Dave's Movie Site

Interesting Oscar Stats Related to This Years Nominees

2012-01-27T11:02:00.000-08:00

· With 11 nominations for Hugo, Martin Scorsese’s films have now been nominated for a total of 75 Oscars – moving him all the way from 10^th on the list to 3^rd – behind only William Wyler and Steven Spielberg.

· The total number of nominations for Spielberg films rose from 103 to 110, keeping in second place, behind William Wyler’s 127. Can Lincoln close the gap more next year?

· With 4 nominations for Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen’s films have now been nominated for 50 Oscars – which is 22^nd on the list.

· The only other director who had a film nominated this year in the top 100 in total film nominations is David Fincher – with 29, good for a tie at 62.

· Both Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen picked up their 7^th Best Director nomination – putting them in a tie for third with Fred Zinneman and David Lean – although they have both won twice, and Scorsese and Allen have only won once. Billy Wilder has 8 Best Director Nominations, and William Wyler has 12. Steven Spielberg, who wasn’t nominated this year, has 6.

· Meryl Streep received her 17^th Oscar nomination this year – which makes it five more than her closest acting competitors – Katherine Hepburn and Jack Nicholson, who each have 12.

· Glenn Close received her 6^th nomination, which ties her with Deborah Kerr and Thelma Ritter for third in receiving the most nominations without a win – assuming she doesn’t win of course. Richard Burton was nominated 7 times without winning, Peter O’Toole 8 (O'Toole did a life time achievement award - but that doesn't count).

· Woody Allen received his 15^th writing nomination – which is now three more than Billy Wilder, who is second.

· In total, Woody Allen has now been nominated for 23 Oscars – 7 for Director, 15 for Writing and 1 for Acting.

· Stephen Daldry had his Best Director nominee streak snapped at three (Billy Elliot, The Hours and The Reader) to start his career. However, his last three films (The Hours, The Reader and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) have all been nominated for Best Picture. Alexander Payne (Sideways, The Descendants) and Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball) have consecutive Best Picture nominations (with Payne also having consecutive Directing nods as well).

· Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen are the active leaders in terms of directing Oscar nominated performance – with 20 and 16 respectively – but despite each having a film nominated for Best Picture, their totals did not improve this year. The all time leader is, once again, William Wyler with 36, followed by Elia Kazan (24), George Cukor (21) and then Scorsese. With Max von Sydow’s nomination, Stephen Daldry moves up to 6 nominated performances, which is the best of any director who had a performance in their film nominated this year (although Alexander Payne is now up to 5, Bennett Miller and David Fincher each have 4).

· John Williams received his 40^th and 41^st Best Score nomination. Impressive as that is, it is still two behind Alfred Newman for the all time record for this category.

· Robert Richardson received his 7^th best cinematography nomination – which is second among active cinematographers (behind poor Roger Deakins who has 9 nominations – and no wins) – but still 11 behind the all time leaders – Leon Shamroy and Charles Lang – who were each nominated 18 times.

· Since the Editing Category came into existence in 1934 – only 9 films have won the Best Picture Oscar without picking up an editing nomination – the last being Ordinary People in 1980. So sorry Midnight in Paris, War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help and The Tree of Life, this isn’t your year.

· There have only been 3 Best Picture winners in history that didn’t have their director nominated – Wings (1927/28), Grand Hotel (1932) and Driving Miss Daisy (1989). So sorry War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Moneyball, this isn’t your year.

· There have only been 7 Best Picture winners who didn’t have their screenplay nominated – the last being Titanic in 1997. So sorry War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Tree of Life and The Help, but this isn’t your year.

· There have only been 11 Best Picture Winners that didn’t have at least one actor nominated – but it has happened twice in the last decade (Lord of the Rings and Slumdog Millionaire), so this isn’t a death knell for Hugo, War Horse, Midnight in Paris or The Tree of Life, but it makes it a little harder.

· In case you’re keeping count of the last four bullet points, only The Artist and The Descendants all got in for Editing, Director, Screenplay and at least one acting category. Hugo didn’t get in for acting, which is the least important, and got in for the rest. So, if you predict anything but those three films to win, you’re statistically unlikely to be right.

· Most Best Picture winners win at least 4 Oscars including Best Picture – only 19 have won three or less, the latest being Crash in 2005 (with 3). Before that though, you have to go all the back to Rocky in 1976 to find another Best Picture winner to win only 3 Oscars.

· Only 11 Best Picture winners have been nominated for fewer than 7 Oscars – but two of those came in the last decade - Crash which had 6 and The Departed which had 5. However, it should be noted that in both of those years, no films were nominated for more than 8 Oscars - this year, The Artist had 10 nominations, and Hugo 11.

· The only film that none of the above applies to is The Artist. Ergo, it’s most likely your winner – but we already knew that, right?

Movie Review: Coriolanus

2012-01-26T09:57:00.000-08:00

Coriolanus ****

Directed By: Ralph Fiennes.

Written by: John Logan based on the play by William Shakespeare.

Starring: Ralph Fiennes (Caius Martius Coriolanus), Gerard Butler (Tullus Aufidius), Brian Cox (Menenius), Jessica Chastain (Virgilia), Vanessa Redgrave (Volumnia), Paul Jesson (Tribune Brutus), James Nesbitt (Tribune Sicinius), Lubna Azabal (Tamora), Ashraf Barhom (Cassius), John Kani (General Cominius), Dragan Micanovic (Titus Lartius), Harry Fenn (Young Martius).

I think the reason why Coriolanus is not one of Shakespeare’s best known plays is because the lead character lacks the human frailty that so many of Shakespeare’s characters have. Like Othello, he is a returning war hero, without the knowledge to navigate through the political minefield back home. Like Macbeth, his ambition to be ruler is less his own than that of a powerful woman who holds sway over him. And like Hamlet, he wants vengeance. But Caius Matius Coriolanus does not have the more humanizing qualities of those other characters – he doesn’t love his wife, Virgilia, like Othello loves Desdemona which allows him to be driven mad with jealously. He regards her coldly – hell, he even regards his son coldly as well. He isn’t plagued with Macbeth’s doubts about whether he’s doing the right thing – he’s an upper class war hero who has led Rome to countless victories on the battlefield, and been repeatedly scarred, so he doesn’t feel the need to flatter the common people – who at his nicest moments, he refers to as “curs” – even though he needs their approval to become Consul. And he is not plagued with the self doubt or introspection of Hamlet, who wavers in his thirst for vengeance for almost the entire play. No, Coriolanus is a ruthless killing machine, brutal and uncompromising throughout. His sin, as all Shakespearian figures need one, is pride, but his downfall is brought on less by it than on the fact that at heart, this brutal, ruthless killer is a mama’s boy.

Ralph Fiennes’ bold, updated version of Coriolanus is the best screen adaptation of Shakespeare I’ve seen in more than a decade – since Julie Taymor’s 1999 film Titus. Fiennes sets the film in modern day, and that works out amazingly well. The film opens with common people in Rome protesting their government’s actions of hording grain and keeping it for themselves (gee, that could never happen today). The film’s portrait of a city, a country really, torn apart, and split into the rich and poor feels surprisingly contemporary and realistic. This is a deeply cynical film about people and their leaders – there is really only one decent character in the whole play, and Fiennes changes his ultimate fate from the play, to make it even more downbeat – offering little to no hope that things will ever actually change.

The opening scenes, of the riot, and the war between the Romans and the Volscians, is shot with shaky, handheld cameras, a tactic, I usually hate, but Fiennes and his cinematographer(Barry Ackroyd) use this technique properly – more Paul Greengrass than Michael Bay – as the action remains clear throughout. An extended knife fight between Fiennes Coriolanus and Gerald Butler’s Tullus Aufidius, the Volscian General, and Coriolanus’ sworn arch enemy – is particularly well handled, and has the visceral, vicious feel that this type of camera work can convey when done properly.

The visuals settle down when Coriolanus returns to Rome, once again, a hero. The elderly Consul is set to step aside, and Coriolanus has the support of Senator Menenius (Brian Cox) to take his place. Coriolanus sees himself as a warrior, and not as a politician, but his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) wants glory for the family name, and encourages him to seek power. But Coriolanus is stubborn and prideful – he refuses to sit in the Senate to hear his own accomplishments listed, and even when the Senate grants his approval, he refuses to give a speech, like is customary. But he also needs the approval of the Commoners to gain power, and his pride will not allow him to flatter them – nor to show off his battle scars. The Commoners grant their approval, but egged on by their representatives in the Senate – Brutus and Sicinius (Paul Jesson and James Nesbitt), and the lead rioters we saw at the beginning (Lubna Azabal and Ashrad Barhom), quickly decide that Coriolanus has duped them into consenting – and want another chance to reject him – which they do – and he ends up banished. Infuriated that the commoners would treat the likes of him with such contempt, he seeks out his arch nemesis Tullus, and wants to join the Volscians in an assault on Rome.

Coriolanus is one of the bluntest lead characters in all of Shakespeare – he has few speeches, and says precisely what he thinks at all times. His stubbornness and his pride define him, and if not for the constant prodding of Volumnia, would never have sought higher office in the first place. Fiennes underlines the Oedipal feelings between these two throughout the movie. Coriolanus barely has time for his wife at all, and dismisses her easily, but every time his mother opens her mouth, he is powerless to disagree with her. Whatever she wants, he grants her. Redgrave’s performance is the finest in the movie – one of the finest of her distinguished career. She doesn’t make Volumnia into a harpy or a nag – as would have been easy and obvious – but that doesn’t mean she isn’t monstrous – she’s just nicer about it, subtlety manipulating Coriolanus at every turn. Told to go off to war by her, he does it, and distinguishes himself greatly. Told to try and become Consul, he does that as well – and may well have succeeded if he had gotten out of his own way. And when he leads the Volscians back to Rome in battle, he refuses to hear out his former brother in arms Titus or even Menenius, and is not moved in the least by Virgilia or even his son. But when Mommie Dearest opens her mouth, he cannot help it, and caves – which is what ultimately leads to his downfall.

While Redgrave delivers the best performance in the movie that takes nothing away from the rest of the wonderful cast. Brian Cox is the only character in the movie who thinks beyond his own needs, towards what is good for Rome, and when Coriolanus rejects him, he looks as if his heart has been broken. Jessica Chastain, who had a great 2011, is fragile, sensitive and fearful as Virgilia, never quite sure if she should stand up, either to her husband or her mother in law. The rest of the supporting cast do their jobs quite well – even in small roles, particularly Jesson and Nesbitt as the Tribunes, who like all politicians, are thinking mainly of themselves when they conspire to take down Coriolanus. The one casting decision I had my doubts about going in was Gerald Butler, but he does a surprisingly excellent job as Coriolanus’ arch nemesis. When Coriolanus comes to him, hat in hands, and asks to team up, and Tullus accepts, the two men embrace, but it’s far from a brothers at arms embrace – and homoerotic subtext simmers beneath the surface, as they almost whisper their lines into each others years. In the films dramatic final scene, Butler almost appears more like a spurned lover than anything else.

And towering above them all is Fiennes’ best work in years as Coriolanus. Fiennes has remarkable eyes that have the ability to look wild and crazy, filled with fury and vengeance. When he becomes almost like a God to the Volscian soldiers, and sits perched above them, with his shaved head, you may well be reminded of Marlon Brando’s Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now – his formerly wild eyes have become cold and dead – fixated on his goal. And yet all of that crumbles away when faced with his mother, when he quite simply melts in front of her. This is Fiennes better than he has been in years. As a director, he matches his abilities as an actor. If he wants to continue directing, he should easily find success.

Overall, I think Coriolanus is one of the best recent adaptations of Shakespeare. It’s contemporary setting works for the film and even makes the film all the more timely. It is further proof that Shakespeare in timeless.

DVD Review: The Bang Bang Club

2012-01-26T09:56:00.000-08:00

The Bang Bang Club **

Directed by: Steven Silver.

Written by: Steven Silver based on the book by Greg Marinovich and João Silva.

Starring: Ryan Phillippe (Greg Marinovich), Malin Akerman (Robin Comley), Taylor Kitsch (Kevin Carter), Neels Van Jaarsveld (João Silva), Frank Rautenbach (Ken Oosterbroek), Nina Milner (Samantha), Jessica Haines (Allie), Russel Savadier (Ronald Graham), Lika Van Den Bergh (Vivian), Kgosi Mongake (Patrick).

The Bang Bang Club were four white, South African photographers who went out into the streets and documented the chaotic end of Apartheid in their country. They garnered fame, because they would go where few others would. They won Pulitzer Prizes, seemed to attract the attention of numerous beautiful women, drank and partied too much, and seemed to have no real opinion on what exactly they were photographing. There is a real story here that could make for a great movie – but in The Bang Bang Club, it’s buried underneath too many clichés.

The movie opens when Greg Marinovich (Ryan Phillipe), who is working freelance, heads out with his camera to try and capture the chaos that is running through South Africa. It isn’t long before he meets the other members – Kevin Carter (Taylor Kitsch), Joao Silva (Neels Van Jaarsveld) and Ken Oosterbroek (Frank Rautenbach), although they pretty much ignore him at first. It isn’t until he gets inside of the compound of the Zulu warriors, who are fighting against and sometime slaughtering supporters of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) that they accept him as one of their own.

What follows is a lot of male bonding, as we see these four photographers head out into the streets day after day to photograph the madness and violence all around them. They are constantly faced with danger, but they seem to thrive on it – they are adrenaline junkies more than anything else. They spend their off hours drinking in bars, and picking up women. The only woman that will snap into focus is Robin Comley (Malin Akerman), the photo editor of the Johannesburg Star, who the movie tries to make into a legitimate love interest for Marinovich. We see the photos they take – one of which documents the brutal murder by fire caught by Marinovich, which will draw the attention of the South African police, who want his film and for him to testify – because a crime has taken place. Instead of doing so, he hides out for a while, until his photo wins him a Pulitzer. He hides, because he doesn’t want him, and his colleagues, to become targets – because they are seen to be taking sides. Later in the movie, Kevin Carter will also win a Pulitzer, for a picture he takes in the Sudan – of a young girl, who is clearly starving to death being stalked by a vulture. When asked if he did anything to help the girl, he says no. That’s not his job.

These two photos obviously document real things going on in their respective countries, and as such have value, but where do you draw the line between being neutral and stepping in and taking some action? Marinovich clearly had reason to believe that if he stepped in, he himself could become a target. But what of Carter? Couldn’t he at least scare the damn vulture away? The movie raises these questions in only the most cursory of manners – it certainly has no opinion one way or the other.

And that essentially describes the movie as well. If you know nothing about Apartheid going into this movie, you certainly won’t learn anything about by watching it. There is no discussion of the issues, no discussion of right or wrong. The movie is essentially about four white photographers who head out into the streets and take pictures of black people killing each other.

I was reminded of The Hurt Locker while watching The Bang Bang Club – and the comparison does this film no favours. The Hurt Locker was an Iraq war film stripped of politics that showed its soldiers as little more than adrenaline junkies – who do what they do not because of anything greater than the fact that they are addicted to it. I think that probably describes the members of The Bang Bang Club as well – clearly they are not doing their job because of any moral or political leanings, and they take one risk after another, daring each other to go farther than any would go on their own. Yet, I think perhaps The Bang Bang Club is too close to its subjects to see them clearly. The film is based on a book by the two surviving members, and as such, I don’t think it ever really questions their actions – it simply accepts their version of events. The fact that writer/director Steven Silver felt he needed to add a romantic subplot – that is wholly unconvincing – doesn’t help, and neither does the fact that the actors don’t really add much to the proceedings (Taylor Kitsch maybe a fine actor, but I don’t think he was up for the role of Carter, which is clearly the movies most demanding). You could make a good story about these four photographers – but The Bang Bang Club isn’t it.

Movie Review: Pina

2012-01-25T19:36:00.000-08:00

Pina ***
Directed By: Wim Wenders.

I am not a big fan of dance, and unlike other critics who tell you that it in a movie like Pina you don’t need to be a fan of dance to appreciate the movie, I’m not going to say that. It would certainly help to know something about dance walking into Wim Wenders’ new dance documentary that is really a tribute to German choreographer Pina Bausch. She was supposed to collaborate with Wenders on this documentary, but suddenly died a few days before shooting was supposed to begin. So instead of a simple dance documentary, what Pina really is an elegy to Wenders’ friend. Not only do we get to see her stock company deliver four of her most famous routines (not in their entirety, but close to it) the film also gives her closer collaborators a chance to pay tribute to her – by speaking about their feelings for her, and by giving small snippets of their own favourite Pina dances, sprinkled throughout the movie. For fans of dance, Pina will likely be one of their favourite films of the year. For someone like me, whose knowledge of dance is limited to what I have picked up on So You Think You Can Dance over the years, the result was more scattershot. Yes, the film looks amazing from start to finish, and the dance numbers do have a hypnotic power to them in their best moments. But I never quite feel in love with any of them, and not knowing who Pina Bausch was walking into the theatre, I could not share the participant’s feelings for her. I felt kept at an arm’s length from much of the proceedings.

