Thor

This film is based on another comic book classic and the latest brick in The Avengers foundation. Elements of the Nordic mythology is folded into the story as we are presented with the history of King Odin(Anthony Hopkins) and his sons Thor(Chris Hemsworth) and Loki( Tom Hiddleston) living on the planet Asgard. Thor is cast out for his aragance and finds himself on Earth without his powers in the company of scientist Jane Foster(Natalie Portman) and her research team. Meanwhile an ancient enemy threatens Asgard and all those living there. Will Thor regain his power in time to save both Earth and his home world?

I was impressed with this film. It has both high entertainment and production values. This film does not take itself too seriously. The big action sequences and bold dramatic scenes are tempered with plenty of humor. What might come off as silly or over the top is presented in just that way so that the viewer never feels the need to quirk an eyebrow and snort, “Really?” Instead they smile and enjoy the ride. The only blatant exception to this is the love story element to this film. The instant and unbreakable bond that Thor and Jane form for one another is not only obvious but undeveloped. It’s almost as though the writers thought, “Well, everyone knows they will end up together, so why waste time writing the details?” I found this distracting and a huge drawback to an otherwise enjoyable film.

The graphics in this film were very well done. The filmmakers selected their spots judiciously as far as where the attention was focused. The realm of Asgard was a breathtaking visual display while the creatures and villains are well integrated with the actors and real sets. With two Academy Award-winning actors in this film( Hopkins, Portman) the acting certainly does not lower the value of this film. Newcomer Hemsworth pulls his own weight among established actors and with his distinct look(aka handsome face and physique) I would be surprised if he is not a household name in the next coming years.

My thoughts in a nutshell:
　
Entertainment: 8- Again, this film may have been a home run if it weren’t for the groaner of a love story. It should have been more well-developed or left out completely. Otherwise, this film is engaging and exciting with just the right amount of humor.
　
Award-worthy 5- The reason I like this film so much is because they don’t pretend it is an award winning movie. This is just pure fun!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

In this film, we see the continued adventures of the beloved Captain Jack Sparrow(Johnny Depp) in this case, his search for the fountain of youth. Sparrow becomes involuntarily tangled in a three-way race to the fountain. Because he possessed a map to the fabled place, Jack is hijacked by Black Beard ( Ian McShane) in his attempt to outrun his prophesied doom. As always, Captain Barbosa ( Geofrey Rush) causes trouble as he too searches for the fountain of youth. The Spanish fleet set the pace of this race and although out of sight for most of the movie, always seem to be one step ahead. The film includes the expected physical comedy mixed with one-liners and blurry lines between friend and foe. With the absence of Elizabeth Swan and Will Turner, or as I liked to call them ‘dead weight,’ we are presented with a new female lead in Angelica (Penelope Cruz) who is both alluring and capable, the admirable combination we saw in the Elizabeth Swan of the first film.

The storyline of this film is very reminiscent of the first few films. This case seems to be a simplified or watered=down version. This film lacked some of the scope that the first few films possessed and makes the film seem a little anti-climactic. We have come to expect large sweeping sea voyages and many exotic and dangerous destinations. In this film, we really only get one destination after what seems like a short jaunt by ship. Although several specific and rare ingredients are needed to gain access to the fountain, all are found on the island itself. By the time the fountain is found it seems as though anyone could have done it. And there is evidence that many people already have. We have also come to expect a recurring and beloved cast of characters. With the exception of Gibbs, Barbosa and Jack himself, none of the characters have returned. All of these aspects combined makes the viewer feel as though something is missing.
Visually, the film is just as stunning as the first three. I do feel, however, that if less time was wasted
 on weird chase scenes, then more could be dedicated to the quest itself. The mixture of dark and macabre with the fun and carefree tones of the franchise are still in tact. It is difficult to tell when the actions of Captain Jack are merely for comedic value, or if they pan out to be the essential part of his major plan.

My opinion in a nutshell:

Entertainment: 6- Although I thought this movie was really fun, it didn’t live up to the original film and doesn’t provide anything new for the viewer.

Award-worthy: 3- the production value is excellent in this film, but the writing seemed sloppy and overall the film seemed like a lazy attempt to squeeze a bit more money out of their franchise.

Insidious

In this straight horror film, we see a very normal family comprised of a man, his wife and their three children moving into a new house. Expectedly the house is old and beautiful. Things begin to get strange and scary right away when one of the young boys will not wake up one morning and while he is in a comatose state, his mother begins to see strange things happen around the house. Can they save the boy before he is lost forever?

　

I found this film quite scary, which is somewhat rare for me. Like most horror films, however, this film starts well, builds up momentum, and then poops out at the end. Although this film relies heavily on cheap scares, it does a good job at it, and some of the visuals are very effective. I liked the fact that this film takes the safety away from the daylight and makes it a place for horror as much as the night. After that, however, there’s really not much more good news. The acting is not good and the story is not very original, but hey, by and large horror flicks have not exactly been paragons of film originality and quality, they are just for fun!

　

My opinion in a nutshell:

　

Entertainment: 7- This is a very fun movie. I would have really liked to see a better ending, it felt like they wanted to take Poltergeist to the next level, but the old horror rule rears its ugly head, “Never show the monster completely because it will always be a disappointment.”

Hanna

In this mystery action flick, we see a girl of about 16 named Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is raised by her father Erik ( Eric Bana) in the frozen forest to be a perfect assassin. When she decides she is ready, she and her father enact a plan tailored all of Hanna’s life to kill the woman who killed Hanna’s mother. When Hanna kills a woman she believes to be the killer, Marissa( Cate Blanchett) she treks across Africa and Europe to meet with her father one step away from Marissa and some very scary people as she tries to solve the secrets of her mysterious past.

This film is directed by Joe Wright, the same director of Atonement, Pride and Prejudice, and The Soloist. At first glance, this violent action film seems like a vast departure from the heavy dramas he had made in the past. However, Hanna fits into Wright’s repertoire much better than expected, and that is why I am still not sure if I liked it or not. Yes this film has the intricate action scenes and suspenseful chase scenes expected from the previews, but the true focus of this film is on a girl exploring her sense of self and identity. She is not just trying to discover her past, but who she is as a person and how she connects to others. She has spent her whole life without a personal identity outside of her mission. When she believes she has accomplished that mission, she is faced with herself as a girl who is both self-sufficient and helpless as a baby.

