It's Complicated

I must say that I was surprised by this sudden sneak attack of an adult comedy. It had little to no buzz leading to its release, and I must say that I have seen no commercials or adverts for it anywhere. I also must admit that on walking into it, I had no idea what it was about except that it starred Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin. Meryl's involvement was enough to sell me to the idea, but I just had no idea that the film would just be so damned funny.

In terms of plot, I hate to offer a simple pun of an answer. It's complicated.

In short, it follows Jane (Meryl Streep) as she copes with her divorce from Jake (Alec Baldwin). She meets another man, Adam (Steve Martin) and the delightful problems and honestly unforsee-able mix-ups begin to occur. I'm sure you can see now how this may appear formulaic, but I promise you that it is anything but.

The delightful thing about "It's Complicated" is that I honestly could not see what was going to happen next. It was a very innovative story, with an incredibly funny script. There were lines, and entire sequences that kept me in riotous laughter, and the joke never becomes stale. The main problem was ironically, its all-star cast.

They offer splendid performances to be sure, and Meryl does absolutely stunning work, but Alec Baldwin and John Krasinski in particular fall into the trap of playing the same exact people that we see every week on "30 Rock" and "The Office" respectively. Baldwin pops in with his "O-M-G" trademark, and Krasinski gives his type-cast eyebrow crinkle. It makes for good cheap laughter, but it brought me out of the movie and honestly just distracted.

Speaking of distractions, being someone who walked in fresh and trailer-less, I found myself confused at first about relationships and who was related to whom. Of course, about halfway through the movie, I found my bearings and was able to enjoy it again, but perhaps a few cut scenes or an unedited script could bear the responsibility of being the culprit.

These are all of course just nitpicks in the road of what is otherwise a hilarious film. I was expecting typical Hollywood rom-com fodder and instead found a thoughtful, hilarious and frankly eye-opening gem of a film.

B+

Avatar

So I have awoken from my almost two month review slumber. Lack of funds for films and finals for school have prevented me from keeping up to date on this review racket, but with the Oscar and Christmas months all up on us, I must say that my hibernation has resulted in my metaphorical evolution from a Metapod to a Butterfree and I am ready to tackle this season with my arms flailing.

And without further ado, on to James Cameron's long awaited Avatar.

Avatar follows a sect of ambitious humans as they make their way to the planet (well, actually its a moon) called Pandora as they scavenge for a mineral that is worth millions of dollars on Earth. In order to communicate with the indigenous people of the planet, a sub division of this squadron has developed a method for inhabiting the body of the aliens, also known as the Na'vi. Our hero must inhabit an "avatar" of one of these Na'vi bodies, learn their culture, and tell them to relocate. If you think that this sounds like a deliberate "The Last Samurai" , you are correct, only this one will blow your mind apart.

After watching the trailer and discovering that James Cameron's "brand new invention" was the motion capture technology that Robert Zemeckis has already whored to the industry, my anticipation for the film was shattered. And sure, it isn't a perfect film, not at all, but Cameron has given new life to this newborn and aging technique called motion capture. I found myself caring for the Na'vi, and even though it was clear what was "real" and what wasn't, I found myself being drawn to the CGI land of Pandora, and I found myself getting addicted to the place just like the protagonist does.

Yes, it is written and directed by James Cameron, so the obligatory lousy dialogue infects your ears and all of the human characters are so two-dimensional that it borderlines on caricature, but all of these problems are overshadowed by the massive spectacle that is washing over you. The film is visually mindblowing, and its achievements far outweigh its problems.

I'm not saying that this film is purely spectacle either. People could argue that Transformers 2 was a "visual achievement", and they would only be half right. There is a huge difference between watching Transformers and thinking "wow, that looked neat", and watching Avatar and thinking "NO! Don't bomb the tree of souls!" For all of the visual effects that Avatar uses, it uses them all to tell the story and to keep you attached to the characters. There was a choice near the end that I absolutely loathed, but it is a spoiler, so I wont say a damned thing. You will know it when you see it.

To make things simpler, Avatar was a SPECTACLEtacular film that kept me connected to the already intriguing plot. If you do plan on seeing it, do yourself a favor and catch it in IMAX 3D, just be careful to not get brains all over the theater.

A-

An incredibly brief review of Where the Wild Things Are

Now this was an interesting little film. As hard as I try to not compare it to its ten sentence counterpart, I feel I must do so to dissuade people who are looking for a direct adaptation. For those wondering, it is not like the book. In any way. Yes, it's main characters name is Max, and he imagines a dazzling world inhabited by beasts, but that is as far as the roots from the book run. The film takes many liberties, and offers a grittier, more angsty, and generally a more disturbing version of the story. As crazy as it may seem, Where the Wild Things Are was not intended for children.

Now that I have that out of the way, let us discuss the story, or lackthereof. The original children's book contained approximately ten sentences of story, and sadly its film doppleganger follows suit. Although the themes and metaphors run as rampant as the beasts themselves, this film lacks the storyline that could have turned it into a classic. It is a character motivated script that attempts to connect the beastly characters to Max's human life, and although this was interesting to explore, it just couldn't keep my mind on the island for more than half an hour. At an hour into the movie, I glanced at my watch and wondered when the climax would happen. It never did. That's right, we are looking at a film with no climax. Not only does it have no climax, but the gloomy and clinically depressed beasts only drag the film down further.

It wasn't all bad though. Through the suicidal beasts, the repetitive dialogue, and the long stretches where nothing happens, there were incredible moments of absolute beauty. The film is gorgeously photographed, and the location was just absolutely breathtaking. About seventy-five percent of the time, I was soley focused on the beauty of the landscape. That is not necessarily a good thing. The only other really interesting part was near the end when you realize who the different beasts represent in Max's life. This is actually truly fascinating and incredibly well done.

I have cut this particular review short because I intend to see the film again before giving it a proper grade. I think that much like The Village and Jarhead it was marketed terribly and showcased a film that nobody was expecting. I don't expect for it to get a much higher grade than it has now, but I must say that my dissapointment in the expected style and the actual style affected my view of it tremendously.

C+

Paranormal Activity

So here is the scary movie of the year that everyone seems to be talking about. Paranormal Activity follows the tale of two new home-owners, who are beginning to expect that their new home is haunted by some kind of spirit. In order to prove the haunting, the boyfriend, Micah, decides to buy a videocamera, and record what "may or may not be occurring". What he recorded will haunt my dreams for years to come.

So far this film has been recieving mixed buzz, and I believe I know where the disconnect comes from. This film doesn't rely on loud sharp noises, or sudden "scare" tactics that many scary movies these days employ. It does have a few, but it doesn't handicap the story in the process as many films do. The film looks to enhance your already present fears. That is, if you do not believe in ghosts and demons, you will not be scared by this film. You will think it is stupid, because much of the film relies on the fact that human beings are terrified of paranormal specters. If you do believe in ghosts however, you will be chilled down to your bones, and Paranormal Activity will not just stay in the theaters. It will haunt your dreams. Paranormal Activity affected me more than any scary movie I have seen in my life.