The dancing in Pina is terrific. There is no denying that, even if I don’t understand it on a deeper level like some do. All I can do is watch the movement on display, and be mesmerized. The first dance sequence is probably my favourite – there is primal rhythm on display, and the movement matches that, and seethes with sexuality. It gets Pina off on a high note – and one I don’t think it will quite match again, despite how good the other three massive dance numbers are. Again, I don’t know much about dance, but I know what I like – and I liked most of what was on display in this film.

I also enjoyed the little asides – the small snippets of other Pina dances that are sprinkled throughout the movie that take place outside, in a field, on a mountain, in a greenhouse, on the streets, or wherever the dancers felt best captured their feel. These are smaller – mostly just one or two people, and give you an intimacy that the larger numbers do not have. By displaying both, I think Wenders goal was to capture Pina on both a large and small scale.

The spoken tributes in Pina are what didn’t really work for me. Wenders plays these tributes as voiceovers, and shoots the speaker simply sitting looking into the camera. I’m sure to some this will work, but again I didn’t know Pina Bausch before I saw this movie, or her work. The movie itself only provides a few brief moments of footage of her – not nearly enough to get to know her. So while you feel their grief is genuine, it also holds you outside of it – as if you’re looking at a moment you shouldn’t be looking at. I couldn’t feel their grief the same way they did – or really on any real level.

For those who love dance, I think Pina will be one of their favourite films of 2011. It is at times thrilling to see these dancers work at the top of their game, and I have feeling they’ll appreciate things on a higher level than I did. For me, as much as I admired Pina, I was never truly involved with it. It is a visual masterwork, and on that level, it should be seen by anyone who has the slightest interest in it. But as an emotional experience, Pina left me cold.

Movie Review: Puss in Boots

2012-01-25T19:34:00.000-08:00

Puss in Boots ***
Directed by: Chris Miller.
Written by: Brian Lynch & David H. Steinberg & Tom Wheeler & Jon Zack.
Starring: Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Dumpty), Billy Bob Thornton (Jack), Amy Sedaris (Jill), Constance Marie (Imelda), Guillermo del Toro (Moustache Man / Comandate).

I have for one, hope that the Shrek series has run its course. The first movie was immensely entertaining, the second one less so, but still fine, the third one pretty damn bad, and the fourth one a fitting end to the franchise. The giant green ogre, and his donkey friend, have nothing else to give, and I hope they stay off the screen. But Puss in Boots, a breakout star of the second film, offers new ground for the filmmakers to exploit. Yes, it still takes place in the same fairy tale world as Shrek did, but it allows for different characters to come to the forefront. This first, in what may turn out to be another series, is quite entertaining – better than Shrek has been in a while.

Antonio Banderas once again provides the voice for Puss in Boots, and in this film, it flashes back to his humble origins as an orphan taken in by Imelda. In the orphanage, he bonds with another outcast – Humpty Dumpty (wonderfully voiced by Zach Galifianakis), and the two soon become trouble makers. Puss sees it as innocent fun, and never wants to take things too far. But Humpty is bitter and angry at his treatment – and wants to pull off a major score – robbing the hometown bank. When the job goes wrong, Humpty is caught, and Puss has to go on the run. Years later, they are brought back together – and perhaps now they’ll be able to pull off the job they always wanted – robbing the giant of his golden goose. They may have finally found the magic beans necessary to make the job possible. Along for the ride is Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), an expert cat burglar.

Puss in Boots is a fun, fast paced animated adventure. It has the same style as the Shrek movies – and has the same irreverent spirit of sending up fairy tales. But free of Shrek, and his conflict with his wife’s royal roots – which took up far too much time in the later Shrek movies – this film is more fun. And because Puss in Boots and company are pulling off a heist, more action packed as well. Banderas has always been great voicing Puss, and he finds much help for Galifianakis, who proves to be a natural as Humpty Dumpty, and Salma Hayek – as well as Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris as the evil Jack and Jill.

Puss in Boots doesn’t reinvent the wheel here, but it doesn’t really have to. It is a fast paced, animated adventure, with enough clever one liner to make adults laugh, and enough action to keep kids satisfied. No, it doesn’t rise to the level of truly great animated film, but what it does, it does really well.

Oscar Nomination Reaction

2012-01-24T08:49:00.000-08:00

The Oscar nominations were annouced today, so I thought I'd give some reactions. For those interested, out of the categories I predicted (all but the shorts), I got 72 out of 104 total nominees correct - right around 70% which is where I normally am in the nominating round. Hugo led the nominations with 11, followed closely by The Artist with 10, Moneyball and War Horse had 6, The Descendants and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo had 5, The Help and Midnight in Paris had 4, The Tree of Life, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Albert Nobbs, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II and Transformers: Dark of the Moon each had 3.

Surprise Nominees I'm Happy About: Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the only one that really stands out. I had Tree of Life getting Picture and Director Nominations, and I'm happy that it got in.

Surprise Nominees I'm Not Happy About: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close for Best Picture, Demian Bichar for Best Actor.

Surprise Nominee I Haven't Decided Yet: Max von Sydow for Best Supporting Actor. He's great in the movie, and out of the nominees, a fine choice, but they really screwed the pooch in that category.

Omissions I'm Not Happy With: Michael Fassbender for Actor, Tilda Swinton for Actress, Albert Brooks for Supporting Actor, Carey Mulligan for Supporting Actress. Perhaps the four best performances of the year, none of them nominated.

Supporting Categories Completely Messed Up: None of the nominees for Supporting Actor or Actress would have made my top 5 for those categories (you'll see my entire list next week). So, no vested interest for me in either one.

Before the ceremony, I'll come back with my Annual Oscar Odds post, which tells you will win and should win.

The nominees are:

Best Picture

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

The Tree of Life

War Horse

Best Director

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

Alexander Payne, The Descendants

Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Best Actor

Demián Bichir, A Better Life

George Clooney, The Descendants

Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Best Actress

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis, The Help

Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn

Jonah Hill, Moneyball

Nick Nolte, Warrior

Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Best Supporting Actress

Bérénice Bejo, The Artist

Jessica Chastain, The Help

Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer, The Help

Best Original Screenplay

The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius

Bridesmaids - Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo

Margin Call - J.C. Chandor

Midnight in Paris - Woody Allen

A Separation - Asghar Farhadi

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants - Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash

Hugo - John Logan

The Ides of March - George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon

Moneyball - Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughan

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

A Cat in Paris

Chico & Rita

Kung Fu Panda 2

Puss in Boots

Rango

Foreign Language Film

Bullhead

Footnote

In Darkness

Monsieur Lazhar

A Separation

Best Achievement in Cinematography

The Artist - Guillaume Schiffman

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Jeff Cronenweth

Hugo - Robert Richardson

The Tree of Life - Emmanuel Lubezki

War Horse - Janusz Kaminski

Best Achievement in Editing

The Artist

The Descendants

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

Best Achievement in Art Direction

The Artist

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

War Horse

Best Achievement in Costume Design

Anonymous

The Artist

Hugo

Jane Eyre

W.E.

Best Achievement in Makeup

Albert Nobbs

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

The Iron Lady

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tintin - John Williams

The Artist - Ludovic Bource

Hugo - Howard Shore

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Alberto Iglesias

War Horse - John Williams

Best Original Song

The Muppets - Man or Muppe

Rio - Real in Rio

Best Sound Mixing

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Drive

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo ,

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Hugo

Real Steel

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Best Documentary, Features

Hell and Back Again

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

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Pina

Undefeated

Best Documentary, Short Subjects

Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement

God Is the Bigger Elvis

Incident in New Baghdad

Saving Face ,

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Best Short Film, Animated

Dimanche

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris

La Luna

A Morning Stroll

Wild Life

Best Short Film, Live Action

Pentecost

Raju

The Shore

Time Freak

Tuba Atlantic

Movie Review: Haywire

2012-01-23T08:33:00.000-08:00

Haywire *** ½

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh.

Written by: Lem Dobbs.

Starring: Gina Carano (Mallory), Ewan McGregor (Kenneth), Michael Fassbender (Paul), Channing Tatum (Aaron), Antonio Banderas (Rodrigo). Michael Douglas (Coblenz), Michael Angarano (Scott), Mathieu Kassovitz (Studer), Bill Paxton (Mr. Kane), Anthony Brandon Wong (Jiang).

If the Italian neo-realists were right, and everyone can play one role better than anyone else – themselves – than Steven Soderbergh seems to have taken this to heart. From the small town Ohio residents in Bubble to porn star Sasha Grey as a high end prostitute in The Girlfriend Experience and now MMA star Gina Carano as Mallory Kane, a highly trained “specialist” working for a private firm doing sensitive jobs, Soderbergh has not shied away from casting non-professional actors in his movies. No, none of these people are playing themselves (they probably come closest in Bubble), but they are more convincing in their roles than professional actors would be. Gina Carano, star of Haywire, is probably never going to win an Oscar – and Meryl Streep doesn’t have to worry about competition – but she plays the role of Mallory better than any professional actor I could think of. Because of her MMA training, it allows Soderbergh to stage some of the best hand to hand fight scenes in recent memory – and not pull any punches. The punches, kicks, chokes, slams all look and feel like they hurt – and when Mallory ends up victorious in these matchups, we have no trouble believing it, like we do sometimes when women fight men in the movies. You can tell in each moment that it really is Carano involved in these fight scenes – and you can tell that she really would kick the other guy’s ass.

The plot of Haywire is standard issue action/thriller stuff – with Mallory having to unravel a conspiracy that aims to set her up for murdering someone in Dublin that she saved in Barcelona. Written by Lem Dobbs, the movie shares much in common with his previous collaboration with Soderbergh – the wonderful The Limey (1999), which was a stripped to the bone revenge thriller that gave Terrence Stamp perhaps the best role of his career. To quote Roger Ebert, the movie is not about what it’s about, but how it’s about it. And Haywire is elevated above its genre roots by Soderbergh’s expert direction, and the performances by the entire cast.

To make the plot seem a little more complicated than it actually is, Soderbergh cuts back and forth in time. Before we know anything about Mallory, or what is happening to her, we see her in upstate New York, in a little road side diner. When a car pulls up outside, and Aaron (Channing Tatum) pulls up, she simply mutters “Shit”, and we know something bad is about to happen. After a tense conversation between the two, Aaron throws coffee in Mallory’s face, and the films first expert fistfight takes place between the two of them – with Mallory eventually winning, and hitting the road with a customer who helped her – Scott (Michael Angarano), who she tells her story to.

Soderbergh is a great director, who has said that following his epic masterpiece Che a few years ago, the desire to make “serious” movies left him, and now he just wants to make audience friendly thrillers. You can hardly blame him, as Che is one of the great accomplishments of his career – and no one seemed to notice. His last film, Contagion released just a few months ago, was an icy cold disease outbreak thriller – and was handled wonderfully. Now comes Haywire, which in the hands of another director could have easily been shit. But in the hands of Soderbergh, becomes one of the best action movies in recent memory. I imagine what Michael Bay would have done with the wonderful chase sequence through the streets and rooftops of Dublin – it would have been so rapidly edited, featured such loud, pulsating music that it would have been incoherent. But Soderbergh takes a different path – his shots last a long time in this sequence, you catch the glimpses of Mallory’s pursuers in the background, and when the fight scenes come, they are expertly choreographed, and done with a minimum of editing. Most action sequences in movies these days are incoherent and happen so fast that the audience never settles into them – never truly gets what is going on. But Soderbergh holds back – you not only see everything happening, in real time, but you hear it as well. Instead of loud, pulsating rock music, you get David Holmes playful score that often cuts out when the fights start, to better accent the groans of the combatants, the sound of punches and kicks being landed. When people fight in Haywire, it hurts. You also have to pay attention in Haywire, because Soderbergh adds so much detail in the background.

Soderbergh did a smart thing in the casting process. Knowing that Carano may not be the world’s best actress – although she holds her own in every scene, even the dialogue heavy ones – he casts great actors in every single other role. From Ewan McGregor as Mallory’s slimy boss and former boyfriend, to Michael Fassbender as a new partner who may or may not be trustworthy to Antonio Banderas as a Spanish government official to Michael Douglas as his American counterpart to Mathieu Kassovitz as a criminal to Michael Angarano as Mallory’s confidant to Bill Paxton as her father, the rest of the cast fills what could have been cookie cutter roles wonderfully, adding depth. Even Channing Tatum, who career has more bad performances than good ones, is quite good here as Aaron. Soderbergh takes his time with these characters – giving them enough space to breath. It is quite an ensemble cast for a movie like this.

Overall Haywire proves to be an early year highlight for 2012. Normally, unless you’re catching up with movies from the previous year, January is the worst month of the year for new releases, as we get movies that the studios simply dump into theatres to try and get a good weekend of opening grosses against soft competition. But Haywire is better than that. In fact, Haywire will most likely end up being one of the best action films of 2012.

Movie Review: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

2012-01-23T08:32:00.000-08:00

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close ***

Directed by: Stephen Daldry.

Written by: Eric Roth based on the book by Jonathan Safran Foer

Starring: Thomas Horn (Oskar Schell), Tom Hanks (Thomas Schell), Sandra Bullock (Linda Schell), Zoe Caldwell (Oskar's Grandmother), John Goodman (Stan the Doorman), Max von Sydow (The Renter), Viola Davis (Abby Black), Jeffrey Wright (William Black).

I’ve been trying to sort out my feelings about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close ever since I read the book a few months ago – and rather than clarifying my feelings on it, the movie version simply served to make them more complicated. I cannot argue with those who find either version an emotional tour de force, as the story certainly does certainly provoke a strong emotional response. Yet, I cannot also not really argue with its detractors, who find the story overly manipulative that simply exploits our existing emotional response to 9/11 and doesn’t really earn our tears, because to a certain extent, that is also true. If the book wasn’t as well written as it was – and if the movie wasn’t as skillfully put together and acted as it is – it would be easier to dismiss it, but because both versions are as well told as they are, I cannot simply write it off. I’m still not sure.

The movie centers on young Oskar Schell, played well by Thomas Horn, whose father Thomas (Tom Hanks) was trapped on the 106^th floor of one of the WTC Towers on September 11^th, and was killed. They have a funeral for him, even though they never found his body. Most of the action happens about a year after the attacks when Oskar is searching through his father’s things and discovers an envelope with one word written it – “Black” - with a key inside. Oskar is convinced the key will unlock something that his father wanted him to know. Since the word Black is capitalized, he assumes it refers to a name. So, he makes a list of all the people with the last name of Black in New York City – all 472 of them – and decides to visit them one at a time. Sooner or later, he thinks he’ll find the right Black which will lead him to the right lock.

So yes, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a fantasy. There is no one anywhere who would think it’s a good idea for a kid, who looks to be about 12 years old, to walk all over New York City by himself and introduce him to countless strangers. But if you are able to buy the concept of the film, you may find yourself uncommonly moved by it. The people named Black he meets represent a cross section of New Yorkers – all races, religions, colors, etc. and for the most part, they are nice to him. He tells them his story, and they cannot help but feel sorry for this odd little boy. He informs us in voiceover that he may have aspersers (the tests were “inconclusive”), so he is extremely intelligent, but lacks normal social skills – and losing his father has simply made things worse. He needs for everything to make sense, and he simply cannot make sense of what happened to his father. Why would people who didn’t even know him, let alone the others in the buildings and on the planes, kill him?