I went into this film thinking I was going to see a fast-paced action film similar to The Bourne Identity. Instead, what I got was kinda weird. The action scenes are juxtaposed between scenes from a European coming-of-age film. The villains in this film are also strange. A pitiless southern woman with a hidden agenda. A whistling, German, fetish strip-club owner with severe sociopath tendencies and his two cronies. These are the adversaries that Hanna and her father must evade and ultimately confront. When you add the action, self exploration, mystery, and odd villains the film just feels mismatched and forced together. The mystery is not completely solved also and there are still lots of questions left when the film is over. I think there are some great pieces here and if the film had focused on the action, mystery, or coming-of-age aspects there could have been a really good film here. Instead it’s just weird.

My opinion in a nutshell:

Entertainment: 5- This film promises a lot and doesn’t really deliver. The cast is fantastic and the acting is quite good. The action scenes are well done, but are few and don’t seem to fit with the rest of the film. The mystery is well set, but does not answer all questions. The self-exploration is sympathetic, but interferes with the flow of the film and also does not reach a conclusion.

Award-worthy: 2- This is an award-winning director, but this is not his best work.

Source Code

In this drama thriller with a sci-fi twist, we are thrown directly into the action, and confusion, for main character Cpt.Colter Stevens(Jake Gylenhaal) as he wakes up on a train he has never been on in a body that is not his and in a conversaton with a woman he has never met.  Within the first five minutes, the train explodes and Colter wakes up strapped into a chair in some sort of capsule with only the image of a woman named Goodwin(Vera Formiga) as his direction through confusion and disorientation. As the secrets are revealed one at a time, Colter returns to the train again and again to relive the last eight minutes of another man's life in order to discover the bomber's identity and prevent the next attack.  In the process he predictably falls in love with the woman in the next seat(Michelle Monaghan) and she soon becomes his motivation for trying to save everyone.  Will Colter acomplish his task and save the girl too?

I was pleasantly suprised by this movie.  Time travel and quantum physics can be a minefield for filmmakers to try to mauever.  Although never truely without loopholes, the tighter the logic, the better the film will be.  This one lacks any major loopholes to distract the viewer and the ones that are there are minor and appear later in the film once you are already invested.  The exposition is complicated and a little redundant as the same things are re-explained several times.  As a result, I found the begining of the film to drag in an annoying way, and it wasn't until about a half hour into film that I felt like it really got going. 

A lot of that drag was due to the character of Colter himself.  I found myself getting very irritated with his slowness to catch on to the situatin.  He is supposed to be a seasoned and decorated soldier but in the begining of the film we see him blatantly question authority in the middle of a mission and is reluctant to perform even after key elements are explained.  I found myself mentally screaming "Just get it done and ask questions later!"  I also thought a lot of his initial decisions on the thrain were made in haste and panic without being thought through.  Later in the film when he started to get the hang of it, that is when I really started to get into the movie.  I was, however, a little annoyed at how quickly he fell for Christina, the girl in the next seat.  It has become so expected that it will happen, that they don't even give good reasons why anymore.  Forming an attatchment to her makes sense, she's nice enough, but to risk everything just for her when you have only spent the same eight minutes with her maybe a dozen times, doesn't really satisfy me.  But, whatever!  It is what it is. 

Jake Gylenhaal does a fine job playing the protagoist here and Vera Formiga also presents a compelling character, but aside from that, all the other characters come across quite flat.  This is definately a story-driven film.  Although the ending was easily predictable, how he gets to it is interesting enough.  I laughed, I cringed in suspense and said "Ah-ha" at the little plot twists.  I was definately along for the ride on this one.  You would think that a film consisting of eight minutes on a train and a man locked in a capsule, that the film would feel cramped, but the way Colter moves around the train and sometimes gets off at the stop really gives a sense of space to this film that I think could have been easily lost.

My opinion in a nutshell:

Entertainment:  6- The entertainment value is definatelythere, but I found some of the charaters too obvious, and I found the ending, including the villain, quite anticlimactic but the story is compelling and the directing is very good.  A fun way to spend a couple hours.

Award-Worthy:  4- Unlikely, but have fun anyway!

Sucker Punch

I have to say, writing a brief synopsis of this film is a chore, but here goes. The movie begins with an innocent-looking girl, who we only know by the name Baby Doll played by Emily Browning, being committed to a mental institution by her stepfather after her mother dies. From there it gets a bit more confusing. Here the film switches to another perception of reality where the girls are imprisoned in a nightclub of sorts and forced to perform and prostitute themselves to the patrons. When Baby Doll is asked to dance, however, she slips into another version of reality, this one only loosely based on actual events occurring around her. While in this fantasy world, she is able to get things accomplished while all the time it appears that she is merely dancing. With the plan she concocts in her dream world, she is able to enlist the help of four other girls. Together, they navigate both the nightclub and fantasy realities to achieve their freedom.

　
The plot sounds confusing at best and stupid at worst, and while it might be both of these things, it is not the plot that makes this film stand out. You know how the preview of a movie is always better than the actual movie? That is because all the money shots are all squashed together into a nice 30 second package that leaves you wanting more. This movie is two hours of money shots back to back to back. The visuals are stunning. Please, if you are going to see this film, see it in the theater, it is worth it. The visual aesthetic we have come to expect of 300 and Watchmen, Zack Snyder, has lent the same unearthly quality to this film. Since he wrote this film, it is tailor made to his personal aesthetic, which has become unmistakable. He makes no pretenses but merely incorporates everything he thinks is cool into one film. If you think the same things are cool as he does, you will love this movie, if you don’t you won’t. Pure and simple. I mean, where else are you going to see five hot chicks in sexy outfits kicking ass against giant samurais, clockwork Nazis, fire breathing dragons, and streamlined robots all in the same movie? 