Paranormal Activity does a fantastic job of sucking you into its world and not letting you go. I felt myself falling into the story, and forging deep connections with the characters. They didn't have top-of-the-line dialogue of course, but what they did have was very real, and the film did a very good job of keeping that reality. It couldn't convince me that it did happen (the way the film is split, and certain bits where the camera "remained filming" were too cinematic for something of this nature), but the film-makers managed to convince me that it could happen, and that if I talked about it, it would happen. When I say that this movie affected me, I mean that I slept in the living room for two nights afterwards because I kept "feeling" something at the foot of my bed.

As for the film itself, it was very well put together. It was formatted in a way that allowed for it to be a spectacle, which was a fantastic idea. Everytime it moved to another night and showed the two laying in bed, the film allowed the tension to build to monumental heights before the big "reveal" of ghostly activity. That is what is terrifying about this movie. It is so based in reality that every single out of the ordinary move stood out more, and forced us to face the "reality" of these demons. It didn't make us believe that ghosts haunt the protagonists, but rather that the demons are standing at the foot of your bed every night.

As for the ending, I believe it was handled better in the original cut of the film. I won't spoil it for you, but the studio that agreed to market Paranormal Activity only agreed to buy the filmunder the circumstance that they re-film certain sequences to appeal to the mass audience. A more realistic and more fitting ending ended up on the cutting room floor in favor of an ending the typical "Hollywood Last Scare!" This didn't appeal to me, and I found that the theatrical ending only ruined what the film-maker had set up. He wanted us to go home feeling like it could happen to us because it happened to Katie and Micah, but the ending was a sharp and jolted reminder of "oh yeah, I was watching a movie. Thank God it was only a movie."

In the end, the movie used its limited resources to fantastic effect, and studio film-makers could learn that you don't need screeching violins and buckets of gore to horrify an audience. The Haunting needed to try so hard to be "scary" because of its subject matter of "this is the most haunted house ever". It ended up just trying too hard and looking foolish. Paranormal Activity had a door moving three inches left and right and a sentient Oijua board, but because the tension was present, and because it was happening to real people in a real location, it was a million times scarier than Jason and Freddy put together.

A

Surrogates

Surrogates begins itself by taking the viewer to the distant world of tomorrow. It is a world where technology has advanced far enough to allow humans to live their lives through the aid of a robot called a "surrogate". The surrogate will walk and talk like a normal human, but beyond their eyes is a dead soul-less void with no hope of becoming anything more than just a pile of scrap metal. This was my impression of the movie. It was a adequate (albeit, incredibly overdone) idea that was simply handled terribly and executed by firing squad.

The Matrix and I Robot are much better examples of how to pull off this kind of film, and it would be fun to go through both movies compared to Surrogates to see exactly where it went wrong. Perhaps it was the incredibly forced, and almost mechanical dialogue? Say whatever you want about the intended "style" of the film; there is no reason, ever, for dialogue to be so unbearable that you begin to rewrite it in your mind in a desperate attempt to make it sound human.

This film in general went in several directions that I hated. Why did the surrogate humans need to be so obviously fake? Why did the inside wiring of said surrogates need to be green? Why were there so many not-so-veiled jabs at the anonymity of the Internet? I wasn't digging the almost campy art direction of this movie, and as stated above, I was simply not smellin' what the dialogue was cookin'.

About halfway through the film however, the story took a surprising turn and began to interest me. Although this phenomenon only lasted for about thirty minutes, a faint glimmer of hope sparkled under the ocean of poor choices that this movie made. The story took some interesting twists and turns, and caused my eyebrows to express a look of mild surprise for about ten minutes. If I was under the impression, however, that the story would propel this movie out of mediocrity, I was sorely mistaken. The above average middle sequence turned out to be a fluke in this mess of a film. The story found a way to coup-de-gras the audience's hope that they hadn't wasted their money. Then the credits rolled.

In the end, Surrogates turned out to be a terrible jaunt into the not-so-likely future. It was cold, distant, and although it offered a few genuine thrills, it was not able to hold my attention for the mercifully short 88 minute running time.

I would not reccomend this movie.

D

The Informant!

No, the exclamation point at the end of its name is not an accident. This film walks boldly into what could have been told as very serious story, and presents a whimsical, hilarious and sometimes biting story about a man who carelessly falls into the pitfalls of corporate greed, FBI investigations and the ever growing business of corn production.

The Informant! follows the story of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), who holds a Ph.D in nutritional biochemistry, and is a high level executive for Archer Daniels Midland, a multi-million dollar corn syrup conglomerate. When a virus spreads through a component of the corn and a Japanese competitor holds the antidote and the identity of the company informant from the ADM, Mark is instructed to have the FBI bug his home phone in order to prosecute the foreign business. When a trouble avoiding Mark informs the FBI agent that the calls were not made on his home business phone line, but on his home line instead, and that his company has been participating in corporate kickbacks and price fixing schemes, the FBI taps both phones and informs Mark that he must work undercover to obtain proof of his claim.

Although the story telling mechanism is twitchy and erratic, the film progresses quickly, and I was soon laughing at the sheer quirkiness of it all. I don't mean quirky in the Diablo Cody sense, but rather in a more adult and intelligent sense. Mark narrates his story, and although the film appears to follow the main plot, Mark seems to tune out of his life and into his thoughts more than twenty times throughout the movie. While FBI executives instruct him on how to properly wear a wire, Mark shares with us the trailing and almost infinite monologue in his mind. We are treated to diatribes about his hands, brain anurisms, ties, and the government controlled perceptions of paranoia. These prove to be the funniest parts of the movie, but the main plot of the story is not without its charms.

The film follows the events sweetly, but this film comes with a groan-factor that seems to almost outweigh the potential of the movie. Several scenes has me staring at the ceiling of the cinema in embarassment, and it was even scarier that Damon could so easily pull of the neivity required for a role like this. Speaking of Damon, although his work was ambitious, I wouldn't clamour to give him a nomination quite yet. He plays the part of Mark so honestly, and from a very real place, but the character simply is not strong enough to carry him to the Oscars.

The film found bits of lag in the middle, and if it weren't for the upbeat constant soundtrack that brought me back to the silent picture era, this film could have very easily been a flop. Luckily, with some interesting directional style from Steven Soderbergh, a very able cast of actors, an incredibly workable and hilarious script this film floats to the top, although its twitchy and occaisionally pointless stretches kept it from soaring.

B+

If you enjoyed Burn After Reading or NBC's The Office you may enjoy this movie.

