimacy to the film. You'll really connect with the characters because we're along for the ride with them.

All three actors are professionals, though they are far from household names. Michael B. Jordan is perhaps the most recognizable face (he was on Friday Night Lights for a number of years). He's also gives the film's most appealing performance. Steve is clearly destined for greatness, and Jordan, a real natural on screen, imbues him with humanity that most popular kids in high school are lacking. The film's other leads are less successful, but far from inadequate. Alex Russell has the most thankless role of the main trio, only because Matt never feels like a clearly defined character. To play Andrew, meanwhile, Dane DeHaan has to go through a significant transformation. For the most part, he's up to the task, though there are times when you can see him really stretching.

Chronicle is an intense film, especially during the final action scene, which is well-staged, but probably goes on a little too long. Still, it's a breathless, bloody sequence that will make or break your opinion on the film. There will be some who are turned off by the intensity of the camerawork. Others will think the film took to many shortcuts to get to this point. For me, Chronicle works. It's much better than its Super Bowl weekend release would typically signify, but it's also a far more difficult watch than you'd ever expect.

TOP 10: 2012 Sundance Titles

2012-02-03T15:14:00.000-05:00

A different sort of Top 10 this week. Together with my PlayerAffinity.com colleague Sam Woolf, I've compiled a list of 10 promising titles that debuted at Sundance 2012. From the outside looking in, it appeared to be a very strong festival. I could have easily extended this list to a Top 20. Instead, I'll share my five choices and link you (here) to the Player Affinity movie page, where you'll find Sam's five choices. My honorable mentions include Celeste and Jesse Forever, The Queen of Versailles, Arbitrage, How to Survive the Plague, Red Hook Summer, and 2 Days in New York.

Beasts of the Southern Wild
This year's Grand Jury Prize winner wasn't typical Sundance fare. Benh Zeitlin's Beasts of the Southern Wild follows a little girl named Hushpuppy who lives near the edge of the world and must fight illness, melting polar ice caps, and vicious creatures called aurochs if she's to ever find her mother. It also sounds like a coming-of-age story, which will undoubtedly bring an emotional hook to the bizarre story. Regardless, something with such an original premise could perform well, especially with the indie kings at Fox Searchlight behind it.

Liberal Arts
The two stars of this film, Josh Radnor and Elizabeth Olsen, are following up their critically-acclaimed breakouts (happythankyoumoreplease and Martha Marcy May Marlene, respectively) with this crowd-pleaser about a man who goes back to college in his thirties and falls for a young undergrad. It's certainly a test of Olsen's versatility, as she transitions away from the closed of title character of 2011's Sundance darling. Radnor, meanwhile, is looking to prove himself behind the camera once again, and general consensus out of the festival is quite positive. Liberal Arts was picked up by IFC Films.

Safety Not Guaranteed
Here's a bizarre one, with a plot that's ripped from the headlines (Internet headlines, to be specific). Remember that meme about the guy who took out a personal ad looking for someone to travel through time with? Colin Tervorrow's film follows a young journalist (the hilariously deadpan Aubrey Plaza) as she tracks down this guy, Kenneth Calloway (indie hero Mark Duplass), for an interview...or more. The film was picked up by FilmDistrct and promises to be very funny. Consider me sold.

Compliance
Here's another ripped from the headlines film, though this one is very serious. Based on a series of crimes during the mid-2000s, the film takes place at a fictional fast food restaurant and focuses on a boss who's told one of her young, attractive employees has stolen money from a customer. The boss follows the instructions of the "police" on the phone, who tell her to search the employee thoroughly. The film appears to be as scandalous as the events upon which it is based. Reviews are strong, but it's been called disturbing, and it generated multiple walkouts during screenings at the festival. Compliance is a Magnolia Pictures acquisition.

Robot and Frank
High-concept science-fiction films typically sound promising, but they don't always end up working (see In Time). Robot and Frank, by most accounts, is a charmer through and through. Frank Langella (of Frost/Nixon fame) stars as a retired cat burglar in the future whose main company is a robot caretaker (voiced by Peter Saarsgard). Unhappy with the situation at first, Frank's attitude changes when he realizes Robot is the perfect partner for his next and possibly final heist. The film was picked up by Sony, which means it could see a fairly wide release sometime this year.

For five more Sundance debuts to look out for, head on over to PlayerAffinity.com.

Paths of Glory Review

2012-02-02T12:51:00.000-05:00

Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) in the trenches during battle in Paths of Glory.

4 Stars

Even the most fervent foreign policy hawks would likely have a hard time disputing the anti-war message in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory. The 1957 film, which really signaled the director's arrival on the big stage, preaches without seeming too preachy, and horrifies while avoiding some potentially horrifying imagery. What's frightening about Paths of Glory isn't the amount of blood shed, but rather the attitudes and actions of the powerful few who get a little too much enjoyment and pride out of playing God with the men ranked below them. It's an upstairs-downstairs story in so many ways, but one with higher stakes than you can imagine, and it's filmed and crafted in a way that only a master director could do.

When General Paul Mireau (George Macready) is told by his superiors that he and his men could win the war for France by taking control of Ant Hill, he's skeptical. It's an impossible task, but one he—a proud military man—could never back down from. So he tells his best colonel, Dax (Kirk Douglas), to prepare his already worn-down men for one last fight. Dax knows it's folly, but he's also proud and quite aware that refusal isn't an option. So just days after the order comes through, the battle begins—and it's a slaughter. Some of Dax's men never even make it out of the trenches, and of those that do, at least half are dead in minutes. Eventually, the survivors all retreat, and though they've fought gallantly for France in the past, they're all called cowards by Mireau and the other generals. Someone needs to pay for the disgrace, so they choose three men to face official charges on the matter. The penalty if they're found guilty: Death. So Dax prepares a defense while the three soldiers grapple with their seemingly inescapable fate.

It's hard to say what's more compelling here: The war scenes or the courtroom battle. For the first half of the film, you're totally taken by Kubrick's filmmaking abilities. His long takes through the trenches are now legendary, and the way he stages the actual fighting is way ahead-of-its-time. Once the film shifts gears to the court, it becomes more about the story. There's a ton of suspense, as you wonder whether Dax can actually succeed in freeing these men, and as his plight becomes less and less hopeful, you'll start to shake with anger at the audacity of some of the people in this film. Make no mistake: Paths of Glory is a message movie, and Kubrick wants to make sure you hear him loud and clear, no matter how difficult his thesis might be to swallow.

The film is no less impressive to look at as it shifts from the frontline to the jury box. The trial takes place in this sickeningly large and grandiose room that perfectly underscores the idea that those in charge are completely out of touch with reality. The head generals sit off to the side, above everyone, and rather than serve as witnesses, they sip cognac and chomp cigars. Dax paces the room, as angry as we are, while the defendants sit quietly as their unjustly judged. The whole thing is a marvel of pacing, blocking, set design, and camerawork.

Kirk Douglas is tremendous as the only sane and reasonable man of power in France. It'll still be a few years before he really enters the big time (oddly enough, in another Kubrick effort, Spartacus), but this film offers a fair look at the kind of actor he can be. Dax is a heroic military figure, but a little deeper than most cinematic interpretations of this familiar archetype. His weariness to fight is apparent, despite being more than able to thrive on the battlefield. There's also a naivete that's not obvious at first, but comes up much later at a crucial moment. Shocked at the callousness of one of his superiors, he's forced to make a choice that more or less punctuates Kubrick's message. It's fantastic work, and I don't think the film would be the same without it.

Also exceptional is George Macready whose Mireau is a real bastard. The entire ensemble works; really, everything in the film works. Some will tell you the final scene is out of place, but I disagree completely. It's a fitting way to end a pretty brutal movie. Would if I could find some fault, but Paths of Glory is a gorgeous war film with a clear message, great acting, and real emotional heft. You can't ask for much more than that.

Le Havre Review

2012-02-01T17:57:00.001-05:00

Marcel (Andre Wilms) chats with Idrissa (Blondin Miguel) in Le Havre.

3 Stars

Aki Kaurasmaki's Le Havre does for the small French village what Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris does for its titular city. Kaurasmaki presents an uber-romantic view of the kind of community where everyone knows everyone, and baguette and stinky cheese can be bought on every corner. It seems more than a little unrealistic, but coupled with its quirky characters and gleefully over-the-top score, it becomes something unexpected: A deadpan fairytale. Though it lacks focus and feels a lot longer than it actually is, I must recommend it because of the very thin line between surprising and heartwarming that it somehow manages to walk.

In the French port city of Le Havre, shoeshiner Marcel Marx (Andre Wilms) lives a simple life. After work, he stops for groceries at the same shops, stopping to chitchat with the same people. He gets a drink of wine at the same bar, always populated with the same patrons. Then, he heads home to his loving wife, Arletty (Kati Outinen), and starts it all again the next day. But very suddenly, a series of events throws his world for a loop. First, Arletty is stricken ill and hospitalized. Treatable cancer, he's told, is the problem, though Arletty knows the truth: Her disease is terminal. He also encounters a young Gabonese boy, Idrissa (Blondin Miguel), who snuck into the country via shipping container with his family. He's the only one who managed to escape, and though every law enforcer within 50 miles is after him, Marcel takes pity and decides to help him make his way to London—his intended destination and the place where his mother lives. All he needs to do is outfox the steadfast and suspicious inspector, Monet (Jean-Pierre Darroussin).

Le Havre is as much a story about a place as it is about people. The film's tone makes it unclear to me whether he has genuine affection for places like this or if he's intending to send them up, but if it's the latter, I think he's failed. Le Havre makes me long for a place where everybody knows your name and wouldn't think twice to help you when you're in need. It sounds schmaltzy, I know, but Kaurasmaki dampens it all somewhat with dourness that feels both welcome and misplaced. As I stated earlier, the tone is a little all over the place, but it's hard to argue with how the finished product made me feel.

It's interesting how, on the surface, the film seems to be about Marcel's attempts to help Idrissa, but this all fades to the background fairly quickly. Though I'm glad in a way (what Kaurasmaki does instead is much more satisfying than that story ever would be on its own), it does make the film drag in places. The director can't ignore this thread completely, however, and though the way he concludes it is a bit obvious, it's handled as well as it could have been.

As far as performances go, the film is full of good ones. The best is Darroussin's as the inspector, easily the most complicated individual in the film. He's a lot like Kevin Bacon's character, Sean, in Mystic River. It's clear he was once part of Marcel's community—a place where laws aren't maliciously broken, but they aren't followed to a T, either. Monet gave that lifestyle up to become a law enforcer, and he isn't well-received as a result. He's something of a turncoat, and that title weighs heavy on him.

As Marcel, Andre Wilms doesn't need to do a ton, but he effective conveys the film's complicated tone. Ditto Kati Outinen and Blondin Miguel, though the former nearly disappears about halfway through, and the latter, as I've said, doesn't have a ton to do throughout.

I have my doubts regarding Le Havre's ability to resonate, but it's definitely a pleasant watch. It's not all that challenging, but damn if it didn't manage to surprise me on a few occasions. It's a shame it didn't get the Best Foreign Language Film citation most expected because I think it'd be a nice antidote to your typically heavy fare in that category. Alas, it was probably a little too confounding for Academy voters. Their loss.

The Artist Review

2012-01-30T10:43:00.000-05:00

George (Jean Dujardin) get a kiss from a fan, Peppy (Berenice Bejo), in The Artist.

3.5 Stars

Michael Hazanavicius' The Artist is a crowd-pleaser through and through. The film is just bursting with wit and energy, and like some of the best and most timeless silent films of old, it doesn't need to do much to bring a 100-minute-long smile to your face. In fact, it doesn't do much. The story is one that's been done dozens of times before (including in Singin' in the Rain, which the film mimics to an almost embarrassing degree). But the borrowed plot really doesn't get much in the way of you having a grand old time watching The Artist. Best picture of 2011? Probably not. One of the most enjoyable movie-going experiences of the year? Absolutely.

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the hottest movie star in the world in 1927. Along with his trusty canine sidekick, he's able to charm the pants off audiences while onscreen, and off it, he's no less charismatic. While posing for the press after the premiere of his latest film, George meets an eager young fan named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). She's a good sport for the cameras, even going so far as to plant a big kiss on her idol's cheek. She's able to parlay this attention into a job as an extra on George's next film. Though he's a married man, these two share undeniable chemistry. And though they won't see each other again for years, they become instrumental in each other's lives. Working with George helps propel Peppy to the big leagues, and with the talking pictures forcing actors like George out of the business, it's his young and newly successful friend that can help him overcome the depression that comes with being a has-been.

The film does such an amazing job replicating the terrific tone and sense of humor of the best silent films. When Peppy, alone, sticks her arm through the sleeve of George's tuxedo jacket and gives herself a loving embrace, one can't help but think of Chaplain. Ditto the brilliant dream sequence during which George is haunted by sound and the thought that the pictures might not require him to speak. What's not laugh-out-loud funny can generally be classified as super charming and romantic. Obviously, Ludovic Bource's score does a lot of heavy lifting, but you can't understate the importance of Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo to The Artist's success. Yes, there have been better performances this year, but without them, no one is talking about The Artist. It's arguable whether this film would have seen the light of day without their hard work.

Both Dujardin and Bejo have worked with Hazanavicius before—on the OSS 117 spy spoofs, both of which I'm completely unfamiliar with. But he really managed to strike gold with them. I couldn't imagine two other actors working today who'd be more suited (both in terms of personality and physicality) to pull off these roles. Dujardin's is certainly deeper and more challenging (the places the film goes are darker than you might expect). I think that's why he's gotten more praise than his co-star, including a Best Actor prize at Cannes. Bejo, however, is just as good. Though the role loses a little steam right at the point when Dujardin's role takes a turn, she's magnetic. Especially early on, Bejo nearly steals Dujardin's thunder (though I'd argue both are upstaged by Uggie, the dog, who's as adorable as any other canine this year).

On a craft level, it's a little harder to evaluate The Artist because it's just so much different than any other movie out there. Clearly, there's a lot going on. The costumes and set designs are very period and very detailed. There's a lot of interesting camerawork going on, especially early in the film when we're basically watching people watch a movie for five minutes or so. All that leads up to a brilliant sound trick—one of my favorite moments in the movie, when it really dawns on you that this is actually a silent film.

Up for a total of 10 Oscars, the film will likely clean up (unless Hugo picks up some steam). Having now seen the film, all I'll say is that I wouldn't begrudge it a win an any of those 10 categories. Hazanavicius' direction is very assured for a relative newcomer. The score is tremendous. And Dujardin and Bejo are tops, as well. I think the film could have used some tightening (Valentin's depression phase goes on a little long), and a little more originality could never hurt, but if you're looking for a fun time at the movies, you could do a lot worse than The Artist. It's a must watch for film fans, and not just because it's poised to join the Best Picture club. Rather, watch it because it, like you, is bursting with love and admiration for the movies.

Man on a Ledge Review

2012-01-28T18:43:00.002-05:00

Lydia (Elizabeth Banks) joins Nick (Sam Worthington) out on a ledge in Man on a Ledge.

2.5 Stars

Man on a Ledge is a colossally dumb heist movie that works more often than it doesn't in spite of the filmmakers' best efforts. That director Asger Leth and writer Pablo F. Fenjves would think this is a smart thriller feels insulting. It's riddled with cliches and more than a little preposterous. But perhaps because it goes for the jugular—or maybe because of the decidedly populist undertones that one can't help but find a little pleasure in—Man on a Ledge ends on a note that's pretty satisfying, at least compared to your average January popcorn flick.

Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington) is the titular man, and he's going out on the ledge after spending two years in prison for a crime he didn't commit—the theft of a $40 million diamond from a wealthy real estate mogul, David Englander (Ed Harris). But he's not going to kill himself; he's going to free himself. Weeks before he steps onto the ledge, he escapes prison with the help of his brother, Joey (Jamie Bell), and Joey's girlfriend, Angie (Genesis Rodriguez). The three of them come up with a plan that will prove Englander set Nick up in order to cash in on a big payday. See, the diamond is still housed in New York—right across the street from the ledge where Nick is currently standing. So with the eyes of New York all on him, Joey and Angie can slip in relatively undetected to grab the diamond and clear up Nick's name for good.

It's a convoluted plot (and far from the easiest way to prove Nick's innocence), but at least it gives the film a frenetic pace. Considering the film is essentially about a guy who stands on a ledge, a lot happens, but with so much happening, the film begins to feel like a runaway train. And as we know from Unstoppable, only two things can happen when a train is out of control: Someone can toggle the breaks just in time, or it can go screaming off the rails. It's the latter for Man on a Ledge. That's not to say it's not a fun wreck to watch, but where Leth is going for tension, you'll be howling with laughter.

One of the major themes of Man on a Ledge is that of a little guy who's fighting tooth and nail against "The Man". With corrupt cops and even more corrupt billionaires trying to bring him down, the city rallies alongside Nick, which makes him an appealing hero (despite Worthington's best efforts to do the opposite). There's a little bit of 99% vs. 1% in this film, and because success for Nick seems impossible, you might find yourself wrapped up in the proceedings more than you'd care to be.

The acting is more of a mixed bag than you'd expect. Sam Worthington, despite being the lead, gives easily the worst performance in the film. There comes a point where he has nothing left to do on the ledge but stall for time, and you can really feel it. Beyond those shortcomings (which are probably more a fault of the screenplay), he's not up to par. His accent is all kinds of awful, and he's just never able to make us feel his desperation in a way that he'd resort to something so crazy.

At least his family is more appealing. Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez are super charming and genuinely funny. They aren't exactly world-class thieves. They're just doing the best they can, and seeing them flail around this high-security vault sounds horrible but is actually quite entertaining. Ed Harris doesn't have enough to do as the villain. He leaves a very minor impression. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Banks is playing against type as a slightly strung-out cop who's trying to talk Nick off the ledge. She's solid, if unmemorable.

Is Man on a Ledge worth your time and money? Perhaps, as long as you're not expecting the next great heist movie. There is a little bit of Spike Lee's Inside Man in this film, but where that film exuded coolness and intelligence, this one is entertaining because it's ridiculous. The more you think about it, the more the film's flaws will jump out at you, but turn your brain off, and you might have a great time.

Shame Review

2012-01-27T17:58:00.000-05:00

Sissy (Carey Mulligan) belts out a soulful rendition of New York, New York in Shame.

2.5 Stars

Does a film need a soul in order to be successful? Steve McQueen's Shame doesn't have one, but it's hard to argue that the film doesn't work on at least some level. The film is colder and more emotionally distant than perhaps any other from last year, and the way it places us in the head of its main character is both somewhat frustrating. Michael Fassbender's Brandon is almost inhuman, and the wall he's put up prevents us from understanding, feeling, or sadly, caring much about him or the other men and women in his life. Yes, there's a great amount of skill on hand here, but without a real reason to care, Shame comes dangerously close to not being worth your time.

Brandon is a seemingly successful New Yorker whose life revolves around physical pleasure. He masturbates at work and at home as often as possible, and he has no hangups calling up a prostitute or going the online voyeur route to satisfy himself. Yes, occasionally he'll go about things the old-fashioned way, but his approach is that of someone he can't control himself. He'll chase after an attractive woman on the subway even if she has a wedding ring on, and an office crush will almost certainly turn into something more if and when he wants it to. In other words, Brandon is a sex addict.

His world is turned upside-down, however, when his sister—Sissy (Carey Mulligan)—shows up unannounced in need of a place to stay. Their relationship has some serious problems, but Brandon can't turn her away. The more she learns about his problem, however, the angrier he gets. It's not help that Brandon wants—only for Sissy to leave, so he won't have to tiptoe around his own home any longer.

The lack of a story isn't Shame's problem. There have been plenty of great films with non-traditional narratives in 2011 and other years (The Tree of Life, The Hurt Locker). What hurts the film most is its perspective. We get everything from Brandon's point of view, and because he's so disinterested in those around him, we never really get a sense of what makes them tick. Sissy, I guess, is the one character that could have used this the most. She's very interesting. It's clear she's been in some trouble before, that she is trying to make up for some mistakes in the past. She wants Brandon's love, but why? She's attractive and a talented singer. He's physically and verbally abusive toward her, yet she becomes hysterical over the thought of severing their connection. McQueen doesn't have to spell everything out to us, but he should throw us some kind of bone.

Fassbender, unsurprisingly, is the film's shining star. I wouldn't call it one of the best performances of 2011, if I'm being honest. Hell, I don't even think it was his best performance of 2011 (that'd probably be in X-Men: First Class, oddly enough). But he is very controlled and explodes in anger as convincingly as any actor. In that respect, his performance is a lot like those of Michael Shannon in Take Shelter and Woody Harrelson in Rampart—my two favorite male performances from last year. Those two, I think, are better for the same reason their films are better than this one: There's something more human and less clinical about them.