Zack Snyder creates such a rich and vibrant world, threeof them actually, that if you are a little confused about what is going on, that's OK!  He is not just a director, he is an auteur.  I love that people are responding so well to his cinematic style.  I love how visceral it is.  No one can argue that he pertrays realism, but when making a fantasy, why not make it as fantastic as possible?  It's not just the visuals, but the music selection also contributes to the tone of this film.  I love the reimaginings of classic songs like "White Rabbit"  and "Search and Destroy."  They lend the propper hard core feeling to the dream world, but also set the viewer off balance because they are slightly different from what they are used to hearing.  I also think the choice of the girls was perfect.  They all did a great job doing the whole badass thing in the dream world, but pulled off vulnerable in the nightclub.  I applaud Snyder for this one and can't wait for his next venture.  And he's from Green Bay! 

　
What I think I loved so much is that Snyder wrote these girls as just straight-up warriors, almost the same way he would write men characters, except they are smoking hot. This is something that makes me kind of sad about watching war movies like Band of Brothers. Men have these unbreakable bonds formed in battle situations and have trust in each other’s abilities and loyalty. Women are never portrayed this way. They are always seen as catty or manipulative or self-serving. Although these women are beautiful, they are confident and work as a team.
　
My little piece of feminist indulgence aside, this movie is most definitely NOT for everyone. I reiterate that one should go into this prepared for a visual spectacular set to some fantastic music. Know what kind of viewer you are! If you are more of a fan of the mainstream films that all wrap up nicely at the end with the good guys happy and the bad guys in misery (and don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good formula film as much as the next person) then this is probably not the film for you. This is definitely more conceptual and not at all literal. But for the fan boy film geek this is the movie to see again and again. I know I will!
　
My opinion in a nutshell:

Entertainment: 7- The reason this didn’t score higher is because the target audience is so specific because honestly this film is nothing but entertaining. The people who will like this film are going to LOVE it, but those who don’t are going to hate it. Not only is the flow of the story confusing, anachronisms can be distracting for those not used to it.
　
Award-worthy: 4- except for some visual or technical awards, this one won’t really catch anyone’s attention come award season. Like I said, it is nothing but entertaining.

Some upcoming movies...

Ok, so there are some upcoming movies I am quite excited to see.  this Friday Sucker Punch comes out and I am almost too excited.  I need to dial it back or there will be no way it will be able to live up to my expectations.  I am hoping for a pure block of badassness from the director of 300 and Watchmen.  This one is an original screenplay from Zac Snyder and not an adaptation from a graphic novel so this is entirely from the mind of the director I am most excited about these days, and I can't wait!

On April 8th, Hanna comes out and here again we have a girl straight up kicking ass!  This one I am less excited about the visuals as in the case of Sucker Punch but more excited at the prospect of the mystery involved in this one.  It almost feels like The Bourne Identity but the main character is a 13-year-old girl!  Also the cast could not be more exciting for me.  Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, and Saoirse Ronan( who you might remember from The Lovely Bones and her Oscar-nominated performance in Atonement)

Also on that day Arthur comes out.  I hate to admit it, but this one looks quite funny.  It is a remake of an 80s comedy of the same name.  I actually didn't care for the original and I certainly don't care for Russel Brand, he creeps me out, but the two dislikes must cancel each other out because I am actually looking forward to this one! 


I will keep you updated on anything else that floats into my interest, but these are the three I am most excited about at the moment so keep an eye out for the forthcoming reviews!!!

Paul

This film is about two British men, Clive and Graeme, who are best friends played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Sound familiar? It should! These are the two men who brought us Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. In this scenario they have come to America to attend comic-con and then, in a rented RV, travel to all the geekiest hotspots from the infamous black mailbox to Area 51. Not long into their journey, however, they meet a small green man named Paul from space and agree to help him get back home. Meanwhile, they are pursued by several agents, two homophobic rednecks, and an angry bible-thumping father. Needless to say, hilarity ensues! Will they get Paul to his rendezvous point before their pursuers catch them?
　
Let me just say “Bravo!” I am still clapping! I love the films from this duo and can’t wait for the next one. The more you love sci-fi films, novels, or comic books, the more you will love this film. It is jam-packed with clever references from all your favorite sci-fi movies from Star Wars to E.T. Even if you don’t know much about the sci-fi world, there is still lots to enjoy. I love these films because just watching them makes you feel like part of one big inside joke. Be forewarned, however, there is a LOT more profanity in this film than the other two and is rated R for a reason! If that doesn’t bother you, then grab your popcorn, sit back and prepare to be delighted!
　
My Opinion in a Nutshell:

Entertainment: 8- Although this film is hysterical, there is a bit of a target audience here and if you don’t fit into it, you might feel a bit left out of the full effect, but there are still plenty of laughs for you!

Award-worthy: 3- There is a good reason we don’t see many comedies at the Oscars.

The Adjustment Bureau

This film is about a promising young senator named David Norris who is played by Matt Damon. At the start of the film, he loses an election. After meeting a tenacious girl, he delivers an inspiring speech and reenters the world of politics. Meanwhile there are men watching Norris and discussing his actions. It is revealed that the men are guiding Norris, among others, to specific outcomes. When one small thing goes awry, the whole plan begins to fall apart and the watchers must reveal themselves to Norris as the Adjustment Bureau. Norris must fight for his own decisions and write his life the way he wants to despite the best efforts of the Adjustment Bureau to stop him and get him back on their track. Will he succeed in living his own life or will the Bureau convince him of the importance of their plan?

I actually found this film quite enjoyable. I thought the characters were compelling and the story was engrossing. I even found the love story more believable than usual. I actually like the love interest played by Emily Blunt. The dilemma is there. Does Norris follow his heart and be with the woman that every part of himself is telling him is the one for him, or does he let her go so that they can each fulfill their greater destinies apart from one another?

There were some things I was not thrilled about, however. I do wish they had gone back for another draft on the dialogue. I found the dialogue of the Bureau to be too contrived. They used it to explain too much to the audience and it just came across as forced. Also I feel, directing wise, they missed opportunities for action. The climactic chase scene is hugely anti-climactic.

My Opinion in a Nutshell:

Entertainment: 6- This was a very fun movie, just don’t try to over think it and you will enjoy yourself.

Award-worthy: 3- Nothing in this film stands out or takes your breath away in the manner that makes you want to root for it come award season.