September: The Month of Foliage

The oracles were correct in dubbing the month of September as a "graveyard of terrible movies". A visit to Rottentomatoes.com allowed me to quickly view the sewage line that is the variety of movies out in theaters right now. Yes, Inglourious Basterds and District 9 are still pulling their weight, but how could they not against a slew of sewage like The Final Destination, All About Steve, Gamer, Whiteout, Sorority Row, and Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself? I haven't posted a review in some time, and it is unfortunate that I do not have the luxury to buy tickets to something I know I would hate. Why should I spend nearly eleven dollars to see All About Steve? I refuse to review anything I have not seen in a proper theater (It offers a clean slate for any movie to stand on. Talking friends and fuzzy bootlegs can distract anyone who fancies themselves a film critic) so my only option is to review movies that interest me, or have a prominant presence in the Oscar Race. It is one sided, yes, but the current economy is unforgiving to my whims. I have free tickets to an early screening of The Informant tomorrow, and I will have a review up in the evening, along with my first "Oscar-talk" column regarding Matt Damons alledged Oscar-worthy performance.

Speaking of the Oscars, a slew of trailers (including a few Oscar hopefuls) have appeared on the internet. So here you are you silly goats!


http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/up-in-the-air/teaser-trailer
I was honestly surprised when I watched this trailer. I had counted Up In The Air out of the race early on in the game because I had not read a synopsis, seen a trailer, and when the poster came out it looked like a wacky romantic comedy. This looks like it will offer real Oscar-fare. Best Picture nominee, if not best original screenplay.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/a-christmas-carol/trailer
This is one I was dissapointed in. I was honestly excited for the Robert Zemeckis adaptation of A Christmas Carol, and it is unfortunate that it had to come out looking so shitty. Although I'm sure Jim Carrey is excellent, this one will go the same way as The Polar Express and Beowulf. Viewed, and then immediately forgotton.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-road/trailer
Although it isn't traditional Oscar-bait, I can see this one bringing some technical nominations. Look for it around November. Possible second Best Actor nomination for Viggo?

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/where-the-wild-things-are/feature-trailer
A new trailer for what I believe will be one of the best movies of the year. I could just as easily be very wrong, but my bets are with Where the Wild Things Are at the moment. It's in a place where it could have been nominated for best picture back when there were still 10 slots.

A new New Moon trailer has also hit the web, but unfortunately it is the "really really shitty" version. I will post it with my next roundup when I wont be arrested for posting illegal links on my fledgeling website. (I know I wont get arrested).

Also, the new Pirates movie has a name. Pirates of the Carribean:On Stranger Tides.

And no one has any idea what it is about. Speculation has arisen that they are ditching the "Fountain of Youth" storyline and going in a new direction involving a legendary island that will grant it's inhabitants one wish that will only come to fruition on the island, but I have very small hopes for the movie anyway, and I choose to not get involved.

Please tune in tomorrow for my review of The Informant! Did I love it? Did I hate it? Find out!

Summer 2008 Report Card

School is now in session! Now that students across America are waking up early in the morning to finish their homework and participate in that tedious ritual of education, production companies are calling an end to the 2009 "Summer Blockbuster" season, to make way for the month of September, often referred to as a "dead month" for film. It is that fun inbetweeny area between the Summer Blockbuster season and the Fall Oscar season where we will find very few quality films being released widely. Although I am excited about Surrogates, 9, and Jennifer's Body, we will see plenty of Final Destination 4, Halloween 2, Sorority Row, Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself, Astro-boy, and the newly "High School Musical-ed" Fame.



Unfortunately, I had not the funds to see every blockbuster movie this Summer, so you may find a few are missing (the new Terminator, among a few others), but hopefully once I have a steady flow of income, I will be fortunate enough to see and review each new movie as it comes out. Either way, this Summer's Report Card has come in the mail, and although there are a few grades to hide from mom, this Summer mostly fared well.

Inglorious Basterds- A
The Time Traveller's Wife- B-
District 9- B
Moon- C-
(500) Days of Summer- A+
Harry Potter and theHalf Blood Prince- B
Brüno- B-
Public Enemies- A-
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen- D+
The Hangover- A-

A total GPA of 3.1 or an average grade of B-

That really isn't bad at all!

I hope to catch Taking Woodstock next before I hit up 9. Hopefully I can grab a few early screenings of The Informant and Bright Star and evaluate them Oscar style before the dead month of September ends. Hope to see you then!

Inglorious Basterds

I have always had a love-hate relationship with Quentin Tarantino. I loved Reservoir Dogs, hated the Kill Bill series, enjoyed Pulp Fiction, and despised Jackie Brown. Although I have not sat through all of his works (I made a point to skip out on Death Proof), I can understand and appreciate a certain type of storyteller when I see him, and he has managed to create a style that has garnered some devout fans, and created even more ferocious enemies. It is with this give (and mostly take) relationship that I absolutely applaud the achievement that is Inglorious Basterds.

The name of the first chapter of the film (Once upon a time...in Nazi occupied France) captures the spirit of the film more than I can say in this review. The film is a fantasy that takes place in World War II. 300 was not an accurate retelling of the Spartan wars, and Inglorious Basterds never claims to be historically accurate, it is just the most historically interesting. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if nine Jewish American soldiers parachuted into Nazi-occupied France to disrupt and absolutely annihilate the Third Reich? Absolutely. And that is why we go to the movies.

The movie begins in Nazi-occupied France when Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Cristoph Waltz) shows up to a desolate dairy farm uninvited to search for Jews that he believes are hiding in the area. After one of the tensest and most subtle scenes in the film, he discovers that there are, and a teenaged woman named Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) runs away across the gorgeous French mountainside. Her story proves to be one of the most vital in the film, and Waltz as Col. Hans Landa shows that you do not need to have waggly eyebrows and a Heath Ledger tic to play an effective bad guy. He is just so damned charming, and yet he emits a sense of cruelty, chauvinism and evil that just eeks out of his body. I think it might be too early in the game to say that he deserves an Oscar to add to his best actor award from Cannes, but I would not protest if the fates worked in his favor that night.

Chapter 2 (yes, the movie is divided into six chapters) introduces us to "The Basterds", and they are the funnest parts of the entire movie. Every sequence with them is pure, unadulterated Nazi-killing fun, and the audience loves it. They strangle, shoot, suffocate, stab, and shatter the skulls of legions of Nazis because that is why you paid money to see the movie. And yet, they are absent for nearly half of the film. Inglorious Basterds does not follow the Inglorious Basterds, but instead gives a Pulp Fiction-esque introduction of characters and how their lives intermingled during World War II. Don't get me wrong, I thought the film was fantastic, but I would have been pleased to see WAY more of the Basterds. Brad Pitt offers a delightful turn as Lt. Aldo Raine, and although he is ridiculous and over the top, it fits in perfectly with this type of movie.