Carey Mulligan is also good. She gets as naked as Fassbender, though I don't think nudity should matter when judging a performance. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the actor can hide his or her own self and bring a character to life. Mulligan does this. The problem lies with the character, who I've already said we don't know enough about. Despite the focus of the film being firmly on Brandon, Sissy drives the action. There's not much to Shame without her. There's also not enough of her in the film.

Anyone who has seen Hunger should know what to expect from McQueen stylistically—long takes, a very deliberate design. This film is full of all that, and it's hard to fault a filmmaker for anything when they have such a strong eye for detail. But a stronger focus on developing the people in this world rather than the world itself would have done the film a great service. Shame is a unique experience, that's for sure, but it's not something I care to watch again, and it's definitely not something I'd recommend to most other viewers. Give me McQueen's next film, though. His talent is undeniable, despite his sophomore effort being a disappointment.

TOP 10: Stuck-in-One-Spot Movies

2012-01-26T19:28:00.000-05:00

This weekend at the movies, Sam Worthington will step out on a ledge, but it doesn't look like he's jumping. He's just going to stand there. Sounds compelling, right?

Well, whatever you think about Man on a Ledge, it's hard to deny the uniqueness of films that rely upon just one setting for 90-plus minutes, nor can you say the director doesn't have at least a little courage—even if things don't always work out.

To celebrate the release of Man on a Ledge, I'm looking back at ten other films that used their single settings to do something awesome. Not all the films are great, nor are they ranked in order of overall quality. They are just ten movies that share one thing in common—they find interesting ways to make the characters and viewers claustrophobic.

10.) Buried
This is actually a terrible movie. It's manipulative and really cruel, but it's hard to write a list like this without at least mentioning Buried. It's probably the most literal cinematic interpretation of "stuck in one spot" ever. From the moment the film begins to its awful conclusion, we're buried alive with Ryan Reynolds. It's not fun, but you'll definitely feel claustrophobic. [Review]

9.) Phone Booth
Here's another relatively recent film that's far from a masterpiece, but at least it sticks to its guns. Very early on, director Joel Schumaker puts Colin Farrell in a phone booth, and there he stays with the scope of Kiefer Sutherland's sniper rifle pointed right at him. Though better than Buried, the film is far from a masterpiece, but like Rodrigo Cortes' film, this one's biggest asset is the claustrophobic atmosphere if its setting.

8.) Murder on the Orient Express
The great Sidney Lumet directed this adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel, and it's a brilliant watch. A dozen or so people from different backgrounds ride a train. In their midst is a murderer, but who is it? Featuring an all-time great performance from Albert Finney as Inspector Poirot (who's a more refined version of Sherlock Holmes), the train itself drives much of the narrative and lends a real sense of foreboding to the proceedings. [Review]

7.) Panic Room
It's one of David Fincher's lesser efforts, for sure, but it's elevated by tremendous craftwork and direction. Jodie Foster and Kristin Stewart find their new brownstone the target of a home invasion, so they hole up in an impenetrable safe room—the very room the thieves need to get into. Kristin Stewart's character's severe asthma only makes us feel more uncomfortable about their predicament. [Review]

6.) The Thing
Surrounded by the unforgiving Antarctic wilderness, what hope does a guy have (even one as badass as Kurt Russell)? None. So he fights back against the shapeshifting monster killing off all his men. That's how frightening the landscape is in John Carpenter's horror classic.

5.) 12 Angry Men
Another Sidney Lumet film, this one taking place in a sweltering conference room. As Henry Fonda pleads his case, the rest of the men just stare out the window, trapped by decency, reason, and that horrible fucking room. [Review]

4.) 127 Hours
A Best Picture nominee from 2010 (and one of my favorite films of that year), Danny Boyle tells the story of Aron Rolston with incredible energy. But without that rock, there is no story. [Review]

3.) Groundhog Day
Going a little out-there with this choice. Bill Murray obviously isn't stuck in one place, but rather one day, and it's a hellish day. [Review]

2.) The Shining
Jack Torrance and the Overlook Hotel. It drove him mad, what with the cold and the blood and the little girls. More so than any other setting on the list, this one is alive and it's just sucking the life and the sanity out Jack Nicholson's character.

1.) The Exterminating Angel
No film in history has used the idea of being stuck somewhere in a more original way. Seriously, the balls on Bunuel to make this film—and more to the point, to not explain why his group of upper-class goons can't leave their dinner party—is insane and a stroke of genius. [Review]

TOP 10: Favorite Craft Nominations 2012

2012-01-25T22:29:00.000-05:00

I posted my thoughts on the nominations in big six categories yesterday. I was going to go through the craft categories in a similar way, but frankly, the thought of it exhausts me. So in accordance with my plea for positivity, I'm sharing the ten non-picture/non-director/non-acting nominations that made me happiest yesterday.

10.) Margin Call (Best Original Screenplay)
Happy I predicted it. Happier that such a strong piece of writing found a spot at the Oscars. And it's always nice to see first-timers get noticed.

9.) The Ides of March (Best Adapted Screenplay)
I know a lot of people were down on this movie when it came out, but it's stuck with a while, and I'm really excited to revisit it now that it's on DVD. This seemed like it's only legitimate shot at Oscar recognition, and I'm happy it got something.

8.) A Cat in Paris and Chico & Rita (Best Animated Feature)
I haven't seen this films, but I'm happy they got in for two reasons. One: They kept really weak big studio fare like Cars 2 out of the race. Two: More people will see them. For better or worse, I'll always be glad when the Oscars are able to give little movies a visibility boost.

7.) Drive (Best Sound Editing)
I've got an ulterior motive on this one. If I'm being honest, I don't remember a thing about the sound editing in Drive. I remember the score, but that's about it. So why am I happy? Because nothing, NOTHING, annoys me more when people say something to the effect of "X film (Transformers 3, Real Steel) can now be labeled as Oscar-nominated, while Y film (Shame) can't." You sound stupid when you say that. And if Drive didn't get any Oscar nominations and these other films did, I know my Twitter feed would have collectively murdered someone. So a life was saved yesterday with this nomination.

6.) Only Two Best Original Song Nominees
Another ulterior motive. I hate this category and how much time it usually wastes at the Oscar ceremony. Only having two nominees does two things. We only have to potentially sit through two performances, and with such an embarrassing showing, one can only hope they just put this category out of its misery next year.

5.) Moneyball (Best Sound Mixing)
I, like many others, really overlooked Moneyball on first viewing, and I think one of the biggest reasons is that a lot of the craft is subtle. Observant watchers, however, will note the skill involved in putting this film together. We'll start my Moneyball love fest with a celebration of the film's sound, which blends a noteworthy score with the sounds of the stadium very well.

4.) Moneyball (Best Editing)
We continue said Moneyball love fest by congratulating the Academy for nominating Christopher Tellefsen. This story is a complex one. It includes aspects of an underdog story, a real behind-the-scenes look at baseball, a character study (complete with flashbacks), and some family drama. Throw in all the archival baseball footage used, and Tellefsen has a tough task on his hands. That Moneyball is so coherent and compelling is a credit to its Tellefsen's outstanding work. Again, not as flashy as other films, but perhaps the most deserving nominee in that category.

3.) If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (Best Documentary Feature)
A weird and surprising list of nominees in this category. A lot of people thought Buck looked strong, and plenty (myself included) assumed Project Nim was the frontrunner. Instead, we got surprise nominees Undefeated and this, one of my favorite documentaries of the year, about environmental terrorism.

2.) A Separation (Best Original Screenplay)
What a pleasant surprise it was to find out that your screenplay doesn't need to be in English to get Oscar recognition! Asghar Farhadi's domestic drama works on so many levels that this nomination should have been a no-brainer. But that's not how things looked going into Tuesday morning. Chalk this one up to good taste.

1.) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Best Adapted Screenplay)
Ditto this one. Gary Oldman's nomination was definitely the highlight of Tuesday morning for me, but this was probably a close second. It's one of my favorite films of the year, and though I knew it wouldn't get every nomination I thought it deserved (Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, Art Direction, etc.), I held out hope the film's expert adaptation would sneak it. And it did, at the expense of The Help no less. Bravo, Academy!

2012 Oscar Nominations, Snubs, and Winner Predictions

2012-01-24T12:45:00.005-05:00

What a morning! It was exhausting, really. There is only so much whining I can deal with about Drive not getting a Best Picture nomination or Michael Fassbender not recognized for Shame. Just give it a rest. An Oscar nomination doesn't add or take away from a film or performance's impact, so all I want to see are happy, smiley tweets and blog posts, OK?

With that in mind (and out of the way), I have to say I'm pretty pumped. There were a good amount of surprises, which is ultimately all I really hope for. Below is a rundown of the major categories with predicted winners and potential surprises, as well as the actors, producers, and directors that might be doing shots tonight. I'll be back later this week with Part 2, covering the crafts.

Best Picture
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Wow. Easily the biggest surprises of the day were the number of Best Picture nominees (9!), and the inclusion of Stephen Daldry's 9/11 film, which has gotten some of the worst reviews I've ever seen. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't say too much on the matter. I'm thrilled The Tree of Life made it in. I predicted it, but it was far from a lock. Beyond that, it's business as expected. Strong field? Yeah, I'd say so.

Predicted Winner: The Artist
Potential Spoiler: Hugo
Surprising Snub: I'm guessing The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would have been the tenth film, but its exclusion isn't a major surprise.

Best Director
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

We knew four of the names. I had just been hoping the fifth would be Malick. Yeah, I'm feeling very happy today.

Predicted Winner: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Potential Spoiler: Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Surprising Snub: I went 5/5, so none, really, but I guess Fincher or Spielberg wouldn't have shocked me.

Best Actor
Demián Bichir, A Better Life
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Gary Oldman, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

The category that made me happiest today. Reason #1: Gary Oldman. An incredible performance from an amazing actor. Finally, finally, finally we can call him an Oscar nominee. Reason #2: Demian Bichir. BOOM, called it! Just gotta catch up with the film...

Predicted Winner: George Clooney, The Descendants
Potential Spoiler: Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Surprising Snub: Fassbender and DiCaprio, who earned the lion's share of precursor nods.

Best Actress
Viola Davis, The Help
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

I've had Mara in there all season long, but swapped her out at the last minute. Still, it was in favor of Glenn Close, not Tilda Swinton. A little bummed about Charlize Theron and the lack of Young Adult love. Oh well.

Predicted Winner: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Possible Spoiler: Viola Davis, The Help
Surprising Snub: Swinton

Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Max Von Sydow, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

No Albert Brooks was a major surprise. I thought he could be a spoiler for the win, but the Academy clearly did not like Drive. Shocking that they couldn't embrace this ultra-violent character study. Truly shocking. He gets bumped in favor of Von Sydow, but my heart belongs to Jonah Hill in this category. So happy such a subtle but sterling turn was rewarded.

Predicted Winner: Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Potential Spoiler: None? Maybe Nolte?
Surprising Snub: Brooks, one of the bigger surprises of the entire day

Best Supporting Actress
Bérénice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer, The Help

There's a reason comedies don't get nominated very often: Comedy is subjective. It's harder to form a consensus around a comedy film. I think that's what probably stopped Bridesmaids from getting a Best Picture nomination (though few would argue that it wasn't at least in the mix). Melissa McCarthy, it seems, was too funny to ignore. Whatever. I would've, but that's me. I know plenty of people who were head-over-heels for this performance, so congrats. But it'll come down to The Help's girls for the win.

Predicted Winner: Octavia Spencer, The Help
Possible Spoiler: Jessica Chastain, The Help
Surprising Snub: Shailene Woodley, The Descendants

2012 Oscar Predictions: My Final Guesses

2012-01-23T14:56:00.001-05:00

It's been a season defined by unpredictability. As such, I'm predicting some surprises Tuesday morning. War Horse? Stick a fork in it, it's done. Instead, I'm buying last-minute tickets on The Tree of Life train. There's some debate over the final actor slot, which most feel is between Leonardo DiCaprio and Gary Oldman (and maybe Michael Shannon). But I'm going with SAG nominee Demian Bechir. And as far as total nominations go, I think Hugo will lead the way, rather than Best Picture favorite The Artist.

Read on for my complete 2012 Oscar nomination predictions. And check back Tuesday for reactions, snubs, and winner predictions.

Best Picture
The Artist
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris
The Tree of Life

Best Director
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Best Actor
Demian Bechir, A Better Life
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Michael Fassbender, Shame
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Best Actress
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin
Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn

Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn
Albert Brooks, Drive
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Best Supporting Actress
Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Shailene Woodley, The Descendants

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Best Original Screenplay
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Margin Call
Midnight in Paris
Win Win

Best Animated Feature
The Adventures of Tintin
Cars 2
Kung Fu Panda 2
Rango
Rio

Best Documentary Feature
Bill Cunningham New York
Hell and Back Again
Pina
Project Nim
We Were Here

Best Foreign Language Feature
Footnote (Israel)
In Darkness (Poland)
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
Pina (Germany)
A Separation (Iran)

Best Art Direction
The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2
Hugo
Jane Eyre
War Horse

Best Cinematography
The Artist
Hugo
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Best Costume Design
The Artist
The Help
Hugo
Jane Eyre
W.E.

Best Film Editing
The Artist
Hugo
Moneyball
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
The Tree of Life

Best Makeup
The Artist
Hugo
The Iron Lady

Best Original Score
The Adventures of Tintin
The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Best Original Song
Albert Nobbs
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Help
The Muppets
The Muppets

Best Sound Editing
The Adventures of Tintin
Hugo
Rango
Super 8
Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Best Sound Design
The Adventures of Tintin
Hugo
Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol
Super 8
Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Best Visual Effects
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life

Total Nominations
12: Hugo
11: The Artist
6: The Help
5: The Descendants, Moneyball, The Tree of Life
4: The Adventures of Tintin
3: Midnight in Paris, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, War Horse
2: Albert Nobbs, Bridesmaids, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2, The Iron Lady, Jane Eyre, The Muppets, My Week with Marilyn, Pina, Rango, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Super 8, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
1: Beginners, A Better Life, Bill Cunningham New York, Captain America: The First Avenger, Cars 2, Drive, Footnote, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hell and Back Again, In Darkness, Kung Fu Panda 2, Margin Call, Monsieur Lazhar, Project Nim, Rio, A Separation, Shame, Warrior, W.E., We Need to Talk About Kevin, We Were Here, Win Win

TAKE TWO: Moneyball

2012-01-21T11:52:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the first of what will certainly be a regular column on this blog. It's called Take Two, and it's my chance to express some thoughts on a film after a second look. In many cases (like today), I'll be eating some crow and explaining how or why I think I got a film wrong the first time. Other times, my original opinions will simply be reiterated. Either way, I think the true measure of a great film (at least for me) is how well it holds up, and that's the point of this column. With that in mind, you should be aware that Post Mortems will be relatively informal, and all will include spoilers.

For the inaugural edition, I'll be looking back at Bennett Miller's Moneyball—a film I liked quite a bit when I saw it back in September. Has my opinion changed? Hell yeah. I'll get into the many reasons in a bit, but to start, I'll just say that my Best of 2011 list has seen its first major shakeup. This film is a near-masterpiece.

The first thing that jumped out at me watching the film a second time is how good the crafts are. The film editing and cinematography are among the best of the year, and I think it's because the film is more traditional and low-key than, say, The Tree of Life or Hugo that the love isn't totally there. I'm glad the film is earning notices from the various guilds, but I know a lot of you would probably agree that Moneyball isn't the the first title you'd think of if prompted to name the best cinematography of last year. All I'm saying is that it should be in the discussion.

But why? I mean Emmanuel Lubezki's work in Terrence Malick's film is all-time great stuff, and that's saying nothing of the work in films like Melancholia, Drive, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, etc. I guess the general theme of this entire post would answer that question. I think Wally Pfister's lens does such a fantastic job in shaping our view of this world. Everything from the general palette of cool blues and greens to the big empty shots of Billy Beane in the Oakland A's stadium helps us understand the world of baseball as a cold, unforgiving place. As Beane says late in the film, unless you win the last game of the Series, no one remembers you. And I think the way Pfister captures Beane as a lonely cog in this great big machine helps the viewer connect with him more and see the film as more than just a baseball movie.

Then there's the editing. I guess I forgot how often the film incorporates actual baseball footage, but it's done expertly. Couple that with the way Beane's past fits into the story and his relationship with the daughter, and you've got a much more complex timeline than one might expect. Christopher Tellefsen—along with the sound team which do a great job mixing Mychael Danna's understated score with play-by-play, crowd noise, and actual dialogue—deserves the recognition of the Academy for a job very well done.

I knew on first viewing that Moneyball was a well-written film, and Pitt's terrific lead performance wasn't a big secret either, but another revelatory aspect of the film upon second watch was Jonah Hill. On Friday, I published my Oscar wish list—with the "unsung" performances, writers, etc. that I wish were nominated over specific frontrunners. My original Best Supporting Actor wish was that Viggo Mortensen (A Dangerous Method) was nominated over Hill. Man, did I screw that one up. Not only do I think Hill is deserving of his inevitable nod on Tuesday morning, he might even be my choice to win. And it's not even that he acts his heart out. Quite the opposite, in fact. He never loses his cool, nor does he lean on his comedic chops. But his mere presence in the film is an invaluable resource. Because he is so funny, you almost expect him to turn into Seth from Superbad at some point. That expectation, despite never once coming into fruition, helps keep Moneyball's tone relatively light. It's definitely subtle work, but with Pitt sometimes becoming larger-than-life (not in a bad way), I found it comforting to have a character like Peter Brand present.

Moneyball seems poised for big things come the Oscar nominations (I'm expecting Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Film Editing nods at least). I wish Bennett Miller's name was getting talked about for Best Director because the way he brings everything together is masterful. But whatever the case, I suspect this film will be one that film fans remember fondly for years to come. It's just so damn good. I do with Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character was a little more developed, and the anachronistic song is slightly bothersome, but really, all that's small potatoes when a film is otherwise firing on all cylinders.

FIRST TAKE: A solid 3.5 stars
NEW TAKE: 4 stars, with ease

TOP 10: My 2012 Oscar Wish List

2012-01-20T13:35:00.001-05:00

Rather than run down a list of great performances, movies, and craft achievements that I think flat-out deserve recognition, I'm going to stick with those that have something of a shot at getting nominated Tuesday morning. Accompanying each is a lock or near-lock that I'd be happy to see knocked out of the race. This in no way reflects my Oscar predictions. Rather, it's just my way of venting before the nominations actually come out.

10.) Best Supporting Actress: Janet McTeer for Melissa McCarthy
If there was an MTV Movie Award for best Zach Galifianakis impression, I'd be all about McCarthy getting recognized. As far as Oscar goes, however, a nod for the Bridesmaids star would be sad, especially over McTeer, who is in the hunt but not in a great spot. If only my favorite supporting actress performance—Anjelica Huston in 50/50—had gotten more buzz...

9.) Best Documentary Feature: If a Tree Falls… for Buck
Though I've made my bed with the exceptional How to Die in Oregon and The Interrupters, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front represents the cream of the crop in the shortlisted field. Buck, while a frontrunner, is a sloppy piece of non-fiction filmmaking. Let's hope the documentary branch atones for some of their mistakes from earlier this year by making the strongest field possible.

8.) Best Supporting Actor: Viggo Mortensen for Christopher Plummer
I liked Plummer's work in Beginners. I really did. It was the best thing about Mike Millis' subpar movie. But Viggo just owned A Dangerous Method. For a film with little going for it, a commanding performance like his shines through all the more, and it's a shame he's getting lost in the shuffle. Despite precursor notices here and there, his chances for a call Tuesday morning are unfortunately slim.

7.) Best Director: Tomas Alfredson for David Fincher
This one wasn't easy for I love David Fincher as much as the next person, but his The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a flawed motion picture from beginning to end. He does enough to salvage it, but when you put that up against Alfredson's work on the incredible Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, you can see real craftsmanship, attention to detail, and thoughtful storytelling at work. You could argue who had the greater challenge. I'm not sure anyone—the Academy included—could convince me Fincher lived up to his challenge in a more impressive way than Alfredson.

6.) Best Actress: Charlize Theron for Glenn Close
This one is tough because I actually really liked Close's work in Albert Nobbs, but Theron is incomparable in Young Adult. Mavis Gary is easily one of the year's strongest characters (props to Diablo Cody, as well, on that), and Theron knocks it out of the park. The competition in Best Actress seems too strong, unfortunately, and Theron will likely have to get behind my girl Elizabeth Olsen in the snub line.