Red Riding Hood

This film is a fun adaptation from the old fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf. In this version, however, the wolf is in fact a werewolf. Intriguing right? Valerie, played by Amanda Seyfried of Mamma Mia, is red riding hood, but she is not little in this version. She is a young woman who is in love with one man, Peter played by the smoldering Shiloh Fernandez, but engaged to be married to another, Henry played by the elegant Max Irons. When Valerie’s village becomes plagued by the wolf, the villagers begin looking for ways to rid themselves of it. While some decide the best course is to hunt it and kill it themselves, others call upon the help of renowned werewolf hunter Solomon, Gary Oldman. Everything quickly descends into chaos as all fail to kill the wolf and Valerie realizes that she has a connection to the wolf. Can she discover who it is in time to save her family and friends?

I thought this movie was really fun. My expectations were low, however because of Catherine Hardwicke at the helm. You may remember her as the director of the first Twilight film who was not invited to direct the following installments. I take similar issue with this film as I did the Twilight film. As a director she relies heavily on cliché and tired old scenes that makes today’s discerning viewer roll their eyes. I found myself snickering at certain scenes that were meant to be poignant or meaningful but I just found them stupid.

That being said, the music choices were very intriguing. The music pulled the anachronistic elements together and made them seem less out of place and more cool. Also the visual element to this film was quite good. These were the two elements that drew me in on the first preview. While these elements make for an attention-grabbing and exciting preview, they don’t hold a film together very well. The dialogue cliché and borderline laughable, the story is quite formula in general, and all the characters are flat. But hey, this isn’t supposed to be Ben-Hur! This is made to be a fun way to pass a couple of hours. And it does that quite well. Am I going to buy it? No. Am I glad I went to see it? Yeah, it was fun. My personal experience was a bit ruined since the theater I was at kept cutting the sound out, but that almost made it more fun.

My opinion in a nutshell:

Entertainment- 7- The people are pleasant to look at, the costumes, sets and music are all appealing, and the violence and sexy bits are all adequately vibrant without being graphic. Just don’t expect too much and you will enjoy your two hours quite nicely.

Award-worthy- 2- This movie was made for fun. Not quality. Let’s just leave it at that, shall we?

District 9



This is a Sci Fi film that takes place in Johannesburg South Africa. In this version of reality, a flying saucer appears directly over Johannesburg South Africa and when nothing happens for weeks, the South Africans break in and find the bipedal bug-like aliens are starving and dying. Fast-forward about ten years and we see the aliens segregated in a slum known as district 9. The main character Is Wikus van der Merwe, played by Sharlto Copley ion his film debut. Wikus is a middle-management government official that a documentary crew is following as the government prepares to relocate the aliens to a new facility. During the course of his excursions into District 9, Wikus comes into contact with a mysterious alien substance and his life rapidly begins to change forever.

I was so happy to see this film on the list of nominees. There was, of course no real chance of it winning, but if Avatar was going to be nominated, this film should definitely be included. This film is what Sci Fi is really about. While Avatar was a stylized, high-handed, overblown, unsubtle commentary on a subject no one is unaware of that follows every plot formula, flat character and obvious camera work in the book, District 9 is a fresh, raw, unapologetic look at an issue that nearly all societies in today’s world faces in an unexpected way that utilizes believable characters, experimental film techniques and collaborative efforts from bright young artists from all disciplines.

This film is a commentary on the racism and apartheid seen throughout history and which can still be found world-wide. What makes this such an effective analogy is the fact that it is still believable. This film takes place today and so it can comment on current issues plausibly whereas when a Sci-Fi film takes place in the future like Avatar does, it should either show an optimistic view of the heights man can achieve when they work together, like Star Trek, or should show the horrific depths that will result from not resolving the issues of today by exaggerating them, like A Clockwork Orange. It is very believable to me that if helpless aliens arrived on Earth today it would not be over New York, D.C. or even London and that they would be immediately segregated, heavily regulated and tested by the government who uses fear and ignorance, albeit based slightly on fact, to keep the aliens hated by the general populace.

The beginning of the film was done in documentary style which is something a lot of filmmakers are playing with these days. It lends a sense of immediacy as well as takes the pressure off for bringing big dramatic scope in the cinematography. It also allows for a convenient explanation of the history involved while simultaneously affording opportunity for characterization. This film was also all adlibbed as far as dialogue and character reactions. This also made the film seem more real and immediate.

The most impressive thing about this film to me was the incredible character of Wikus and Copley’s portrayal of him. When I say “incredible” I don’t mean that Wikus is a hero in shining armor that saves everyone, instead, he is a flawed, sometimes pitiable character who reacts to his extraordinary circumstances in very ordinary ways that are sometimes much less than admirable. Because of his relatability, the viewer roots for Wikus even when his actions are disappointing. This movie put Sharlto Copley on my radar and you should watch out for him too. His next film was The A-Team where he stole the show. Keep your eyes peeled because I know we haven’t heard the last from this silly, but brilliant South African actor!

My opinion in a nutshell:

Entertainment- 6- If you love the non-sop action and bad-ass characters and yippy-kay-yay lines, you might be a bit disappointed in this film. It does take a while to get going since the beginning is a bit information-heavy. But if you like a thought-provoking look at a possibility presented in a different way, then this is the film for you! Also you may need to pay extra attention since everyone speaks with a South African accent.

Award-Worthy- 8- While this movie is impressive in many ways from the concept itself to the performances, it is a bit rough around the edges. This is writer-director Neill Blomkamp’s first feature-length film and while many of these ill-fitting edges are what makes this film so endearing, it also leaves room for Blomkamp’s improvement and I can’t wait to see what comes next!!

Results

Ok, so not my best year.  The past three years in a row I have correctly predicted all six of the big categories.  This year I have only gotten 4 of the six.  Still, the two that I guessed incorrectly, were my second choices, so not a total loss although I got almost all of the other categories wrong...Oh well, maybe next year!