Now for the elephant in the room. Haters of Tarantino's movies may complain that the movie was long and boring with too many pointless scenes and extended sequences of dialogue. In a way, I can see how they would think that way, but many of the "long and boring" scenes kept me perfectly enthralled and riveted, and perhaps the people who hated the extended sequences of dialogue would have been better served by re watching the non-stop action of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen rather than listen to the diatribe of a master wordsmith. There is no shame in that if that is really what you want. Tarantino's "talky" scenes helped to build tension to make the significant scenes seem ever more significant. Although they do drag a bit every now and then, there are several scenes that would not have packed the wollop that they did if they had not been preceded by one of Tarantino's trademark chunks of dialogue.

Aside from its general writing and acting merits, you will find that Basterds has alot to say beneath its surface. It may take a me a few more viewings to fully understand it, but there are surely more layers to this already outstanding piece of work that need to be fleshed out. Sequences where Nazi-characters explain that their medals are for bravery and not for "killing Jews" sent shivers down my spine, and a scene where Waltz's character equates a Nazi's natural hatred for Jews to a human's natural hatred for a rat absolutely floored me. Several of the scenes brought humanity out of the Nazi soldiers, and a scene where hundreds of Nazi officers and generals watch a film about a Nazi that kills hundreds of Jews and they are whooping and hollering the same way your theater was when the Basterds killed Nazi soldiers on screen, it really forces you to think. They do not sympathize with the Nazi's, they just offer an interesting thought.

Inglorious Basterds is perhaps one of Tarantino's greatest achievements to date, although it may not be the "masterpiece" that he claims it to be in the final frame of the movie. It was an incredibly interesting and fun movie, and although it became quite self indulgent at times, it didn't fail to deliver. After all, they ain't in the movie makin' business, they're in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, business is boomin'.

A

If you enjoyed The Big Lebowski, Pulp Fiction or The Boondock Saints you may enjoy this movie.

Oscarwatch! 3.0

And here it goes! With only 4 more months left in the Oscar season, the time has come to update the list, and perhpas add a few more categories to the list. Prepare yourself for.... OSCARWATCH 3.0!!!!!!!

Best Film:
Nine
Precious
Invictus
Amelia
Up
The Hurt Locker
An Education
Avatar
Biutiful
Bright Star

(give or take Capitalism: A Love Story or The Informant or Up in the Air))

Best Director:
Rob Marshall (Nine)
Lee Daniels (Precious)
James Cameron (Avatar)
Clint Eastwood (Invictus)
Mira Nair (Amelia)

(Give or take Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) or Jane Campion (Bright Star))

Best Actor:
Daniel Day-Lewis (Nine)
Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
Javier Bardem (Biutiful)
Viggo Mortenson (The Road)
Ben Whishaw (Bright Star)

(Give or take Matt Damon (The Informant) )

Best Actress:
Hillary Swank (Amelia)
Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
Abbey Cornish (Bight Star)
Helen Mirren (The Tempest)
Carey Mulligan (An Education)

(Give or take Penelope Cruz (Broken Embraces))

Best Supporting Actor:
Matt Damon (Invictus)
Alfred Molina (An Education)
Cristoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
Richard Kind (A Serious Man)

(Give or take Richard Gere (Amelia) )

Best Supporting Actress:
Judi Dench (Nine)
Mo'Nique (Precious)
Saorise Ronan (The Lovely Bones)
Penelope Cruz (Nine)
Marian Cotillard (Nine)

(Give or take Emily Mortimer (Shutter Island))

Best Screenplay (Adapted):
Nine
The Lovely Bones
Precious
An Education
Invictus

(Give or take Shutter Island)

Best Screenplay (Original):
500 Days of Summer
Up
A Serious Man
The Informant
Bright Star

(Give or take Biutiful or Broken Embraces)

Best Art Direction:
Nine
Amelia
Harry Potter and the Half BloodPrince
Bright Star
Biutiful

(Give or take District 9 and Avatar)

Best Cinematography:
Nine
Broken Embraces
Harry Potter and theHalf Blood Prince
Biutiful
Amelia

Best Costume Design:
Amelia
Bright Star
Cheri
The Tempest
Nine

Best Film Editing:
500 Days of Summer
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Precious
Nine

Best Makeup:
Star Trek
Avatar
Nine

(Give or take District 9)

Best Original Score:
Amelia
A Christmas Carol
Up
Avatar
Broken Embraces? (Too soon to tell)

Best Sound Editing:
2012
Star Trek
District 9
Avatar
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Best Sound Mixing:
2012
Avatar
Nine
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
District 9

Best Visual Effects:
Avatar
2012
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

(Give or take District 9)

Best Animated Feature Film:
Up
Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog

(Give or take Coraline or Nine)

And THERE IT IS LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

Best Foreign Film, Documentary, Animated Short, Short Feature and Best Original Song will have to wait.

Do you have any comments, questions, suggestions or corrections? Let me know in the comments section!

The Time Traveller's Wife

Being an immense fan of Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveller's Wife, I attempted to lower my expectations as I walked into the theater to watch the film version. It was a defense mechanism to protect my image of the book from completely shattering. Luckily, lowering my expectations, and silently repeating to myself that changes had probably been made helped me enjoy the film version, and aided in my ability to separate novel from film. It was a very well done film that captured the heart and spirit of the original novel, although many fans of the book will be disappointed to find nearly half of the novel missing.

As a stand-alone film, it flourished, and I would gladly recommend it to anyone who had the understanding that I would add to the recommendation "but it's not as good as the book".
The story was very imaginative, original, and refreshing to the romantic comedy scene. The execution on the other hand was sloppy at points, and the acting faltered more than once.

The Time Traveller's Wife begins with a very young Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) experiencing a horribly traumatizing event, and is met by a future Henry DeTamble who explains to his younger counterpart that they are capable of time travel, and are unable to control it. Future Henry then returns to his own time and meets Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), who claims that he will visit her in her childhood in his future. It all sounds very confusing, which it is, but is intriguing all the same. The story follows the couple as they attempt to form a working relationship and family, but find that when Henry constantly dissapears in fits of unwilling time travel, things get incredibly tough.

The acting work by Bana and McAdams is really hit and miss. At some points they both work naturally, and you can hardly catch them acting, but there are some parts that made me put my head in my hands and wonder how that particular take found its way into the final cut. They even out nicely, McAdams has a serious problem with understating what her character feels, and Bana has a tendency to overdo it. At times, both feel disconnected to their situation, but at times they feel incredibly engaged. If anything, it was this patchy pattern of acting skill that killed a bit of the film for me, and it honestly is the biggest flaw of the whole project.