5.) Best Picture: The Tree of Life for The Help
I still can't really shake my second viewing of The Tree of Life from my memory since I watched it on Blu-Ray back in November. My admiration for Terrence Malick's beautiful and moving film grows all the time, despite my frustration with aspects of it. Still, such an accomplishment is what the Oscars should be all about. They should be about sappy crowd-pleasers like Tate Taylor's film.

4.) Best Editing: Contagion for The Descendants
I hate the way the Best Editing category basically becomes a Best Picture precursor. Just give the frontrunners nominations and vote for whatever film seems poised to take home the top prize. I realize this isn't always the case. But when a film like Contagion (which is an editing showcase if I ever saw one) has been mostly absent from the conversation and appears destined for a snub in favor of The Descendants (a good film with unremarkable editing) something seems wrong.

3.) Best Original Screenplay: Asghar Farhadi for Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo
Yes, yes, yes. Bridesmaids was funny. Not hilarious, but funny. It was an amusing summer comedy that I'm starting to dislike simply because the hype and Oscar buzz is outrageous. Even in Best Original Screenplay, where one could conceivably see some Bridesmaids love, I'm not sold. Just look at some of the great writing around it. 50/50, Win Win, and best of all, A Separation—Iran's magnificent Best Foreign Language contender. It's a writer's showcase if I ever saw one and so much more satisfying than the silly comedic stylings of Wiig and Mumolo.

2.) Best Adapted Screenplay: Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughn for Tate Taylor
Speaking of screenplay category injustices, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy should be a prototype for future adaptations of lengthy novels. No, splitting it in two is not the right way to do it, nor is it to just make a crazy long movie (cough, Dragon Tattoo, cough). Condense the material down into what's essential and let your craftsmen enhance it with real style. That's what O'Connor and Straughn have accomplished with their work. And it's something Taylor just doesn't do with his messy screenplay for The Help.

1.) Best Actor: Woody Harrelson, Gary Oldman, or Michael Shannon for Leonardo DiCaprio
I thought and hoped J. Edgar was officially done after it tanked with critics and audiences alike. But the precursor voters have kept Leo alive all season long. It's a performance I found to be OK. But look at those around him that seem poised for snubland—Harrelson, Oldman, Shannon (just to name a few). These were tough roles to pull and all three actors did a wonderful job completely immersing themselves in the lives of their characters, while we're always aware that DiCaprio is onscreen imitating J. Edgar Hoover.

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame Review

2012-01-19T14:35:00.000-05:00

Detective Dee (Andy Lau) with his closest ally—a bird—in

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame.

3 Stars

Hold on to your hats, folks. Detective Dee is in town. Part mystical Western, part kung fu epic, Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame is either the most glorious send-up of Asian action films or the most over-the-top foreign film I've ever seen. Regardless of which it is, I had an absolute blast. The film is a wild ride from start to finish, despite never quite reaching the same levels of blood and violence as 13 Assassins. Instead, it more resembles Sherlock Holmes (with Unforgiven undertones). Detective Dee himself is a great hero. He has some interesting and somewhat entertaining sidekicks. But best of all are the worlds created by director Hark Tsui, which feature some of the grandest and most interesting set design I've seen in some time and allow the action choreographers to really go bananas.

In seventh-century China, the empress Wu Zetian (Carina Lau) is ready, willing, and able to become the empire's first female leader. Her first unofficial decree is that a massive Buddha statue be built and prepared in time for her coronation, and though the construction is on schedule, tensions at the site are high. A truly bizarre and horrifying incident, however, throws everything for a loop. The project leader mysteriously bursts into flames and dies, and no one can quite seem to figure out why. Is someone poisoning the water at the site? Or could it have something to do with some sacred scrolls that were removed from the base of the tower? It seems as if the latter is the case when another inspector bursts into flames, and with so much at stake, the empress decides to call in Detective Dee (Andy Lau). Imprisoned eight years ago for acts against the empress, Dee has the sharpest mind in all of China, and if anyone is to solve this mystery, it's him. So the two put their differences aside, and with the aide of two state officials—Jing'er (Li Bing Bing) and Donglai (Chao Deng)—Dee puts his badge back on once more.

The mystery aspects of the film are a bit underwhelming. The set-up is brilliant; How can you not appreciate the audacity it takes to just randomly set a couple guys on fire? But there's no way the answer to the riddle can satisfying, and of course, films like this require a tidy bow on any and all solutions. Thankfully, neither the director nor the screenwriters ever explain why these men and women can fly through the air or literally transform into someone else or why there's a clairvoyant deer that can also speak to people. Details like that make a film, and poor or unnecessary explanations can break it. Detective Dee walks a fine line of giving us what we want while withholding that which could spoil some of the film's silly charm.

But putting the mystery aside for a second, where Detective Dee really succeeds is in its action. Our three protagonists each have their own signature weapon, and they aren't afraid to use them. Dee's is some kind of metal stick that indicates to him where the weakest point on any object is. One quick hit to that spot can shatter just about anything (or anyone). Meanwhile, Donglai is a master with the ax, and Jing'er can crack a mean whip. Seeing some of the things they do with these objects is a real treat, but nothing compares to the way the film uses this enormous Buddha statue. I can't even begin to describe how large it's made out to be, and watching Dee and company jump from platform to platform, swing from rope to rope, was glorious to behold.

As with a lot of films of this nature, the acting isn't anything to write home about. To be fair, Andy Lau is pretty solid as Dee. He keeps his emotions to himself for the most part, giving him a kind of secretive air. You never really know what Dee is thinking, so when he deduces something and shares his opinion, you're almost certain he's right. Why else would he choose that moment to speak out? The rest of the cast puts it all out there, making them significantly less interesting. Li Bing Bing and Chao Deng are good battle sidekicks, but they can't really make you care about their characters much. Tony Leung has a smaller role as an old ally of Detective Dee's but he's in too little of the film to make a strong impression.

Fans of Bruce Lee other old-school, Hong Kong-style action stars will likely love Detective Dee, and there's no reason (besides the subtitles) why your average American audience shouldn't enjoy it, too. It's got the scope of a big Hollywood blockbuster, but it was done (quite noticeably at times) on a smaller budget, and the actors aren't exactly big, recognizable names. But the film is in so many ways what Sherlock Holmes should have been: An over-the-top romp that puts action front and center, and though that's not always my cup of tea, it's a very refreshing antidote to the endless train of holiday Oscar fare.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Review

2012-01-18T10:11:00.000-05:00

Gary Oldman stars as George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

4 Stars

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a superior thriller that accomplishes the unfathomable in condensing John LeCarre's masterful British espionage novel into an appropriately dense but followable two-hour film. And shockingly, not a ton of important detail is lost in the translation. Director Tomas Alfredson (following up the sensational Let the Right One In) deserves a great deal of credit for making the slow-burn source material really smolder on screen. The gorgeous cinematography of Hoyte Van Hoytema and the breathtakingly tense score from Alberto Iglesias certainly help. But the best-in-show award goes to screenwriters Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan. I wish this came out a year earlier so The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo team could take note. This is how you adapt a long novel for the movies.

The film takes place in London circa 1970. George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is a former intelligence agent for "The Circus" who, along with his boss Control (John Hurt), was forced out a number of years ago following an incident in Hungary which resulted in the death of an agent, Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong). Control sent Prideaux on the job for one reason: Get the name of a mole who has infiltrated The Circus' upper echelon. But he gets shot and Control and Smiley take the fall. Now, Smiley is approached with a confidential task. Work covertly with an agent Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) to take down the mole, whom they now know is one of four individuals. Their codenames: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, and Poorman. Their identities: Percy Allenline (Toby Jones), Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds), and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik).

Yes, the novel is probably a richer overall experience (it's one of my all-time favorites) than the film, but for high-school students looking to pass their Tinker Tailor exam, this abridged version will definitely help them get by. For newbies to this world, bathroom breaks aren't recommended, but everything is there. The film isn't as impenetrable as some would make you think. And Tinker Tailor fans won't be disappointed with the latest incarnation of The Circus, either. It's a place that sucks the life out of you, which you can see behind the eyes of just about every actor in this marvelous ensemble.

Gary Oldman is virtually unrecognizable behind Smiley's thick glasses, but the actor's very contemplative performance is a thing of beauty. Smiley shows all the world-weariness of someone who's been in his business for far too long. Yet, he's still as smart as whip. He can deduce far more from a person's actions than anyone watching would be able to. But this skill has clearly come at great personal cost. He lost a marriage over his work, and those who used to be his chums are now potential enemies. It's very nuanced work from the veteran actor, and though he's more than deserving of his first Oscar nomination, it doesn't look like it's in the cards. He certainly commands the screen, but not in the way Oscar voters are used to.

Those around Oldman are also great. Benedict Cumberbatch, who really is right on the cusp of stardom, plays a younger man in Guillam—one who we see learning some of the same sad lessons Smiley did when he was his age. Tom Hardy, who has already achieved stardom, plays an operative with key information and a personal grudge against whomever is the mole. He's as good as you'd expect from one of the finest young actors working today. Colin Firth, Toby Jones, and the others all stay a little more in the background, but they fill their roles quite well. The film seems ripe for a SAG Ensemble nomination, but that's just one of many groups who missed their chance to recognize such a fine film.

On a craft level, Tinker Tailor is sensational. Iglesias' score moves things along at a brisk pace without getting too much in the way of things. The editing is strong and makes good use of the montage, in order to keep the running time manageable. And Van Hoytema's cinematography is very clean and interesting. Some of the shots will take you by surprise, and the overall aesthetic is a bit gloomy, which certainly seems appropriate given the nature of the story and its characters.

Tinker Tailor has been accused of being too cold—something I don't agree with if you couldn't tell by now. Yes, these characters don't exactly wear their emotions on their sleeves. They are very much like pieces on a chess board, and Control even goes so far as to model chess pieces in their likenesses. But a little thought and patience goes a long way with this film. Stick with it, and you'll be rewarded. There are no great truths to be discovered, and it doesn't really bring anything new and exciting to the familiar spy genre. But it's a damn good story that's told as well as you could hope for, and as with Let the Right One In, it's got me extremely excited for the next trick Tomas Alfredson has up his sleeve.

Albert Nobbs Review

2012-01-15T11:35:00.000-05:00

Albert (Glenn Close) takes Helen (Mia Wasikowska) out on the town in Albert Nobbs.

3 Stars

It took Glenn Close almost two decades to get Albert Nobbs to the big screen, and for such a talent to dedicate so much heart and soul to something, viewers have a right to expect something truly special, right? Well, if you go in with that mindset, you'll certainly be disappointed. However, those who can forget what they've heard about this film—both the good and the bad—and can just sit back and watch what unfolds are in for a nice time. Too often, Albert Nobbs falls into melodramatic traps, yet two stellar performances—include Close's—managed to keep my attention and interest long enough that I can give the film a solid recommendation.

Close plays the titular character, a hotel waiter in late-19th-century Ireland. Yes, that's "waiter," not "waitress." Close plays a woman leading the life of a man. With no family, money, or real skills to fall back on, Albert decides his best chance to get ahead in life is as a man. No one he knows seems to think twice about his gender, with the exception of Hubert Page (Janet McTeer), a painter who discovers Albert's secret when staying in his room one night. Hubert, however, has something in common with Albert—he too is leading the life of a man, albeit for different reasons. But Hubert's story gives Albert hope. If he can lead a happy life and get married, so can Albert. So he sets his sights on the prettiest hotel maid, Helen (Mia Wasikowska), and decides he'll spend all the money he's saved on a storefront where he can sell tobacco. The only thing standing in his way is Helen's relationship with another—much younger and more passionate—hotel worker, Joe (Aaron Johnson).

Albert is a very tragic character. We sympathize with him because he so quietly goes about his business. Yet, it's always in the back of your mind that his dreams can't and won't become a reality—at least not in the perfect way he envisions them. Part of that has to do with Helen, one of the most vain women I've seen on film in some time. But the other part has to do with Albert himself. You get the sense that he's incapable of truly fighting for what he wants, and after Helen steps all over him the first, second, third time, it becomes clear the ending to this story won't necessarily be a happy one.

When the film focuses on Albert or Hubert it's quite successful. The politics of gender are generally glossed over. The appeal, rather, is on a more human level. Hubert, in particular, is a very vivid character. Seeing him come down a few pegs from his usual confident self late in the film is quite moving. I just wish we got more of him and less of Helen and Joe. Wasikowska and Johnson give subpar performances, and their melodramatic, on-again-off-again romance just distracts and pads the film's running time.

Glenn Close's Oscar chances will likely determine if people actually see this film. I'm 50/50 on whether she gets at this point, but it's hard to argue that she doesn't deserve a nod. She might not be the most convincing man, but she's a very convincing transgender. She has all the mannerisms down. What doesn't always work in her favor, however, is the screenplay, which is full of some clunky pieces of dialogue. I've already extolled the virtues of McTeer's work (she, too, could get a call on nomination morning). The other great piece in the acting trifecta here is Brendan Gleeson (coming off a sensational turn in The Guard), whose role is small but funny and definitely memorable.

Albert Nobbs features a very solid score and some good-looking sets. Ultimately, director Rodrigo Garcia (who you might be familiar with from 2010's Mother and Child) is more concerned with interpersonal dynamics than developing really resonant themes. And that approach certainly holds the film back to a degree. But despite that, I found myself taken at times with this story. I liked Albert Nobbs, perhaps more than I should have. It's far from groundbreaking, but it hits far more often than it misses.

2012 Oscar Predictions: Penultimate Update

2012-01-13T17:49:00.000-05:00

Best Picture

What's Changed? Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is dead, dead, dead. It's kind of a bizarre turn of events, as almost everyone waited patiently for something to happen, but general consensus is that it's just not a good film and likely won't pick up any nominations. Now, Scott Rudin's other pony in this race seems poised for big things. Could The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo ride the DGA and PGA waves all the way to a Best Picture nod? I'm not onboard just yet, but it's certainly not out of the questions.

What's the Same? The seven titles that still look strongest. The Artist, Hugo, The Descendants, Midnight in Paris, and The Help lead the pack. Moneyball and War Horse are weaker, but still in a good position. The Tree of Life still could go either way. I'm thinking it misses out.

Best Director

What's Changed? Well, things are now more complicated. Those looking to the DGA for answers this week are scratching their heads. Rather than lock up a field, it introduced another contender for that elusive fifth slot—David Fincher. But he's got plenty of competition in former frontrunner Steven Spielberg, as well as Terrence Malick.

What's the Same? At least four of the candidates seem locked up. If Woody Allen, Michel Hazanivicius, Alexander Payne, or Martin Scorsese gets left out of the final Oscar lineup, it'll be a major shock.

Best Actor

What's Changed? Gary Oldman has fallen off the map (ditto Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in general), with Leonardo DiCaprio being the beneficiary of his lack of support. Meanwhile, Demian Bechir's chances were resuscitated by a surprise SAG nomination.

What's the Same? The three frontrunners: Clooney, Pitt, Dujardin. I think the Best Picture race could have a major impact over who wins. If The Artist cruises, Clooney might be victorious as the "Let's give The Descendants something" philosophy takes hold.

Best Actress

What's Changed? Charlize Theron is done. Tilda Swinton looks surprisingly strong. And the race for the fifth slot looks to be between Glenn Close and Rooney Mara.

What's the Same? It's Davis vs. Streep vs. Williams. Ultimately, I expect the love for The Help to carry Davis to victory.

Best Supporting Actor

What's Changed? Max Von Sydow appears to be done, while Nick Nolte and Jonah Hill have come back strong.

What's the Same? Still a really weak category, I think, but it remains Plummer vs. Brooks with Brad Pitt (The Tree of Life) a seriously dark-horse contender that I don't feel comfortable ignoring at this point.

Best Supporting Actress

What's Changed? Vanessa Redgrave has been surprisingly absent almost all season long, which makes her road to the Oscars an major uphill climb. Meanwhile, Melissa McCarthy (completely inexplicably, in my view) has been racking up precursors left and right and very well might be recognized for her Zach Galifianakis impression in Bridesmaids.

What's the Same? Chastain, Spencer, Bejo, Woodley. I'd be quite surprised of they aren't nominated. No idea who wins at this point, but I'd guess it's Chastain.

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Best Original Screenplay
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Margin Call
Midnight in Paris
Win Win

Best Animated Feature
Arthur Christmas
Cars 2
Kung Fu Panda 2
Rango
Rio

Best Documentary Feature
Hell and Back Again
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Project Nim
We Were Here

Best Foreign Language Feature
Declaration of War
In Darkness
Footnote
Monsieur Lazhar
A Separation

Best Art Direction
The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2
Hugo
Jane Eyre
War Horse

Best Cinematography
The Artist
Hugo
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Best Costume Design
Anonymous
The Artist
The Help
Hugo
Jane Eyre

Best Film Editing
The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
War Horse

Best Makeup
The Artist
Hugo
The Iron Lady

Best Original Score
The Adventures of Tintin
The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Best Original Song
Albert Nobbs
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Help
The Muppets
The Muppets

Best Sound Editing
The Adventures of Tintin
Hugo
Rango
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Best Sound Mixing
The Adventures of Tintin
Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol
Super 8
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Best Visual Effects
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life

Kung Fu Panda 2 Review

2012-01-11T14:35:00.000-05:00

Po the Panda (voice of Jack Black) goes on a wild ride in Kung Fu Panda 2.

2.5 Stars

Kung Fu Panda 2, like so many other animated sequels (and sequels in general, really), is plagued with questions about its necessity. When money is the only compelling reason to make a film, it seems anathema to come up with a concept that doesn't feel somewhat unworthy. It's what plagued Cars 2, and to a lesser extent, this film. Kung Fu Panda 2 isn't the colossal disappointment last year's Pixar entry was, but it's definitely a step down from the surprisingly solid original. The film still looks great, and the action scenes have a great deal of energy. There's even an emotional throughline that feels satisfying. But once the credits started rolling, the only question on my mind was, "Who cares?"

Po (voice of Jack Black), fresh off becoming the Dragon Warrior, has settled in as one of China's biggest kung fu celebrities. Alongside his fellow warriors, the Furious Five, Po travels the land defending its citizens from the forces of evil. His master, Shifu (voice of Dustin Hoffman), informs him one day that there's a force coming soon that will threaten everyone and everything they know and love—including kung fu itself. In order to stop it, Po will need to find true inner peace, which proves incredibly difficult, especially when he starts to suspect that this force has a link to his mysterious past.

Plot-wise, Kung Fu Panda 2 works much better when it's focused on issues of technology and changing with the times. It's an unusual path for the film to go on, while the questions about Po's past feel obvious. It's interesting to see Po, Shifu, and the others genuinely frightened for their way of life, especially because the threat against it seems very real. But is anyone surprised by the way the thread about Po's past resolves itself? I certainly wasn't.

If you've seen the first Kung Fu Panda, you know probably know two things for certain about this film: It's beautifully animated and the action is very well-choreographed. One of the trademarks of Dreamworks Animation is their exaggerated character design, and that's implemented here, as well. But beyond that, the world they all populate is gorgeously rendered, and their battles are hilariously over-the-top.

Jack Black is far from my favorite actor, and Po is more or less modeled after him, so it's safe to say he's not my favorite animated character. I also think the Furious Five members blend together way too much. That said, characters like Shifu and Po's father are a lot of fun, and this film's villain—a peacock voiced by Gary Oldman—is great.

My mixed reaction ultimately stems from the fact that I never saw any creative reasons to make this film, and the filmmakers fail to prove me wrong. It's breezy fun, I'll admit, but movies this disposable and forgettable are hard for me to get behind with any real passion. Watch it if you must, but don't expect anything remarkable.

A Separation Review

2012-01-10T18:21:00.000-05:00

Nader (Peyman Maadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami) learn some shocking news in A Separation.

3.5 Stars

A Separation is an absolute tour-de-force of storytelling. Long after the credits have rolled, I still have hard time comprehending just how writer/director Asghar Farhadi managed to fit so much into just two hours. The film touches on a number of potentially melodramatic issues with real clarity and poise, and the cultural differences between the characters and us just enhance our interest in what's happening to them. It's a masterful piece of filmmaking, and one that'll stay with you for a while.