The film was directed by Stephen Daldry, who is no stranger to movies that evoke strong emotions, nor being criticized for making overly manipulative movies. All three of his previous films – Billy Elliot, The Hours and The Reader – all have very vocal supporters and detractors. He has always been skilled in working with actors, and here is no exception. Thomas Horn, who was discovered as a contestant on Jeopardy, delivers a good performance in a difficult role as a kid who lacks normal emotions, and yet has to evoke an emotional response from us – and he succeeds. Tom Hanks’ is the picture of perfect fatherhood – and you find yourself missing him, like Oskar does, when he’s not around. Sandra Bullock has a rather thankless role as the remaining parent – although she does get a good final scene, and does a fine job of it. Viola Davis, as the first Black Oskar visits, and Jeffrey Wright, as the last one, give depth to roles that could very easily been completely one note – once again showing why they are great actors. Best of all is Max von Sydow, known only as The Renter, who has moved in with Oskar’s grandma, and accompanies Oskar on some of his travels. He cannot, or perhaps simply will not, speak, and communicates solely through words written in a notebook, and the “yes” and “no” tattooed on his hands. Without an actor as great as Sydow, this role could have been insufferable, but he infuses it with great physical humor and grace. Sydow, one of the best actors in history, has delivered his best work in years here.

I am thankful that the movie eliminated some of the more troubling aspects of the novel – the Dresden and Hiroshima segments that simply did not work and felt unnecessary, and far too manipulative. This movie has its fair share of manipulation – and the films first image, of Hanks falling from the building, gets the movie off on the wrong note – too much too soon – but once the movie settles into its groove, its finds its footing.

The movie doesn’t necessarily play fair, only doling out information as it wants to, in order to extract the maximum emotional effect of every revelation – from the answering machines messages left by Hanks on the day of the attacks to Bullock’s final revelation. But it works, at least for this viewer. The movie did make me cry, on more than one occasion during its running time. The questions remains whether the movie actually earns those tears, or simply manipulates them out of you. And I have to be honest – I still don’t really know. The movie is made with skill, is well adapted by Eric Roth and is well acted its entire cast, so I decided to give the movie 3 stars. Yet, this is a movie that I know some viewers are going to love and some are going to hate – and I really cannot find fault with either of those opinions. This is a movie where you’ll simply have to decide for yourself.

Movie Review: A Separation

2012-01-23T08:31:00.000-08:00

A Separation ****

Directed by: Asghar Farhadi.

Written by: Asghar Farhadi.

Starring: Peyman Moaadi (Nader), Leila Hatami (Simin), Sareh Bayat (Razieh), Shahab Hosseini (Hodjat), Sarina Farhadi (Termeh), Merila Zare'i (Miss Ghahraii), Ali-Asghar Shahbazi (Nader's Father), Babak Karimi (Interrogator), Kimia Hosseini (Somayeh).

Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation is an Iranian film, firmly grounded in that country’s societal and legal systems, and yet as the movie progresses, it becomes a more universal story. It has a fascinating moral conflict at its heart and Farhadi only gradually reveals the full implications of what has happened. Some have called the film an Iranian Rashomon, and that is accurate to a point – throughout the movie, we do get to see everything from different viewpoints and as such the assumptions we developed earlier in the movie are challenged. It is impossible, at least for me, to determine who, if anyone was right and who was wrong. The bottom line however, is that lives are destroyed.

The film opens with Nader (Peyman Moaadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami) in front of a judge. They have been married for years, but now she wants a divorce. They had agreed to leave Iran to raise their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi – the director’s real life daughter) elsewhere, but now Nader’s father has become incapacitated with Alzheimer’s. Simin does not see how this should affect their plays – half the time, he doesn’t even realize who they are, so they can put him in a home. But Nader is refusing. And because this is Iran, the husband needs to give his consent for divorce – and he also gets to decide what happens to Termeh. And Nader is adamant – Termeh is staying with him.

Simin does move out of their apartment however, which forces Nader to hire some help. He works, and he cannot leave his father home alone. He hires Razieh (Sareh Bayat), who is pregnant and has a daughter Somayeh (Kimia Hosseini) who comes with her every day to work. Her husband is unemployed, so they need the money. Razieh is strictly religious, and her new job almost immediately causes a conflict for her when Nader’s father soils himself. It’s not right that she, a married woman, would be expected to clean up another man.

Things come to a head when Nader returns home early from work one day to find his father with one arm tied to his, lying on the floor, behind a locked door barely breathing, with Razieh nowhere to be found, and apparently some money missing from a drawer. Razieh shows up a short while later, and Nader is understandably upset. He yells at Razieh and refuses to pay her. She refuses to leave, and so, he shoves her out the door – and she falls down the stairs, which causes a miscarriage. Now, everyone has to go to another court – mirroring the separation proceedings that begin the film.

All of this happens fairly early in A Separation. It is what happens after the incident that makes up the heart of the movie. Smartly, Farhadi shoots the shoving incident in such a way that it is impossible to tell who is telling the truth about it. There was physical contact, but how much? How did she fall down the stairs, which were not directly in front of the door? Did Nader know that Razieh was pregnant? He says he didn’t, but she has witnesses that can vouch for the fact that he was in the room when she mentioned it to someone else. But was he listening?

The question of guilt or innocence becomes clouded, because there is so much else going on in the movie. Nader was upset – and rightfully so – that his father was left unattended, and as a result, almost died. But why did Razieh leave? And yet, the moral puzzle at the heart of A Separation is only one aspect. There is also the class struggle. Nader and Simin are obviously middle class – upper middle class perhaps – and the difference between their home, and the home that Razieh and her angry husband live in is striking. Is the court predisposed to believe Nader because he is of higher social standing?

A Separation may seem like an odd title for this movie, because the separation between Nader and Simin takes a backseat to the court hearing about the shoving. Yet, that separation is the reason the whole thing started in the first place. Tellingly, Farhadi opens and closes the movie with the couple at court trying to sort out their separation legally. A Separation is a film that at first is seemingly simple – but the further along it goes, the deeper it gets.

Oscar Nomination Predictions

2012-01-20T09:30:00.000-08:00

I have mentioned a few times this awards season that I am paying less attention to the race this year than I have in the past. And a strange thing has happened because I was paying less attention – I enjoyed it more. I haven’t been obsessing over who is going to be nominated, or decrying awards bodies when they don’t award my favorites this year, I’ve just sat back and watched it unfold. So while I’ve been less involved than ever in talking or even thinking about the Oscars this year, I have enjoyed it far more. Perhaps that’s a lesson to some of the bloggers and prognosticators who get so worked up over awards that they have no control over.

So, here they are – my Oscar nomination predictions ahead of Tuesday’s announcement. I have limited myself to 10 in each category – except for those categories with a shortlist that go above them (and one other category where I couldn’t decide). They are ranked in order of most to least likely nominees. I have provided a few comments for each category.

I will be back after the nominations to offer some thoughts.

Best Picture

1. The Artist

2. The Descendants

3. Hugo

4. The Help

5. Midnight in Paris

6. Moneyball

7. War Horse

8. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

9. The Tree of Life

10. Drive

The big question here is how many films are going to be nominated – it could be anywhere between 5 and 10. I think you’re probably going to see 7 or 8, but I could easily be wrong. The top 6 are fairly safe in my mind, with the next three battling it out for the final couple of slots, and number 10 lurking on the outside.

Director

1. Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

2. Martin Scorsese, Hugo

3. Alexander Payne, The Descendants

4. Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

5. Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

6. David Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

7. Steven Spielberg, War Horse

8. Nicholas Winding Refn, Drive

9. Bennett Miller, Moneyball

10. Asghar Farhadi, A Separation

You can take the top 3 to the bank. I think Allen gets in, as he has made his most loved film in years, and the directors have always loved him. I’m going out on a limb with Malick, especially with safer choices behind him. If there’s a shocker, it could easily be Iran’s Farhadi.

Best Actor

1. George Clooney, The Descendants

2. Jean Dujardin, The Artist

3. Brad Pitt, Moneyball

4. Leonardo DiCaprio, J. Edgar

5. Michael Fassbender, Shame

6. Michael Shannon, Take Shelter

7. Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

8. Demian Bichar, A Better Life

The top 3 are locked, and the only ones with a chance to win. The next three are fighting for two spots, and I could easily see any of them in or snubbed.

Best Actress

1. Viola Davis, The Help

2. Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

3. Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn

4. Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

5. Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

6. Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs

7. Charlize Theron, Young Adult

8. Elizabeth Olson, Martha March May Marlene

9. Kirsten Dunset, Melancholia

The top three are locks. I think the Academy will go darker with the final two nominees, but many think Glenn Close will squeeze in, and perhaps she will.

Best Supporting Actor

1. Christopher Plummer, Beginners

2. Albert Brooks, Drive

3. Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn

4. Jonah Hill, Moneyball

5. Nick Nolte, Warrior

6. Patton Oswalt, Young Adult

7. Amie Hamer in J. Edgar

8. Viggo Mortenson, A Dangerous Method

I waited all season for this category to get interesting, and it never really did. Plummer, Brooks, Plummer, Brooks all season long. I think you can count on Branagh, and Hill seems secure. After that though, I would love to see them go off board with a out of left field pick (Serkis, Pitt, Hawkes) – but they probably won’t.

Supporting Actress

1. Octavia Spencer, The Help

2. Jessica Chastain, The Help

3. Bernice Bejo, The Artist

4. Shaillene Woodley, The Descendants

5. Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs

6. Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

7. Carey Mulligan, Shame

8. Vanessa Redgrave, Coriolanus

I feel fairly safe in predicting the top 3, and I think Woodley should get spot four. After that it’s tough, though the Academy, who rarely responds to broad humor, is less likely than other groups to give it to McCarthy.

Best Original Screenplay

1. Midnight in Paris

2. The Artist

3. A Separation

4. Margin Call

5. Bridesmaids

6. Beginners

7. Win Win

8. The Tree of Life

9. Young Adult

10. 50/50

11. Take Shelter

After the top 2, this really is a free for all. I could see any 3 of the bottom 9 films on this list nominated.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. The Descendants

2. Moneyball

3. The Help

4. Hugo

5. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

7. The Ides of March

8. War Horse

9. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

10. Drive

You can count on the top three, but after that it gets murkier, and could go any number of ways.

Best Documentary

1. Project Nim

2. Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

3. Buck

4. Hell and Back Again

5. Pina

6. Bill Cunningham New York

7. We Were Here

8. Semper Fi

9. The Loving Story

10. Sing Your Song

11. Undefeated

12. Battle for Brooklyn

13. If a Tree Falls

14. Jane’s Journey

15. Under Fire

This branch continually has its head up its ass, so guessing what they’ll do is a crapshoot. But guess I did anyway.

Best Animated Film

1. Rango

2. The Adventures of Tintin

3. Puss in Boots

4. Arthur Christmas

5. Kung Fu Panda 2

6. Winnie the Pooh

7. Chico and Rita

8. Rio

9. Cars 2

10. Happy Feet 2

11. Alois Nebel

12. Gnomeo and Juliet

13. Wrinkles

14. A Cat in Paris

15. Mars Needs Moms

16. Hoodwinked 2

17. The Smurfs

18. Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked

Rango is locked, unless this branch continues its hate for motion capture, than so is Tintin. After that, pick your favorite between 3 and 6 ( I think there are only 3 nominee this year, right?)

Best Foreign Language Film

A Separation - Iran
In Darkness - Poland
Monsieur Lazhar – Canada
Pina – Germany
Footnote – Israel
Bullhead – Belgium
Omar Killed Me – Morocco
Superclasico – Denmark
Warriors of the Rainbow – Taiwan

Out of the 9 films shortlisted, I picked the five that I heard of – never a good way to predict, but as good as any other way I can think of.

Best Cinematography

1. The Artist

2. The Tree of Life

3. Hugo

4. War Horse

5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

6. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

8. Drive

Watch for Tinker or Harry to upset one of the frontrunners – but I have no idea which one.

Editing

1. The Artist

2. Hugo

3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

4. War Horse

5. Drive

6. Moneyball

7. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

8. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

9. The Tree of Life

Watch for Moneyball, which could very easily knock something above off – probably Drive, but I just have a gut feeling on that one.

Score

1. The Artist

2. War Horse

3. Hugo

4. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

5. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

6. The Adventures of Tin Tin

7. The Skin I Live In

8. The Help

9. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Going to be interesting what gets in to the fifth spot. I feel good about the other four.

Song

The Help – The Living Proof
The Muppets – Life’s a Happy Song
The Muppets – Pictures in My Head
Albert Nobbs – Lay Your Head Down
Captain American – Star Spangled Man
Gnomeo and Juliet – Hello Hello
The Muppets – Man or Muppet
Winnie the Pooh – So Long

Nobody knows nothing on this one. You just wait for the nominees to be announced.

Art Direction

The Artist
Hugo
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
The Tree of Life
The Help
War Horse
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
A Dangerous Method
Jane Eyre

Will Tree of Life make it as it should? Here’s hoping.

Costume Design

The Artist
Hugo
My Week with Marilyn
Jane Eyre
The Help
The Iron Lady
Anonymous
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Midnight in Paris
Captain America

I feel confident about my choices here, which is usually a sign I'm going to be way off.

Make-Up

The Iron Lady
Hugo
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
Albert Nobbs
Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life
The Artist
Anonymous

Apparently, I was the only one who thought J. Edgar contained some stunning work, which is why it was left off the shortlist. Other than Anonymous, I could see anything else get in here (and now, watch, Anonymous will get nominated).

Sound Mixing

Hugo
War Horse
Super 8
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Moneyball
The Adventures of Tintin
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

This could still go any number of ways, as the sound branch usually doesn’t care about the quality of the movie itself, just the sound work, which is both good and bad, I guess.

Sound Effects Editing

Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8
War Horse
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Adventures of Tintin
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Captain America
Hanna

At least when they had a shortlist, you could make an educated guess. Now, it’s just pure guesswork.

Visual Effects

Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Hugo
Captain America
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
The Tree of Life
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
X-Men: First Class
Real Steel

I’m going to stick with picking The Tree of Life to get a nomination, foolish as that may be.

Movie Review: A Dangerous Method

2012-01-18T07:55:00.001-08:00

A Dangerous Method ****

Directed by: David Cronenberg.

Written by: Christopher Hampton based on his play and the book by John Kerr.

Starring: Michael Fassbender (Carl Jung), Keira Knightley (Sabina Spielrein), Viggo Mortensen (Sigmund Freud), Vincent Cassel (Otto Gross), Sarah Gadon (Emma Jung).

Restrained is usually not a word one associates with David Cronenberg, but his latest film, A Dangerous Method, is just that. But that doesn’t mean that A Dangerous Method is a huge departure for Cronenberg, as the film certainly does address the same issues that have run through most of his work. Already, I’ve heard the film compared to everything in his oeuvre from Shivers to Rabid to Videodrome to Dead Ringers to Crash. Like those films, A Dangerous Method is about a conflict between the mind and the body, and about sexual repression and societal norms. Just because the outer veneer of A Dangerous Method suggests a typical costume drama, that doesn’t mean that underneath, there isn’t some Cronenbergian madness going on.

The film opens in 1904, with Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) being transported to Carl Jung’s Swiss institute. Jung has started to make a name for himself in the burgeoning field of psychoanalysis, as a protégé of Sigmund Freud, even though at this point the two have never met. Jung (Michael Fassbender) decides that Spielrein would make an excellent case study for him in trying to use Freud’s so called “talking cure”. The idea is, that instead of trying to drive the evil or illness out of the patient that doctor and patient simply talk, trying to get to the root of the patient’s problem. If the patient can understand their illness, then perhaps they can overcome it.

When Spielrein arrives, she seems, quite simply, insane. A bundle of violent energy and barely suppressed rage, she seems like a wild animal and Knightley’s performance verges on histrionics at times. Spielrein cannot control her twisted, sexual desires – is ashamed of them- mainly because she doesn’t understand them. Through the course of her therapy with Jung, she learns their root causes, and how to deal with them so she can be a productive member of society. Two years later, Jung has essentially transformed into her mentor, as she is going to school to be a psychiatrist also. Her dark sexual desires remain however, and she starts to draw Jung into them as well. She lets him know that should he ever want to, she is available to him. By this time, Jung has become even more famous, and starts to correspond with Freud, who views Jung as his heir apparent. Freud is aging, and likes Jung for several reasons – not least of which is because he is Protestant, and as such, won’t be as easily dismissed as he, and the other Jews in Vienna expounding the same ideas, have been. There is a marvelous sequence where Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Jung talk for hours on end about their ideas. They agree on a lot of things, but also in that conversation are the seeds of the disagreements that will eventually drive them apart. Freud wants psychoanalysis to remain firmly rooted in science, while Jung wants to take into a more spiritual direction. Spielrein will in effect be the focal point of two triangles in the film – the more traditional romantic triangle between Jung, herself and Jung’s button down wife once their affair gets started in earnest, and the less traditional one in terms of psychoanalytic ideas between Jung, Freud and herself.