Art Direction: My guess- The King’s Speech
Winner- Alice in Wonderland

Cinematography: My Guess- True Grit
Winner- Inception

Supporting Actress: My Guess- Melissa Leo
Winner- Melissa Leo

Animated Feature: My Guess- Toy Story 3
Winner- Toy Story 3

Adapted Screenplay: My Guess- True Grit
Winner- Social Network

Original Screenplay: My Guess- The Kids Are All Right
Winner- King’s Speech

Supporting Actor: My Guess- Christian Bale
Winner- Christian Bale

Costume Design: My Guess- Alice in Wonderland
Winner- Alice in Wonderland

Visual Effects: My Guess- Inception
Winner- Inception

Editing- My Guess- 127 Hours
Winner- Social Network

Director: My Guess- Darren Aronofsky
Winner- Tom Hooper

Leading Actor: My Guess- Colin Firth
Winner- Colin Firth

Leading Actress: My Guess- Natalie Portman
Winner- Natalie Portman

Best Picture: My Guess- Black Swan
Winner- King’s Speech


I'm just happy The Social Network didn't win!! 

The clock resets and I can continue my journey backward into Oscar History!!

Preditions!!

Tomorrow is the big night! I have to pos my official predictions.
Here are the big six:

Best Picture: I still think that Black Swan deserves the big prize for this year. The acting was mesmerizing, the directing was both lyrical and striking, the story is just edgy enough to set itself apart and all the costumes, sets and music lend the appropriate tone and mood to round it out nicely. The only reason I favor this film over The King’s Speech is because of content. The story of Black Swan is just more what I feel film has become and where it is going whereas The King’s Speech feels more like the glory days of Hollywood past.
Best Director: Here again I favor Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan. This is a tough one for me because I felt that The King’s Speech was brilliantly directed and I always like to back the Coen Brothers, but again I feel the vision of Aronofsky leads to the future of film. I do however see Tom Hooper being quite deserving of this award for The King’s Speech because although I felt the content was a little too formula, the directing in this film was cutting edge as well as visually striking.

Best Actor in a Leading Role: Although always the toughest acting category, best actor belongs to Colin Firth. His Portrayal of King George VI is flawless.

Best Actress in a Leading Roll: I think this one belongs to the intensity and dedication of Natalie Portman in Black SwanBest Actor in a Supporting Roll: I almost feel bad for the nominees up against Christian Bale this year.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: This one I would like to see go to Melissa Leo from The Fighter. I think it will be a tight race with Hailee Steinfeld from True Grit.
　
　
Here are the other categories I have a few thoughts on:
　
Best Animated Feature: They might as well call it “the annual award for Disney-Pixar.” Congrats to Toy Story 3.

Best Art Direction: Believe it of not, this is the category I am having the hardest time voting on just one. I know I will not be vindicated come the ceremony, but I am actually going to say The King’s Speech on this one. Although all the nominees in this category were visual masterpieces, I found the artistic direction in The King’s Speech to be the most unique and unexpected use of art direction I have seen in a long time.
　
Best Cinematography: I am Voting for True Grit because this award should always go to a Western!
　
Best Costume Design: My vote for this one actually wasn’t nominated. The only film where I felt the costumes made a significant contribution to the overall tone of the film was Winter’s Bone. However, I don’t think there was much actual design involved which is why it felt so real, but that doesn’t quite make for an award-winner. My vote therefore goes to Alice In Wonderland.
　
Best Film Editing: This one I am voting for 127 Hours. Flawlessly melding flash-backs with camcorder footage with landscape shots and traditional film style makes this one the obvious choice.
　
Best Visual Effects: Belongs to Christopher Nolan again for Inception.
　
Best Adapted Screenplay: This one is another tough one. The fornt runners, in my opinion, are 127 Hours and True Grit. Although 127 Hours is beautifully done, the book is a little too existential to be easily translated, whereas True Grit is far more literal. Since I have to chose, I am going to say True Grit, though I am just as likely to regret it as not.
　
Best Original Screenplay: I am really rooting for The Kids Are All Right. I found the writing for this film fresh and real as well as highly entertaining and relatable.
　
　These are my thoughts on tomorrow's ceremony.  Time will tell if I am of the same mind as The Academy!

Winter's Bone



Winter's Bone is about 17 year old girl named Ree living in the south with her two younger siblings and her mother.  They are clearly living on meager means and must accept food from neighbors and give up their horse.  When a police man arrives, he informs Ree that her father is missing and put their house up for bail.  If he didn't show up to court, Ree and her family would lose their house, which is the only thing they really have.  Ree is the one who cares for the family because her mother is mentally unstable and they haven't seen her father in months.  In order to keep her family together, Ree enters into  a world of highly secretive and violent drug dealers.  Will she find her father in time to save her family?

This film is a brilliant example of how a lower budget independent film can be well made and well received.  The beauty of this film is in the details.   Many times in film, you see the set and costumes that have been carefully prepared over a period of days, weeks or, in some cases, months to years.  In this film there was one point where I wondered if the actors were allowed to just wear their own clothes in the film.  The sets and costumes in this film felt comfortable and sort of "occupiable".   The worn jeans and remnants of a wasp nest in the light fixture lend the relationship to the film and the characters.  Because I can't relate to the character's situation, the relatability of the  places helps me feel connected to the film. 

Although I felt this film has a lot to offer from entertainment and film making standpoints, I also felt like this film didn't really have much to say.  I enjoyed it, but it didn't stand out to me as being a particularly special film.

Entertainment- 6-  not a whole lot actually happens in this film and it relies heavily on conversation.

Award-Worthy- 5- while there are a few technically interesting aspects to this film, I don't feel that it contributes anything really new or poignant to film as an art.

127 Hours



This film is based on a novel written by Aron Ralston who is the main character of this film.  It chronicles his experience in the desert on a weekend in 2003.  On what was expected to be a routine hike in the Utah wilderness, Aron, played by James Franco, falls into a small crevasse and a boulder traps his arm solidly against the rock wall.  he is trapped there for 127 hours before he finally takes drastic measures in order to break free and save his life. 