Nader (Peyman Maadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami) are our main characters, and they've decided to get a divorce. Simin wishes to move to America to give their only daughter, Termeh (Sarina Farhadi), more opportunities than she'll be afforded in their native Iran. Nader, however, won't go. His father was recently stricken with Alzheimer's and he's obligated to care for him. Though these two are generally agreeable and relatively forward-thinking, this issue wedges them apart in seemingly irreparable ways.

But it's the aftermath of this separation that moves the film forward. A now single Nader hires a woman, Razieh (Sareh Bayat), to care for his father during the day. She does it for one day, but has number of issues with the arrangement. She travels a long way to do it, and she's forced to take Nader's father to the bathroom (which makes her, a married woman, uncomfortable). But the biggest complication is that she's pregnant and her husband, Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), doesn't know she's working in the home of another man.

One day, Nader returns home early to find Razieh gone, some money missing, and his father passed out and tied to the bed. When the woman gets in, he's understandably furious. She needed to run an errand, she says. But the ensuing shouting match ends with Nader shoving her (somewhat gently) out the door. She falls down the stairs, and the next day, Nader is arrested. Murder is the charge, for Razieh lost her baby, and the two families take their extraordinarily complicated problems to the Iranian courts.

Yes, A Separation is quite dense. There's a lot of set-up necessary for the viewer to understand the relationships and how the consequences of both the separation and the confrontation will reverberate throughout this small group of people. Will this little shove mean Termeh and her mother end up in America? Could Razieh also go to jail (for negligence)? Her husband (for insolence)? Then, there's the questions about the real cause of the termination of Razieh's pregnancy. Where exactly did she go that day? And could her husband's very short temper have caused him to abuse her after finding out about her work? These would have been incredibly complex issues and questions in, say, an American suburban drama. In the hectic, overcrowded Iranian courts, the film takes on a whole other level of confusion and complexity. In this way, Tehran is itself one of the most important characters in this story.

It should come as no surprise that a film like this (and one that's been so universally praised) features extraordinary acting. Of all the great, authentic performances (and there are many), I think Peyman Maadi's is the strongest. Overall, he's a good man. He's struggling to do the best he can after being thrown for a loop when his wife leaves him, and this pressure causes him to make one mistake. And he's trying to show his daughter what's right and what's wrong, but then he chooses to lie to the judge in order to protect himself. The film ultimately comes down to deciding to do what's right and what's easy. This question is embodied most in Nader, and Maddi does an astounding job bringing his character's struggle with it to life.

A Separation has been acknowledged by countless critics groups and is a frontrunner to earn an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign-Language Feature. It deserves all of this attention, and more. It's a relatively accessible motion picture, though general audiences are, of course, subtitle-phobic. I hope it gets an audience, for it's a film that deserves robust discussion and debate.

Higher Ground Review

2012-01-09T17:35:00.000-05:00

Corinne (Vera Farmiga) and Annika (Dagmara Dominczyk) pray together in Higher Ground.

2.5 Stars

2011 featured a number of stellar directorial debuts. I've sung the praises of Sean Durkin's masterful Martha Marcy May Marlene for months now, but J.C. Chandor's Margin Call, Joe Cornish's Attack the Block, and John Michael McDonagh's The Guard were all varying degrees of intriguing and entertaining. Another of last year's directorial debuts that I've been curious about for a while is Vera Farmiga's Higher Ground. Farmiga, of course, is a fine actress, and for her first behind-the-camera outing, she chose a character study about a woman grappling with issues of faith within an evangelical community. Would if I could say it was better than average, but somewhere in a sea of half-hearted statements on religion and empowerment, the story gets lost, and worse, we stop caring.

Farmiga also stars in the film. She plays our main character, Corinne, a middle-aged mother of three who has for decades wrestled internally with her thoughts on religion and God. Born into the Church, Corinne (played as a high school girl by Farmiga's daughter, Taissa) opens up to God during her childhood, while most of her fellow classmates stay silent. But when her parents begin fighting and she starts seeing a boy, her faith is put on hold. It's only after she gives birth to her first daughter with high school rocker boyfriend Ethan (Boyd Holbrook as a high schooler, Joshua Leonard as an adult) that they find God once again. They nearly lose their child in a bus accident, so they decide to spend the rest of their lives praising and thanking God for this miracle. They join a tight-knit community of fellow evangelical Christians, where women are secondary to men and your fellow man is secondary to God. It's there that Corinne begins to have another crisis of faith as she sees the Holy Spirit in all those around her but can't find it within herself.

With a plot description like that, it must seem as if much of Higher Ground involves that which is internalized. It's true, but there's also a great deal of interpersonal conflict. Corinne finds herself an accidental lightning rod of criticism. She doesn't wait her turn to speak like so many of the other women around her, and she's OK not wearing a dress that buttons all the way up to her neck. This is part of the reason she struggles to fit in, and in many ways, the negative things her friends and neighbors say about her are true. She is different, she might not belong, and God might not be as present in her as he is in them (if that's the sort of thing you believe).

It's hard not to come into Higher Ground with preconceived notions on religion. I'm an infrequent worshiper at best, and issues of faith rarely enter my day-to-day thinking. Thus, spending time with individuals so devout is a little odd to me. It's not necessarily a bad thing—especially considering the generally bias-free way Farmiga depicts them—but I definitely had a difficult time connecting with any of them. Ironically, I had the hardest time connecting with Corinne and her occassionally embarrassing attempts to inject herself with the Holy Spirit. I guess that's a roundabout way of saying most of the characters' actions and motivations were foreign to me, and that created an emotional line I had a hard time crossing.

Farmiga is fine in front of the camera. This is far from her best performance (The Departed or Up in the Air), but she's solid. Everyone around her plays a caricature of sorts, so I can't say I was enamored with the film's acting. And directorially, Farmiga is generally straightforward, but she had a hard time keeping her camera still—inexplicably opting for these very slow pans across, which I didn't think served any purpose.

I'd say the jury is still out on Farmiga as a director. She didn't really show me much with this film, but the problems I had with it dealt more with the story itself than the way she visually expresses it. Ultimately, this is a film I just couldn't connect with. I don't doubt there are those who will find a great deal to admire and discuss, but I consistently felt at a distance from it, and it didn't do enough to help me bridge that distance.

The Interrupters

2012-01-08T09:49:00.004-05:00

If you haven't yet heard of The Interrupters, you haven't been paying close enough attention to 2011's slate of great movies. Steve James' latest documentary tackles the intractable problem of gang violence in Chicago with a very hands-off approach that helps him achieve moments of gut-wrenching honesty. The film's thesis will dismay you, though you'll be simultaneously uplifted by the courage and strength of our three heroes. It's far from easy to watch, but right from the outset, you'll find yourself glued to the screen—not exactly an easy feat for a non-fiction film.

The film follows Chicago's violence interrupters—a group made up primarily of former gang members who are dedicated to stopping the gang-related killings that are plaguing their city. Three of these individuals—Ameena Matthews, Eddie Bocanegra, and Cobe Williams—share their stories of overcoming personal challenges and finding forgiveness for their past mistakes. It's this that motivates them to do whatever they can to salvage the lives of other young people in whom they see a little too much of their former selves.

One of the most interesting things about The Interrupters is the different styles employed by its three main characters. Matthews leads through charisma and sheer willpower. She's a frighteningly good speaker, perhaps because she's let's her heart do the talking, and it's impossible to not watch her and really listen to what she has to say.

Williams, meanwhile, has a more low-key approach. He befriends people, let's them know he's there for him, and really follows-up. One of the film's best stories involves a man named "Flamo". Flamo's family had just been arrested because a rival set them up. His initial response was to go down to the man's house, guns blazing. But Williams takes him for a ride and rationalizes the situation with him. Yes, it sucks, but what's killing someone going to do. One of the film's final moments shows Flamo going to work, a calmer and much happier man. It's a startling image, and one that wouldn't likely be possible without Williams' intervention.

Then, there's Eddie Bocanegra, who has perhaps the hardest time coping with his past. Though his two colleagues have done their fair share of time, Eddie's time was for murder, something he struggles a great deal with. He spends most days visiting a school, talking with the kids, and showing them other ways in which they can express their anger, sadness, and fear. Other days, however, he spends at the grave of the man whose life he took. It's something you're unaccustomed to—feeling deep sympathy for a convicted murderer—but this is just another in the long line of accomplishments by James and his crew.

There's no way you can deny what Steve James has accomplished here (I'm looking at you, Academy). This is one of the finest documentaries I've ever seen, and easily one of the best films of 2011. It shows a slice of society that the majority of us pretend doesn't even exist, and it does so in such a way that will both dismay and uplift you.

How to Die in Oregon

2012-01-07T12:59:00.000-05:00

How to Die in Oregon is a painful movie to watch. It opens with a celebration of sorts: A sick man is about to die with dignity. He, like many in the state of Oregon, is willfully choosing to take his life quietly and painlessly, rather than the long and excruciating death his terminal disease promises. We see him say his goodbyes—including a heartfelt thank you to the citizens of Oregon who helped pass the law that gave him this option—and we're there as he takes his lethal cocktail and drifts off into a sleep that he'll never wake up from.

This is how the movie proceeds. We meet many other terminally ill men and women, and hear their thoughts on the possibility afforded to them by the state. Some are in favor, others oppose it vehemently. And one of the many great things about the film is intelligent way it presents both points of view. There isn't a right or wrong answer in this debate, and one can certainly see why both perspectives would be considered "courageous" (a term that gets thrown about a lot throughout the film).

There's one thread that runs throughout the film and gets at least half of the film's running time. It follows a 54-year-old woman, Cody Collins, who is stricken with terminal liver cancer. When she received the shocking news, there was still a chance. She had surgery to remove the tumor, but it came back, and for a long while, Cody needed help eating, walking, bathing, going to the bathroom, etc. Not wanting to go through such a horrible experience again, she contacted the group Compassion and Choices about the Death with Dignity option, just in case she should get that bad again. Though she was given just six more months to live when the film starts, she outlives that prognosis, but just as things are beginning to look up, her pain returns, and she begins contemplating her alternative once again.

Cody is startlingly honest about her condition and how she feels about everything, both physically and emotionally. She doesn't want to be a burden on her family, and though she'd much rather just drift off quietly and naturally than opt for Death with Dignity, she has no desire whatsoever to suffer any more than she already has. It's so sad to watch, almost impossibly so, when in the middle of an interview, she winces in unspeakable pain or chokes up at the thought of saying goodbye to her husband and two kids. She's such a compelling individual and provides what could have been a very political film with an extremely emotional hook.

There is another plot that is political. It follows a Washington widow who promises her dying husband that she'll fight to see Death with Dignity passed in her state. Her fight is also quite moving, and it's in these scenes that we understand a little more about the resistance against the law. Much of it comes on the grounds of religion, but there are plenty of others—including doctors—who worry about the slippery slope passage of such a law could create. Director Peter Richardson deserves a great deal of credit for making a film that doesn't skirt around its position, but also doesn't make its opponents seem like fools.

But ultimately, the strength of the film is your emotional connection with the individuals shown—especially Collins. Anyone who has lost someone to a disease like cancer will probably be overcome with some of what How to Die in Oregon has to offer. However, this shouldn't be a deterrent. The film won a Jury prize at Sundance last year, and was subsequently picked up by HBO Films. If you have the opportunity to see it, do so. It was #4 on my list of the best films of 2011, and though it's very hard to sit through, it deserves and audience.

TOP 10: Most-Anticipated 2012 Films

2012-01-06T17:10:00.003-05:00

2012 promises to be the anti-2011 as far as anticipation goes. At this time last year, folks were getting very excited about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2 and Super 8, like I was, but looking past those two films, we had what? A second "Hangover"? A fourth "Pirates"? A sequel to Cars? It was the smaller films that gave 2011 its mojo.

But this year seems much different. In most years, Skyfall would be my undisputed, hands-down, no-questions-asked #1 most-anticipated movie. This year, it sneaks in at #5. That's because we've got films from two of the greatest franchises of ever coming out, as well as films from perhaps my two favorite working directors (one of which is six years in the making). And the stuff after "Bond 23" isn't shabby either. Below are the ten that I'm most looking forward to. Honorable mentions include Tom Tykwer's Cloud Atlas, Ang Lee's Life of Pi, Gary Ross' The Hunger Games, Judd Apatow's This is 40, Ben Affleck's Argo, and Marc Forster's World War Z.

Note: I didn't include films without a release date. Should PT Anderson's The Master, The Coen Brothers' Inside Llewelyn Davis, David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, Andrew Dominik's Cogan's Trade, or one of the many Terrence Malick flicks being bandied about pop up on the release schedule, they'd be on this list for sure.

10.) Nero Fiddled

With Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen gave a defiant middle finger to all those critics who've written him off over the past decade or so. Yes, it's a lighthearted, somewhat slight film, but the promise of a rejuvenated Allen is extremely exciting. This year, all eyes will be on his Nero Fiddled. Plot details are scarce, but a cast that includes Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page, Penelope Cruz, Alec Baldwin, and Allen himself would likely land on this countdown no matter the director.

9.) Lincoln

Though we only get one Steven Spielberg film in 2012 (as opposed to last year's double dose of The Adventures of Tintin and War Horse), it promises to be a big one. Lincoln has been years in the making, but I'm OK with the wait. A late casting change—Daniel Day-Lewis replacing Liam Neeson—elevated my anticipation for this one tenfold. Day-Lewis chooses his projects wisely, and only appears in something every few years. His Lincoln will almost certainly be one of the year's acting highlights.

8.) Brave

Pixar, I miss you. Cars 2 was not very good, so please don't let me down again, OK? But if anticipation and early promise means anything, this will be a serious rebound for the masters of animation. And the studio's first ever female protagonist? Count me in.

7.) Prometheus

Still, no one knows if this is an Alien prequel, it's own entity, or something in between (likely the latter). But the teaser looked awesome, as did the footage shown at Comic-Con last year. Ridley Scott has been hit-and-miss in recent years (more miss than hit, actually), but I'm as ready as anyone to see him strike gold again, and this project might just be the one to do it.

6.) Kathryn Bigelow's Bin Laden project

Kathryn Bigelow floored most people three years ago with The Hurt Locker, and though her next film (which is unofficially titled Kill Bin Laden) will probably be a little more formulaic, more commercial, she's reason enough to get seriously excited about any upcoming flick.

5.) Skyfall

The aforementioned "Bond 23" has more going for it than just the return of Daniel Craig to this iconic role (as awesome as that is). Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) is in the director's chair, and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins is photographing the film. Then, there's the cast. Javier Bardem is the villain (Anton Chigurh, anyone?). Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Naomie Harris, and many others are ready and raring to go. So am I.

4.) Gravity

This one might not have the high profile of some others on this list, but with Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) behind the camera, it's already got me hooked. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are starring in the film, which focuses on two astronauts who, after some kind of accident, find themselves floating through space. Sounds just plain phenomenal.

3.) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson returns to Middle Earth for the first-half of his Lord of the Rings prequel. No word yet on how exactly Jackson plans to split Bilbo Baggins' story in two, but after three nearly perfect films (and about 500 Oscars), I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

2.) Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino films are always something worthy of anticipation. Why? He never lets us down. This one, about a former slave out for revenge, sounds like pure Tarantino, and once again, the cast is just jaw-dropping: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Foxx, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz, Kurt Russell, Sacha Baron Cohen.

1.) The Dark Knight Rises

If you thought it'd be something else, you're a fool. I really don't think it's hyperbole to say this is one of the most-anticipated films of all-time, and for good reason. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were masterpieces. Both the trailer and the prologue were fantastic. And I'm sure Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, and yes, Anne Hathaway will add a great deal to an already accomplished ensemble. July 20 can't come soon enough.

The Guard Review

2012-01-05T18:11:00.000-05:00

Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson) with a pair of hookers in The Guard.

3.5 Stars

The Guard is the better-looking, funnier, and more interesting younger brother of 2008's In Bruges. Coincidently (or perhaps not), it's written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, brother to In Bruges writer/director Martin McDonagh. That irony is funny in and of itself, but really, The Guard is quite a good little film. It's lead character—Sergeant Gerry Boyle—is one of a kind. Not quite Bad Lieutenant-esque, Boyle is an unorthodox lawman, but there's something real behind his very un-PC exterior. His relationships with both a visiting FBI agent and his mother give the film a great deal of heart and help elevate the film above your average quirky dramedy.

The film is centered around a murder and major drug smuggling operation in Connemara, Ireland. Boyle (a fantastic Brendan Gleeson) discovers the body of a two-bit criminal, along with his new partner, Aidan McBride (Rory Keenan). They don't think much of it at first, but Boyle is later called to a presentation by an American agent, Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle), to learn more about the aforementioned drug ring. When his stiff's face pops-up on the known suspects slideshow, he's thrust into the limelight, despite not exactly following protocol to a T. But when McBride's body turns up cold, Boyle and Everett are forced to put aside their differences and find a way to bring three insane criminals to justice.

The Guard works first and foremost because of its characters. I've already extolled the virtues of Gerry Boyle—one of my favorite characters of all 2011. And though Cheadle's Wendell Everett is run-of-the-mill, the film's villains (played by Liam Cunningham, David Wilmot, and…who else…Mark Strong) are fantastic. They debate philosophy and frequently have quote battles. Strong has next-to-no sense of humor, but his partners seem to appreciate Boyle's off-kilter sensibilities. Their chemistry is interesting enough that the film could have focused on them and be just as successful. Ditto the sick and dying Mrs. Boyle (Fionnula Flanagan), a hard-drinking, tough lady with an affinity for Russian literature and a very amusing and sweet relationship with her son.

Beyond the interesting characters and their often surprising interactions, the film also excels at generating laugh-out-loud humor. There's the odd villains, of course, but Boyle himself is just a barrel of laughs. He's profane (as you might expect), but never in obvious ways. He spews profanity in a very Malcolm Tucker-esque way, I think, insomuch as you expect him to curse—a lot—but the way he does so is something of a surprise. Whatever the case, I was on my toes throughout the pleasantly short 90-minute run time, thanks to McDonagh's crafty sense of humor.

In addition to giving the film its unusual tone, McDonagh also injects some real directorial flair into the proceedings. A lot of the editing choices struck me as purposeful and smart—like the way certain conversations feature very quick cuts while others feature a static camera. The Calexico-produced score, too, is among my favorites of the year.

I think you'll find it hard to not enjoy yourself while watching The Guard. It's just a supremely satisfying watch, and though the buddy-cop genre is generally unwelcome by yours truly, I found this interpretation of it incredibly pleasing.

13 Assassins Review

2012-01-04T17:52:00.000-05:00

A group of samurai assemble in 13 Assassins.

2.5 Stars

13 Assassins is a skillful, old-fashioned samurai epic that fails on one key front: Its conclusion doesn't live up to what the first two-thirds promise. Such lengthy and complex character development needs something rousing to make it feel worthwhile—like The Wages of Fear. In Takashi Miike's film, we're led to expect a marvelous battle sequence. What we get instead is a horribly violet bloodbath. I know, I'm probably being overly-squeamish, but the killing goes on so long that it started to become monotonous. Technically, it's all great, but on a human level, I was seriously turned off by this film.

The film takes place in feudal Japan and focuses on the efforts of a group of samurai to kill the digustingly brutal, evil Lord Naritsugu (Gorô Inagaki). Leading the charge is Shinzaemon Shimada (Kôji Yakusho), a older and wiser man who realizes how dangerous a Naritsugu regime could be to all of Japan. With the permission of one of the Shogun's top advisors, he assembles a team of men who are ready and willing to give up their life for this cause, but they also aren't afraid to go down without a fight. When they are ready, the 13 ride out for a battle that will determine the fate of their nation, a battle they very likely won't return home from.

There's no denying Miike's impressive way of staging his action scenes, but there's only so many ways you can gruesomely kill someone, and after the first head was lopped off, the first guts spilled, I started to lose interest. Yes, these scenes are more complicated than what I'm describing, but the points, I think, are valid. If you have a hard time with brutal violence, like I sometimes do (see also: Drive), no amount of directorial prowess can make you fall in love with 13 Assassins.

Terri Review

2012-01-02T16:08:00.004-05:00

Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly) speaking to Terri (Jacob Wysocki) in Terri.

3 Stars

I'm not sure "insightful" is the right word to describe Azazel Jacobs' Terri, but I'd absolutely call it authentic, believable. Little happens in the film that sheds new light on high school students or the difficulties of growing up obese, and that's fine when these subjects are tackled with such a careful touch. Jacobs does a terrific job ensure the actions and emotions present in his first higher-profile effort are genuine. That combined with a pair of great performances makes this an indie well-worth seeking out.