The movie was written by Christopher Hampton, based on his own play. Its stage roots are evident, in that nearly every scene in the movie is essentially a two hander. Jung and Spielrein’s scenes have a buried sexual intensity to them. Jung and Freud’s scenes start out almost father-son like, move into a thinly veiled rivalry, and move into outright contempt. Scenes between Jung and his wife are the air of civility but contain buried jealously and resentment. There are also a few scenes between Jung and Otto Gross, his rival for the title of Freud’s heir apparent. It is Gross who expounds a theory of complete freedom – rejecting monogamy and encouraging Jung to do whatever he wants. Without Gross, Jung probably never would have crossed the line with Spielrein.

Because the movie is made up of these conversations, the performances are more important than ever before in a Cronenberg movie. Knightly comes very close to going too far over the top in her early scenes. As the movie progresses, she gets better, as she becomes an object for Freud to poke at Jung, even while she tries to remain loyal to him. Mortenson is having a blast as Freud – it is a largely comedic performance – as he wields his wit and cleverness as a weapon. Covered in makeup, Mortenson doesn’t allow that to get in the way of his performance, and for the third straight Cronenberg movie, Mortensen delivers an excellent performance. Vincent Cassell, so great in Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises, makes the most of his few short scenes in this movie. He’s almost like that little devil that see sitting on the shoulders of cartoon characters, whispering evil things in Jung’s ear. Sarah Gadon has the rather thankless role of Jung’s prim and proper wife, but in her few short scenes; you realize both why Jung is committed to her, and why he may want out. At the center of the whole movie however is Michael Fassbender’s Jung, who maintains a veneer of civility and properness in every one of his scenes, even while he is suffering inner torment. The only time he lets loose at all, is in his sex scenes with Knightley. His performance reminded me of Daniel Day-Lewis’ brilliant turn in Martin Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence (another film by a famous director that looks so different on the surface from his other films, but it is really a continuation of his work), where he buried his sexual appetites because of what everyone else thinks. Jung, it seems, isn’t quite as strong as Archer.

A Dangerous Method is an interesting, engrossing film from beginning to end. I don’t know what audiences will make of it – it is a cold film that keeps you at arm’s length, and never really tells you who is right and who is wrong. It allows you to figure that out for yourself. For the Cronenberg fans who have been waiting for him to return to his wilder films, they’ll have to wait a little longer at least. A Dangerous Method is Cronenberg’s most restrained film. And yet, it’s still a Cronenberg film to its very core.

Movie Review: Cafe de Flore

2012-01-18T07:54:00.001-08:00

Café de Flore *** ½

Directed by: Jean-Marc Vallée.

Written by: Jean-Marc Vallée.

Starring: Vanessa Paradis (Jacqueline), Kevin Parent (Antoine Godin), Hélène Florent (Carole), Evelyne Brochu (Rose), Marin Gerrier (Laurent), Alice Dubois (Véronique), Evelyne de la Chenelière (Amélie), Michel Dumont (Julien Godin), Linda Smith (Louise Godin), Joanny Corbeil-Picher (Juliette), Rosalie Fortier (Angéline), Michel Laperrière (Le psychologue), Caroline Bal (La mère de Véronique), Nicolas Marié (Le père de Véronique).

After Jean-Marc Valle made his breakthrough hit, C.R.A.Z.Y., a semi-autobiographical movie about being a gay teenager in 1970s Quebec, Hollywood came calling, and he went off and made the period film The Young Victoria. I liked that movie, but it didn’t have the same energy that C.R.A.Z.Y. had – it didn’t even really feel like it was made by the same director, and I worried that this great, young Canadian filmmaker was going to get lost in Hollywood. But his new film, Café de Flore – his best yet – erases those doubts. This is the film I expected him to make as his follow-up to C.R.A.Z.Y.

The film follows two different story tracks, and for most of the movie, you wonder how he’s going to bring them together, if he’s going to at all. In one, Vanessa Paradis plays Jacqueline, a young mother in 1960s Paris, who husband walks out on her and their new born son when they find out he has Down syndrome. This doesn’t deter her at all – she is determined to ensure that her son Laurent (Marin Gerrier) lives a long and happy life. The two are devoted to each other, and shut out the rest of the world. That is until a new girl, who also has Down syndrome, joins his class, and the two seven year olds develop an even deeper attachment to each other. This doesn’t sit well with Jacqueline at all.

In the other, it’s modern day Montreal, and Antoine (Kevin Parent) has every reason to be happy. He has a job he loves – as a DJ – he has two beautiful daughters, and he is hopelessly in love with Rose (Evelyne Brochu). The problem is that Rose is not the mother of his kids – that’s Carole (Helene Florent), and she and Antoine had been together since they were teenagers. They thought they were each other soul mates – and Antoine was happy until he met Rose, who he now thinks is his soul mate. But if you can replace one soul mate with another, what does that say about the entire concept?

For much of the movie, we assume that these are not two separate stories of love and loss running parallel to each other – both about a relationship where one of the partners was completely fulfilled by the relationship, but the other looks outside of that relationship and forms another, deeper connection. Yes, one is about the love between a mother and her son, and the other about a husband and wife, but love is love.

But there are two many connections, that Vallee draws subtlety, between these two stories for it to be that simple. Vallee uses both visual and musical cues to let us know there is a deeper connection between these two stories. When he finally draws them together, the result is both stunning, and yet not entirely convincing. If you stay through the credits, Vallee provides more visual information, but I’m not sure it makes it any clearer – nor is that the purpose. I walked out of Café de Flore with my head spinning – not entirely sure what I had witnessed, or entirely sure how to process it, but knowing that I quite liked it.

The performances in the movie are quite good as well. Kevin Parent, who from what I understand is a singer/songwriter who has never acted before, proves to be a natural as Antoine – torn apart by his decision, but determined to make the best of it, and be happy. As his ex-wife, Helene Florent is even better – angry and bitter, but still in love with the man who has been everything to her for decades. Vanessa Paradis is brittle and increasingly insecure as Jacqueline, who also sees her world slipping away. These three make up the heart of the movie, and do an excellent job.

I hope that Vallee continues to make films like this. I still don’t feel as if he has a made a perfect one, but the skill and the ambition is there for him to do so. Even if he goes back to Hollywood in the future, I hope he retains what it is about his films that make them so special – so uniquely his.

My Annual Genie's Post

2012-01-17T19:46:00.000-08:00

E very year when the Genie Nominations are announced, I try and see as many of the films that are nominated as possible - but I usually peter out before the ceremony itself. This year, I think it will be different. For one thing, I have already seen three of the Best Picture Nominees (A Dangerous Method, Cafe de Flore and The Whistleblower - look for my review tomorrow of the first two, check the archives for The Whistleblower), and can see another, Starbuck, this weekend as it is available on DVD. The fifth nominee, Monsieur Lazhar, will come to a theater near me in February, and I was already planning on checking it out.

The other reason why I don't think I'll peter out this year, is because most of the major nominees come from these five films - or else are not available to me anyway. The five best picture nominees contain 12 of the 20 acting nominees. I've already seen another of the acting nominees - Garret Dillahunt in Oliver Sherman - and another, Taylor Kitsch in The Bang Bang Club is already available on DVD. Three of the remaining acting nominees come from Edwin Boyd: Citizen Gangster, which is not available, so I have no idea when I can see it. The other three are Best Actress nominees from Nuit #1, The Girl in the White Coat and Take This Waltz, which are also not available.

Out of the "below the line nominees" I have seen Daydream Nation, and can see Funkytown, as it is available on DVD. The rest, as far as I know anyway, are not available, so I don't have a chance to see them.

I cannot say I was surprised at the nominees. A Dangerous Method is the best Canadian Film of the year, from the best Canadian director of all time, so it makes sense that it got the second most nominations of any film. Cafe de Flore is the second best, and comes from the beloved Jean-Marc Vallee, rebounding from his dull English language feature The Young Victoria to return to the type of film that made his year (like CRAZY), so the fact that it led the nominees is also not surprising. Monsieur Lazhar is Canada's entry into the Foreign Language Oscar race this year, so you knew it would be a major nominee. The Whistleblower is a strong, gut wrenching film, starring an Oscar winner (Rachel Weisz), so it was bound to be a nominee. And Starbuck was an audience friendly Quebec hit, starring their biggest star Patrick Huard.

The two biggest surprises for me both involve Sarah Polley's Take This Waltz. First, I didn't know it was eligble, since it didn't receive a theatrical release, at least as far as I know. And second, since it was eligible, how poorly it did - just picking up two nominations. I heard nothing but great things coming out TIFF this year about the film, and given how the Genies fell head over heels in love with Away From Her, Polley's first film, I thought it would be a major player. Apparently not.

Out of the nominees I did see, I am happy that A Dangerous Method and Cafe de Flore did so well. Both are among the best films of 2011 - Canadian or not. I liked, but did not love The Whistleblower, but it's a valid nominee - and I love how they nominated Roxana Cordurache for her great performance. I also love that they nominated Garret Dillahunt, whose performance was stronger than the movie itself in Oliver Sherman.

Brief, preliminary winner predictions. Cafe de Flore will take picture and director, Fellag will win Best Actor for Monsieur Lazhar, Vanessa Paradis will win best actress for Cafe de Flore, Viggo Mortenson will win supporting actor for A Dangerous Method, and Helene Florent will win supporting actress for Cafe de Flore. Yes, I think they'll go for Cafe over A Dangerous Method - they have shown some reluctance to award Cronenberg too much in recent years.

Anyway, watch for reviews of some of these films in the coming weeks. As mentioned before, The Whistleblower, Daydream Nation and Oliver Sherman already have reviews ib this site and A Dangerous Method and Cafe de Flore will be up tomorrow. The rest that I can see will trickle in over the next few weeks.The nominees are:

Best Picture

Café de Flore
A Dangerous Method
Monsieur Lazhar
Starbuck
The Whistleblower

Director

David Cronenberg, A Dangerous Method
Phillippe Falardeau, Monsieur Lazhar
Larysa Kondracki, The Whistleblower
Scott Silver, The Bang Bang Club
Jean-Marc Valle, Café de Flore

Actor

Garrett Dillahunt, Oliver Sherman
Michael Fassbender, A Dangerous Method
Fellag, Monsieur Lazhar
Patrick Huard, Starbuck
Scott Speedman, Edwin Boyd: Citizen Gangster

Actress

Catherine De Lean, Nuit #1
Pascale Montpetit, The Girl in the White Coat
Vanessa Paradis, Café de Flore
Rachel Weisz, The Whistleblower
Michelle Williams, Take This Waltz

Supporting Actor
Antoine Bertrand, Starbuck
Kevin Durand, Edwin Boyd: Citizen Gangster
Marin Gerrier, Café de Flore
Taylor Kitsch, The Bang Bang Club
Viggo Mortenson, A Dangerous Method

Supporting Actress
Roxana Cordurache, The Whistleblower
Helene Florent, Café de Flore
Julie Lebreton, Starbuck
Sophie Nelisse, Monsieur Lazhar
Charlotte Sullivan, Edwin Boyd: Citizen Gangster

Original Screenplay

Café de Flore
Nuit #1
Son of the Sunshine
Starbuck
The Whistleblower

Adapted Screenplay

The Bang Bang Club
In Darkness
Monsieur Lazhar
Oliver Sherman

Cinematography

The Bang Bang Club
Café de Flore
Daydream Nation
Monsieur Lazhar
Snow and Ashes

Editing

A Dangerous Method
In Darkness
Jaloux
Monsieur Lazhar
The Year Dolly Parton Was My Mom

Art Direction

The Bang Bang Club
Café de Flore
A Dangerous Method
Edwin Boyd: Citizen Gangster
Funkytown

Costume Design

Afghan Luke
Café de Flore
A Dangerous Method
Funkytown
Keyhole

Score

The Bang Bang Club
A Dangerous Method
Jaloux
Monsieur Lazhar
The Whistleblower

Song

Cloudburst – My Love My Love
French Immersion – A Different Sort of Solitude
Funkytown – Waiting For Your Touch
Good Neighbours – Oeil Pour Oeil
Starbuck – Quelque Part

Sound

The Bang Bang Club
Café de Flore
A Dangerous Method
Monsieur Lazhar
Wetlands

Sound Editing
Café de Flore
A Dangerous Method
In Darkness
Wetlands
You Are Here

Makeup

Amazon Falls
Bumrush
Café de Flore
Snow and Ashes
Take This Waltz

Visual Effects

Bumrush
Café de Flore
A Dangerous Method
Edwin Boyd: Citizen Gangster
Snow and Ashes

Documentary

At Night They Dance
Beauty Day
Family Portrait in Black and White
The Guantanamo Trap
Wiebo’s War

Movie Review: The Iron Lady

2012-01-17T07:24:00.000-08:00

The Iron Lady **

Directed by: Phyllida Lloyd.

Written by: Abi Morgan.

Starring: Meryl Streep (Margaret Thatcher), Jim Broadbent (Denis Thatcher), Susan Brown (June),

Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Susie), Iain Glen (Alfred Roberts), Alexandra Roach (Young Margaret Thatcher), Olivia Colman (Carol Thatcher), Harry Lloyd (Young Denis Thatcher), Amanda Root (Amanda), Nicholas Farrell (Airey Neave), John Sessions (Edward Heath), Anthony Head (Geoffrey Howe), Richard E. Grant (Michael Heseltine), Angus Wright (John Nott), Roger Allam (Gordon Reece).

Margaret Thatcher was one of the most powerful and controversial women of the 20^th Century. The first woman elected to be Prime Minister of England in 1979, who won three times, and was loved and hated in equal doses during her political career – and remains so today. A biopic of her should be fascinating – a must for political junkies like myself. But The Iron Lady isn’t fascinating at all. It is poorly written and directed, and despite an amazing performance by Meryl Streep in the lead role, ultimately a bore. The filmmakers don’t seem to have any opinion about Thatcher at all, and worse yet, they provide no insights into her as either a person or a politician. They spend more time showing Thatcher as an old woman, inflicted with Alzheimer’s, dottering around her house, talking to her dead husband, than on any other aspect of her life and career. Is that really the most interesting part of Margaret Thatcher’s life?

Among the things you won’t see in The Iron Lady is how she won her seat in Parliament in 1959 (not an easy feat for a woman at that time), how she got selected for a Cabinet position, how she won the leadership of her party, how she won any of her three elections to be Prime Minster or how she was forced out by her own party (which gets a few cursory scenes, but if you buy the reasoning that she was forced out because she yelled at a underling, you’re more willing to suspend disbelief than I am). Her conflict with the IRA is mentioned in passing, including the hunger strikes, the riots that followed her deep spending cuts are shown, but with little context. The decision to go to war over the Falkland islands is given the most screen time of anything she does as Prime Minister, and even that barely scratches the surface.

What of her private life? We see a scene when she first leaves home to go to Parliament where her children literally run after the car for a ridiculously long time telling her not to go, one scene where her husband Dennis (Jim Broadbent) gets angry at her for putting her family second to her career, and that’s about it.

It seems to me that the filmmakers couldn’t decide on what to cover about Thatcher, her life or career, so they try to cover it all in only the broadest of strokes. There is zero insight into who she was as a person or a politician. A good movie about Thatcher could have painted her as a hero, like many on the right saw her, or as a villain, as many on the left did. A great movie could have shown both of those sides. Margaret Thatcher was a politician that everyone had a strong opinion of. The filmmakers don’t seem to have any opinion at all.

Somehow, through it all, Meryl Streep delivers a great performance. She nails Thatcher’s voice, and commands the same authority that she did. She holds your attention for every second of the movie. Equally good at being the screeching politician in the House of Commons she was often accused of, as she is at commanding authority in a room full of men who look down at her, to being a woman who doesn’t always remember where she is, or what she’s doing, Streep is once again, brilliant. If someone wanted to make another, better biopic of Margaret Thatcher, they should again try and get Streep to play the role. There is a great performance in there for her to deliver, and she shows here she is more than capable of doing so.

But The Iron Lady isn’t that movie. It doesn’t deserve Streep’s performance, because the film has nothing at all interesting to say about her. Who the hell looks at the life of Margaret Thatcher, arguably the most powerful woman of the 20^th Century, and decides that the most interesting thing about her is that late in life her mind started to go? Apparently, the filmmakers behind this movie.

DVD Review: Aurora

2012-01-17T07:23:00.000-08:00

Aurora ****

Directed by: Cristi Puiu.

Written by: Cristi Puiu

Starring: Cristi Puiu (Viorel), Clara Voda (Gina Filip), Catrinel Dumitrescu (Mrs. Livinski), Luminita Gheorghiu (Mioara Avram), Valentin Popescu (Doru).