This is a story that is both dramatic and inspiring.  The recognizable Danny Boyle Style of directing is clear in this film.  The split-screen multiple pictures thing pops up several times.  the real genius in the making of this film is in how all of your senses are engaged.  The colors are all vibrant and almost palpable, you can almost feel the texture of the rocks as Aron hikes through the desert.  All of the sounds are larger than life and there are even a few scenes where you can almost smell and taste what Aron is experiencing.  The music in this film is also notable.  It ads to the tone of the film but does not distract from it.  This is a close intimate experience with a single character as he experiences a life-defining encounter.  The viewer gets to know Aron very well and becomes truly invested in his welfare.

This film has essentially one character and one set the whole time.  This film does a good job of not letting the viewer get bored with either.  Every detail of the set is engaged as Aron progresses through a self-examination process that is inevitable if he is to survive this experience physically, emotionally or mentally.  Although I think this film handles the single character the best that it possibly can, there still are some confusions about Aron's thoughts and motivations. 

Entertainment- 7-  I hesitate to call it entertaining because so much of it is difficult to watch, but the directing makes it visually impressive as well as being engaging and inspiring.

Award-Worthy-  6.  While I felt this film was magic at the start, it did lose a little steam and lustre later in the film from an artistic standpoint, but still a beautiful film.

The Social Network



This Film is about the creation of Facebook and the following controversy.  The real story is trust and betrayal.  The story is told as a series of flashbacks during several court proceedings. 

The film is beautifully performed.  All the actors portray their characters in a brilliant and subtle way.  I liked the way the story moved as far as being reflections on events that have already happened.  I have, however, never liked films about real people who are still living.  First of all, you never know what more that person's story has to tell, but the biggest reason is because when people watch a movie about a person if the events are true doesn't really matter to the viewer.  The person seen on screen, which is a monster born of the writer, director and actor's collaboration, is the person that the viewer takes as the real thing if they haven't met the real person.  I just feel uncomfortable about this.  If it is a person that is long gone, that's fine, but there is a living person that already posses that identity and it's almost like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

There is nothing really wrong with this film and that might be part of my problem with it.  There is no doubt that it is well-made, but overall I found this film forgettable.

Entertainment- 5-  This film definitely fills a couple hours better than staring at the wall and if you are interested in computers and programming, you might find it more exciting.

Award-Worthy- 6-  This is definitely well made and and very well performed, but I just don't feel it contributes anything new to the history of American film.

The Kids Are All Right

The Kids Are All Right is about a lesbian couple, played by Julianne Moore and Annette Bening, and their two children Joni and Laser.  Each woman carried one child with the assistance of the same sperm donor.  At the beginning of this film Joni, the older of the two, has turned 18 and Laser wants her to get in touch with the donor for him because he is not old enough according to the rules of the clinic.  The donor, played by Mark Ruffalo, enters the family's life and everyone forms a different relationship with the self-confident yet unassuming man.

I feel that this is the best comedy of the year, as the outcome of the Golden Globes confirms, so I am very glad that it is included in the Oscar race this year.  Despite the "alternative" nature of this family's dynamic, this film is incredibly relatable and discusses many issues that all families have to deal with such as parenting style disagreements, infidelity, and children growing up to leave home.  The whole film feels very real and strikes a chord with nearly any American family.  I found all the characters very relatable and well-rounded.  No character is without fault, but no character is without sympathy as well.  Just like real life, there are no clear-cut heroes of villains.

The fact that this film centers around a homosexual relationship does not distract from the relatability of the film for any viewer.  I think that it has a lot to do with the fact that the film does not rely on stereotypes for the comedy but instead highlights the uncomfortable and upsetting situations that all families encounter but infused with this family's own quirky twist.  I found this very refreshing and what sets this film into a class of its own.

Entertainment- 7-Although I laughed the whole way through, it is not the type of humor that applies to everyone.  Don't go into this film expecting The Hangover or you will be sorely disappointed! 

Award -Worthy- 9-  For a comedy, this one could ask for little else in quality or originality.

Inception



Describing this film a difficult task.  The basic premise is based on the idea that technology exists for people to consciously enter other people's dreams.  Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a very skilled dream navigator and uses his skills to extract information from powerful people.  When a powerful Japanese business man, Ken Watannabe, wants Cobb to plant information in the mind of a rival business man, Cillian Murphy.  With the help of his sidekick and a few very capable others, Cobb agrees to attempt.  What ensues is a mind-bending, as well as science-bending, adventure full of action, suspense, and surprise.

Ah Inception.  This summer blockbuster is another example of writer/director Christopher Nolan's signature genius.  With cult classic thinky films such as Memento and The Prestige as well as super-power blockbusters Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Inception is a brilliant marriage between the two.

The visuals in this film are spectacular.  From the seamless special-effects to the vast and varied landscapes this is certainly what we have come to expect from Nolan.  this is a beautiful expression of a very unique "what-if" scenario.   After seeing this film, the first thing you will want to do is see it again.  Films of this type are usually full of gaping plot and logic holes that really draw form the overall appeal of this film.  Although the holes are inevitably there, they are small and do not distract the viewer. 

There are two criticisms I have o this film.  One is that I felt the love story was a tad forced.  The only parts I felt drag are the scenes between DiCaprio and his on-screen wife Marion Cotillard.  Althea the wife's presence is necessary for plot reasons, I felt the emotion was lacking.  That leads to my second criticism which is that the characters are adequately likable but not multidimensional.  None of the characters surprise you or d some contrary to what you would expect with the possible exception of Arthur played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt who I felt stole the film.  I believe it is because of the characters' flatness that makes the love story seem a little forced.

Entertainment-10- I can't imagine a viewer not being fully engaged, although beware some might get confused if you don't follow very closely.

Award-Worthy-7-  Although technically innovative and intellectually stimulating, as I said the characters do not undergo any true transformations.  Also although the film makes the viewer think, it makes the viewer think about the film, not life or society or some other truth of humanity.

The King's Speech

This film centers around the current Queen Elizabeth's father, King George VI played by Colin Firth.  At the beginning he is a man with no thoughts of being the King of England, but aware of his speech impediment as a sign of weakness within the royal family in the midst of a burgeoning radio culture.  Anxious to prove his father wrong, his wife, played by Helena Bonham Carter, assists his enlistment of a speech therapist played by Geoffrey Rush.  Rush's unorthodox methods assist George's unexpected ascension to King and lead his country through the most trying time in British history, World War II. 