The film follows Terri (Jacob Wysocki), a 15-year-old student who's severely overweight, as he cares for his sick—with dementia—Uncle James (Creed Bratton of The Office) and struggles through school. Terri wears pajamas because they're comfortable, and he'd rather watch animals pick at the dead mice he catches in the attic than hang out with his classmates. He has no real friends, though the school's assistant principal, Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly), takes Terri under his wing. Things change for him, however, when a cute girl, Heather (Olivia Crocicchia) is ostracized for an incident in home ec class. Terri pities her, and decides to show her some much-needed kindness, and she gladly returns the favor.

Terri doesn't really have any big emotional moments, nor does it reveal any surprising truths. Its strengths are in the small character-building moments—when Terri and Heather pass notes to each other in class, or when Mr. Fitzgerald shares his self-esteem-building philosophy with Terri. Generally, it's a sweet movie, and though the average 15-year-old's hormones take front and center in the film's final third, I never felt any moment was out of place, nor did I feel like Jacobs was resorting to manipulation.

The final third, however, is decidedly less compelling than what occurs before it. The sexual politics at play are a little uncomfortable to watch, frankly, and after roping us in through the resilient spirit of a few damaged young people, it's odd to watch those very same people attempt to awkwardly hook up.

John C. Reilly has quietly done a lot this year, yet his performances have been pretty underwhelming. I thought he was dreadful in Carnage, and he was easily the least effective member of the We Need to Talk About Kevin ensemble. He was OK in Cedar Rapids, but here, he's excellent. Mr. Fitzgerald isn't cookie-cutter, like most good-hearted mentor figures. He's fallible and occasionally does more harm than good toward Terri and some of the other students. But his mantra—that people are just doing the best they can—suits him well.

Jacob Wysocki is a major surprise as Terri. His character has little to no personality, yet he's not the sad sack or wet blanket you might be expecting. He's just a little closed off, and understandably so, considering the grief he takes from his classmates. Wysocki's acting, therefore, needs to be very controlled, and thankfully, it is because without it, the film doesn't work.

Terri probably won't be the most memorable film of 2011, but it's more than solid. It features believable performances and a strong script, which is a lot more than you can say for most high-school dramas. Seek it out if you have the opportunity. It's a nice, happy surprise.

5 New Year's Resolutions for John Likes Movies

2012-01-01T16:56:00.000-05:00

Not to be confused with John's New Year's resolution (going with the cliche "Get in better shape"—shouldn't be too difficult considering I work for Men's Health, but it's eluded me for two years now…).

These are five goals for my blog this year. They're all things I can easily attain if I apply myself. I'm not going with "Increase traffic," as that's both obvious and a little too variable. Everything on this list is concrete, and you should absolutely expect to see them come to life in the next 12 months:

1.) Launch my redesigned site
This was my goal last year at this time, and it just didn't work out for a number of reasons. I'm almost glad though. I've learned a ton over the last year regarding web production, so I expect the final product to be a lot deeper and more interesting than my 2010 plan. Expect this sometime this summer.

2.) Go to three film festivals
Easy enough. I went to one this year (Philadelphia), and I'll definitely be attending again. And with New York so close, there's no excuse to not stop by Tribeca (an old tradition that I got away from for some reason) and NYFF.

3.) Director marathons
It occurred to me that my classic movie-watching is all over the place. I know a little about a lot of directors, but I almost wish it was the other way around. I'm making it a point, therefore, to do more of what I did with David Fincher and the Coens in late 2010—work my way through one person's filmography. I'm going at my own pace as to not get frustrated, so I won't say how many I'll do this year, but I'm starting with Stanley Kubrick. Expect a Killer's Kiss review in the next week.

4.) Finish 2011 by May
This I can't guarantee, as a lot depends on DVD release dates, but I want to be in a position to finish seeing all I want to see from last year by the summer. By that I mean I intend to watch movies as they come out as much as possible. Too often, I put a few movies off and don't get around to completing my must-watch list for months, even as much as a year after the fact.

On a similar note (and I'm not counting this as a separate goal), I plan on watching more documentaries. I try to keep every year's must-watch list at 100 films, just to make things somewhat manageable. Late in 2011, I realized there was no way I could do so, and one of the main reasons was there were a ton more documentaries on my list than in years past. The solution: Break the docs off into a separate list (and stop giving them star ratings...too difficult, in my opinion). I now have a total of 100 fiction films to watch from 2011 and 25 non-fiction. I'll do the same for 2012.

5.) TV!
With all the movies I've watched over the last few years, I've almost stopped watching good TV. That changes this year. I'm going to watch and informally review (more like discuss, I guess) a season of a show as I complete it. Community is up first (almost done with Season 1 actually…amazing). Hoping to get to at least a season of Breaking Bad, The Wire, and Parks and Recreation, as well.

Bonus: Podcast?
This is a maybe. I'm thinking about doing podcasting on a very irregular basis (maybe once a month, or even just before the summer, fall, etc.) It depends on a number of factors, but if anyone would be interested in hypothetically joining me for one or more podcasting sessions, let me know. A partner or two could sway me more in the direction of doing it.

Happy 2012, everyone!

The Best Films of 2011

2011-12-31T12:07:00.000-05:00

Ultimately, when starting to compile this list, I threw out my star ratings and just considered the titles that jumped out at me most—the ones I felt worthy of a top 10. There were a total of 17, and I'll start the countdown with the seven honorable mentions. And for more best-of-2011 talk, check out my year-in-review post.

Bill Cunningham New York was until very recently my favorite documentary of the year—just a supremely pleasant film. Ultimately, it just couldn't quite measure up to the heavyweights on this list.

Not long ago, I called Drive merely an exercise in style. I do very much appreciate Nicholas Winding Refn's unique approach to this revenge story, as well as Ryan Gosling's fantastic performance, but the film didn't speak to me like so many others this year did.

Moneyball was on this list for a while. I totally dig the way Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian took this very inside baseball (literally) story and turned it into something incredibly universal. Plus, Brad Pitt is exceptional.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is what a blockbuster should be. Its special effects serve the story, and it achieves more emotional satisfaction than almost every other film this year.

Take Shelter and We Need to Talk About Kevin are two showcases for extremely talented directors (Jeff Nichols and Lynne Ramsey, respectively), as well as two of the best lead performances of the year from Michael Shannon and Tilda Swinton.

A Separation was actually on this list less than 48 hours ago. I shared my list on Twitter Thursday night and called it a storytelling tour-de-force. I just happened to see something later that evening that floored me a little more. Still, Iran's Oscar candidate deserves all the praise it's gotten, and then some. Seek it out as soon as you can.

Now, the top 10:

10.) The Tree of Life
I never even formally reviewed this film because after I saw it the first time, I didn't know what to make of it. I knew I had major problems with the Sean Penn material, but I also knew that Malick's formless style of storytelling through imagery was awe-inspiring. A second viewing enhanced all the film's positives while making the negatives easier to forgive. I hope that trend continues on my inevitable rewatches.

9.) Melancholia
Yes, it's really depressing, and the wedding scenes drag on a bit too long, but the second half is sensational. I can just picture Von Trier laughing maniacally as his fictional giant blue planet comes to wipe us all out.

8.) Midnight in Paris
No one was happier than I to discover that Woody Allen was back, and it's clear he's having an absolute blast with this whimsical and wonderfully nostalgic adventure.

7.) Contagion
Apparently, I like this one much more than most others. But a second viewing confirmed what I suspected the first time I saw it: Steven Soderbergh is clearly having a blast with this cold but relentless epidemic film. The ensemble is also very strong, as is Cliff Martinez's score.

6.) The Interrupters
Steve James' hands-off approach to Chicago gang violence yields honest and uncompromising results. The film's three subjects are the heroes of 2011. Their courage will shake you to the core.

5.) 50/50
The best ensemble work of the year comes from the unlikeliest of comedies—one about cancer. JGL is as fantastic as always, but the best-in-show award goes to Anjelica Huston. Her arc is both heartbreaking and heartwarming.

4.) How to Die in Oregon
The film that replaced A Separation on the list. I started crying within the first five minutes of Peter Richardson's documentary on Oregon's controversial Death with Dignity law, and I kept it up for the duration of the film. Along with The Interrupters, this is one of 2011's real must-see films.

3.) Martha Marcy May Marlene
This immaculately composed character study features the best performance, male or female, that I've seen in years. Elizabeth Olsen's work is unparalleled. I can't wait to see what she and first-time writer/director Sean Durkin do next.

2.) Certified Copy
The ultimate art-house flick. There haven't been many films this year as challenging as Abbas Kiarostami's Certified Copy, but if you can stick with it all the way through, you won't find many films as rewarding, either. Juliette Binoche is tremendous, in what's really a dual role, but the star is the director who composes every shot very deliberately and with a real eye for detail.

1.) Hugo
Yet, as much as I admired Kiarostami's incredible work, no film filled me with as much joy as Martin Scorsese's Hugo. It's so ironic, too, because I went in with little to no expectations. Part of it was the bizarre trailer, but I think a lot of it was due to the 3D, which I had completely written off. The way it's used here, however, is probably better than any other film I've ever seen. But that's just one reason why it's my #1 film. The art direction, cinematography, and editing are all fantastic. The score is one of my favorites of the year. The cast—even Asa Butterfield—fills each role perfectly. Ultimately, however, it's about something so near and dear to my heart—the movies. Scorsese is telling a story that's both personal and deceivingly universal. It's a heartwarming ride that holds up so well on second viewing, and I'm so happy it's getting the recognition it deserves. I know I have a lot more to see still in the coming weeks and months, but for now, it's Hugo that has my heart. It's my favorite film of 2011.

2011: The Year in Film

2011-12-30T21:55:00.002-05:00

I have mixed feelings about the film year that was 2011. On the one hand, there's a glaring lack of four-star titles. That said, I was really intrigued by so many films that even if they didn't pan out perfectly, they've lingered with me a long time. I'll say that this list more so than any other in recent memory is fluid. I expect a lot of changes as I revisit films again and catch up with some of the big ones I missed (including Shame, The Artist, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, Margaret, Le Havre, The Guard, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and a dozen or so others).

If you follow me on Twitter, you might have already seen my top 10 films of the year. I'll be writing more about them tomorrow (as well as giving some honorable mentions). For now, I'm going to repeat what I did last year and share some thoughts on the best performances and technical achievements from this year's crop of films. Enjoy.

Best Lead Actor: Woody Harrelson, Rampart
Runner-up: Michael Shannon, Take Shelter

Best Lead Actress: Elizabeth Olsen, Martha Marcy May Marlene
Runner-up: Charlize Theron, Young Adult

Best Supporting Actor: Andy Serkis, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Runner-up: Viggo Mortensen, A Dangerous Method

Best Supporting Actress: Anjelica Huston, 50/50
Runner-up: Jessica Chastain, The Help

Best Director: Abbas Kiarostami, Certified Copy
Runner-up: Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Best Original Screenplay: Sean Durkin, Martha Marcy May Marlene
Runner-up: Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian, Moneyball
Runner-up: George Clooney and Grant Heslov, The Ides of March

Best Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki, The Tree of Life
Runner-up: Robert Richardson, Hugo

Best Original Score: Cliff Martinez, Contagion
Runner-up: John Williams, War Horse

Best Trailer (for films released in 2010): The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (click here to view)
Runner-up: Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol (click here to view)

Best Animated Feature: Rango
Runner-up: Winnie the Pooh

Best Documentary: How to Die in Oregon
Runner-up: The Interrupters

Best Foreign Film: Certified Copy
Runner-up: A Separation

Biggest Surprise: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Runner-up: Hugo

Biggest Disappointment: Super 8
Runner-up: Carnage

Worst Performance: Amandla Stenberg, Colombiana
Runner-up: Jodie Foster, Carnage

Worst Films of the Year:
5.) Super 8
4.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
3.) Limitless
2.) Dream House
1.) Colombiana

Best Films of the Year:
Come back tomorrow!

The Adventures of Tintin Review

2011-12-29T21:59:00.002-05:00

Tintin (Jamie Bell) works with Thomson and Thompson

(Nick Frost and Simon Pegg) to solve a mystery in The Adventures of Tintin.

3 Stars

Though The Adventures of Tintin is breezy fun, one can't help but think the pairing of Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson should have turned out something more exciting than this. Much has been made of the meeting of the minds of Indiana Jones and The Lord of the Rings, but not a ton comes of it. The film is visually interesting and features one of the most breathtaking chase sequences in some time, but the film is lacking a soul. It just moves along and hits its marks, but there's nothing inspired about it. It's a lot like War Horse, in that respect—competent but somewhat forgettable.

The film is based on the extraordinarily popular comic book series by Herge, and it follows the titular young reporter (Jamie Bell) and his dog, Snowy, on an adventure around the world. It all begins when he purchases a model ship at the market. Almost immediately, he's urged to give the ship up and even given the opportunity—by a Mr. Sakharine (Daniel Craig)—to name his price. He declines, only to find the ship stolen later that evening, after a stop at the library to find out more about the mysterious vessel.

The plot thickens after a man is shot on Tintin's doorstep over a warning he gives the boy regarding the ship. Tintin is then kidnapped and imprisoned on a ship headed for the Middle East. Onboard, he meets Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), who may hold the secret to solving this mystery. They just need to escape their captors and get Haddock sober enough to remember the legend of the Unicorn.

Tintin largely feels like Indiana Jones-lite. The rip-roaring score is there, as is the dense exposition. The action scenes, too, feel like they could come out of an Indy film. What's missing, then? Indy himself. I was totally unfamiliar with Tintin as a brand and a character, and I never really connected to him. I was more interested in Haddock, actually, who was funny and had an engaging arc. Tintin, I guess, is just some resourceful whiz kid. He's far from dislikable, but he could have been a little more fleshed out.

The look of the film is very interesting. Some are saying the film could, and perhaps should, have been live-action. I disagree whole-heartedly. The performance capture looks great and gives the film a comic-like feeling (the intro credits help a lot, also). I already mentioned the highlight of the film—a thrilling chase through a Moroccan village. It's done almost entirely in one take—something that would have been impossible with a live-action interpretation.

I was surprised how little the 3D added to the film. You'd think a director of Spielberg's caliber would have done something really special with the technology, especially after what we saw Scorsese do with Hugo. But regardless how many dimensions you see it in, The Adventures of Tintin is a good time. It's a slight disappointment considering the talent involved, but it's still an entertaining and worthwhile film.

War Horse Review

2011-12-27T19:27:00.002-05:00

Albert (Jeremy Irvine) with his beloved horse, Joey, in War Horse.

3 Stars

Steven Spielberg's films are often so recognizable that they could make up their own genre. They're always impeccably crafted, and you can usually see him trying very hard—sometimes painfully so—to make you feel something. I tend to think part of the reason films like Munich and Minority Report were so admired was because they broke that Spielberg mold.

War Horse sticks to the formula like glue. It's a technical marvel (especially the battle sequences), but the emotional payoff is a little weak considering the long and winding road it takes to get there. But this is still Spielberg, and even his lesser works are better than 90% of what's out there. This might be a problematic film, but it's also one that's too well-made to completely write off.

The film is centered around the relationship between a boy, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), and his horse, Joey. Since birth, Joey has been dismissed as too small, too wild, too weak to achieve what's expected of him. He's purchased by Albert's father (Peter Mullan) at an early age to help plow his field. Albert takes it upon himself to train the young horse, and despite an almost total lack of faith in them, they manage to get the job done.

Just as things are starting to look up for Albert and Joey, however, war breaks out across Europe, and he's sold to a captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston). Thus begins Joey's unbelievable journey during which he sees combat with his new owner, makes a friend with another horse named Topthorn, helps a pair of young German deserters, becomes the pet of a sick French girl (Celine Buckens) and her grandfather (Niels Arestrup), pulls heavy artillery, and gets tangled in a web of barbed wire. Meanwhile, Albert enlists and is always sure to keep a keen eye out on the battlefront for his equine friend.

War Horse gets off to a slow start. Though Peter Mullan gives what's probably the film's best performance, the struggle to plow the field isn't exactly compelling. It's once Joey goes to war that things really begin to pick up. The initial battle scene looks incredible and features some very powerful and interesting editing. And the further Joey gets from home, the more engaging the film becomes. Unsurprisingly, the film goes for the jugular at the end, but it's only partially successful. Yes, there are aspects of the final 20 minutes that will resonate deeply with a lot of viewers, but there are also credibility stretches that are too big to totally forgive.

I've already mentioned Mullan as a standout in the acting department. Niels Arestrup is another. Jeremy Irvine, unfortunately, is a weak link, and he's the human with the most screen time. Other acclaimed British thespians like Hiddleston, Emily Watson, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Eddie Marsan have a lot less to do.

The real stars, of course, are the horses. It's amazing how much emoting they can all do—Joey especially. There's one scene in which he tries to protect his friend Topthorn from injury and he gives him this incredibly steely glance. It's perhaps the most powerful moment of the entire movie, and though they don't exactly have much to say, they are easily the characters we connect with most closely.

War Horse is a definite Oscar contender in a lot of categories. It could easily earn more nominations than any other film, and it's got a shot at Best Picture and Best Director. It's an epic film with a lot of strong elements that just don't click the way you hope they will. But even if it's not on the level of Schindler's List, it's still a hell of a step up from "Indy 4".

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Review

2011-12-26T09:26:00.002-05:00

Lisbeth (Rooney Mara) discusses an investigation with

Mikael (Daniel Craig) in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

3 Stars

David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is about as good as its nauseatingly dense source material would allow. I'm no fan of Stieg Larsson's novel, nor the original Swedish film version. Fincher, however, is able to milk this puppy for all its worth. It's pulp for mass consumption. It hides its faults behind bursts of violence in the name of girl power. Yet, somehow, Fincher (with a big assist, I think, from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) makes it compelling.

Our three primary characters are Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara). Vanger is a wealthy industrialist haunted by the disappearance and presumed death of his niece, Harriet. Blomkvist is a disgraced journalist hired by Vanger to hopefully give the Harriet's investigation new life. Salander, meanwhile, is a brilliant investigator with a penchant for violence—especially against her vile parole officer. She's brought in to assist Blomkvist in the investigation, which pits them against the Vangers—a clan of Nazis, recluses, drunks, and at least one murderer.

It takes nearly an hour for Blomkvist and Salander to connect, yet the film is oddly at its best when they are apart. Their connection isn't developed as much as it should be, and while they're focusing on the investigation, we're treated to a great deal of very exciting research—leafing through archives and photo albums. The character-building stuff, however, is strong. It helps us establish an early connection to our protagonists, even if we don't always agree with their actions.

Fincher's direction is very good, though perhaps not as flashy as you might expect (the opening credits being an obvious exception). The mood is instead primarily established by the film's score. Reznor and Ross, of course, won Oscars for their work on The Social Network last year. Their contribution to this film is just as strong. Without the presence of such an unusual and atmospheric score, there's little to distinguish this film from the dozen or so other high-profile potboilers of recent memory.

The film's other saving grace is Rooney Mara, whose portrayal of Salander is career-making. She's a steely individual with mountains of psychological issues, yet despite her problems and some of the more disturbing things she does, she's an immensely likable individual. She commands your attention whenever she's onscreen, and when she's off it, you long for her to return soon.

Daniel Craig and Christopher Plummer disappoint slightly, if only because they play somewhat passive characters very passively. Their performances, then, are appropriate, but they aren't the most exciting individuals to spend almost three hours with. Robin Wright and Stellan Skarsgard also appear in two of the film's more prevalent supporting roles.

I hope Fincher returns to this series for installments two and three. He'd be the only reason I'd bother to watch them because even though I did enjoy this film, it's not enough to give the stories a pass. That said, I also hope he doesn't abandon other properties entirely. His previous two films before this (The Social Network and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) were my two favorite films from their respective years. This one won't sniff my Top 10, but it's better than it probably should be, and it's a worthy whodunnit from one of cinema's greatest modern auteurs.

Young Adult Review

2011-12-23T16:41:00.004-05:00

Mavis (Charlize Theron) gives a look of disgust in Young Adult.

3 Stars

I'm one of those heartless individuals still bitter that Diablo Cody won an Oscar for her turgid Juno screenplay in 2007. But honest to blog, her work in Jason Reitman's latest is the highlight of the film. This is the work of someone who's clearly matured over time. Gone is the insufferable snark. Instead, she focuses on genuinely developing her very unique characters. Young Adult is funny, but in a very dark way. The tone is consistent, and though you're rarely overtaken by any kind of emotion, the film is always intriguing.