This film in particular had many hurdles to jump scriptwise, and I was happy to see it with such a fresh and workable script from Ghost screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin. The lines never get too sappy, and it never turns too melodramatic for the average audience to sympathize with. This is the common trap of the romantic comedy genre. Although it began to run sketchy when explaining Henry's problems (why can't he go back and save people's lives? Because he can't. The end.) it was all very smooth and very well versed.

It all was very beautifully shot, and although the Director of Photography (Florian Ballhaus) and the Art Director (Peter Grundy) have nothing especially glamorous in their pasts, they both worked wonderfully, and the sheer beauty of several scenes were enough to tug at my heartstrings. They only shine in a few scenes, but when they deliver, they deliver big.

It began to run slow a bit in the middle, but the cleverness of the script, and the pull of the incredibly interesting story hauled us out of that funk and hurled us back into the story, which only grew more personal, and more extraordinary.

B-

If you enjoyed The Notebook, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or Ghost, you might like this movie.

District 9

The first sign that District 9 would be a unique piece of work took place in the first five minutes when the setting of the film is revealed. It does not take place in the overcrowded city of Los Angeles, or the politically relevant area of Virginia. The mothership of the creatures instead landed in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is just dissapointing that a film with so much potential and so much originality could succumb to some of the traps of the convential Hollywood Summer Blockbuster.

This isn't to say that it is all bad, and in fact, more than half of the film was incredible in every way. Visually, technically, emotionally, and metaphorically speaking the better half of the film was a real treat, and helped me root my emotional tendons into the heart of it. When it came time however for the film to limp into its final act, it had lost much of its original steam, and veered off into corners that seemed irrelevant to the overall message of the movie. I wont spoil any of it for you, but you will notice a very specific turn of events that will make you question what the film-makers were intending. It seems as though they couldn't decide on whether to finish strong with a poignant film about racism, and media and government control, or take the Summer Blockbuster route and make buildings (and humans) explode. They went with the inbeetweeny route which briefly visits both, and then ends. Although I personally thought that the philosophical, and politically relevant story would have been the more intriguing, I can't deny that I still enjoyed the second half as it struggled across the finish line.

District 9 follows the MNU executive Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) as he attempts to explain to the alien residents of District 9 that they will be moved to the smaller, and less accomidating District 10. Predictably, the aliens do not respond positively, and Wikus finds very manipulative ways to get them to sign away their homes. He soon accidentally sprays a dose of alien substance into his eyes, resulting in a monstrous transformation. Although this is Copley's first (and alledgedly last) film, he does wonderfully as the manipulative, and delightfully nerdy MNU executive, who threatens to bring an alien child into protective custody if the adult does not sign away his home. He then jumps to the painfully tortured and terrifyingly human beast that falls under the scrutiny and probe of everyone in his world. A particular scene where the MNU tests him to see if he can operate the alien weapons left me absolutely breathless.

I have never been a fan of formulaic saves of grace in films, and that is perhaps my biggest complaint in the film. No matter what trouble Wikus gets into, there is a scapel lying on a table, or a mechanical exo-skeleton that practically begs him to get inside and use. I understand that these things are necessary to keep the story going, but it is possible to be more creative than to let us believe that a chemically subdued man could fight off ten doctors with a scalpel, and then dodge gunfire for the next thirty minutes.

Now, for the question you have all been waiting for. How do the aliens look? They look phenomenal. With the exception of a few sloppily rendered bits, the "Prawns" (as they are crudely referred to) look absolutely stunning, and you find yourself removed from the "special effect" and dive headfirst into the characters beneath the pixels. I wont go further with that, as it may spoil some bits for you, so I will simply say that you will find yourself sympathizing with the Prawns more than any alien you have encountered since E.T.

Although the film dragged a little near the end, and some plotpoints certainly were unecessary while the more interesting ones were left unexplained, the film ran smoothly, and although its abrubt change of style may have displeased some, I found myself enjoying it almost the entire time.

B

If you enjoyed City of God, Cloverfield or the original The Day The Earth Stood Still you will enjoy this movie.

Moon

Before I walked in to see this film, I had read praise from every area of the internet saying that this film would "redefine the genre of science fiction" and that it was a "well crafted masterpiece." Naturally, I kept a level head when going to see it for myself, but as the credits rolled, I couldn't really see what all the fuss was about.

The film follows Sam Rockwell playing astronaut Sam Bell as he resides on the moon to send a new power source (called H3) back to Earth to help solve the Earth's energy crisis. He spends his time watching recorded videos that his wife and daughter send him, and he begins to fall into madness as he starts to hallucinate. When he goes out to fix a broken mining machine, he has a hallucination and crashes the rover. When he wakes up in the infirmary, and his robot pal GERTY (Kevin Spacey) tells him that he suffers from memory loss, Sam begins to grow wary of his mission and his spacecraft. When Sam makes an unauthorized trip to the area of his crash, he finds something that forces him to question his sanity.

No, it is not the first science fiction movie to explore the compelling concept of "He is alone and going crazy" nor to use a certain overused plot-point that The Prestige handled much better. It is not the first science fiction movie to use overlong silence in an attempt to create tension, and not the first science fiction movie to feature an A-list actor as a creepy emotionless cyborg.

Given all these facts, I find it hard to call this film "original" exactly.

The idea was a solid one, and one that may have remained interesting if made into a thirty minute short. It was stretched and mutated into a long and boring creature that would occaisionally show some flare of significance, but would immediately fall asleep afterwards. Indeed, there were some moments that were very interesting, but they were never fully explored, and although the ending can be considered by some to be incredible and heart-breaking, it dulls the impact when it became increasingly obvious halfway through what was going to happen.

Sam Rockwell himself did an adequate job in this film, but any Oscar-talk you may hear surrounding his performance in Moon is absolute garbage. He didn't do a terrible job, but the script (which was written during the writers strike) offered absolutely nothing for him, and although he did his best with some of the laughably serious lines, the result ended up sounding terrible and unnatural. He gave several moments of very good acting, but these were all during parts when he was reacting to the circumstances around him instead of when he was saying his God-awful lines.

Another factor that constantly brought me out of the movie was the obvious minature model of the Moon that was used at least every ten minutes for static shots of the landscape and for the scenes where Sam must go out to fix equipment. It was ridiculously unreal, and cast a corny "this is a movie" vibe over the whole project. A sequence where a land rover is moving over the surface of the moon was meant to be breathtaking, but I found myself examining the rover for an "on-off" switch.

Sam's robot companion GERTY proved to be one of the most interesting parts of the film. When a monotone robot that wants to help the main character survive becomes the most entertaining part of the film is when you know that your film may be in trouble.