We have been trained by the movies to expect answers to everything – even the most complex of issues. If a movie raises a question, than it must answer it, it should never leave us as the audience in the dark. Cristi Puiu’s Aurora flies in the face of those expectations. Eventually, it will provide at least some cursory answers to what happened in the movie and why, but when they come, they are unsatisfying – and that’s the entire point. This is a movie about a man who kills four people, and yet provides no reason why until the last few minutes of it’s over three hour running time. To some, this will make Aurora the most frustrating movie of 2011. To me, it makes it the best foreign language film of the year.

Writer/director Cristi Puiu also has the lead role in Aurora. He plays a man named Viorel, who stalks the streets of Bucharest, looking angry. He lives alone in an apartment he says he is renovating, and yet he never seems to do any work on it. Instead, he has stripped the walls, and lives in the apartment which is pretty much bare. When people come over to remove some of the things, he gets angry – he wants to ensure that they do not take “his” stuff, and just the stuff he tells them they can. He goes out into the streets every day – we get the impression that he may well have recently lost his job, since he never goes to work, but we do see clean out his locker - and what for most people would be minor annoyances really agitate him. As he waits for his leftovers in a restaurant to be wrapped for example, and stares down the woman who has told him to wait a minute, the look in his eyes is chilling. He’s sizing her up, and she doesn’t realize it.

We see Viorel do a lot of things – wait in a parking lot for a glimpse at a woman and her kids, buying a shotgun and testing it out. And finally, at around the half way point, we will see him go into a parking garage, assemble that shotgun and murder two people we have not seen before. Why does he do this? Who are these people? If you want to know, you have to wait until the end, and even then, you probably won’t be satisfied.

Aurora takes the crime movie and turns it on its head. Most of the time, when we see people murdered in the movies (and how many hundreds of those do we see a year), there is a specific motive for the crime – whether it’s personal vengeance, or anger, or profit, etc. There is a clear line between the murder itself and the motive. But Aurora is different, because the motive for the crimes is clear only to the warped protagonist. These are not random crimes, not a man who has snapped, and is killing without reason, nor is he a serial killer who kills for his own sexual gratification. He has a motive for the crime, but it’s one that only makes sense to him. How many crimes out like this do we hear about all the time?

But beyond a portrait of a warped individual, Aurora is a portrait of a city and a country that is damaged as well. It has been more than 20 years since the fall of Communism is Romania, more than 20 years since they got out from underneath their brutal dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and yet the remnants of those days remain. This is the third of Puiu’s series of moral tales in post Communist Romania (following Stuff & Dough, which I missed and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, about a man who is dying, and is shipped from hospital to hospital due to bureaucracy, until he dies, which is more convenient for everyone else). The point, I think, is to show that the fall of Communism, while important, can only change things so much. For Viorel, he was supposed to have it all – the good job, the wife and kids, but his wife has left him, taken the kids, and now he’s stuck in the rundown apartment, probably without a job. Have things really improved?

Puiu’s style is as deliberate as his pacing. His camera barely moves, and when it does, its mainly slow pans, which are used just to keep the characters in the frame. There is little in scene editing in the film, and Puiu is content to observe this man, and the city and country he lives in, and portray it as dark as it is. By the time you get to the end of Aurora, you may well be exhausted. Aurora is not an easy movie – but it is a great one.

DVD Review: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

2012-01-17T07:22:00.000-08:00

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark **

Directed by: Troy Nixey.

Written by: Guillermo del Toro & Matthew Robbins based on the teleplay by Nigel McKeand.

Starring: Katie Holmes (Kim), Guy Pearce (Alex), Bailee Madison (Sally), Jack Thompson (Harris), Garry McDonald (Blackwood), Julia Blake (Mrs. Underhill).

The haunted house is a staple of horror movies. The bigger and older the house, the spookier it is. And the house in Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark certainly qualifies. Not only is it old and dilapidated, but it also has a hidden basement, that they have to break down a wall to discover. And of course, no haunted house would be complete without an old handyman warning the residents to be careful – there is something not right about this house. We know the handyman is right, because in the movie’s first scene – set 100 years before the rest of the movie, we see a famed painter go crazy, and smash out a poor woman’s teeth before killing her. Something is not right indeed.

Co-written and produced by horror master Guillermo Del Toro, based on a 1973 film of the same name, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark has all the elements to make a good haunted house movie, but never really comes together. Yes, the opening scene is spooky, and when we flash forward 100 years, the first few scenes there are effective as well. Sally (Bailee Madison), a smart, but spooky looking, little girl is being sent by her mother to live with her father Alex (Guy Pearce) and his new girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes). They have bought the old rundown house, and have sunk all their money into restoring it for profit (in this housing market? They must be insane!) Sally has barely moved in when she starts hearing voices calling to her. But where are they coming from? It’s not until they find the basement, and the ash pit found there, that she can pinpoint the voices.

This setup is effective. The voices are creepy, and the house has a tremendous atmosphere. You feel like a good horror movie is going to take place here – even if the human conflicts (Sally resents Kim, Alex preaches patience to his new girl, a big dinner party that will make them or break them is coming up, etc.) are not all that interesting. Madison does a good job for a kid in a horror movie – she seems haunted, not just by the house, but as if she was damaged when she got there. And Katie Holmes, an actress I usually don’t like, is fine as well. Guy Pearce is going through the motions however.

To me though, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark goes off the rails when we discover what exactly is making those voices. I’m not going to tell you, because I didn’t know going in, and if the movie is going to work for you, it’s probably best not to know. What I will say is that the source of the voices is fairly ridiculous, and to me undermined the other fine qualities of the movies. After knowing where the voices come from, it really became impossible for me to take the movie all that seriously.

Debut director Troy Nixey handles the atmosphere well in the movie though. I have a feeling if Del Toro had given him a better script, he could have made a better movie. But as it stands Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark gave me no reason to be scared at all – and that’s a shame.

Top 10 List Survery Results

2012-01-16T12:27:00.000-08:00

Every year since 1998 I have "collected" film critics year end top lists, and then quantified the results. The process is simple - for every list, the number 1 film on the list gets 10 points, number 2 gets 9 points, etc down to #10 getting 1 point. if you don't number your list, each film gets 5.5 points. If there is a tie, then each film gets half the points (I hate ties - it's a top 10 list, not a top 11 list). This year's survey is now done - and includes 650 lists. The results are below (the first number is the number of lists, the second the number of #1 placements, the third the total points. It's not an easy format to read, so if you want an Excel version or a Word list of the individual lists, leave me your e-mail address in the Comments Section, or send me an e-mail, and I will forward it to you).

I try to cover all the major critics I can. If they had a list in the Village Voice, Indie Wire or Film Comment surveys, they are included. I then took as many other professional critics lists as I could, as well as bloggers. Essentially, if you made a list, I tried to find it.

The winner is probably no surprise - The Tree of Life, which dominated with 293 lists, 72 #1s and a total of 2,007.5 points. As great as this is, it doesn't come close to matching The Social Network, last year's champ (469 lists, 127 #1 and 3,433 points). Last year, there was consensus, this year not so much. Rounding out the top 10 was Drive (257 lists, 51 #1, 1659 points), The Artist (234 lists, 52 #1, 1581.5 points), The Descendants (214 lists, 21 #1, 1363 points), Hugo (202, 23, 1214.5), Melancholia (184, 37, 1212.5), A Separation (151, 11, 932.5), Midnight in Paris (156, 6, 799), Moneyball (147, 6, 736.5) and Take Shelter (122, 10, 713).

In case you're wondering, yes, my own top 10 list is coming (hopefully next week after I see Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Coriolanus), but the reason it's late, is because I do my best to catch up with the films that do well on this survey (top 50 or so). Out of the top 50, I have seen all but four - #23 Margaret, which I have no idea when I'll get a chance to see, #28 Weekend, ditto, #33 The Interrupters, which is apparently airing on CBC on January 28th (and as such, I'll hold back my top docs list until after that) and #38 Le Havre, which I will most likely see in February. No, I haven't reviewed all the other films in the top 50 - but they will come shortly.

I love doing this list, more so than watching all the awards of the season, because whenever a group gets together and votes, their choices become safer. When it's your own list, you can put whatever the hell you want on there.

Some things to note: No, I have not heard of all the films on this list. There are 550 after all, and one thing I have noticed over the years is that if you make a film, the chances are someone will put it on their list at the end of the year. I think some of the films here only played a few film festivals, and I think some are art installations (The Clock, a 24 hour one being the highest ranking one at 111). Out of the 550 films on this list, I have seen just 180 - including 46 of the top 50 and 85 of the top 100. But even after my own list is posted next week, I will continue to watch movies from 2011 - I have found in the past few years that no matter how many films I see in a given year, there are still ones that I have should have seen that I missed.

Also, because I collect lists from people outside of North America, as well as inside, there are some holdovers from last year (#76 Black Swan, #80 Blue Valentine, #96 The King's Speech #98 Animal Kingdom made the top 100, largely because of British critics), and some that have not been released here yet and will likely do much better on next year's list (#84 Kill List, #85 The Kid with the Bike, #88 The Turin Horse, #101 This is Not a Film and #102 Once Upon a Time in Anatolia for example. Last year, Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives ranked #46 and Film Socialisme ranked #76 for example, and both were in the top 50 this year, when they got a proper North American release).

Anyway, it's over now for another year. And here are the results:

Film Lists # 1 Points

1 The Tree of Life 293 72 2,007.5
2 Drive 257 51 1,659.0
3 The Artist 234 52 1,581.5
4 The Descendants 214 21 1,363.0
5 Hugo 202 24 1,214.5
6 Melancholia 184 37 1,212.5
7 A Separation 151 11 932.5
8 Midnight in Paris 156 6 799.0
9 Moneyball 147 6 746.5
10 Take Shelter 122 10 713.0
11 Shame 113 12 711.0
12 Certified Copy 101 12 651.0
13 Tinker, Tailor, Solider Spy 112 7 644.5
14 Martha Marcy May Marlene 122 7 643.0
15 Bridesmaids 115 6 563.5
16 Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives 89 15 552.5
17 Beginners 100 5 522.0
18 The Skin I Live In 89 2 521.5
19 We Need to Talk About Kevin 93 7 498.0
20 Mysteries of Lisbon 73 11 495.5
21 Meek's Cutoff 81 8 485.5
22 The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 76 2 384.0
23 Margaret 57 10 375.0
24 50/50 66 3 355.5
25 A Dangerous Method 61 4 347.5
26 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II 66 8 338.5
27 Rise of the Planet of the Apes 73 1 321.0
28 Weekend 64 4 316.5
29 Poetry 50 6 299.0
30 Margin Call 61 4 293.5
31 Win Win 62 1 272.5
32 War Horse 52 3 272.5
33 The Interrupters 47 3 261.0
34 Attack the Block 61 2 255.5
35 Warrior 54 3 252.5
36 The Help 48 3 252.0
37 Young Adult 55 - 246.0
38 Le Havre 48 4 242.5
39 Cave of Forgotten Dreams 44 2 227.5
40 Nostalgia for the Light 39 7 222.0
41 The Muppets 43 1 219.0
42 Film Socialisme 29 12 215.5
43 Le Quattro Volte 29 1 214.0
44 Rango 49 1 207.5
45 Of Gods and Men 34 2 198.5
46 Super 8 47 2 198.0
47 13 Assassins 35 2 197.5
48 The Guard 39 1 197.0
49 Project Nim 35 1 186.0
50 The Arbor 35 - 178.0
51 The Trip 34 1 174.0
52 Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close 27 3 163.5
53 The Ides of March 31 3 155.5
54 A Brighter Summer Day 19 8 155.0
55 Contagion 37 - 152.5
56 The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausecu 26 - 152.5
57 Bellflower 37 2 151.5
58 Source Code 31 2 147.5
59 Like Crazy 26 2 147.0
60 Incendies 28 2 146.0
61 Senna 27 2 146.0
62 Hanna 33 - 145.5
63 Jane Eyre 27 - 145.5
64 X-Men: First Class 32 2 144.0
65 Submarine 27 2 139.0
66 The Future 30 3 132.5
67 I Saw the Devil 26 - 129.5
68 Tuesday, After Christmas 25 1 124.5
69 My Week with Marilyn 26 - 120.5
70 Bill Cunningham New York 20 2 119.0
71 City of Life and Death 19 3 118.0
72 Crazy Stupid Love 24 1 113.5
73 The Adventures of Tintin 30 1 108.0
74 House of Pleasures 22 2 105.0
75 Another Earth 21 - 101.0
76 Black Swan 15 1 95.0
77 Cold Weather 18 1 93.0
78 To Die Like a Man 15 - 92.0
79 Pina 19 2 90.0
80 Blue Valentine 14 2 87.5
81 J. Edgar 19 - 80.5
82 Pariah 20 - 80.0
83 Into the Abyss 19 - 80.0
84 Kill List 13 1 78.0
85 The Kid with the Bike 15 - 77.5
86 Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol 27 - 76.5
87 Aurora 13 2 71.5
88 The Turin Horse 9 1 71.5
89 Higher Ground 14 1 69.5
90 Road to Nowhere 13 2 65.5
91 Tomboy 11 2 65.5
92 Buck 11 1 63.5
93 The Time That Remains 10 1 60.0
94 Super 13 - 57.5
95 Insidious 10 1 56.5
96 The King`s Speech 11 - 54.5
97 Coriolanus 10 1 54.5
98 Animal Kingdom 9 1 54.5
99 Captain America 13 - 51.5
100 Carnage 12 - 51.5
101 This is Not a Film 9 1 51.5
102 Once Upon a Time in Anatolia 8 2 50.5
103 The Last Circus 9 - 49.5
104 Tabloid 12 - 49.0
105 We Were Here 12 - 49.0
106 Extraordinary Stories 9 - 49.0
107 Faust 8 1 49.0
108 A Better Life 10 - 48.5
109 The Fighter 8 - 46.0
110 Essential Killing 8 - 44.5
111 The Clock 5 3 43.5
112 Being Elmo 7 - 42.5
113 Kung Fun Panda 2 7 - 42.5
114 United Red Army 10 1 42.0
115 The Mill and the Cross 10 - 41.5
116 True Grit 9 - 40.5
117 Winnie the Pooh 10 - 38.0
118 Cedar Rapids 8 - 37.5
119 Mildred Pierce 5 - 37.5
120 Fright Night 7 - 37.0
121 Tyrannosaur 12 - 36.5
122 Sleeping Beauty 5 - 35.0
123 The Devil's Double 6 - 33.5
124 Go Go Tales 7 - 33.0
125 Snowtown 6 - 33.0
126 Bombay Beach 6 1 32.0
127 Rampart 6 - 32.0
128 Terri 8 - 31.5
129 The Princess of Montipensier 6 - 31.5
130 Red State 10 - 31.0
131 Hell and Back Again 6 - 31.0
132 The Adjustment Bureau 12 - 30.5
133 Rubber 8 1 30.0
134 Putty Hill 9 - 29.5
135 El Sicario, Room 164 6 - 29.0
136 Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows 5 - 27.5
137 Conan O'Brien Can't Stop 6 - 27.0
138 Hesher 5 - 27.0
139 Miss Bala 4 - 27.0
140 Anonymous 6 - 26.5
141 Trollhunter 6 - 26.0
142 Blackthorn 5 - 26.0
143 Hobo with a Shotgun 7 - 25.5
144 Petition 4 - 25.0
145 A Screaming Man 6 - 24.5
146 3 5 - 24.5
147 The Double Hour 4 - 24.5
148 127 Hours 4 - 24.0
149 Better This World 4 1 23.5
150 Café de Flore 4 - 23.5
151 Biutiful 4 1 23.0
152 Agrarian Utopia 4 - 23.0
153 Love Exposure 5 - 22.0
154 The Deep Blue Sea 5 - 22.0
155 Kaboom 4 1 21.0
156 The Strange Case of Angelika 4 - 21.0
157 Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame 5 - 20.5
158 The Black Power Mixtape 5 - 20.5
159 Another Year 4 - 20.5
160 The Way 5 1 20.0
161 The Beaver 5 - 20.0
162 In the Land of Blood and Honey 4 - 20.0
163 How to Die in Oregon 3 1 20.0
164 The Sky Turns 2 2 20.0
165 The Sleeping Beauty 4 - 19.0
166 Limitless 4 - 17.5
167 Tucker and Dale vs. Evil 6 - 16.5
168 Oslo, August 31 3 - 16.5
169 The Mouth of the Wolf 4 1 16.0
170 Wuthering Heights 3 1 16.0
171 Barney's Version 2 1 16.0
172 The Journals of Musan 2 1 16.0
173 The Tiniest Place 2 1 16.0
174 The Flowers of War 2 - 16.0
175 Armadillo 3 - 15.5
176 Resurrect Dead 3 - 15.5
177 We Bought a Zoo 6 - 15.0
178 Fast Five 4 - 15.0
179 Psychohydrography 4 - 15.0
180 The Illusionist 4 - 15.0
181 Leap Year 3 - 15.0
182 3 Backyards 2 - 15.0
183 My Joy 5 - 14.5
184 In a Better World 3 - 14.5
185 In the Family 6 - 14.0
186 The Debt 5 - 14.0
187 The Iron Lady 4 - 14.0
188 Thor 4 - 14.0
189 Letters from the Big Man 3 - 14.0
190 Soul Surfer 3 - 14.0
191 Target 3 - 14.0
192 Happy, Happy 3 - 13.5
193 Never Let Me Go 3 - 13.5
194 The Ward 3 - 13.5
195 The Color Wheel 2 - 13.5
196 Words of Mercury 2 - 13.5
197 Neds 4 - 13.0
198 The Conspirator 3 - 13.0
199 American Animal 2 - 13.0
200 Point Blank 3 - 12.5
201 Puss in Boots 3 - 12.5
202 Circumstance 2 - 12.5
203 Possession 2 - 12.5
204 The Lincoln Lawyer 4 - 12.0
205 Battle for Brooklyn 3 - 12.0
206 Dragonslayer 3 - 12.0
207 Elite Squad: The Enemy Within 3 - 12.0
208 The Hangover Part II 3 - 12.0
209 Norwegian Wood 2 - 12.0
210 Poistion Among the Stars 2 - 12.0
211 The Myth of the American Sleepover 2 - 12.0
212 The Names of Love 4 - 11.5
213 Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life 2 - 11.5
214 Low Life 2 - 11.5
215 The Ballad of Genesis and Lady Jaye 2 - 11.5
216 Horrible Bosses 5 - 11.0
217 Heartbeats 4 - 11.0
218 Into Eternity 4 - 11.0
219 The Yellow Sea 3 - 11.0
220 Viva Riva 3 - 11.0
221 Septien 2 1 11.0
222 Century of Birthing 2 - 11.0
223 Goodbye, First Love 2 - 11.0
224 If a Tree Falls 2 - 11.0
225 Inside Job 2 - 11.0
226 Paul 2 - 11.0
227 Strongman 2 - 11.0
228 Without 2 - 11.0
229 World on a Wire 2 - 11.0
230 Tangled 4 - 10.5
231 La Pivellina 2 - 10.5
232 Your Highness 2 - 10.5
233 Arthur Christmas 4 - 10.0
234 Silver Bullets 4 - 10.0
235 The Woman 4 - 10.0
236 Beautiful Boy 3 - 10.0
237 The Loneliest Planet 3 - 10.0
238 A Useful Life 2 - 10.0
239 Rebirth 2 - 10.0
240 Any Ever 1 1 10.0
241 Connected 1 1 10.0
242 El Bulli 1 1 10.0
243 Even the Rain 1 1 10.0
244 Forms Are Not Self-Subsistent Substances 1 1 10.0
245 Sleeping Sickness 1 1 10.0
246 The Day He Arrives 1 1 10.0
247 Page One 3 - 9.5
248 Fightville 2 - 9.5
249 The Hedgehog 2 - 9.5
250 Winter in Wartime 2 - 9.5
251 Carancho 2 - 9.0
252 Gnomeo and Juleit 2 - 9.0
253 Outrage 2 - 9.0
254 Life in a Day 1 - 9.0
255 Secret Sunshine 1 - 9.0
256 St. Nick 1 - 9.0
257 Tous au Larzac 1 - 9.0
258 Uncle Kent 1 - 9.0
259 Sucker Punch 6 - 8.5
260 Alps 3 - 8.5
261 Attenberg 3 - 8.5
262 I Wish 2 - 8.5
263 Sarah's Key 2 - 8.5
264 The Wise Kids 2 - 8.5
265 Foreign Parts 2 - 8.0
266 Monsieur Lahzar 2 - 8.0
267 My Perestroika 2 - 8.0
268 No Strings Attached 2 - 8.0
269 Oranges and Sunshine 2 - 8.0
270 Seeking the Monkey King 2 - 8.0
271 Corman's World 1 - 8.0
272 I Want to See 1 - 8.0
273 Justin Bieber: Never Say Never 1 - 8.0
274 Koran By Heart 1 - 8.0
275 Louie Season 2 1 - 8.0
276 One Day 1 - 8.0
277 Serious Games I-IV 1 - 8.0
278 Sholom Alecichem: Laughing in the Darkness 1 - 8.0
279 The Housemaid 1 - 8.0
280 The Tree 1 - 8.0
281 The Unjust 1 - 8.0
282 TT: Closer to the Edge 1 - 8.0
283 Vengeance 1 - 8.0
284 Wrinkles 1 - 8.0
285 Phil Ochs: There But For Fortune 2 - 7.5
286 Silent Souls 3 - 7.0
287 The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I 3 - 7.0
288 All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace 2 - 7.0
289 Love Like Poison 2 - 7.0
290 Perfect Sense 2 - 7.0
291 That Summer 2 - 7.0
292 The Rum Diary 2 - 7.0
293 Case Depart 1 - 7.0
294 Catching Hell 1 - 7.0
295 Correspondance 1 - 7.0
296 Dharma Guns 1 - 7.0
297 Elena 1 - 7.0
298 Eternity 1 - 7.0
299 Hadewijch 1 - 7.0
300 How Do You Know 1 - 7.0
301 Inspector Bellamy 1 - 7.0
302 Low Definition Control - Malfunction #0 1 - 7.0
303 Memories of a Morning 1 - 7.0
304 Miral 1 - 7.0
305 Snow Flower and the Secret Fan 1 - 7.0
306 The Conquest 1 - 7.0
307 The Pruitt-Igoe Myth 1 - 7.0
308 This Must Be the Place 1 - 7.0
309 Turn Me On, Dammit 1 - 7.0
310 We Are What We Are 1 - 7.0
311 Your Sister's Sister 1 - 7.0
312 Amigo 2 - 6.5
313 Black Death 2 - 6.5
314 Final Destination 5 2 - 6.5
315 George Harrison: Living in the Material World 2 - 6.5
316 Our Idiot Brother 2 - 6.5
317 Real Steel 2 - 6.5
318 The First Grader 2 - 6.5
319 A Very Harold and Kumar 3-D Christmas 2 - 6.0
320 Another Happy Day 2 - 6.0
321 Archieplgo 2 - 6.0
322 Crime After Crime 2 - 6.0
323 Pater 2 - 6.0
324 The Last Lions 2 - 6.0
325 You All Are Captains 2 - 6.0
326 Bad Posture 1 - 6.0
327 Community Action Center 1 - 6.0
328 Cowboys and Aliens 1 - 6.0
329 Joanna 1 - 6.0
330 Little Big Soldier 1 - 6.0
331 Passenger Side 1 - 6.0
332 Shut Up Little Man 1 - 6.0
333 Sleepless Night Stories 1 - 6.0
334 Take This Waltz 1 - 6.0
335 The Eagle 1 - 6.0
336 The Grey 1 - 6.0
337 The Lie 1 - 6.0
338 The Minister 1 - 6.0
229 Twilight Portrait 1 - 6.0
340 Urbanized 1 - 6.0
341 Water for Elephants 1 - 6.0
342 You Don't Like the Truth: 4 Days Within Guantanamo 1 - 6.0
343 I'm Glad My Mother is Alive 2 - 5.5
344 663114 1 - 5.5
345 35 Shots of Rum 1 - 5.5
346 Almayer's Folly 1 - 5.5
347 Alms of the Blind Horse 1 - 5.5
348 Anders, Molussien 1 - 5.5
349 Boxing Gym 1 - 5.5
350 Brownian Movement 1 - 5.5
351 Cameraman 1 - 5.5
352 Cell 211 1 - 5.5
353 Daydream Nation 1 - 5.5
354 Dolphin Tale 1 - 5.5
355 Erie 1 - 5.5
356 Everything Must Go 1 - 5.5
357 Family Grounds 1 - 5.5
358 Fantastic Mr. Fox 1 - 5.5
359 Flowers of Evil 1 - 5.5
360 Get Out of the Car 1 - 5.5
361 Green 1 - 5.5
362 Guided Tour 1 - 5.5
363 Guilty of Romance 1 - 5.5
364 Harakiri 1 - 5.5
365 Himizu 1 - 5.5
366 Inni 1 - 5.5
367 Jackais and Arabs 1 - 5.5
368 Let the Bullets Fly 1 - 5.5
369 Live 1 - 5.5
370 Memory Lane 1 - 5.5
371 Mitsuko Delivers 1 - 5.5
372 Oki's Movie 1 - 5.5
373 Old Dog 1 - 5.5
374 Patagonia 1 - 5.5
375 Somewhere 1 - 5.5
376 Splinters: A Century of an Artistic Family 1 - 5.5
377 Stateless Things 1 - 5.5
378 Summer Wars 1 - 5.5
379 Sur la Planche 1 - 5.5
380 Surviving Progress 1 - 5.5
381 The Bang Bang Club 1 - 5.5
382 The Butcher, The Chef and the Swordsman 1 - 5.5
383 The Cardboard Village 1 - 5.5
384 The Ditch 1 - 5.5
385 The Flock of the Lord 1 - 5.5
386 The Fold of the King 1 - 5.5
387 The Green Hornet 1 - 5.5
388 The Incident 1 - 5.5
389 The Karski Report 1 - 5.5
390 The Mighty Macs 1 - 5.5
391 The Prowler 1 - 5.5
392 The Student 1 - 5.5
393 The Sun-Beaten Path 1 - 5.5
394 Tokyo Koen 1 - 5.5
395 Toomelah 1 - 5.5
396 Two Years at Sea 1 - 5.5
397 Vincere 1 - 5.5
398 Whores' Glory 1 - 5.5
399 Woman with Flowers 1 - 5.5
400 Beats, Rhymes and Life 3 - 5.0
401 Habeus Papum 2 - 5.0
402 Rejoice and Shout 2 - 5.0
403 A Boy and His Samurai 1 - 5.0
404 Albatross 1 - 5.0
405 All-Star Superman 1 - 5.0
406 Client 9 1 - 5.0
407 Daguerreotypes 1 - 5.0
408 Dream Home 1 - 5.0
409 Eyes Find Eyes 1 - 5.0
410 Footloose 1 - 5.0
411 Friends with Benefits 1 - 5.0
412 Generation P 1 - 5.0
413 Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench 1 - 5.0
414 Hors Satan 1 - 5.0
415 In Darkness 1 - 5.0
416 Kinyarwanda 1 - 5.0
417 Knuckle 1 - 5.0
418 Life, Above All 1 - 5.0
419 Making the Boys 1 - 5.0
420 Mysterium Cosmographicum 1 - 5.0
421 On the Bowery 1 - 5.0
422 Play 1 - 5.0
423 Policeman 1 - 5.0
424 Polytechnique 1 - 5.0
425 Romantics Anonymouys 1 - 5.0
426 Salvation Blvd 1 - 5.0
427 Smuggler's Songs 1 - 5.0
428 Summer of Goliath 1 - 5.0
429 The Silence 1 - 5.0
430 30 Minutes or Less 2 - 4.5
431 The Music Never Stopped 2 - 4.5
432 Where Soldiers Come From 2 - 4.5
433 Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3 - 4.0
434 Queen to Play 2 - 4.0
435 Belle Epine 1 - 4.0
436 Bobby Fisher Against the World 1 - 4.0
437 Colombiana 1 - 4.0
438 Dogtooth 1 - 4.0
439 Faces of Panty Ratio 1 - 4.0
440 Goon 1 - 4.0
441 Headhunters 1 - 4.0
442 I Spit on Your Grave 1 - 4.0
443 Michael 1 - 4.0
444 One Hundred Mornings 1 - 4.0
445 Pink Ribbons Inc. 1 - 4.0
446 Roepman 1 - 4.0
447 Straw Dogs 1 - 4.0
448 The Big Year 1 - 4.0
449 The Elephant in the Living Room 1 - 4.0
450 The Ledge 1 - 4.0
451 The Lips 1 - 4.0
452 The Thief of Bagdad Re-Imagained 1 - 4.0
453 Trigun: Badlands Rumble 1 - 4.0
454 Turkey Bowl 1 - 4.0
455 Virgin Goat 1 - 4.0
456 Vito 1 - 4.0
457 The Whistlerblower 1 4.0
458 Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory 2 - 3.5
459 Albert Nobbs 2 - 3.0
460 Caterpillar 2 - 3.0
461 Redland 2 - 3.0
462 The Three Musketeers 2 - 3.0
463 TRON: Legacy 2 - 3.0
464 Bad Teacher 1 - 3.0
465 Beloved 1 - 3.0
466 Born to Be Wild 1 - 3.0
467 Convento 1 - 3.0
468 Cook County 1 - 3.0
469 Empty Quarter 1 - 3.0
470 Faces 1 - 3.0
471 General Orders No. 9 1 - 3.0
472 Gun Hill Road 1 - 3.0
473 Killer Joe 1 - 3.0
474 Littlerock 1 - 3.0
475 Mulberry Street 1 - 3.0
476 My Dog Tulip 1 - 3.0
477 Phase 7 1 - 3.0
478 Potiche 1 - 3.0
479 Rabbit Hole 1 - 3.0
480 Rabies 1 - 3.0
481 RuPaul's Drag Race Season 3 1 - 3.0
482 Samsara 1 - 3.0
483 Summer Pasture 1 - 3.0
484 The Imperialists Are Still Alive 1 - 3.0
485 The Inheritors 1 - 3.0
486 The Robber 1 - 3.0
487 The Snows of Kilimanjaro 1 - 3.0
488 The Women on the Sixth Floor 1 - 3.0
489 Winter Vacation 1 - 3.0
490 Abracadabra 1 - 2.5
491 Ceremony 1 - 2.5
492 Gandu 1 - 2.5
493 Guilty Pleasures 1 - 2.5
494 Meachotaildrop 1 - 2.5
495 Milocrorze: A Love Story 1 - 2.5
496 Oka! 1 - 2.5
497 Prairie Love 1 - 2.5
498 The Greatest Movie Ever Sold 1 - 2.5
499 The Innkeepers 1 - 2.5
500 The Return 1 - 2.5
501 Voluptuous Sleep 1 - 2.5
502 Scream 4 2 - 2.0
503 Arriety 1 - 2.0
504 Confessions 1 - 2.0
505 Cris Cuervos 1 - 2.0
506 Derniere Séance 1 - 2.0
507 Disorder 1 - 2.0
508 Dreileben Part 1: Beats Being Dead 1 - 2.0
509 Film 1 - 2.0
510 Footnote 1 - 2.0
511 Four Lions 1 - 2.0
512 How I Ended This Summer 1 - 2.0
513 If I Want to Whistle I Whistle 1 - 2.0
514 In the Open 1 - 2.0
515 Keyhole 1 - 2.0
516 Lord Byron 1 - 2.0
517 Meteor 1 - 2.0
518 Paranormal Activity 3 1 - 2.0
519 Peral Jam 20 1 - 2.0
520 That`s What I Am 1 - 2.0
521 The Other F Word 1 - 2.0
522 The Roommate 1 - 2.0
523 The Woodmans 1 - 2.0
524 This Side of Resurrection 1 - 2.0
525 Trespass 1 - 2.0
526 Twelve Thirty 1 - 2.0
527 Wiebo's War 1 - 2.0
528 A Matter of Taste: Serving Up Paul Lebrandt 1 - 1.0
529 A Mysterious World 1 - 1.0
530 And Everything is Going Fine 1 - 1.0
531 Chapiteau-Show 1 - 1.0
532 Declaration of War 1 - 1.0
533 Fair Game 1 - 1.0
534 Family Insticts 1 - 1.0
535 I Melt with You 1 - 1.0
536 Incredibly Small 1 - 1.0
537 IP Man 2 1 - 1.0
538 London Boulevard 1 - 1.0
539 Love Crime 1 - 1.0
540 Mozart's Sister 1 - 1.0
541 Puzzle 1 - 1.0
542 Restless 1 - 1.0
543 Slow Action 1 - 1.0
544 Stake Land 1 - 1.0
545 Tanner Hall 1 - 1.0
546 Thunder Soul 1 - 1.0
547 Undeafeated 1 - 1.0
548 Black Pond 1 - 0.5
549 Dreams of a Life 1 - 0.5
550 The Inbetweeners Movie 1 - 0.5

Movie Review: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

2012-01-13T10:51:00.000-08:00

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory *** ½

Directed by: Joe Berlinger & Bruce Sinofsky.