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is a Minneapolis-based author (ghost writer for a popular teenage series, to be exact). She spends most evenings getting hammered and most of her mornings sneaking out of some guy's apartment. That said, she's at least grateful for having been able to escape her hick hometown—Mercury. But after getting a birth announcement from her high school beau, Buddy (Patrick Wilson), and his wife, Beth (Elizabeth Reaser), Mavis is shell-shocked. She is Buddy's soulmate, and she feels a certain responsibility to let him know she's still available and interested. So she packs up and heads back to Mercury in order to rescue Buddy from the horrors of domestic tranquility.

It's clear Mavis has a number of psychological issues. She's depressed and an alcoholic. Worse, perhaps, is her egocentricity. To Mavis, it seems completely ludicrous that Buddy would prefer his wife and child to Mavis, the prettiest and most successful girl in high school. A lot of what's interesting about the film is how seemingly plausible the feelings are. Though her plight is ludicrous, everyone went to high school with Mavis. She's vapid, very shallow, but she's also deeply insecure and hides a lot behind her "better-than-you" facade.

Obviously, such a complicated character needs a great actress behind her, and Charlize Theron is more than up to the task. Make no mistake: This character isn't nice. But Theron keeps her vulnerable enough that we don't despise her like we perhaps should. She also says a lot non-verbally. One of her go-to expressions was one of what I'm calling "vacant incredulity." It happened whenever someone says something that seems reasonable to us, but shocking to her, and it never failed to make me laugh.

Fantastic supporting work is offered by Patton Oswalt as Matt, a former classmate and new drinking buddy of Mavis' who's suffered all his life after a horrific beating he received in high school. This isn't the first time he's breaking out of the comedic sidekick role (those of you who saw Big Fan know what I'm talking about). And though he's funny, his best moments are ones in which he opens up about his physical problems and resulting insecurities. In so many ways, Matt is Mavis' equal, and one of Young Adult's big questions centers around whether Mavis will wake up and realize this.

Jason Reitman's direction is decidedly low-key, as he lets his writer and actors take center stage, but this film doesn't need flashy direction to make an impact. Young Adult is a darker-than-black comedy that achieves precisely what it's trying to. And though I only give it three stars, it's not because the film has any glaring issues. In fact, it shows flashes of brilliance. Those flashes are just too few and far between to give it any higher of a rating. Still, this is a worthy entry in Reitman's canon and a signal of big things to come for Cody.

J. Edgar Review

2011-12-21T22:01:00.002-05:00

J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) out on the town with his mother

(Judi Dench) and friend, Clyde (Armie Hammer), in J. Edgar.

2 Stars

Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar reminded me of all the reasons I hate biopics. This is a totally uninspired film—a paint-by-numbers history lesson that, yes, features good performances but takes no chances. A film needs to be extraordinarily well-made to overcome the trappings of such a familiar narrative trajectory, and this one just isn't.

J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) is synonymous with the FBI. He served as its director from its inception in 1935 until his death in 1972. Throughout that time, he worked tirelessly to rid the country of gangsters and communists, often shredding the book on civil liberties to do so. Perhaps his biggest moment was when he headed up the investigation of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's baby son. Hoover's revolutionary idea that science could and should solve crimes was put to the test here. And through its repeated successes, he accumulated more and more power. Simultaneously, however, his personal life was a mess. His mother (Judi Dench) exerted far too much control over him, and he spent years and years suppressing feelings for his deputy, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

The film's biggest problem is the way it's organized. It's Biopic 101—let the main character recount his greatest hits, flashing back and forth between the present and past. The story doesn't need this, nor is it very creative. Dustin Lance Black wrote a great screenplay for Milk back in 2008, but his work here really comes up short, and Eastwood's lifeless direction isn't doing him any favors.

Leonardo DiCaprio does exactly what you'd expect from an actor of his quality playing a character as juicy as Hoover. His work is strong. Hoover has many layers, and DiCaprio knows when to both let loose and hold back. He's best when he's playing off others. Neither Judi Dench or Naomi Watts (as Hoover's secretary) have much to do, but Armie Hammer is terrific as Hoover's right-hand man. Their explosive scene together near the end is the film's best.

I can't go any further without calling attention to the laughable makeup on all the characters. Hammer, in particular, looks awful—AWFUL! It's a shame because film has real aesthetic appeal, but the makeup totally takes you out of the moment. Someone should've called up the folks on La Vie en Rose for some advice.

It's hard to say if the film will attract any Oscar consideration. Both DiCaprio and Hammer have been acknowledged by several precursor groups. I think nominations could be in the cards for one or both, but it's hard to say because the film was (deservedly) received quite poorly.

Ultimately, however, this will one likely fade into history as another post-Million Dollar Baby misfire. He's on a cold streak, but I still have faith he can come back. My advice: Go on a vacation and take a little time off. You've earned it, and you probably need it.

2012 Oscar Predictions: Best Visual Effects

2011-12-20T19:37:00.000-05:00

I've been digging through the big Oscar categories for weeks, but it's now time to start looking into the tech and craft categories. On December 9, the AMPAS named 15 films to the short list for Best Visual Effects. This list (which you can find below) is all-encompassing. No one should be too surprised by any exclusion (Immortals, maybe, is the biggest snub), but it's also pretty easy to look at this list and rule several titles out.

Captain America: The First Avenger

 Cowboys & Aliens

 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2

 Hugo

 Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol

 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

 Real Steel

 Rise of the Planet of the Apes 

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows 

Sucker Punch 

Super 8 

Thor

 Transformers: Dark of the Moon 

The Tree of Life

 X-Men: First Class

Later in the process, this list will be narrowed to seven titles. Here are the ones with the best chances:

1.) Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I said back in August that this film was a near lock to win. I've softened on that stance a little, but I still think it's golden to get nominated, as the work on the apes was mind-blowing.

2.) Hugo
The reason I'm not as high on "Apes" is this film. Hugo (which I just saw for a second time, and it holds up wonderfully) is a feast for the eyes in every way. It can only help that it's looking like a very viable Best Picture candidate.

3.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Say what you will about the film (I'll say it was a piece of shit), but the visuals were pretty unbelievable. Craft voters rarely worry about quality of film (see also: Norbit), so don't let that stop you from placing this great-looking stinker on your predictions list.

4.) The Tree of Life
This is the first, and I hope last, time that I ever compare Malick's film with Clint Eastwood's Hereafter, but the films do have one thing in common. Last year, Hereafter made the cut in this race based on one scene—the beautifully-made tsunami sequence. I fully expect Malick's film to do the same based on the Creation of Earth material, which is as visually impressive as anything I've seen in years.

5.) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2
After those first four, things get trickier. It's more a process of elimination than outright predictions, really. Captain America: The First Avenger, Cowboys & Aliens, Real Steel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Sucker Punch, and X-Men: First Class have very slim chances, I think. The final Harry Potter installment edges out the remaining films for a few reasons. One is that this is the last chance for the Academy to reward this monumentally popular and successful series. This also happens to be the most impressive installment, at least as far as visual effects goes. Deathly Hallows—Part 1 managed to get in last year, so I think it's fair to assume its sequel stands a good chance.

6.) Super 8
So many things wrong with this film, including the often superfluousness of the special effects, but damn if they weren't impressive. Still, were they as unique as those in other films on this list? Probably not. It's got a decent shot, I'd say, but probably looks better in the sound categories.

7.) Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
I haven't seen this film, so I can't speak toward its quality or the quality of the visual effects, but it gets on the list of seven over films like Thor and Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol because of its track record. Three previous "Pirates" films, three nominations in this category. That's tough record to ignore.

Rampart Review

2011-12-19T12:50:00.001-05:00

Dave Brown (Woody Harrelson) pulls his gun on a suspect in Rampart.

3 Stars

Rampart is another in a long line of 2011 character studies focusing on a man or woman on his or her her way to hitting rock bottom. Drive did something similar, as did Martha Marcy May Marlene. Perhaps the most apt companion piece would be We Need to Talk About Kevin. Disregarding the specifics of their respective situations, it seems conceivable that Dave "Date Rape" Brown would become an Eva Khatchadourian if Oren Moverman's film went on for another 30 minutes. Either that or he'd wind up dead. Regardless, what we get here is A+ work from Woody Harrelson. And though the film is only a B+, it's such an electric performance you'll have a hard time looking away.

The film is centered around the real-life Rampart scandal in which a number of LAPD officers were accused of misconduct. Brown is one of the force's most old-fashioned officers, and his form of justice often entails actions that most of us would deem unacceptable. He unknowingly becomes the face of the Rampart scandal when a video of him mercilessly beating a black man who crashes into his patrol car goes viral. He's formally reprimanded, and concerns over previous allegations (that he murdered a suspected rapist, hence the monicker "Date Rape Dave") resurface. In other words, he's in deep shit. And his increasing paranoia over work spills into his personal life when he soils his previously cordial relationship with his two daughters and their mothers (Cynthia Nixon and Anne Heche). As an escape he begins an affair with a lawyer (Robin Wright) and seeks solace in the arms of a former mentor (Ned Beatty), but Dave just can't shake the feeling that someone is setting him up for a big fall.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Rampart's plot is minimal. Everything that happens is, for better or worse, a result of Dave's actions or character. He gets himself tangled in a very complicated web of lies, abuse, cruelty, and emotional distance, and on several occasions, he's forced to make a choice. One option always involves him coming clean or stepping away from the things that cause his destructive behavior (women, alcohol, his job). The other is the option he usually chooses. It's the dirty option—the one that always seems to offer a quick fix to a problem but ultimately puts him in an even stickier situation.

These tendencies make the fact that the film ends without clear resolution almost a moot point. We already know where Dave's journey will take him. The only questions are how and when he'll get there, and Moverman (along with co-writer James Ellroy) answers us loudly and clearly. How? On his own accord? And when? Very soon.

As interesting as this trajectory is, the real reason to see Rampart is the phenomenal work by Woody Harrelson. Anyone who views this guy as a classic Hollywood stoner needs to open his or her eyes because, between his work here and what he did in Moverman's debut, 2009's The Messenger, he's become a force to be reckoned with on the indie circuit. For much of the film, Dave is a quietly intense individual, but those scenes in which his true self comes to the forefront are genuinely frightening. It's seems unclear if he's capable of experiencing emotions like regret and fear, but as the film goes on, he develops into much more than just another Bad Lieutenant. I fear this film might be too small for a real Oscar campaign, but Harrelson would be quite deserving of the attention. He gives easily one of the year's strongest performances, male or female.

The supporting cast of Rampart is star-studded, but make no mistake, this is Harrelson's show. Sigourney Weaver, Ice Cube, Steve Buscemi, Anne Heche, and Cynthia Nixon all give glorified cameos. Robin Wright has a little more to do in a very intriguing, though perhaps not fully developed, role as Dave's mistress. And Ben Foster, the other star of The Messenger, is barely recognizable as a paraplegic homeless man who informs for Dave.

There are some very interesting themes running through Rampart. It has a few things to say about the difficulties veterans have assimilating after war, as well as how hard it is for some men to change with the times. Ultimately, though, the takeaway is the character of Dave. He's fascinating, and while his film isn't always, it's works far more often than it doesn't.

Battle for Brooklyn

2011-12-18T14:51:00.002-05:00

The first two things you're immediately struck by in Battle for Brooklyn are the senses of paranoia and grandeur. This literally is a battle, and the film prepares you in appropriately epic fashion. But seeing man after man take the podium in his crisp suit during the film's opening minutes gives you the sense that this battle was over before it even got started. Yet, men like Daniel Goldstein aren't afraid, even if they are being watched by hidden cameras everywhere they go.

The battle is over property in Brooklyn, where some rich developers want to build massive skyscrapers and an arena (to host the New Jersey Nets basketball team). In order to build, however, they need to buy a lot of land, much of which belongs to homeowners and small businesses. Eminent domain, of course, is what you might know such a process as, but typically, that law is only invoked for public needs, i.e. a highway. Goldstein and a whole host of other residents are infuriated that they're homes are being seized in the name of sports. But with their opponents prepared to throw around hundreds of millions of dollars like it was nothing, it's unclear if their defiance can actually do anything.

Despite the somewhat grandiose promise of jobs and prosperity for all, it's debatable whether or not this project is actually in the public's best interests. And it's certainly interesting that both sides have a diverse group of people advocating for it. There are rich and poor for the project, as well as rich and poor against it. What's unacceptable to both the participants and this viewer is the resolute way the residents and business owners were completely left out of the planning process. When the project's detractors come up with an alternative that won't require eminent domain, they aren't even afforded the chance to present it. This gives one the sense that the entire thing is some vendetta, years in the making, over the Brooklyn Dodgers leaving town. Now is that a good enough reason to evict people from their homes?

The film does something else quite interesting in chronicling how his fight against the project impacts Daniel's personal life. He starts the film as an engaged graphic designer, and becomes a figurehead of the resistance who marries a different woman. His first fiance leaves him because he turns down a very big offer from the developers, Forest City Ratner, but he ultimately connects with a fellow activist who understands his passion. In Daniel, a face is given to this situation, which for his cause's sake, and the sake of this film, is a much more successful way to tug at one's heartstrings.

Some would argue that activist documentaries don't have a place in today's world, what with the 24-hour news cycle souring any notion of a smart but slanted discourse. Battle for Brooklyn, however, is a fine example of how to sell someone on a point of view without hammering them over the head with it. The film's points are cogent, and they're presented in a very compelling manner. Yes, it takes sides, but after seeing the film, you'll understand why. The issues shown involve a great deal of passion, and though it might be too late to stop the Atlantic Yards project, one can only hope people take notice and don't let something like this happen again.

The People vs. George Lucas

2011-12-18T06:16:00.000-05:00

The People vs. George Lucas attempts to give a voice to the silenced Star Wars fans out there in desperate need of a platform to air 15 years worth of grievances, pent-up anger, and … wait, aren't these people everywhere? Seriously, does anyone think "beleaguered" fanboys haven't been heard? This documentary, while quite funny, supposes that George Lucas is this oblivious behemoth with no clue how he's wronged his film's biggest fans. That just isn't the case. And though this film doubles back ultimately and gives thanks to "the creator," it nullifies everything that came before it.

In 1977, director George Lucas changed the film industry forever. Star Wars was more than just a movie, it became a cultural phenomenon as men, women, boys, and girls clamored into the theater to take it in time after time after time. But it wasn't just that—it was toys, clothes, books, videos, everything. Lucas was a hero to these people, but in 1997, with the theatrical release of "special editions" of all three films, he suddenly transformed into a villain. He made a series of seemingly pointless changes to the films and reacted poorly when fans spoke out. But frustration and disappointment turned to venom with the release of the three prequel films. Jar Jar Binks became a symbol of everything that was wrong with Lucas and his new creative vision, and soon, fans that would have bowed before Lucas years earlier began claiming he "raped their childhood."

Following the film world so closely forces you to pay some kind of attention to fanboys and their culture. That's what makes this film feel so unnecessary. I know all the arguments—Jar Jar, Greedo, "NOOOOOOO!!!"—and most of them are valid. But just give it a rest. We're introduced to Star Wars fan fiction—stories and films that reimagine the series in their creators' own way. These seem like great outlets to get your frustration out. But the films are Lucas's. You want to do a better job? Become as successful as him and do it yourself. You'll see how easy it is to please everyone...

So by the end of the film, where exactly are we? We've had 80 minutes of George Lucas bashing followed by 10 minutes of glowing praise. There are some interesting nuggets of information along the way (I must get my hands on that Star Wars Holiday Special), but without a clear focus, the only thing we're left to believe is that these people have too much time on their hands.

Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol Review

2011-12-17T19:14:00.002-05:00

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) scales the world's tallest

building in Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol.

3 Stars

Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol is hopefully the beginning of a beautiful friendship. It's hard to say whether Brad Bird needed Ethan Hunt more, or if it was the other way around, but regardless, their first collaboration is one hell of an action movie.

Bird is the director of such animated hits as The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille, and he was looking for a way into live-action filmmaking. Hunt, of course, is Tom Cruise's screen persona in the successful but fizzling franchise that was in dire need of some fresh, new energy. It seems both got what they wanted, and us viewers are the lucky recipients, for you won't find a more exciting and pure action flick than "Ghost Protocol".

After breaking out of a Russian prison, Hunt is directed to the Kremlin, where he'll rendezvous with his new team—Benji (Simon Pegg) and Jane (Paula Patton)—before breaking into Russian defense headquarters to track down a lead on some stolen nuclear codes. Unfortunately, they aren't the only people on this trail, and after a massive explosion destroys everything, the entire IMF is disbanded and disavowed, and Hunt and his team—including a new pickup, William Brandt (Jeremy Renner)—must find an alternate way, without any real resources, to stop an impending nuclear disaster.

The film takes us and its characters from Budapest to Moscow, from Dubai to India. Between that and the plot, it makes this film closer to the James Bond franchise than any other "Mission: Impossible" film. And as with most of the 007 movies, this one has a megalomaniacal villain (played by Mikael Nyqvist of the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo fame) hell-bent on global destruction. He's the only aspect of the film that really doesn't work. His motivations are both underdeveloped and ludicrous (he's some kind of genius, yet he believes nuclear war will lead to eventual world peace….yeah, OK). Still, without him and his silliness, the plot would not have been as grand in scope as it is, so it's definitely a forgivable sin.

The action is glorious, especially in non-3D IMAX, a format that's being utilized quite well by filmmakers of late. While in Dubai, Cruise scales the Burj Khalifa (the world's tallest building) with gloves that stick to the glass exterior. It's a jaw-dropping, vertiginous sequence, guaranteed to make you squirm in your seat with each little slide downward Hunt makes. Then there's the Kremlin bombing which is as impressively done as you'd expect from a filmmaker as respected as Bird. Though he's never worked with live people and special effects like this, it's clear the guy knows what he's doing.

The film does a great job organically connecting to the third film in the franchise. Gone is Hunt's wife (played in "M:I 3" by Michelle Monaghan), but her exit works its way into the plot very well. Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) is no longer a member of Hunt's team, but he's not written off entirely. A welcome edition to the big leagues is Benji, who steps away from the desk he occupied in the third film, to provide much needed help to Ethan in the field. He's also, unsurprisingly, the source of 95% of the film's humor.

Is this the best "Mission: Impossible"? In IMAX, it certainly gives you the best theater experience of any of the four films. But I suspect it'll hold up quite well on regular screens and even at home. Action films this breathless just don't come along very often.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

2011-12-17T11:08:00.000-05:00

In Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Werner Herzog—a master documentarian by all accounts—chronicles the discovery and study of the paintings inside the Chauvet caves of Southern France. They are the oldest known paintings in human history, and seeing them illuminated is simply astonishing. This films pleasures end there, unfortunately, and once the novelty of these images wears off, there's little of interest here.

In 1994, an incredible archeological discovery was made: Three explorers found the Chauvet Cave in Southern France. This 1,600-foot area was perfectly sealed off from intruders and the elements for over 30,000 years, and as a result of this natural miracle, the artifacts found inside—including the cave paintings—offer a one-of-a-kind glimpse into our very, very distant past. Alongside Herzog on his journey to document the cave and its paintings (which are now the oldest known art in existence) are a dozen or so scientists—anthropologists, art historians, etc.—who are hoping the cave will hold the key to understanding more about our cultural heritage.

First, the good, because this really is an important documentary and one that everyone should appreciate on some basic level. The paintings are amazing. AMAZING. You'll be absolutely mesmerized as Herzog's gritty camera crawl across these amazing images.

I also respect the painstaking work that went into the actual filming of the images. Because the cave is such a new and precious discovery, few are actually granted access to it. Herzog was allowed one camera and three crew members, and the restrictions on equipment made the shoot appear quite taxing. Herzog, never one to back down from something difficult, metaphorically spit in his challengers faces by filming in 3D. I, regrettably, was unable to view it in the extra dimension, but by all accounts, it looks spectacular.

My biggest issue with Cave of Forgotten Dreams is disappointingly fundamental. As far as the paintings go, there's some magic lost the more you learn about them. Their beauty relies heavily on an element of mystery, and the longer the film goes on, the less mysterious they are. When Herzog starts digging into the people and animals of the cave, we care even less. And by the time we reach the film's final act, it all feels overdone. It's like Van Sant's remake of Psycho—just because something was magical the first time doesn't mean an identical second version is a good idea. I didn't need nearly 20 silent minutes of more paintings. The movie should have been much shorter.

Alas, it's hard for me not to recommend it somewhat because it chronicles such a beautiful and unique piece of our history. It's not the premise that fails, but rather the execution, which is too jumbled and far too laborious to leave as strong an impact as Herzog is clearly aiming for.

Carnage Review

2011-12-14T19:34:00.000-05:00

The Longstreets and Cowans meet to discuss their children's fight in Carnage.