I often found myself glancing at my watch, and wondering if it would be rude to use my phone to look up the running time of the film. Again, the idea was very interesting, but if you present the same idea for a little over an hour and a half without delving into the subject further, while cutting away to a cheesy model of the surface of the moon every five to ten minutes, you will lose some people. There were entire sequences when they would use, frame for frame, the exact same footage that they used earlier in the movie to make a point, and to try to make you understand it. It soon became repetitive, boring, and unimpressive. I understood what the idea was, and their repeated attempts to "help me understand" only annoyed me.

So, for the record, Moon was a brave attempt to create a tension-filled, emotional, helpless journey into the psyche of a man stationed on the lonely moon. It had some fantastic moments, but more than half of it is repetitive, uninteresting, and just plain boring. If you have the opportunity to watch it for free, do so, as it may wind up being a cult film in the near future.

C-

If you enjoyed Solaris, There Will Be Blood, or Cast Away you might like this movie.

500 Days of Summer

The best part of 500 Days of Summer is that it doesn't attempt to be a fantastic movie, it doesn't suck up to the viewers, and it doesn't flaunt itself in front of viewers saying "look how insightful I am". It could have easily done any of these things, and newcoming director Marc Webb expertly weaved his way through the story and its obstacles to create an amazing, visually stunning, and incredibly original piece of art.

People toss around the word "original" alot, but I am not screwing around when I say that this film is the very first of its kind. It is very playful, and uses every inch of the film medium to bring you inside the mind of Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and experience his thoughts emotions and feelings in a very visceral way that you can touch and feel. The film follows the relationship of Tom Hansen with his infatuation named Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) and not in any way that would be expected. It is far from a conventional romantic comedy, and tracks the romance through random days. We jump from "Day 444" in the relationship to "Day 1" and then to "Day 243". This medium of storytelling was fascinating and kept me completely involved in the movie, and although some may call it a "ploy" or a "gimmick" it was incredibly innovative and original. An especially brilliant scene is a two way screen split that showcases "Expectations VS Reality". I know you don't know what that means, but once you watch the film you will understand and appreciate its subtle brilliance.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt offers a fantastic performance as a man who is attempting to find love in a fledgling and eventually failing relationship. He is very relate able, and I grew to love him. He never strains to offer emotion, which is a huge trap in the romantic comedy industry, and offers an uncommonly honest portrayal of a normal guy who got screwed over.

If I have any complaint about the movie, it is the portrayal of Summer by Zooey Deschanel. It was clear to me at the very beginning that I would not like her, and although the film makes it clear that Summer is a "free spirit", she never became likable to me, and I never wanted Tom to stay with her. It is a minor flaw of the movie, and perhaps not even a flaw, because the movie is more about Tom's journey rather than Summer's philosophy on love and marriage.

The movie never overstayed its welcome, and sprinted by at a breakneck pace all the way through its incredibly brisk 95 minute runningtime. There is never a single boring moment, and it is perhaps this that kept it so close to my heart. It was masterfully crafted to keep everyone interested the entire time, and that really is a refreshing idea in this age of extended static shots and uninteresting unrelated plot twists. This movie sticks to the point, and although there are several fun and fluffy moments, (including a hilariously non sequitur dance sequence with animated birds in the middle of the movie) it skips over the bland "middle part" of the movie that most romantic comedies fall victim to. Perhaps its advantage was again its unconventional mode of storytelling.

It was a fast, fun, entertaining and thought provoking bit of work with wonderful bits of philosophy plugged throughout. Like the tagline will tell you, it isn't just a love story. It is a story about love.

A+

If you liked Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Love Actually and Away We Go you will liek this movie.

Oscarwatch! (V 2.0)

It may seem too early, but the Oscar Season is ever approaching, and it is of increased urgency that I bring you this months Oscarwatch! Now, we have had a bit of a surprise with the Academys suprise move to add five more slots into the Best Film category, and that should allow for some wiggling room. Normally one or two movies jump from obscurity and relatively unknown hype into the Oscar pool, but we are not taking them into account at the moment. Before you is a tentative prediction of what films will be awarded the honor of a nomination. Purchase your tickets accordingly.

Best Film:
Nine
Precious
Invictus
Amelia
Up
The Hurt Locker
An Education
Avatar
Biutiful
Funny People

Best Actor:
Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
Daniel Day Lewis (Nine)
Javier Bardem (Biutiful)
Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)
Matt Damon (The Informant)

Best Actress:
Hillary Swank (Amelia)
Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
Abbie Cornish (A Bright Star)
Penelope Cruz (Broken Embraces)
Carey Mulligan (An Education)

Best Director:
Rob Marshall (Nine)
James Cameron (Avatar)
Clint Eastwood (Invictus)
Lee Daniels (Precious)
Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

Although there is alot of buzz about the women from Nine (Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, and Kate Hudson) stealing most (or all) of the Best Supporting Actress nominees, not much has been uttered about any good Best Supporting Actor performances, so I will keep them to myself for the time being.

I had a deep personal problem with removing Inglorious Basterds from my best film list, and excluding Quentin from the Best Director list. I have not had the pleasure of seeing it yet, but it appears to be geared toward Quentins hardcore fanbase instead of the Oscar panel. This is fine, and he may even garner a Best Original Screenplay or Best Supporting Actor (Eli Roth) nom, but these may be the only awards (aside from the technicals) that Inglorious Basterds may see.

Also, some may scoff at my inclusion of Funny People in the Oscar race. If the movie turns out to be anything like what the critics are saying about it (some are anxious to hand Sandler an Oscar for it...which I am just not sure about) it will make people question whether or not a college-student aimed comedy could possibly show up in the Best Picture race.

It appears that after last year's yawnfest of predictable Oscars (Oh, they gave another one to Slumdog Millionaire? What a surprise...) we may have some friendly (and fierce) competition in the ring. First up...

Precious VS Nine
Although there are many films that will jump headfirst into this race, the real race will be between the million dollar star studded musical, and the soul crushing reality based Cannes baby. In these times of economic struggle, I can see people voting the "take your mind off of your problems" musical about a film director and his many lovers over the heart woven tale of struggle, but then again, the same circumstances could help Precious to the top. It is a nailbiter, but as the date grows closer, we may be able to narrow it down to a clear cut option.

Morgan Freeman VS Daniel Day Lewis
Poor Morgan has yet to sweep a Best Actor win, and although some argue that he recieved his dues with his Million Dollar Baby win, some will want to see the old man take the prize with a role that he was created for. In case you haven't heard, Morgan Freeman will be playing Nelson Freaking Mandela. It is a pity however, that he has to be going up against a man who is arguably one of the best actors of this generation in a role that has swept awards from everywhere in the world. Day-Lewis will be the lead in what will arguably be the biggest movie of the Oscar season, and he will refuse to go unnoticed. then again, he has recieved two already, and Oscar voters may have a sympathy card or two in their wallet.