This is an exquisite film full of heart-wrenching performances, breathtaking cinematography and incredibly detailed set and costume design.   Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush are all nominated for acting awards and are all well-deserved.  Colin Firth has already won the Golden Globe and it is well deserved.  I was struck most by the interesting way the shots were framed in this film.  Many times, especially in the beginning of the film, Firth is placed off to the side of the frame or pinched in a corner.  This really lends to the feeling that George felt cast aside and passed over; almost as though he were part of the background rather than the focal point.  The sets are unique and full of vibrant color, as are the costumes.

I found this film nearly perfect.  It was very entertaining.  the characters are endearing and relatable, despite the fact that most of them are royalty, and the viewer willing follows them on their journeys of highs and lows.  The story is very human and although important historical people are depicted and are involved in important historical events, the story the viewer is following is the one of a man being recognized for his true worth and releasing his fear and self-deprecation.  The only reason I don't feel it will win best picture is that the content is a bit dated.  This is the kind of film that would have won in the sixties and although the film is superb, it does not represent the future of film, but more a reinvention of the past.

Entertainment- 8.  I was thoroughly engaged with this film the entire time but if you don't care for period films or you are expecting constant action, you won't appreciate this film as much.

Award-worthy- 10.  Although I don't think it will take the grand prize this year, it is near cinematic perfection and s technically worthy of it.

Oscar Season is Officially Under Way!!

Ok, the Oscar nominations have been released and it is time to have a plan!  If you wish to see a full list of the nominations the site is http://oscar.go.com/  .   I've got a good head start this year.  Again we have ten nominations for best picture and of those, I only have to see 127 Hours and Winter's Bone.  I will be seeing 127 Hours this weekend since it has been thoughtfully re-released in the theatres due to its nomination, and Winter's Bone is available on DVD so I will be seeing that this weekend as well so look forward to reviews from those early next week. 
As for the other nominees, you will notice True Grit, the Coen Brothers' yearly contribution, as a dominating force despite its conspicuous complete absence from the Golden Globes.  Toy Story 3 is the shameless attempt by the academy to pull in the widest variety of viewers.  The Social Network is one of the forerunners especially since it nearly swept the Golden Globes.  The Fighter, Black Swan and The King's Speech are also firm candidates, although Black Swan is still my pick.  Inception is the token genre film while The Kids Are Alright is the token independent comedy.  Overall a good bunch with something for everyone to root for.

As for the minor nominations, I still have to see Animal Kingdom, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole, I Am Love, The Tempest, The Way Back, Barney's Version, and Another Year.  I have a lot of work to do.  I can rent Animal Kingdom, but the others I will have to be a bit creative.  Also this year I am going to make a real attempt to see the documentaries and short films if possible.  I'm not sure how to accomplish this so if any of you have any suggestions, I would be really grateful.  Otherwise, I'll let you know when I've made some progress.

Predictions

OK, here we go. The Golden Globes are on Saturday. I have not seen all of the films nominated, but these are the predictions I have for you so far.

Best Picture-Drama: Black Swan. This movie is very artfully done and beautifully perceived with just enough of a kick to keep it stuck in your memory.

Best Picture- Comedy: The Kids Are Alright. Everyone loves it when there is a comedy that finds a new topic to make fun of instead of trying to make us laugh at the same old jokes over and over. However, I thought RED was my favorite this year but I don’t think it is going to win.
　
Best Actress- Drama: For this category I choose Natalie Portman for The Black Swan for the simple reason that it is the only film I have seen in this category, also her performance was definitely good enough to win, but I don’t know if there is anyone who deserves it more.
　
Best Actor-Drama: Although the only film I have seen so far in this category is The Fighter, I don‘t think Mark wahlberg is going to win this one, I think this one will go to James Fanco for 127 Hours.
　
Best Actress- Comedy:  My money is on Julianne Moore from The Kids Are All Right
　
Best Actor-Comedy: I’m going out on a limb here and saying Johnny Depp for The Tourist.
　
Best Supporting Actress: I’m hoping Melissa Leo wins for playing the crazy mother in The Fighter.
　
Best Supporting Actor: I have a really hard time seeing anyone beating Christian Bale in The Fighter.
　
Best Director: Although Danny Boyle and Christopher Nolan are two of my favorite directors and I loved Inception, I think Aronofski deserves this one for Black SwanThis is what I have for you, may darling readers. We shall see what it is worth on Saturday, you never can tell when it comes to the Hollywood Foreign Press…
　

Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Saphire

This film was a nominee for best picture of 2009. Although I think everyone should see this movie, it is difficult to watch. The film centers around a 16-year-old girl named Clarisse Precious Jones. She is expelled form public high school for being pregnant for the second time. She is enrolled in an alternative education program that will teach her to read and get her GED. Despite the efforts of her new teacher and a social worker brilliantly played by Mariah Carey, Precious’s life continues to worsen chiefly due to her abusive and sociopath mother.

Monique, who plays Precious’s mother, won best supporting actress for this film. She is sickeningly good in this roll. Many times when an award is presented for acting, especially in supporting roles, I feel like they only awarded one because they had to. Mo’Nique truly deserved this award. The passion these actors had for this project is clearly visible in the quality of all the performances. I also really enjoyed the cinematography. Not grand or epic, but unique. Several times I notice the camera suddenly zoom in and then out again. This is not a camera movement that American audiences are not used to seeing. It really makes the viewer feel put on edge and enhances the discomfort with the situations. What is there to say about the story? It is awful, horrific, heartbreaking, sickening, terrible. There are not enough words to describe how this movie makes the viewer feel. This is a hard-hitting film that doesn’t pull any punches.
　
Entertainment- 4- This is not a feel-good movie. I would not suggest just watching this for fun.

Award-worthy- 9- There are few criticisms to give except that this story of abuse is not new, but it is presented with near cinematic perfection.