2 Stars

With names like Roman Polanski, Jodie Foster, John C. Reilly, Christoph Waltz, and Kate Winslet front and center, Carnage has no right being such a wet blanket of a movie. Its premise is golden—two sets of parents meet to discuss a physical altercation between their children. Chaos, of course, ensues, but it's not all that funny—and not remotely insightful. I'd even go so far as to call it offensive—a monicker I don't use lightly. But the film becomes excruciatingly simplistic the longer it goes on, and the laughs promised by the film's brilliant trailer never show up.

It's hard to believe a playground scuffle could cause so much far-reaching trouble, but thus is Carnage. In one corner, Ethan Longstreet. In the other, Zachary Cowan. We never meet the boys, but we know Ethan refused Zachary entry into his gang, and the latter retaliated by striking the former in the mouth with a stick. Several lost teeth and some nerve damage later, Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Foster and Reilly) graciously invite Nancy and Alan Cowan (Winslet and Waltz) into their home to discuss the incident and how to proceed. They bicker a little over nomenclature, but for the most part, they are genial toward each other. It's not long, however, before talks collapse, and the uptight, community-minded Penelope is ready to kill disinterested lawyer Alan. And while the generally submissive Michael tries to keep the piece, poor animal-loving Nancy is in the corner vomiting.

The film's biggest problem is painfully obvious: There aren't any remotely likable people in the entire film. Michael perhaps is the closest to an agreeable individual, and he's the one who left an innocent and terrified hamster in an alley to die. To be fair, Nancy isn't terrible either, but she's far from a saint. Penelope and Alan, however, are just despicable—the former in a really annoying way, the latter in an admittedly funny way.

Yes, Waltz is funny, but the rest of the cast doesn't fare out so well. Winslet is sort of a non-entity, oddly enough. Her character is the most subdued of the bunch, when all is said and done, and unfortunately, Winslet doesn't do much to bring her more into the forefront. Foster and Reilly, on the other hand, are complete disasters. Penelope is the film's loudest and most bombastic individual, and Foster plays her in a nails-on-the-chalkboard sort of way. As far as Reilly goes, the screenplay is as much at fault as he is for such a poorly developed character. He seems relatively normal for so much of the film until he literally decides he doesn't want to be nice anymore. It's such an abrupt and jarring shift that it throws the entire final third of the film off its axis.

With such detestable people populating the screen, it should come as no surprise that Polanski and cowriter Yasmina Reza (who wrote the beloved play upon which the film is based) throw every gender cliche they can come up with at you. By the end of the film's scant 80-minute running time, they only thing you'll learn is that men are dicks and women are shrews. Gender stereotypes get set back about 50 years as Alan and Michael chomp on their cigars while Penelope and Nancy shout hysterics at them.

If you thought Roman Polanski seemed like an odd choice for a project like this, your suspicions were valid. The film has absolutely no directorial identity. It also squanders any attempt to play up the almost surreal elements in the plot. There's a little bit of The Exterminating Angel here, with the characters unwilling (or unable?) to just get up and leave. It would have been smart for Polanski to play that up a little more—anything to distract us from the slog of spending time (no matter how short) with these horrible people. By the end, you won't have taken sides with either child in the altercation that started the whole affair. You'll just feel sorry that they both have such awful parents.

We Need to Talk About Kevin Review

2011-12-13T17:00:00.000-05:00

Baby Kevin being held by his father (John C. Reilly)

while his mother looks on in We Need to Talk About Kevin.

3.5 Stars

We Need to Talk About Kevin is probably the best horror movie in years. It's the antithesis of a Saw or Paranormal Activity film in that it's based in the real world rather than one full of ghosts or, you know, murderous puppets. It depicts a parent's worst nightmare: That his or her child will be evil. Now evil children are nothing new in horror movies either, but rarely are they depicted in a realistic fashion, and that's what makes Lynne Ramsay's film truly scary. It seems conceivable that other Kevin Khatchadourians are out there, making me feel all the worse for the Evas out there.

Eva (Tilda Swinton) is Kevin's (Ezra Miller, as a teenager) mother, and she spends most of her days drowning in wine and trying to stay away from people. In the years before Kevin, she loved life and was an avid traveler. On one fateful day in Europe, however, she met Franklin (John C. Reilly) and got pregnant. Growing up, she and her son hate each other. His hatred is seemingly born into him because Eva is a relatively attentive and patient mother (excepting one big mistake she makes). Her hatred starts as just frustration, but incident after incident shows her he has no hope. And when Kevin turns 15, his rage boils over into tragedy as he takes his bow and arrow to school with him for some live target practice.

We Need to Talk About Kevin is a grim motion picture—about as grim as any I've seen this year. The subject matter is grim, the characters are grim, the scenery is mostly grim. But it's also quite riveting thanks to Ramsay's stellar direction. Her camera manages to find some incredible, very evocative shots. She regularly punctuates the film with the color red—an obvious metaphor, yes, but one that totally works in the context of the film. And she tells the story in a non-chronological way, something I wouldn't call necessary (like it was in something like Martha Marcy May Marlene), but it keeps you guessing and interested all the way through.

Tilda Swinton is undeniably one of our most reliable actresses, and here, she lives up to the high bar she's set for herself. Eva is a empty soul in the scenes following Kevin's crimes, but she's no less lost before them. The film, in many ways, is about lost hopes and dreams and the sobering reality of the responsibilities that accompany parenthood, no matter the circumstances. Eva knows she's culpable in Kevin's crimes, no matter how much she was repulsed by them, no matter how much they may have hurt her. That's why she visits him in prison, despite not having anything to say. Swinton conveys these complex emotions brilliantly. It's one of the best performances of the year, male or female.

Ezra Miller plays the older Kevin (Rock Duer plays him at his youngest, while Jasper Newell is Kevin around the age of seven), and he's actually kind of charming, but in a really creepy, scary way. He only finds happiness in hurting his mother, whether it be making a mess in the house, pooping his pants, or poisoning his sister and setting her up to take the blame. Miller sells Kevin's monstrous nature without going too over the top.

I thought the film became a bit repetitive about halfway through, but it starts building steam again until its rousing (and depressing) conclusion. My only other quibble was that I didn't get why Eva didn't take Kevin to a child psychologist. (Seriously, why not?) But excepting that, it's a tremendous film. It certainly isn't something most parents will want to view, but it ought to serve as a good kick in the ass to some negligent mothers and fathers out there. For everyone else, it's simply a powerful and challenging, but ultimately very rewarding, study of the worst in all of us.

Buck

2011-12-12T17:07:00.004-05:00

It's easy to see why a lot of people love Buck, but I found it a pretty tepid and shallow film. It's very "red state"—what with all the tough-talking cowboys—and I'm guessing the films fans are responding to the way the film contrasts this with the emotional confessions interspersed throughout the film. Unfortunately, the filmmakers don't ask any penetrating questions of their subject, which kept me at a distance. So I'm supposed to just care on the merits of his struggle alone? Sorry, that wasn't enough for me. With so many great non-fiction films out there, there's no compelling reason for me to recommend this one.

Buck Brannaman, our eponymous lead character, travels the country breaking in horses for a living. In fact, he's one of the inspirations for Robert Redford's film The Horse Whisperer, and Buck served as a creative advisor on the film. We see Buck as he tames some truly wild beasts all across America, but perhaps his toughest struggle was to overcome the abuse he received at the hands of his father. Buck and his brother were forced into foster care, but with just a little encouragement, he managed to become one of the most skilled horsemen in the world, as well as a good husband and father.

Director Cindy Meehl really does her subject a disservice. By basically giving us the Cliffs Notes version of Buck's childhood, she misses out on a real opportunity to create a three-dimensional character that we're actually interested in—rather than the one here that we watch somewhat obligatorily. I don't want to say that she fails to penetrate Buck's hardened exterior; I think it's quite clear that she does. But her questioning (which, to be fair, we don't see at all) feels like a paper cut: It does the absolute minimum to get Buck to bleed. Had she picked up a hacksaw and really went at him, the result could have been much different.

As a result of this half-hearted character development, it's hard to care much about his horse whispering. The final 30 minutes especially (during which Buck tries to calm a particularly wild horse) feel like a whole lot of wheel spinning. The film does feature some nice moments. I especially liked Buck's foster mother and found their relationship touching. But Meehl and company do too many things wrong. Buck comes and goes without leaving any real impact, and though it might earn an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary, I don't see how anyone can call it one of the five best docs of the year.

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front

2011-12-11T12:19:00.000-05:00

It's hard not to be fascinated by If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front. Imagine coming to work on a seemingly normal day and then seeing the quiet guy down the hall get arrested by the feds on terrorism charges. That's what happened to the wife of filmmaker Marshall Curry, who decided to turn his lens on this man and tell his story.

There's this really interesting subtext throughout the film regarding what a terrorist really is. Should someone who burned down a few buildings face life plus 300 years in prison? Or does the label have more to do with one's set of beliefs, the reasons behind their actions, and not the results of these actions? The film frames this philosophical debate around the aforementioned quiet guy (or the "disgruntled one" as some of his "terrorist" friends called him). And it's a puzzler. I still don't know how I feel about Daniel McGowan's beliefs and crimes, but I loved his story and found it monumentally compelling.

For a time, the Earth Liberation Front (or ELF) was considered the largest homegrown terrorist organization in America. Its motto: Protect all life on Earth. Its method: Set fire to companies they consider threats to the environment. Yes, it's extreme, and the former members interviewed for the film will be the first admit it. But as their story shows, traditional forms of non-violent protesting is toothless in situations like this, and when one feels powerless, the easiest way to grab some power is to make your enemies pay attention. That's what the ELF did in the 90s, and that's why Daniel McGowan and his friends went to prison.

The filmmakers stay pretty much hands-off here, which is very much appreciated. They interview several federal officials, as well as businessmen who lost property at the hands of McGowan and company, to make sure it's a two-sided affair. Really, the entire ELF saga has a ton of gray area, so there's really no need to preach, and they don't.

There's not much of a stylistic identity going on here, which I guess is OK, but the film loses points for its very obvious and distracting music cues. Beyond that, however, there's little to object to. It's just a very interesting story told well, and it has a ton of subtext for you to chew on—from the terrorist question to Daniel's arguably foolish decision to get married to the crazy ironic twist that leads to his eventual arrest. This is an exceptional doc, and coupled with Under Siege: Journalists in Combat and Bill Cunningham New York, it's part of a very strong shortlist for this year's Oscar.

Under Fire: Journalists in Combat

2011-12-10T20:52:00.000-05:00

Films as hard-hitting as Under Fire: Journalists in Combat don't come along very often. Here's a documentary that turns its lens toward those with their camera lenses on war and destruction. It's a talking heads piece that couldn't be more well-served by this format. The stories told by these broken individuals are horrifying, and photographs and images would probably have made it unbearable to watch. But listening to them is both manageable and extremely moving.

The film's structure is simple enough. A number of prominent war photojournalists share their hopes, fears, and the reasons they can't stop doing what they do. They've all been in serious danger on more than one occasion, but the rush they feel being so close to death is too powerful to give up. This ultimately leads many of them to depression, PTSD, and alcoholism. And though they definitely regret certain actions, I'm not sure they wouldn't go back to all this if asked.

We saw a similar thesis presented in The Hurt Locker, but there's something about hearing it directly from those who have lived it that makes that message hit home harder. Watching these men—most of whom are very tough and gruff and proud—absolutely break down is painful, mainly because I don't know how they manage to keep it together as well as they do. The things they've seen are horrific, and I can only imagine how hard it must be to escape. I can also see, however, what draws them into this line of work and how it might be difficult to come home and cover town hall meetings and such.

Visually, the film employs some dream-like imagery that's mostly effective, especially when the subjects discuss their recurring nightmares, caused by PTSD. Beyond that, however, the film is stylistically bare. It looks and sounds a little rough around the edges, which might hold it back come Oscar nomination time. As far as I'm concerned, however, this should be one of your five nominees, hands down. It's as close to an "everyone should see this" film as I've encountered this year, whether you're in the media, politics, the military, or a firefighter or something. This isn't just a film for journalism dorks like me. It's frightening non-fiction that should make everyone thankful for the work these men and women do.

Bill Cunningham New York

2011-12-10T09:59:00.001-05:00

Few 2011 films—or documentaries in general—are quite as charming as Bill Cunningham New York. Most non-fiction films tackle complicated, hard-hitting issues or complex characters with unforgettable stories. This film, however, is about a man, his bike, and his camera. Yet, there's something joyful about the film's simplicity, and its titular character's smile is just infectious. Overall, Bill Cunningham New York might not be groundbreaking, but I challenge you to find a more pleasant, enjoyable documentary.

Everyone always dreams of finding something they love doing so much that they'd do it for free. Meet Bill Cunningham—a New York City photographer who's worked for such publications as the New York Times and Details magazine. Call this octogenarian a fashion photographer if you must, but he'll immediately correct you. He's a photographer of people and the clothes they wear. He lives in a tiny artist's studio in Carnegie Hall, surrounded by decades worth of photographs and files. And while he's on the verge of eviction (his apartment will be replaced by offices), he's still deliriously happy. Why? He's doing what he loves, what he's meant to do.

We don't really learn any intimate details about Cunningham over the course of the film. He slyly laughs off questions about his love life, and he tears up a little when pressed about his religious beliefs. Oddly enough, however, this impenetrability works for the film. I'm not sure digging deeper into Cunningham's psyche would reveal any great truths. He's just a guy who's happy living and working. And the superficiality of the film strangely works in its favor.

There's little else to say about the film, frankly, other than that I liked it very much. Here's a documentary that greatly contrasts your typical fare. Yes, its story is subdued, almost mundane. But it grabs hold of you with an obvious affection for its lead character and an incredibly amount of charm.

TOP 10: Seinfeld Episodes

2011-12-09T12:12:00.001-05:00

I've been on a Seinfeld tear lately for whatever reason, and since I didn't have any posts scheduled for today, I thought it'd be fun to do a quick and totally off-topic top 10.

I wanted to do a favorite episodes list, but didn't want to jump in line with every online writer naming "The Contest", "The Chinese Restaurant", or "The Soup Nazi" as my favorite. So to steal from the Film Spotting playbook, I'm calling this my "Chinese Soup Contest Memorial List" and it'll highlight my 10 favorite Seinfeld episodes that might not be regarded as stone-cold classics. Enjoy!

10.) "The Gum"

The best bits in this season 7 episode are purely visual: Jerry wearing enormous glasses and stumbling around an old moviehouse, George in a King Henry VIII costume, Ruthie Cohen (the Monk's cashier) riding a horse. Yes, it's a little more out-there than some of the show's best, but not too much so, and everything is connected enough that we can forgive the leaps in logic and credibility. And the role reversals are a lot of fun: Kramer with an ulterior motive, George feeling superior to his old nememis Lloyd Braun.

9.) "The Couch"

Such a sensitive issue (abortion) is tackled with such wit. Really taking sides would have been an obvious mistake, but sending up those who boycott something on principle makes sense, and watching Elaine lead the charge out of Poppy's restaurant is a riot, especially with Jerry (ever the instigator) laughing it up at his now empty table. How Poppy managed to pee himself while later sitting on Jerry's sofa without realizing is something I'll never understand, but it's funny, and seeing the inner germaphobe in Jerry come out it is always great. George's subplot (where he invades the home of some strangers to watch Breakfast at Tiffany's) is hacked on a little awkwardly, but it's nonetheless vintage Costanza.

8.) "The Chicken Roaster"

The only post-Larry David episode on the list, this one is super broad, but features one of the best gags of the series. I'm not sure why that Kenny Rogers Roasters sign is so bright, but I love that it sends Kramer and eventually Jerry over the edge. The Freaky Friday-esque role reversal is a classic sitcom trope, but it's aces here. Hard to say whether I liked Jerry as Kramer or Kramer as Jerry more. The Elaine/George stuff is a rock-solid B-story with George's pathetic attempts at getting a second date and Elaine's attempts to outwit a persistent accountant at work.

7.) "The Revenge"

Most of the early stuff, seasons 1 and 2 specifically, is great, but there are few that I'd regard as classics. This, however, is one. It's the beginning of George's slow descent into the cowering weasel that lives at home in season 5, and his scenes with Jerry discussing his new potential careers are fantastic. That George would consider himself a viable talk show host is great, as is Jerry's way of gently letting him down every time he says something asinine. Elaine's role is small here, but her method of pretending to seduce George's boss is awesome. Plus, Kramer gets to stumble around with a bag of cement. I think that's what they call perfection.

6.) "The Pilot"

Oddly enough, this is the only season 4 episode I'm highlighting, despite the fact that it's probably the strongest overall season. I still love watching the "Jerry" pilot finally come into fruition, and the folks they get to play fake George (Jeremy Piven!), Elaine, and Kramer are amazing—especially the fake Kramer and his stolen raisins subplot. I love how Woody Allen George gets in this episode with his fears that God will kill him before he ever finds success. And Elaine's callousness toward her semi-stalker, Russell (the always great Bob Balaban), is quite funny. The Kramer constipation stuff is a bit weak, but his audition to play Kramer on the show is fantastic, and the rest of the episode more than makes up for this one minor flaw.

5.) "The Masseuse"

I think I like this one a lot more than most others, but I think all three major plots are brilliant. First, there's the Jerry stuff with the girlfriend of the week being played by Jennifer Coolidge. She's a masseuse, and he wants nothing more than a massage from her. "I won't submit to forcible massage," she insists, making the parallels to date rape just obvious enough that the joke lands, and subtle enough that it doesn't really offend. Then, there's George's obsession over the masseuse and the idea that a girlfriend of Jerry's must like him. Who cares whether it jeopardizes the relationship he's currently in? Elaine, meanwhile, is trying to convince her boyfriend, Joel Rifkin, to change his name as it's synonymous with one of the worst serial killers in New York history. I'm not sure what's funnier there: Her suggestion of O.J. just months before Simpson is accused of murder himself, or the back and forth between the two bouncing ideas off each other (Remy? Really, Elaine?).

4.) "The Race"

This episode exists, I think, simply as a tribute to Superman. For 5 1/2 seasons, the show threw Superman references out without hesitation, but The Race is on a whole other level of Superman obsession. Jerry dates a woman named Lois and is confronted by his boyhood nemesis, Duncan. You see, for years, Duncan has accused Jerry of cheating in this big race, and though he'll admit his guilt to George, he can't to Duncan, choosing not to run whenever asked. With Lois' job on the line (don't ask), he's forced into action, and the climactic scene is something to behold. It leads to one of my favorite images of the series, when Elaine jubilantly goes in to hug a victorious Jerry, and he shoves her aside (in slo-mo) to embrace Lois. The wink to the camera at the end seals the deal on this one for me. It's clear the cast is enjoying themselves, and so do the viewers. It's wonderful.

3.) "The Fusilli Jerry"

Probably should have been called "The Assman", but I'm sure that wouldn't have flied. Anyway, Kramer's license plate mix-up is an all-timer, and the thought that he'd pass himself off as a proctologist makes it all even better. We meet David Puddy for the first time when he is accused of stealing Jerry's "move." It's really quite a sexual episode with Frank Costanza (my favorite supporting character of the series) accusing Kramer of stealing his move on Mrs. Costanza. It's all preposterous, and in the end, Frank gets some fusilli lodged in a place no one wants fusilli lodged, but all is fine next week, for this is Seinfeld.

2.) "The Pen"

This is the only episode that doesn't feature George, and one of a handful without Kramer, which is fine with me, because as far as I'm concerned, Elaine and Jerry are the two best characters on the show. Why? They're usually so collected, which grounds them a little more than the zanier George and Kramer. Anyway, this episode takes them to Florida where some of the pettiest bickering I've ever seen in my life takes place. The dialogue is so rat-tat-tat, and Elaine's "STELLLLLLA" at the end is another one of my favorite bits of the series.

1.) "The Opposite"

Honestly, this one easily tops everything else the series has ever done. It's just such a perfectly composed plot, full of clever ideas, brilliant callbacks, and enough surprise to hold fans over during the summer (it's the season 5 finale). George's arc over the whole series comes full circle here in a hilarious and somewhat humiliating fashion. Every thought or impulse he's ever had, he realizes, was wrong. If he does the opposite of that, he should be right. It's not the worst idea ever, but it supposes that this man is so incapable of success that he must behave irrationally to get ahead. And it works! His tirade on George Steinbrenner (in his first "appearance") is great, and the Boss' comeback ("Hire this man!") is even better. Of course, karma must play its course, and for every great thing that happens to George, Elaine suffers a setback. She's evicted, loses her job, and gets dumped—most of which happens because of her affinity for Jujyfruits. Jerry realizes this and notes that with one friend down and another one up, he's destined to break even, which is just fine for him. And Kramer? Well, he spits coffee all over Regis and Kathie Lee. I love this show.