Rob Marshall VS James Cameron
This one is a toughy. Rob Marshall kicked the competition to dust in 2002 with Chicago and James "Titanic" Cameron is returning from his long slumber with what he claims will "revolutionize the way people watch films". Yes it is an edgy Sci-Fi adventure film, and the academy often doesn't glance at that, but this is "James Cameron and The Most Expensive Movie Ever Made". Be prepared for it to turn some heads.

Well friends, this marks the end of Version 2 of Oscarwatch. Tune in next time with mosre exciting Oscar news!

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

You will never hear me say that I hated the movie adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

Stylistically, things have improved this time around, but it is a pity that all of the puzzle pieces that helped the movie to this new state of achievement apparently came from different boxes. If I were to phrase it in a sentence without the metaphorical puzzle pieces, I would say that it felt like I was watching two separate movies.

Both movies were exceptional, one being a very funny romantic comedy, and the other a brooding, dark and sinister fantasy drama, but those elements did not fit together the way director David Yates must have dreamed it would. It is possible for these genres to coincide very well (see American Beauty) but that level of film-making is not a level that Yates has achieved yet.

Don't get me wrong about this film. Many of the scenes were brilliantly done. The shots were absolutely stunning, and the filming was absolutely beautiful. The acting has improved this time around (more on that in a moment), the score, although mediocre, was definitely passable, and the direction seemed a bit more focused than Yates previous installment in the Potter franchise.

So where did everything go wrong? Haphazard grouping of certain sequences is exactly what killed this movie. You cannot jump from a sexually awkward "shoe tying" situation into an emotionally heart wrenching masterpiece, and then be thrust back into a rom-com romp without having people turn some heads in confusion.

On a brighter note, the acting in this film was exceptional from all involved (with the obvious exception of Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley. I really hate to pick on the girl, but watching her attempt to hold her own in a scene was a very awkward type of torture.)Tom Felton turned in a very unexpected turn as Draco Malfoy. Draco's insecurity and need to satisfy his own need to form an identity absolutely shine in this film, and Felton's performance is absolutely stunning.

I am proud to say that Michael Gambon's Dumbledore finally calmed the hell down, and it seems as though he finally understands who Dumbledore is supposed to be. The trio all turn in their expected performance, although it was pleasant to see Daniel Radcliffe get the opportunity to sneak some comedy into the film. His scene where he is on cocai- sorry...Felix Filicis is absolutely hilarious. Newcomer to the Harry Potter scene Jim Broadbent does absolutely marvelous as Professor Slughorn. It definitely is not Oscar worthy as some early reviewers have hinted, but it is absolutely wonderful to see an actor of his caliber joining the cast. An unexpectedly heartwrenching drunken monologue from Broadbent is one of the better scenes in the movie, and moved me almost to tears.

Also, don't let the PG rating make you think that the film-makers have toned down the film at all. We have a character completely bleeding out in one part, and another character forcefeeding someone poison by the end. By all means it is very dark, but it would fumble over its own feet before starting this perfectly accomplished tapdance.

By all means, it is what the new Star Trek was to the Star Trek films. There wasn't exactly a whole lot of plot to speak of,so they focused on character development instead. This is a worthy choice, as it will give us something t o care about in the next two installments.

Like I said earlier, it is a beautiful looking film with fantastic actors, but it doesn't work as a movie. It would be like if someone gave you the freshest eggs, the sweetest milk, and the richest flour and told you it was a muffin. It just doesn't work.

I enjoyed the romantic comedy aspect of the film almost as much as I enjoyed the darker side, but attempting to force the two together without any particular connection between the two creates a deep rivet in the film, giving many fans a very anticlimactic and unsatisfied sensation by the end.

B

If you enjoyed Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Shaun of the Dead, or Love Actually you will enjoy this movie.

Brüno

Although Borat was "so 2006", some may prefer it to this restyled and redone Sacha Baron Cohen mockumentary style comedy.

Does it do it's job? Absolutely. Certain segments are absolutely hilarious, and will leave you laughing long enough to miss other jokes.

And that's about it.

While Borat offered plenty of innocence, heart, and improvised candid comedy, Brüno sets out to just try and make you laugh. Occaisionally it becomes evident that they try too hard to make the audience laugh, and in those places it loses its comedy. The planned script absolutely murders the laugh factor of this movie, and it only gets back on track during its moments of candid comedy, and improvised trickery at the expense of others. Some people that Brüno encounters are paid actors, and when we realize that it loses its fun.

Sacha Baron Cohen does a fantastic job with this character, and the moments when the movie seemed to lose its track were not because of him. I have lately become very impressed with Sacha Baron Cohen's habit of completely melting into his characters and leaving little to nothing left to see. He never slipped into Borat or Pirelli, and I can understand that with such outrageous characters it could have been very easy to fall into both.

Now for the material. Don't kid yourself if you walked out in distaste. You knew what was coming. Borats use of racism, homosexuality, toilet humor, sexual humor, nudity, sexism and outrageous disrespect for people of all religionsand beliefs paved the way for what I can only describe as some of the most visual shit I have seen on a three story screen. And it was hilarious. The final scene (the one with the cage match) left me wondering when the last time I laughed that hard in a movie theatre was. (It was the Penis Drawing scene from Superbad. It's been that long)

I am currently downloading the soundtrack to Brüno as we speak, because although it has little to no artistic value, I loved the rythm and beat that persisted throughout the movie. The last track in particular (Starring Bono, Elton John, Snoop Dogg and guitar accompiniment by Slash) had me in belly laugh by the end.

The only problem with the ending was when it ended. I understand there is only so much that you can do with this kind of comedy, but after 84 minutes and ten dollars, I was expecting more when the credits began to roll.

At the end of the night, my date and I left remarking how hilarious Brüno was, and I silently decided that I would probably not buy the DVD.

B-

If you liked Borat:Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, Jackass, and Step Brothers you will like this movie.

Boondock Saints II update

According to the fancy paper I agreed to sign in order to see Boondock Saints II, it claims that "remarks and evaluations are not to be made via electronic or written device", so I guess that limits what I can tell you on this thing. Let me just make a few vague observations of the film to get you an idea of how this film went in my mind.

1) It was DEFINITELY the same style of direction.

2) It was total, unabashed fun. There are a few more serious bits, but just like the first one, the laughs are aplenty.

3) Willem Dafoe is very much missing from the film. there is a very hurried "He Died" subplot, but he is taken over by his Protege, a southern woman with a cowgirl demeanor.

4) There are also alot of parts that i didn't care for. It was "trying too hard to make them laugh" comedy, which was in the first one, but only for a bit. It's in the second one alot and make me upset, but other than that, it was very good.

At the end, I was very satisfied with the film, and recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the first one.

Grade- B

If you liked Boondock Saints, Crank, and The Big Lebowski you will like this movie.