An Education

I present to you another film in the running for the least heard of film of 2009! Just kidding. But seriously, no one saw this movie. This film is about a 16-year-old British girl named Jenny in 1961. She meets an older man, David, and is quickly infatuated with the way he sweeps her away from her boring and strict parents and into a world of music, culture and fun. Her infatuation leads her to overlook some very suspicious aspects of David’s character. His infatuation with her leads him to do some rash things of his own. By the end David is revealed to be quite a different man than he is first supposed. Her parents and friends are just as smitten as she is, the only person in this film that seems to see the underlying problems with their relationship before it is too late is her teacher, Miss Stubs.

This is basically a coming-of-age tale, the protagonist of which comes out the other end wiser and with her two feet firmly planted on the ground. Or that is the general idea. My biggest problem with this film is the “so what?” factor. Once this story is over, she continues her life precisely as she would have without having experienced these events except now she KNOWS things about the world. So what? The whole film is about her asking questions as to the point of her life so far and those questions don’t get answered in this movie she just ceases to feel the need to ask them anymore. I still can’t decide if this film is pro or anti-establishment. Jenny’s father, the source of confinement and frustration, is a symbol of the establishment, but so is Miss Stubs, Jenny’s role-model and ultimate friend. At the same time David represents the anti-establishment and is a symbol of both freedom and of unfulfilled expectations. Jenny herself represents both the establishment and the contempt of it.

Entertainment- 6- I actually quite enjoyed watching this film, although had I not been going to review it would have been perfectly happy to immediately forget it.

Award-worthy- 5- this film gets halfway there. It asks the questions, but does not deliver any satisfactory answers and the film-making and performances are only adequate.

Black Swan

Here is another Golden Globe nominee for best picture in the drama category as well as nominations for actresses Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis and director Darren Aronofsky. This film is about a ballet dancer, Nina played by Natalie Portman, who lands the lead roll in her company’s production of Swan Lake. She begins to fear that another dancer, Lily played by Mila Kunis, will steal her roll. Lily represents everything that Nina is not. Nina has an obsession with perfection which means that she has an obsession with her own imperfections. When Lily effortlessly embodies all the things she cannot seem to be, Nina sees this as a personal threat while at the same time being fascinated by Lily. Nina lives with her mother who was once a dancer as well.

This is a very uncomfortable movie to watch. Almost immediately the disturbing nature of Nina’s relationship with her mother is apparent as we see the mother dressing her adult daughter and serving her breakfast, which she coos over. The tone continues as Nina’s relationship with the ballet director unfolds. What made me squirm the most was Nina’s physical condition which seems to be partly due to delusions and partly to self-mutilation. There are few things I enjoy more than a truly delusional main character and hat feeling of not knowing what really happened and what was made up as you left the theatre. This film provides both of these aspects but the glee I usually feel when I encounter a film like this was overshadowed by the sheer intensity of every scene. About 20 minutes into this film the tension grabs you and it never lets up for the rest of the film.

Natalie Portman does an amazing job and has a definite chance of taking home best actress. Even though you know her character is bat-shit-crazy, you can’t help but root for her. There wasn’t a part when I felt taken out of the movie because I sensed her acting, the whole thing felt very natural. I also really enjoyed how the film was shot with lots of shadows and mystery from the camera’s point of view. It really lends to the whole theme of the viewer not being sure of what they have seen or if it was real. Overall I’m really glad I saw it and the more I think about it the more I like it, but I have no plans for seeing it again anytime in the near future.
 Entertainment- 4- Most people are not going to like this film. It is just a little too scary and uncomfortable for those who like the comedies and “thinkie” films. At the same time, it is not exciting or fast enough for those who like horror and suspense films. The film is character driven and heavily focused on that character’s obsession.

Award-worthy- 7- I think this came together well as a film. The story, cinematography, set and costume design as well as the performances all enhance the themes of obsession and intensity. I didn’t see anything truly new, but Aronofsky's attention to detail and subtle manipulations bring all the aspects of this film into harmony working together like the dancers in a ballet.  I think this film is a tough competitor this year for best picture and Aronofsky is at the forefront of the director race.

True Grit (2010)

The very words “True Grit” invoke images of wide open spaces, revolver pistols and John Wayne.  The version John Wayne starred in from 1969 is a firm cornerstone of American film history.  Now, today, in 2010 the Coen brothers, creators of a few integral pieces of film history themselves, have made another version of this story.  True Grit of 2010 cannot be called a remake, however.  Both films of the same name were made after the 1968 novel by Charles Portis.  The story centers around a young girl named Mattie Ross whose father is murdered by a hired hand, Tom Chaney.  She enlists the help of the meanest marshal she can find, Rooster Cogburn,  in order to bring the fiend to justice.  She reluctantly accepts the help of a Texas ranger, LaBoeuf, who has also been searching for the same man for a different crime.  The three of them set out on the trail of the coward Tom Chaney.

It is difficult to rate this movie on its own rather than merely compare it to the earlier version.  I have not yet read the book, but the Coen brothers’ version is supposed to be closer to the novel than the John Wayne film.  They are so similar, however, that I must assume that the 1969 version also follows the novel quite closely.  The new version certainly has more events happen.  Small encounters that did not happen in the first version are certainly from the novel.  However, I got the feeling that the Coen brothers sacrificed the characterization for the plot.  The relationships between the characters were lost in this film.  The relationship between Mattie and Rooster, the driving force behind the emotion in this story, leaves much to be desired.  I did not feel as endeared to Mattie as I did in John Wayne’s version.  I also feel that although there were more events occurring in this version, they were almost rushed through or unfinished.  Almost as though they were so concerned with not leaving anything out that they just put an abridged version of each scene in the film so as to make sure they were all there but without going over time.

There are elements present here that you would expect from a Coen production.  The dark humor abounds in this movie.  I laughed all the way through even though the film is so dark.  The violence and gore in this film is fascinatingly realistic.  I don’t mean to say that it is excessive, but it is very believable.  In true Coen brothers’ fashion, this film does not pull any punches.  The tone of gritty realism really modernizes this film.

Entertainment: 7.  Overall this is a very entertaining film from the dialogue and visuals, but if you need to have a character to hold on to, you might be a little disappointed in this film.

Award-worthy: 5.  Although the cinematography is very good, and all of the actors hold their own, no performances truly stand out and the film lacks a certain magic required to see the film on the podium come Oscar season