2012 Oscar Predictions: The Great Pixar Void in Animated Feature

2011-12-08T17:01:00.001-05:00

With no obvious frontrunner coming from the Pixar camp, this year's Best Animated Feature race is more puzzling than it's been in a while. I like that unpredictability on the one hand, but the lack of a truly great animated film this year makes me a little sad, especially considering this is the first year with new rules making it easier for a full slate of five nominees.

Many questions abound here: Can Cars 2 get in on Pixar goodwill alone? What will be this year's The Secret of Kells? And will the animators accept "Tintin" as one of their own? In a field of 18 nominees, I'll highlight eight that seem like genuine contenders (sorry, The Smurfs):

1.) Rango
This is the closest 2011 has come to a great animated film. It's no Toy Story 3, that's for sure. But it is a lot of fun and definitely a little unusual. I'm not sure it's the most critically-acclaimed film on the list, but it has great production values and animation, and it's one of the few really well-reviewed hits in the category.

2.) Arthur Christmas
I had no idea this one had such good reviews! It's rocking a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. The only problem there is that audiences haven't received it very well. If that's indicative of some problem the film has connecting with audiences, it could be in some trouble. If it's a marketing thing, like I suspect, it's got as good a chance as any other film.

3.) Kung Fu Panda 2
The first of many sequels/spinoffs in the category this year, Kung Fu Panda 2 has some great reviews and a decent, albeit underwhelming, box office. But sequels have a hard time beating out first features in any category, unless they are exceptional, like Toy Story 3.

4.) Puss in Boots
Not a "Shrek" film, per se, but certainly the two films are cut from the same cloth. I was surprised this one scored so well with critics, considering it just looked like a quick cash grab, but the reviews and box office are too good to overlook it completely. If it misses out, it will be because Dreamworks went all in on Kung Fu Panda 2.

5.) Rio
I couldn't muster up the energy to watch this spring smash hit, but there seems to be some goodwill out there for it. But again, I just can't see it winning, and frankly, the only reason it's so high on this list is because there are so many question marks on the films below it.

6.) The Adventures of Tintin
The most interesting question of all regarding this race is how the Animation Branch of the Academy responds to Tintin's motion-capture style. They're notorious snobs, and as you can tell by my placing it sixth, I'm thinking that sentiment will win out. But the film will almost certainly be a smash hit (it already is overseas), and reviews have been quite strong.

7.) Cars 2
Oh, Pixar. It's been about two weeks since I caught up with Cars 2, and I'm shocked at how immediately forgettable it was. Still, it looked nice and made money. This year, that actually could be enough.

8.) Chico & Rita
The only (relatively) obscure film on this list, Chico & Rita has been quietly building good buzz since its premiere at Telluride in 2010, and its inclusion on the list of eligible animated films has extended its life even longer. I don't know much about it other than the fact that it sounds a lot like Casablanca. But the few people that have seen it have good things to say about it, so it might be able to sneak in.

2012 Oscar Predictions: Best Foreign Language Feature

2011-12-07T19:58:00.000-05:00

Many, myself included, called 2009 the year of the animated film, while 2010 was the year of the doc. I think 2011 might just be the year of the foreign film. Just looking at this selection of eligible films, the lineup feels a lot strong and more high-profile than in years past. Perhaps that's just this man's perspective, but my list of must-sees for the next few months is jam-packed with films on this list.

Below, you'll find a full list of each participating country's submissions. Many of the films we've likely never heard of. For some of the films, that will change. Many will still likely fade into obscurity.

But first, my predictions. Here are my 5 predicted nominees:

1.) Where Do We Go Now? (Lebanon)

Folks were scratching their heads when this musical dramedy about religious conflicts in Lebanon won the People's Choice Awards at TIFF this year. But most viewers reported having a very emotional response to this film, and just a cursory glance at past Best Foreign Language Oscar winners will show you that is precisely the type of film that usually wins the award.

2.) Le Havre (Finland)
Ditto everything that was said about Where Do We Go Now?, except for the People's Choice Award, the music, the religious conflict, and Lebanon. OK, maybe all the two films have in common is their general crowd-pleasing nature, but that's one important trait for a film in this category, and Le Havre's high profile means it should be taken very seriously as a potential winner.

3.) A Separation (Iran)
Definitely more artistic and complex than the two films ahead of it on this list, Iran's submission is the fastest horse out of the gate this year. It's already won several awards, including the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, the BIFA, and the NYFCC Best Foreign Language Film.

4.) In Darkness (Poland)
This film doesn't quite have the profile of the three preceding it, but it is about the Holocaust, and as anyone who's seen Extras knows, Holocaust = Oscar.

5.) Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
Canada has been a regular nominee lately (see Incendies, among other films), and this one has a very appealing plot description: "An Algerian immigrant is hired to replace an elementary school teacher who died tragically" (courtesy of iMDB).

Other definite contenders include Footnote (Israel), Happy Happy (Norway), The Flowers of War (China), Pina (Germany), Miss Bala (Mexico). Special mention should be made of a few films I think could nab the "Dogtooth slot". As you might recall, the nominating process changed recently, allowing a small committee to select the five nominees. Many were surprised that the out-there and explicit Greek comedy was able to get a nomination, considering the branch typically rewards your standard Oscar fare. Much of Dogtooth's success was attributed to the power of this committee. This year, films like Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Turkey) and The Turin Horse (Hungary) could very well earn nominations in a similar fashion, but I'm not prepared to put these atypical Oscar movies in any higher position than this.

Now, the promised list of 63 eligible films. Enjoy:

Albania – The Forgiveness of Blood
Argentina – Aballay
Austria – Breathing
Belgium – Bullhead
Bosnia and Herzegovina – Belvedere
Brazil – Tropa de Elite 2
Bulgaria – Tilt
Canada – Monsieur Lazhar
Chile – Violeta Went to Heaven
China – The Flowers of War
Colombia – The Colors of the Mountain
Croatia – 72 Days
Cuba – Habanastation
Czech Republic – Alois Nebel
Denmark – SuperClásico
Dominican Republic – Love Child
Egypt – Lust
Estonia – Letters to Angel
Finland – Le Havre
France – Declaration of War
Georgia – Chantrapas
Germany – Pina
Greece – Attenberg
Hong Kong – A Simple Life
Hungary – The Turin Horse
Iceland – Volcano
India – Adaminte Makan Abu
Indonesia – Under the Protection of Ka’Bah
Iran – A Separation
Ireland – As If I’m Not There
Israel – Footnote
Italy – Terraferma
Japan – Postcard
Kazakhstan – Returning to the ‘A’
Lebanon – Where Do We Go Now?
Lithuania – Back to Your Arms
Macedonia – Punk is Not Dead
Mexico – Miss Bala
Morocco – Omar Killed Me
Netherlands – Sonny Boy
New Zealand – The Orator
Norway – Happy Happy
Peru – October
Philippines – The Woman in the Septic Tank
Poland – In Darkness
Portugal – Jose and Pilar
Romania – Morgen
Russia – Burnt by the Sun 2: Exodus
Serbia – Montevideo, God Bless You
Singapore – Tatsumi
Slovakia – Gypsy
South Africa – Skoonheid
South Korea – The Front Line
Spain – Pa Negre
Sweden – Beyond
Taiwan – Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale
Thailand – Kon Khon
Turkey – Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
United Kingdom – Patagonia
Uruguay – The Silent House
Venezuela – The Rumor of the Stones
Vietnam – Thang Long Aspiration

The Descendants Review

2011-12-06T18:44:00.000-05:00

Matt (George Clooney) with his two daughters, Alex (Shailene Woodley)

and Scottie (Amara Miller), in The Descendants.

3.5 Stars

Call Alexander Payne's films slight if you must, but the man has an uncanny knack for tackling the human condition with complexity and honesty, levity and sadness. With The Descendants, he reaches a new level. All the elements I and many others loved about Sideways and About Schmidt are executed here to near perfection. Of Payne's "humanist trilogy," this film is the funniest, deepest, best-acted, and most satisfying.

Matt King (George Clooney) is an emotionally distant man going through a series of personal crises. His family is deciding whether or not to sell a large parcel of untouched Hawaiian land that would make them all filthy rich, and the pressure to make the final call on a buyer is ultimately up to him. Just before decision time, his wife is in a horrific boating accident that leaves her in a coma that she'll most likely never come out of. So it's up to him to tell their two daughters, 17-year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller), as well as some family and close friends. But when Alex tells her father about her mother's affair, he decides to search the islands for her lover, while searching for some closure that might never come.

The film is essentially a character study, and as such, it needs a strong central performance to really work. Luckily, George Clooney is up to the task. This is the best work he's ever done, bar none. As a viewer, you can never quite get a handle on what kind of guy he is. We know he's an aloof husband and father and that he has no idea how he should be acting in this awful situation, but he's not deliberately foolish. It's as if a family just wasn't meant for him. His effort is what keeps us onboard with him, and Clooney is so good at keeping us rooting for him without overdoing it at all.

The entire film is predicated around these split-second emotional decisions regarding how he should act toward someone or what he should tell them. When his wife's father (played by the great Robert Forster) visits the hospital, he berates Matt—and even Alex—for not being good enough to her. He tells Matt she was a wonderful, devoted wife, and you can almost see the angel and devil on each shoulder arguing over whether or not he should tell his father-in-law the truth. It's material like this that keeps you thinking about The Descendants, wondering what you'd do in such situations.

The film is also both tremendously funny and extremely poignant. Clooney gets a lot of laughs from the way he reacts to both his children and Alex's boyfriend, Sid (Nick Krause), who's a very broad character but is nice to have around considering the bevy of gut-wrenching scenes Payne throws at you. Alex and Scottie also generate some funny moments when they fight, curse, or completely ignore Matt. They don't show their father much respect for most of the film, but that sentiment rarely expresses itself in an obvious way, making their rebelliousness quite entertaining.

As far as tears go, you'll almost certainly shed a few. Late in the film, of course, there's one moment during which I audibly heard people in the theater sobbing and moaning. Earlier on, a pair of scenes had me feeling a little misty-eyed. When Matt and Alex, with the help of a grief counselor, tell Scottie that her mom isn't waking up, her slow-to-comprehend reaction is heartbreaking. Another is when Matt's father-in-law finally says goodbye to his daughter. Forster's character isn't very likable, so seeing someone with such a hardened exterior really show vulnerability moved me. This all speaks to outstanding supporting performances from Forster, Miller, and Woodley.

My one minor quibble with the film is the laborious set-up, during which the screenplay felt a little clunky, but the end result is difficult to argue with. The Descendants will make you laugh and cry and gives you enough food for thought that it lingers with you. It took Payne a long time to make this movie (7 years, in fact, since Sideways), but The Descendants was definitely worth the wait.

The Muppets Review

2011-12-05T19:09:00.000-05:00

Kermit the Frog addresses all his friends in The Muppets.

3 Stars

It's hard to make the argument that The Muppets is a kids movie. It's certainly family-friendly, but the film will work best for those, like me, who grew up loving Kermit, Piggy, Fozzie, and the rest of the gang. It's like a reunion of old friends, and though you don't have to know everyone to go to and enjoy the party, the best time will be had by those with lots of fond memories.

That's because this is a somewhat problematic film. It's clear now that one of the strengths of the older "Muppets" movies is that the focus is squarely on the Muppets themselves. In the 2011 film, we spend 20 minutes or so with Jason Segel and Amy Adams, who are fine actors and perfectly adequate here, but I felt like a child ready to throw a temper tantrum: "I want Kermit and I want him NOW!"

Segel and Adams play Gary and Mary, two incomprehensibly happy individuals from Smalltown, USA. Gary's brother is Walter, who's the world's biggest Muppets fan, perhaps because he's, in fact, made of felt himself. Gary and Mary are planning a trip to Los Angeles for their tenth anniversary, and Gary decides to bring Walter along so he can finally see the old Muppet Theater. Unfortunately, it's in a state of total disrepair when they get there, and Walter accidentally overhears billionaire Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) discuss his plans to destroy the grounds and drill for oil. As a last-ditch effort to save the place that brought him so much laughter and joy, he tracks down Kermit who agrees to try to put together a reunion telethon that just might raise the $10 million needed to save the theater. But will his old friends be onboard?

Like all "Muppets" entities, this film is very meta. As Kermit, Gary, and company hit the road to pick up the other Muppets, someone remarks, "This would go a lot faster if we did it by montage." When they need to cover an unrealistic distance in a short about of time, they opt to "travel by map." And when Gary has to explain why the flowers he picked up for Mary got squashed, he blames it on the dance number he was just in. Stuff like this is a riot. It's when the issues of the Gary/Mary/Walter triangle come up that the film loses some of its spark.

The actual Muppets stuff, of course, is all gold. After Kermit agrees to attempt Walter's plan, they travel to Reno to get Fozzie, who's doing a show with a group called the Moopets—essentially a Bizarro World-version of the Muppets headed by a really gruff Miss Piggy lookalike. Then, there's Gonzo, who runs his own plumbing empire. Animal is in a celebrity anger management center along with his sponsor, Jack Black (who has a much larger and hilarious role later in the film). And my man Rowlf is just chilling on a hammock, ready as always to tickle the ivories.

Black, unsurprisingly, isn't the only cameo. Chris Cooper is perhaps larger than a cameo, but he's hilarious as the villain. He also has the best new musical number in the film, a rap about how great and rich he is. Neil Patrick Harris gets a funny line, as does Whoopi Goldberg. Alan Arkin plays the groundskeeper at the Muppet Theater early in the film to great effect. Each and every star that pops up is clearly having fun, and Segel and director James Bobin are clearly more than happy to integrate them all in somehow.

Muppets fans will likely shed a few tears over the gang's finale to the telethon, as well as during Kermit's lovely motivational speech to rally his troops. Those involved with this film clearly have a great deal of respect for both Jim Henson's legacy and the audience who adored these characters for decades. They also manage to make a film that's more modern and clever. So despite it's flaws, I'll treasure The Muppets, because it was a blast spending 90 new minutes with old friends.

2012 Oscar Predictions: Best Picture Update

2011-12-04T10:52:00.000-05:00

Predicting Best Picture has never been so hard. It's not just because we don't know the number of nominations this year, but because so many films that seem to be in contention have one or two pieces missing. There are fewer total packages in 2011. Not a bad thing, but a fair observation, I'd say.

With that said, the number of nominees will likely trend lower. I doubt eight or nine films will get the necessary five percent of first-place votes. As of this week's update, I'm going with seven nominees, though here are the ten films I'd say are in the best position, ordered from most likely to be nominated to least likely:

1.) War Horse
The latest from Spielberg is finally beginning to show, and though most reviews aren't over-the-moon, consensus is this film will be in the hunt right until the end.

2.) The Artist
How far can charm go? That's what Michel Hazavanicius will soon find out. The box office is a big question mark, but everyone who sees it calls it a crowd pleaser through and through. If I was in Vegas, this pony would have my bet.

3.) The Descendants
Another stone-cold lock. The box office and reviews are already there. All the film needs is a little love from the critics groups at the end of the year. That said, having now seen it (review tomorrow), I can't imagine it winning.

4.) The Help
Look, I'm not enamored with Tate Taylor's film as most others are, but I can see a Best Picture nominee when it's right there in front of me with SAG ensemble gold practically bursting from every frame.

5.) Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Daldry is three for three, and between the beloved source material and star-studded cast, there's no reason to think he won't be four for four.

6.) Moneyball
The box office seems just solid enough to squeak in there over some of the others on this list. I think it's still vulnerable though, as I'm not sure who exactly is putting it at the top of their ballots. Still, with so many other question marks, I'll call it in.

7.) Hugo
If I had any say in it, Hugo would be a Best Picture nominee for sure. As it stands now, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, it won the NBR's top prize. On the other hand, the NBR means nothing. On the one hand, it's a total charmer and made by a master director. On the other hand, so is Midnight in Paris.

8.) Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen is a favorite of mine and the Academy's. And a lot of people really love this movie, but I'm just lukewarm on its Best Picture chances for two reasons. First, it was an early summer release and could easily get lost in the shuffle. More problematic, however, is the fact that it's competing directly with The Artist (and arguably The Help and Hugo) for the charming, crowd-pleasing slot.

9.) The Ides of March
A few weeks ago, I thought this film was golden. But it came and went far too fast to be any higher on this list.

10.) The Tree of Life
It's definitely a film that could be at the top of voters' lists, but I can't imagine it'll be on enough ballots. Far too divisive.

Another Earth Review

2011-12-03T09:45:00.002-05:00

Rhoda (Brit Marling) looks at the newly discovered planet, Earth 2, in Another Earth.

2 Stars

With Another Earth, director Mike Cahill really goes out on a limb. It's one thing to make an indie sci-fi film about the discovery of a new planet that exactly mirrors our own, but it's something else entirely to put that fascinating concept completely in the background and instead focus on two broken individuals and their complex relationship. And on one hand, I greatly admire Cahill's ballsy approach, but he never fully commits, doing the film a real disservice. These two disparate stories just don't work together, and the more Cahill vacillates between them, the less you care about both of them.

The two individuals at the center of Another Earth are Rhoda Williams (Brit Marling) and John Burroughs (William Mapother). She's a bright, young girl who's about to head to MIT to study astronomy. He's a composer, husband, and father of a young boy. Driving home from a party one night, Rhoda hears a radio DJ announce that a new planet has been discovered and can be seen by the naked eye. As she glances up to spot it, she loses control of her car, and crashes into John's—killing his wife and son, and putting him in a coma. Four years later, Rhoda is released from prison (apparently she had been driving drunk), and John has awoken from the coma. She flounders about without much purpose, even attempting to kill herself at one point, but two things are never far from her mind—John, whom she begins cleaning houses for, and the planet, now called Earth 2, which looms large in the sky at all hours of the day.

The entire subplot of Earth 2 stays in the background for almost all the film. What we know about it is that it's essentially the exact same place as Earth, everyone has a double on the planet, and a wealthy man is giving one civilian the chance to make the trip. There's a fantastic scene as Rhoda's family gathers around the television to watch a scientist attempt to make first contact. The responses she gets back from Earth 2 are startling and fascinating.

And though this would have made for a much more interesting focus to the film, I don't object to Cahill's decision to make this primarily about Rhoda and John, despite the fact that their storyline is pretty familiar. Kristin Scott Thomas fans will be reminded a lot of I've Loved You So Long, while the presence of William Mapother brought me back to Todd Field's In the Bedroom. Another Earth, unfortunately, can't touch these films because it doesn't commit all the way to its premise. Earth 2 is too much of a player for us to become fully invested in Rhoda's story. When she's with John, I couldn't help but wonder when we'd be getting back to the cool stuff.

Then, there's the ending, which is a complete mess. The film's final shot, really, is what took a disappointing film and made it just bad. I obviously won't get into the specifics, but it sends the film in a totally different direction, making it feel cheap and gimmicky. Cahill is going for shock and awe, and though he gets it, he completely compromises what came before it.

Despite my issues with the film, I quite liked the two lead performances. Relative newcomer Brit Marling is exceptional as Rhoda. Here's a girl who had everything and lost it all so suddenly. She's a shell of her former self after being released from prison, and it's unclear if she'll ever regain any sense of purpose. In one heartbreaking scene, she bumps into a former classmate, who's now successful and dating a knockout. She's an unkempt janitor, and can hardly contain the embarrassment when telling him this. 2011 has been a good year for young breakout indie actresses. I don't think Marling quite reaches the level of Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy May Marlene, but I do hope people take notice of her.

William Mapother is a guy you'll almost certainly recognize (I did from both LOST and the aforementioned In the Bedroom), but he doesn't get to take center stage much. Another Earth gives him a real opportunity to shine, and the actor seizes it with a searing performance of a man torn apart by grief and regret. John, despite having a very docile career as a composer, is a scary man, who's capable of both great kindness and an occasional fit of rage. Mapother is good at keep the latter characteristic at bay until absolutely necessary, making the switch both sudden and all the more frightening.

Another Earth was one of the more buzzed about titles coming out of Sundance 2011, and it's not hard to see why. It's a low-budget movie with high aspirations and a quirky premise, but it doesn't live up to its promise. Still, I see promise in Cahill and hope he's got a few more solid ideas. My advice to him: Stay focused and leave the cheap tricks on the cutting room floor.