The story of the West Memphis Three – Damien Echols, Jessie Miskelly and James Baldwin – finally had a happy ending on August 19, 2011 when the three men, now in their 30s, were released from prison following an plea agreement related to the 1994 case that sentenced Misskelly and Baldwin to prison for life and Echols to death row for murdering three 8 year boys. When documentary filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky first went to West Memphis to document the trial and interview all involved, they thought they’d be making a documentary about how three heavy metal obsessed teenagers turned violent and murdered three innocent children, perhaps in a Satanic ritual. What they found instead was much more disturbing. The police, having no leads and no evidence, ended up focusing on Echols because he was known around town as “weird”. He dressed all in black, painted his fingernails and in a country music town, loved heavy metal music. They expanded their questioning to his friends, and eventually got Jesse Misskelly, who is mildly mentally handicapped, to confess to the murders after over 12 hours of questioning – only 40 minutes or so that was actually recorded. It doesn’t matter that even in the part that was taped, there was massive inaccuracies in Miss Kelly’s story – saying for example they abducted the boys at 9 in the morning, when really they didn’t go missing until after 7 at night, or saying that Echols and Baldwin had raped the boys first, although there was no evidence of that on the boys bodies. There was really no evidence of any kind – the boys were found naked and bound at the bottom of a river, and all blood or DNA evidence was washed away. Miskelly was convicted at his separate trial first, based on his confession that he recanted. But since he refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin, the confession wasn’t even admissible in their trials. But it didn’t matter – the media attention for the case had been so widespread, including the details of the confession (aside for the inaccuracies) that jurors went in with their minds made up – and Echols and Baldwin were also convicted.

The first Paradise Lost movie was released in 1996 on HBO, and the resulting controversy was nationwide. People were outraged, and the West Memphis Three had a large number of new followers and donors to their legal defense team, who filed appeal after appeal. But all appeals had to go through the same judge who tried the case, and he wasn’t having any of it. He rejected appeal after appeal, despite the mounting evidence of the teenager’s innocence. The filmmakers made Paradise Lost 2 in 2000, and showed the defendants as changed young men from the years behind bars, and raise more questions about their guilt. Now 10 years later, they are back with Paradise Lost 3, which details everything the new defense lawyers have uncovered, for their appeals. The version that I saw, at the Toronto Film Festival, is not the final version. The filmmakers finished it on August 15, just four days before the young men were released. They are adding footage of that to the end of this movie, in time for the New York Film Festival, but weren’t able to have it edited in time for TIFF.

Paradise Lost 3 has some shocking moments in it – I will never be able to get the image of the murdered boys out of my head, but nothing shocked me as much as the fact that John Mark Byers, the stepfather of one of the victims, who in previous films had gone off on more than one rant about how evil the killers were, having mock funerals for them, shooting fake bodies of them he made and declaring they were going to burn forever in hellfire, admitting that he was wrong. He looked at the new evidence, and sees the boys were innocent. He is still a fascinating character in this movie, but time has dampened him. He’s not even the most logical counter-suspect anymore – but another of the boy’s stepfathers is.

Few films can actually claim to have saved someone’s life, but the Paradise Lost films can. Echols thanks the filmmakers on camera in this film, saying that if they weren’t there right from the beginning to document the case and bring it national prominence, then he is convinced the State would have executed him by now. He’s not wrong. Echols has changed a lot over the years – no longer the defiant, bratty but extremely intelligent teenager who said in the first film that he would remembered forever as a boogeyman, even though he was innocent. He seems calm, his hairline is receding, and the son he had who was just a baby when he was put away is now almost as old as he was. Jason Baldwin has gone from the baby faced, soft spoken young man he was, into a balding, larger man in his in 30s. And Miskelly still seems very similar to how he was, but he too has aged. A lot can happen to a person over the years – to these three more than most.

I have no idea what Echols, Baldwin and Miskelly will do with the rest of their lives now that they are out of jail. I guess they could do anything they want. Their plea agreement allowed them to “maintain their innocence, but admit the prosecutors had enough evidence to convict them” – probably a way for the State to Protect themselves for a lawsuit. But that doesn’t really matter – after spending more than half their lives in jail, they are now free.

But who really did kill those three young boys? I doubt it’s a question we’ll ever have an answer to. The West Memphis police are not about to reopen the case, and the DA won’t want to try anyone even if they do find someone. That would be to admit that they were wrong. And one thing we’ve learned from the Paradise Lost trilogy is how anyone in power refuses to admit when they’ve made a mistake. Those three murdered children deserve better than that.

TV Movie Review: The Sunset Limited

2012-01-13T10:39:00.000-08:00

The Sunset Limited ** ½

Directed by: Tommy Lee Jones.

Written by: Cormac McCarthy based on his play.

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson (Black), Tommy Lee Jones (White).

The Sunset Limited works more in concept than it does in execution. It is a simple movie, based on a “Novel in a Play Format” by Cormac McCarthy that is simply two men in an apartment debating the meaning of existence and whether or not God is there. One of the men (Tommy Lee Jones, who also directed) has just tried to end his life by jumping in front of a train. The other man (Samuel L. Jackson) pulled him back before he could do so, and the two are now in his apartment. Where they talk and talk and talk. Unlike some, I’ve never really minded the somewhat stagy visual look that many plays have when they make the transition to the screen. It can actually work quite well if you know what you’re doing. But The Sunset Limited seems horribly dated – which is why it shocked me to discover that it was actually written quite recently by McCarthy – one of America’s greatest living novelists. I assumed it was an earlier work.

The performances in the movie keep it afloat – mostly. Samuel L. Jackson was born to play this type of role – a murderer who has spent time in jail, where he found God, and has dedicated his life to him ever since. He is convinced that everything happens for a reason – which is why he is convinced that if he can simply talk to Tommy Lee Jones for a while, he’ll be able to change his mind and make him see the light. He is not a fire and brimstone type preacher, and his kind of religion is more kind and loving. He wants to make Jones see the light, the error of his ways, get him to repent and rejoice in life. But Jones isn’t buying. As much as Jackson is convinced there is a God, Jones is convinced there isn’t. He is a literature professor, with no friends, no family, and over the years art and culture – the things that have kept him going – have begun to lose their meaning to him. He sees no choice but to kill himself. Both men know that when he leaves, he’ll most likely go right back to the subway station and try it again. Which is why Jackson has locked the door.

Jackson is brilliant, despite or perhaps because of his stagy dialogue. Jackson is a versatile actor, but I think he excels more at playing over the top characters instead of more realistic ones – there is a reason why he’s better than most at delivering Quentin Tarantino’s dialogue – because he’s relishes its dramatic furor. He does the same thing here, and he commands the screen. For much of the running time, you think that in this battle of wills he is winning – if for no other reason than because he talks more. For his part, Tommy Lee Jones spends much of the movie downcast, pitiful and pathetic. He buries his head in his hands for much of it, delivers his lines in a depressed monotone, and for the most part, wasn’t all that interesting to me. That is until his final monologue – the one that gets Jackson to open the door. In its cynicism and hopelessness, Jones comes alive. He doesn’t talk as much because he doesn’t need to – he doesn’t give a shit if Jackson believes him or not. He’s not looking to convert anyone, just to die.

This probably sounds more interesting than it plays. Had the play been written a few decades ago, its conflict between religion and atheism may have seemed daring. Now it simply seems clichéd. McCarthy is a great novelist, but his best novels are often spare on dialogue – and that’s part of what makes them so effective. Here, where there is nothing but dialogue, I think he overreaches a little bit – tries too hard to be poetic. And it doesn’t really work. As a director, Tommy Lee Jones never quite figures out how to shoot the movie. His debut effort, The Three Burials of Melquaides Estrada (which I liked, but didn’t love like many seemed to) was better, and had a real visual sense. Here, the visuals are an afterthought.

The Sunset Limited is not a bad made for HBO movie, but it isn’t a particularly good one either. Place it in a time capsule and send it back to the 1960s though, and you may have something here.

TV Movie Review: Cinema Verite

2012-01-13T10:29:00.000-08:00

Cinema Veritie *** ½

Directed by: Shari Springer Berman & Robert Pulcini.

Written by: David Seltzer.

Starring: Diane Lane (Pat Loud), Tim Robbins (Bill Loud), Thomas Dekker (Lance Loud), Patrick Fugit (Alan Raymond), James Gandolfini (Craig Gilbert), Kaitlyn Dever (Michelle Loud), Johnny Simmons (Kevin Loud), Kathleen Quinlan (Mary), Matt O'Leary (Cameron), Lolita Davidovich (Val), Emilio Rivera (Watchman), Dendrie Taylor (Sally), Molly Hagan (Kaye), Sean O'Bryan (Johnny Hall).

The Loud family had no idea what they were getting themselves into when they agreed to let PBS filmmaker Craig Gilbert to have a camera crew follow them around for months, documenting their day to day lives. This was the 1970s after all, and no one had heard of reality TV before. Gilbert, who had made a documentary about Margaret Mead, wanted to conduct the same kind of social experiment that she did with monkeys – observing an American Family in their natural habitat. The result changed the television landscape, and the Loud family – neither for the better.

Pat (Diane Lane) and Bill Loud (Tim Robbins) are a seemingly normal, married California couple, raising their multiple kids in the 1970s. Their oldest son has just moved out to go to New York and follow his artistic dreams, but the rest of the Loud family is staying put. Pat runs the household on a day to day basis – especially since Bill takes many business trips. But Bill operates under the delusion that he is the real head of the household, although how well he knows his own family is questionable. Infidelity on his part has cast a pale over their marriage, but they seem to still get along. To Craig Gilbert (James Gandolfini), they seem like the perfect family. Why they do doesn’t become apparent until later in the movie.

As any scientist will tell you, simply by observing an experiment, you change its outcome. And that’s what happens with the Loud family. Bill in particular wants to ensure he gets good screen time and that he comes across well on camera – returning from a business trip, he even does a “second” tape of him arriving home when he realizes the camera didn’t quite capture it the first time around. He tries hard to play the role of the diligent father – which angers Pat, because she knows what he’s really like. This marriage under stress, starts to crack.

Watching Cinema Veritie, Shari Spring Berman and Robert Pulcini’s excellent made for HBO movie, you cannot help but feel for the Loud family. They have the same problems as many families do, but it becomes much worse because of the cameras following them around – and because of Gilbert’s manipulation. He knows the marriage is under stress, and he manoeuvres himself to become closer to Pat, in order to manipulate her into doing what he wants her to do – which is to make fascinating television. Despite all of his talk, he doesn’t give a shit about them – just what will make good TV.

Almost 40 years after the Gilbert’s show “An American Family” broke new TV ground, and caused an uproar, because of his manipulation, the exploitation of the Loud family, and the Loud family’s behaviour on the show, reality TV has become a staple. Every B-list celebrity seems to have their own reality show, and if you’re willing to degrade yourself on camera, you could probably have one as well. But An American Family got there first, and it’s shocking to see how seemingly innocent this show would seem if it was put on the air today, considering just what a harsh treatment it received when it was originally aired. No one would call the Loud’s a freak show today, like they did then. Instead they would call them a typical family – which they were even then.

This is difficult terrain to cover, but Berman and Springer handle it well, juggling showing the family in freefall, and the effect the TV crew on them. The cast is excellent as well – especially Diane Lane and Tim Robbins, who make a believable married couple. Too old for the sexual liberation of the 1960s, and yet too young not to feel the sting of missing it, they play off each well, as long married couple do, even as they are falling apart.

Overall, Cinema Veritie if a fascinating look at a TV show that changed the course of its medium. Reality TV is not going anywhere, and even though it started with lofty ambitions, it quickly degenerated into the dreck we see on TV now.

DVD Review: Killer Elite

2012-01-11T13:16:00.002-08:00

Killer Elite **

Directed by: Gary McKendry.

Written by: Matt Sherring based on the book by Ranulph Fiennes.

Starring: Jason Statham (Danny), Clive Owen (Spike), Robert De Niro (Hunter), Dominic Purcell (Davies), Aden Young (Meier), Yvonne Strahovski (Anne), Ben Mendelsohn (Martin), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Agent).

The opening of Killer Elite informs us that it is based on a true story, and I had no trouble believing that in broad strokes that may well be true. This is a story of professional killers, both private contractors and government issued, although there is little difference between the two. Both are amoral, but for one at least, the killing starts to weigh on him. Had they decided to make a serious movie out of the material, it could have been an intelligent thriller. Instead, what they have done is made an action movie. So, yes, in broad strokes, some of this could be believed. But the details provided by the movie are fairly preposterous.

The movie stars Jason Statham, which should tell you all you need to know about what kind of movie this is. Whatever promise and talent Statham showed in the past, has pretty much given way to his desire to make nothing but breakneck action movies – and this is another one. He is the private contract killer, mentioned above, named Danny. He works alongside Hunter (Robert DeNiro) but the job that opens the film takes whatever love he had for his job and kills it. He has to kill a father in front of his son, and even if he was a bad man, no kid deserves to be there when his father is murdered. So Danny retires to Australia, where he falls in love. But then he gets a message. Hunter has been captured, and will be killed unless he agrees to do one final job. The pay will be $6 million, but he doesn’t care about that. He cares about Hunter. So he goes to the Middle East, to the estate of a wealthy dying man, who wants the men who killed three of his four sons murdered. The catch is that they are British Army officers, and Danny needs to get them to confess, and then make their deaths look like accidents. Danny, being so good, is able to do that, but Spike (Clive Owen) is not fooled. He is a former soldier himself, now working for a group of ex-special forces known as the “Feathermen”. He wants the murderer of his friends dead.

There is all sorts of potential in this story. Watching the film, I thought that had they played it straight, instead of pumping up the action, this could have made an intelligent thriller not unlike Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Instead however, director Gary McKendry seems to want to have as many firefights, car chases, fist fights and explosions as possible in the movie. And while he handles them well enough, there is nothing here to differentiate the film from dozens of other action films. It’s serviceable, and you won’t be bored, but there’s no real reason to watch it either.

For the actors, Killer Elite is the definition of a paycheck movie – they could not have possibly thought that they were making a great film when they signed up for it, and none of them add very much to it. Statham does what Statham does – and for me, his tough guy (with a sensitive guy buried underneath) act has grown tired. I simply don’t care anymore. Clive Owen is going through the motions here – as an actor, he has gravitas, but his underwritten role either doesn’t allow him to use it, or else he simply doesn’t care enough. And then there’s Robert DeNiro, who still has to rank as my favourite actor of all time, although I must admit that in the past 14 years (since his duel great 1997 performances in Wag the Dog and Jackie Brown) has simply been phoning it in (with the exception of his great directorial effort The Good Shepherd and his work in the underrated Stone from last year). Why DeNiro has decided not to push himself anymore, I have no idea, but it’s disappointing. Here, his role could be played by any older actor – he brings nothing special to it.

Overall, I was more bored by Killer Elite than anything else. It’s certainly not a horrible film – it serves as a time waster, nothing more. But with Owen and DeNiro involved, I was hoping for something more. Perhaps its time to stop hoping for something more from DeNiro.

DVD Review: Conan O'Brien Can't Stop

2012-01-11T13:16:00.000-08:00

Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop ***

Directed by: Rodman Flender.

No matter what you think about Conan O’Brien, you have to admit he got a pretty raw deal from NBC. Told for years he was the heir apparent for Jay Leno as the host of The Tonight Show, Conan was finally handed the reins of the show a few years ago. But the network got nervous when it became clear that Leno wasn’t just going to retire and go away. Fearing that he would jump to another network, they gave him his own 1 hour talk show at 10pm on weeknights. It was a ratings and critical disaster. Still though, they didn’t want to let Leno go to another network and compete against their own show. After all, Leno got better ratings than Conan did as the host of The Tonight Show – he got better ratings then anyone. NBC, having invested millions in Conan, didn’t want to lose him either, but wanted to move his show back to midnight instead of 11:30. When Conan said no, he was given millions of dollars to go away, and Leno took back his place as host of The Tonight Show. For six months, Conan was not allowed to go on TV. Instead of taking a break, he went on tour – the Legally Prohibited to Be Funny of Television Tour. The documentary Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop documents that tour.