Public Enemies

After hearing the bout of mixed praise concerning Public Enemies, I soon became very anxious to see it myself. The results of this experiment seem incredibly one sided, and may behave as thus.
Public Enemies was an outstanding piece of work, helmed by the incredible master of action, Michael Mann. The camera style is really something you need to work yourself into, but once you jump into the story, it grabs you, shoots you in the face, and refuses to let you go.

The pacing was very brisk, and hardly left any wiggle room for people to look at their watches and begin to get bored. It literally kept me engaged for the entire two hour and twenty minute running time. If I recall, I only thought about the money in my bank account once, and that is impressive given that the movie is about a man who robs banks.

Depp gives a very dangerous, suave (and dare I say, pimp) performance as John Dillinger, and several scenes where he blends into the crowd left me chilled as I sat in the theater. He could have disposed of his Johnny Depp "crazy eyes" and lip twitches for this character as they were quite unneeded, but they happen so rarely that it was hardly noticed.

Now, it's not that Christian Bale did a bad job, as I have read several reviews that suggest just that. He did a good job playing a hard nosed cop with just Dillinger on his mind. This was what the script called for. I'm not saying it was a bad script, (in fact it was a very, very well done screenplay) but Bale responded honestly to the circumstance he was given as the character, which I believe is the definition of acting. He didn't push, or pull anything out of this guy and made him believable, and in that way he did his job. If you wanted him to do the "I'm being traumatized by the terrible things I'm seeing" eyes, then maybe Johnny should have played both roles.

Speaking of the performances, all around they were just fantastic. I have no idea hat Michael Mann may have said to them during filming, but this movie just reeked of the 1930's, and I had no trouble placing myself in that time period and going along for the ride. Even the bit characters were fully fleshed out, which says alot for both the actors playing those characters, and Michael Mann.

The music was incredibly well fitting and helped absorb people into the movies atmosphere, but it was the sound design that will turn heads at this year's Oscars. The sound design helped sell the reality of the movie to my mind, and I soon found myself on the edge of my seat, propelled by what was happening on the screen. From bullet raging action sequences to breathtaking silence in the forest, it was the sound design that wrapped all the tension in the movie into one big tasty burrito.

With the exception of the jarring first minutes and a few bumps towards the end, the film was shot gorgeously, and left me with very few complaints.

Public Enemies was an outstanding piece of art that was masked with all the action and intrigue of the normal summer popcorn flick.

A-

If you enjoyed Collateral, The Dark Knight, or The Untouchables, you will enjoy this film.

Oscarwatch #1

Seeing as I have not yet acquired the monetary resources to see one of the many major blockbusters in theaters right now (look for my reviews for "My Sisters Keeper" "Public Enemies" the long overdue "The Hangover" and "Boondock Saints II" coming up soon) I have decided to include a short piece on possible Oscar-Worthy movies that are awaiting release for this Fall and Winter. As I watch and grade them, they will slowly be assembled into possibilities for different categories, and organized in the position of possibility to win Best Picture. For now, we simply have a list of hot movies to watch out for this year.

Nine:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/nine/trailer

This beautiful looking movie, Directed by Ron Marshall (The Academy Award winning Director of Chicago) and featuring a star studded Oscar Winning Cast (Including but not limited to Daniel Day Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard and Penelope Cruz) is simply begging for Oscar recognition. I hate to judge movies before I see them, but I believe we have a winner.

Precious:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/precious/trailer

If Nine has a single competitor this Oscar season, it is this Sundance baby that seems to have popped out of nowhere. Every single audience that it has been screened to has given it incredibly ravetastic reviews, and that usually spells out great things on Oscar night. It has an Oscar release date (Late in November) and is already being pushed by Oprah, and we know that she can sell an Oscar movie (see Crash and Million Dollar Baby).

Amelia:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/amelia/trailer

Hillary Swank stars in a biopic of Amelia Earhart. It Costars Richard Gere and is directed by Mona Lisa Smile's Mira Nair. The Academy loves a good biopic, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind throwing another well earned nomination at Hillary Swank for her work in it, which looks absolutely magnificent. It looks spectacularly filmed, and although has been seen in its entirety by very few, Iam certain it will take my breath away.

Biutiful:

Javier Bardem returns to a starring role in this Alejandro González Iñárritu drama about a criminal who runs into an old friend, who happens to be a cop. Rumors about early screenings and mixed reviews have come up out of the internet, but all rumors should be taken with a pinch (or in the case of the Internet, a garbage bag) of salt.

Invictus:

There is not yet a trailer out for the very mysterious Invictus. All that is known is that it is about Rugby. Oh, and that it stars Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. Pick your jaw up off the floor and lets move on.

The Lovely Bones :

Peter Jackson directs Marky Mark Whalberg in this adaptation of the New York times Best Selling novel. The jury is still out on this one, as Jackon has a shady past and a bright present while Marky Mark has a bright past and an increasingly shadier present.

The Tree of Life:

The Thin Red Line director Terrence Malick is directing Sean Penn and Brad Pitt in his latest movie revolving around a family in the fifties, brotherhood, and loss of innocence. This movie sounds like Oscar-bait if I ever knew what it was.

500 Days of Summer:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/500-days-of-summer/international-trailer

Here is our Indie-movie underdog. For every The Departed there is a Little Miss Sunshine for every No Country for Old Men there is a Juno. If the lighthearted quirky Indie jaunt has a place this year, it is this delightful looking film.

Inglorious Basterds:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/inglorious-basterds/international-trailer

I can't honestly say that I expect Inglorious Basterds to win or even be nominated for the top prize, simply because it has had such split critical opinions. I can't wait to throw my own two cents into the ring, but it is definetly a film to have on your radar this year. When a critically acclaimed, award nominated director completes what he has claimed to be his "Masterpiece", and stories are released based on the idea that he merely completed his past movies in order to earn enough street cred and money to produce the thing, you buy a ticket.

As Buzz continues, I am sure I will be able to add and take away from this list, but for the time being, here is your To Do list until next March when they open that damned envelope. If you have any ideas, or movies that you have been keeping track of for this Oscar Season, please mention them in the Comments section,

Hello World!

This is the first post on my new website, and while the kinks are being adjusted I find it prudent to introduce myself. Hi! I'm Jimmy Bean, your friendly neighborhood film critic. I attend Cal State Fullerton where I formerly majored in Acting, but have since switched to a Double Major in Journalism and Film Studies. I have always considered it a small dream of mine to be paid to watch films, and then later offer my criticism on said films. It has become apparent that people will pay me for that sort of thing. So here we are! Be sure to check back with me often, as I plan to update often with Movie Reviews, Oscar Speculation and Movie News. Don't be afraid to participate in the polls, and if my style of review and Oscar coverage catches your fancy, suggest me to a friend!

So while I burst through the metaphorical placenta that is the World Wide Web, I hope you enjoy the ride!