Now, because Conan has made millions over the years, it is hard to feel too bad for him. And yet, hosting The Tonight Show had been his dream – and the dream that NBC said would one day be a reality. And yes, they did let him host it for a few months, and yes, the ratings were down. But ratings were down when Leno took over from Johnny Carson as well. Even though Conan had had his own show at 12:30 for years, it does take time to build a new audience – and time was the one thing NBC wouldn’t give Conan. But whatever, he seems happy hosting his show on TBS now (which I watch on occasion – and far more often than I watch Leno).

This movie shows Conan as he prepares for that show, and then hits the road. Why does he do it? Mainly, he misses the applause – the thrill of being on stage in front of people. There was only 3 months between the end of his run on The Tonight Show and the start of the tour – and already he seems to be going through withdrawal. The title of the movie is apt – because Conan can’t seem to stop. No matter how much he bitches about having to meet people, take photos with them, sign autographs, he continues to do it, and hide his feelings. He may be miserable when he is forced to do yet another photograph, but the people taking them would never realize it. Conan always seems to be “on”.

I have a feeling that there is a darker documentary in here somewhere struggling to get out. We see glimpses of Conan with an ego, with his insecurities, and all the rest, but for the most part, Conan still comes across as he does on TV – as a genuinely nice guy. But there is anger to him here – anger that he mostly successfully buries throughout the film. I wish he hadn’t.

Directed by Rodman Flender, Conan O’Brien can’t stop is an interesting documentary – and a must for Conan fans, which I consider myself to be (even if, years ago, I abandoned the networks and have gotten by late night comedy fix from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert). But it’s an uneven, and at times frustrating doc as well. Flender cuts away at times when we really want to see what happens next, and holds on some scenes far too long. At times, I couldn’t help but think that a typical concert doc of one of Conan’s shows would have been more effective. Yet overall, I liked the film. Yes, it could have been darker, and had it been, it would have felt more honest. But for what it is, it is pretty good.

DVD Review: Nostalgia for the Light

2012-01-11T13:15:00.000-08:00

Nostalgia for the Light ***

Directed by: Patricio Guzman.

Nostalgia for the Lighter is a strangely beautiful documentary – and a haunting one. It takes place in the Atacama Desert in Chile, and is about people digging into the past, in more ways than one. This is one of the driest places on earth – there are parts of the desert where no rain had ever been recorded. It is also one of the highest deserts in the world. The combination of thin atmosphere and no humidity make it perfect for astronomers, who can gaze further out into space here than anywhere else on earth. Of course what they see is the past – because by the time the images make their way to them, they have already happened elsewhere in the universe. But the darker side of the Atacama Desert is that there was once a Concentration Camp there – run by the country’s former dictator Augusto Pinochet. Thousands of political prisoners were brought there in the 1970s – and most of them have “disappeared”. Relatives still come to the desert, with their shovels, to try and find their bodies. That they haven’t found them yet –and most likely never will, because the desert is so vast, and the feeling that most of the bodies were dumped into the ocean, doesn’t stop them. They come still.

To director Patricio Guzman, who has spent his career howling with rage over Pinochet and the coup that ruined Chile, these two quests are basically the same. Whether looking into the sky with powerful telescopes, or digging into the earth to find the bodies of relatives, both are ways of exploring the past – a past that must be studied and remembered if we are to move forward into the future.

A documentary like Nostalgia for the Light is difficult. It is more cinematic essay than true documentary film – a film more about ideas and philosophy than anything else. Guzman’s quiet, voiceover narration is for the most part poetic and at times profound, although it does slip over to pretentious at times. The same can be said of his beautiful imagery, some which will likely stay with you long after the movie ends – although I could have done with the images of floating dust particles while Guzman waxed poetic on the soundtrack.

Nostalgia for the Light is an interesting, transfixing documentary. I may prefer the more traditional documentary structure, and yet this is a film that haunts you. Most films leave your mind as soon as they are done. This one, despite its flaws, does not.

DVD Review: The Arbor

2012-01-09T18:35:00.000-08:00

The Arbor *** ½
Directed by: Clio Barnard.
Starring: Manjinder Virk (Lorraine Dunbar), Christine Bottomley (Lisa Thompson), Natalie Gavin (The Girl), Parvani Lingiah (Young Lorraine), Danny Webb (Max Stafford-Clark / The Father), Kate Rutter (The Mother), Liam Price (Billy), Robert Haythorne (Fred).

Andrea Dunbar was an immensely gifted writer for a horrible background. Raised in a poor, racist housing development in Yorkshire, England, she poured her tortured feelings into her work. She died at the age of 29 - have produced three plays (the first, she wrote at the age of 15), one movie, and had three kids, by three different fathers. While she found career success, she was never able to leave the development behind her – and drank at the pub every day, until she died of a brain haemorrhage just a few days before Christmas.

Clio Barnard’s film, The Arbor (named after Dunbar’s first play) is a strange mixture of fiction and reality. It is one of the increasing number of films that combines documentary with fiction filmmaking. Here, he interviewed many people who knew Dunbar – including her kids – but although we hear them throughout the movie, we never see them. Instead, we have actors lip synching their conversations with the director. The effect in uncanny – the actors do a marvellous job of lip synching, even sighs and pauses. This device also allows Barnard two things. The first is to not show Dunbar’s family on camera, where they may clam up knowing they were being filmed. And the second is to “stage” the readings however he wants to. Dunbar’s daughter speaking to the camera and the bed behind them is on fire for example, that is something a normal documentary couldn’t do. Barnard also “stages” a scenes from Dunbar’s first play outside, on the streets where she grew up. Actors are performing the scenes where Dunbar meant them to take place – and as residents walk by in the background.

Yet, despite all the artistic tricks that Barnard employs to tell this story, the story itself comes through loud and clear – it never gets lost behind the artifice. This is a deeply sad story about the cycle of neglect, and the tricks memory plays on people. While Dunbar’s oldest daughter Lorraine (“played” by Manjinder Virk) recalls her mother, she tells stories of her leaving her children alone every night to go drinking at the pub, and who hadn’t even bought a single Christmas present when she died – despite in being less than a week before Christmas Day. Her other daughter, Lisa (Christine Bottomley), recalls a woman dedicated to her writing, staying up all night to do it. Yes, she drank, but not that much. Barnard films them telling their stories in the same room at the same time – neither are lying, but both are telling a different version of the same events.

Perhaps it’s their versions that explain their lives. Lisa certainly doesn’t have it easy, but she hasn’t followed her mother’s path into addiction quite like Lorraine has. An alcoholic, a drug addict, who like her mother has multiple kids from multiple fathers at a young age, Lorraine does her mother one worse – not simply neglecting her kids, but neglecting one to the point where he dies, and she is sent to jail for allowing it to happen.

Despite all the sadness in this film – and that is nearly wall to wall – there is poetry in the language – both what Dunbar wrote, and how her daughters speak – especially Lorraine. I have seen countless movies where people born in bad circumstances overcome their backgrounds to make successes of themselves because of their talent. The Arbor is the opposite – despite their talent and their intelligence, but Andrea and Lorraine Dunbar never could leave their past behind them.

DVD Review: Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

2012-01-09T18:34:00.000-08:00

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil ***

Directed by: Eli Craig.

Written by: Eli Craig & Morgan Jurgenson.

Starring: Tyler Labine (Dale Dobson), Alan Tudyk (Tucker), Katrina Bowden (Allison), Jesse Moss (Chad), Philip Granger (Sheriff), Brandon Jay McLaren (Jason), Christie Laing (Naomi), Chelan Simmons (Chloe), Travis Nelson (Chuck).

Six attractive, upper class college students decide to go camping in the middle of nowhere. They stop on the way to get beer, and see two hillbillies in a truck staring at them – one of them even comes up and tries to talk to them, although what he says doesn’t make sense but is oddly creepy. We they get to their camping spot, one of them tells the story of how a similar group of kids was murdered right in these very woods, right on this very spot, exactly 20 years ago tonight. And then they go skinny dipping. The hillbillies in the pickup show up again, frightening one of the girls so she falls down and hits her head. She wakes up with in the hillbillies’ cabin and discovers… that they are actually two really nice guys, a little shy and awkward sure, but sweet and they were just trying to help. Her friends however, especially their insane leader, are convinced they have kidnapped her – thus setting up a battle to the death between the hillbillies and the college kids.

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil gleefully checks off all the boxes of horror movie clichés about college kids running into insane hillbillies, and then turns them on their head. This movie has as high of a body count as those horror movies – and those kids die in gruesome ways, including impalings, fire and of course a wood chipper. There’s even a helpful cop who shows up, and dies in a gruesome way as well. But everything is just an accident – it’s all just a misunderstanding. But those kids are convinced that those hillbillies are evil.

The hillbillies in question are Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine), who would be more comfortable as a comedy duo in the 1930s than in a hillbilly slasher flick of the 1970s. Tucker is skinnier, more uptight, more intelligent, and he becomes exasperated by his bumbling, oafish, but lovable and heavier companion. I kept expecting Tudyk to either smack Labine upside his head with his hat, or else turn to him or say “Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve got us in!” His facial expressions pretty much say that anyway. The two actors work well together – play off each other nicely. They just came up to the woods to enjoy a quiet long weekend fishing at Tucker’s new “vacation cabin”, although admittedly, it certainly does look like the place you would be taken to by an insane hillbilly who wants to kill you.

The girl they “kidnap” is sweetly played by Katrina Bowden, who is convinced, even with multiple dead bodies already piling up, that everything can be sorted out if everyone just sat down, had a nice cup of tea and talked through their problems. The real problem is Chad (Jesse Moss), the leader of the college kids, really is insane and bloodthirsty.

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil is made with the same spirit, if not the same style, as Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead. No, it doesn’t explode the genre it’s spoofing like that film did, but it sends up nicely. For fans of the horror genre, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil is a must – a cult film in the making.

DVD Review: Final Destination 5

2012-01-09T18:30:00.000-08:00

Final Destination 5 **
Directed by: Steven Quale.
Written by: Eric Heisserer.
Starring: Nicholas D'Agosto (Sam), Emma Bell (Molly Harper), Miles Fisher (Peter Friedkin) Ellen Wroe (Candice Hooper), Jacqueline MacInnes Wood (Olivia Castle), P.J. Byrne (Isaac Palmer), Arlen Escarpeta (Nathan), David Koechner (Dennis), Courtney B. Vance (Agent Jim Block), Tony Todd (William Bludworth).

I have watched all five final destination movies, even if I must admit after the first one I cannot say I ever fully enjoyed any of them. They all have the basic plot – one member of group that is about to be horribly killed in some sort of accident “sees” the accident happening in their mind right before it does. He goes crazy, and starts screaming that they need to get out of there. Most people ignore him, some come with him, and when it turns out they’re right, everyone wonders how the person could have possibly known. They don’t wonder too hard though – they’re just relieved that they didn’t die. But then, one by one, the survivors start dying. And they don’t simply drop dead of a heart attack, but go through a series of bizarre coincidences that lead to their gruesome demise.

Let’s be honest here – the reason those of you who have watched all the Final Destination movies is the same reason I have – and it’s not because of the acting, the direction or the complex plots. We watch to see people die in bizarre ways. There is no other reason to watch these movies – the broad outline of the story never changes, it’s just the grisly way people die that does. Now, if these movies were as vile and despicable as something like the Hostel movies, then we’d probably have need of some psychological counselling to try and figure out why we enjoy watching people get tortured to death. But the Final Destination movies aren’t like that. For all the blood and guts spilled, they are actually fairly light hearted. Yes, people die in gruesome way, but they ways they die are so inventive and outlandish that you can be forgiven at laughing at them, instead of being scared.

The same is true of the fifth instalment. A paper company (I’m couldn’t help thinking of Dundler Mifflin, especially since David Koechner, who has guest starred on The Office is the boss) is going on a corporate retreat. On the bus ride, Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto) sees a horrific bridge collapse coming, in which they’re all going to die. He gets a few people to safety instead – but then they start dying.

The problem with these movies is that because we know everyone is doomed, and because the characters are for the most part poorly written and acted, it becomes impossible to care about any of them. The highlights of this movie are once again, the deaths themselves. The bridge collapse is brutal and bloody, just like we want. I enjoyed the way the filmmakers played with the survivors subsequent deaths – they are having a lot of fun setting up gruesome, complex deaths, and than shock us with a more sudden death, when the original complex one, doesn’t quite work out.

Other than the deaths, there is little else to Final Destination 5. You sit there and wait for these people you don’t care about to die. Yes, the deaths are well handled. But there needs to be something else to make the film worthwhile. But you know what? I’ll watch Final Destination 6.

DVD Review: Bellflower

2012-01-05T12:03:00.001-08:00

Bellflower *** ½

Directed by: Evan Glodell.

Written by: Evan Glodell.

Starring: Evan Glodell (Woodrow), Jessie Wiseman (Milly), Tyler Dawson (Aiden), Rebekah Brandes (Courtney), Vincent Grashaw (Mike), Zack Kraus (Elliot), Keghan Hurst (Sarah).

Bellflower is a distinctive, one of kind movie, made on a show string budget by Evan Glodell – who directed, wrote and stars in the movie, and also invented the camera used to give the movie is very distinct visual look. I have no idea what he did with the camera, but it appears that he pieced it together from other cameras – and the effect is strange. Bellflower looks like no other movie I have ever seen. Oh, and he also built the flame spewing car that becomes such a memorable part of the movie.

The plot seems standard issue, American indie at first. Sensitive boy Woodrow (Glodell) meets smoking hot chick Milly (Jessie Wiseman) and falls in love. On their first date, she tells him to take her to the dirtiest place he knows to eat – so they hit the road to Texas (from California) to eat at a road side joint he once passed. They have an easy chemistry together, and talk in seeming clichés – she telling him that he doesn’t really want her “I’ll just hurt you” she warns, but he doesn’t listen. He should have.

We know from the beginning that all is not going to turn out right in this story. We catch glimpses of the future in the films opening, and we see Woodrow covered in blood, so we know something is amiss. And despite the seeming sweetness of the scenes with Woodrow and Milly together, there is definitely something off right from the beginning. Woodrow doesn’t seem to have a job, and spends all of his time with his best friend Aiden (Tyler Dawson), designing flame throwers, explosives and supping up cars, and preparing their “gang” (the two of them) for a Mad Max style apocalypse. They look to be about 30 – so at least a decade too old to still be indulging in these sorts of fantasies. As for Milly, she lives with a guy already, Mike (Vincent Grashaw), and although it appears like she thinks of them as just friends, he thinks of them as something more. She too, is still irresponsible – taking off without paying her rent for one thing. And although Woodrow believes them to be the “perfect couple”, we glimpse them in scenes where it’s clear they’re not. Woodrow is not the sensitive, good guy he appears to be. And Milly is certainly not the “perfect girl” he envisions her as.

Bellflower gets much darker when the relationship inevitably crashes and burns like we, but not Woodrow, saw coming from the beginning of the movie. But instead of learning from his heartbreak, and deciding to grow up, Woodrow simply replaces one fantasy world with another one – the happy one he thought he had with Milly, but really didn’t, with an extremely violent one, full of blood, murder, suicide and all sorts of depravity. Woodrow has not really grown up all – but retreated further into his own mind, his own fantasies, and with Aiden as an enabler, that becomes easy to do.

Bellflower is not a perfect movie – the plot meanders a little too much, and takes a little too long to get where it’s going. The acting is scattershot, as you would expect from a movie of this size. The main actors – Glodell, Dawnson and especially Wiseman are quite good, but the rest of the cast is a little uneven, although that could be because their characters are somewhat ill defined in the screenplay.

But the heart of the movie is terrific. This is one of the distinct visual films of the year, full of saturated colors, dirt, grim and blood. Everything seemed slightly skewed in a way that works for the movie tremendously well. What Glodell and cinematographer Jesse Hodge do here is amazing when you consider their budget (apparently $17,000).

Bellflower represents one of the best debut films of the year. Whether or not Glodell will be able to carry forward into his next film what he did here is the question that for now remains unanswered. Many first time directors try to cram too much into their films – try to say everything they want to say in just one movie. Glodell doesn’t. He takes what could have been a standard issue mumblecore film, and twisted it in new and exciting way. His film is honest, and there is more here than meets the eye. Yes, the visuals are spectacular in Bellflower – but there is a pain and honesty here than feels real. Many directors seemingly celebrate their arrested development – Glodell doesn’t. I have a feeling this is the beginning of a major career.

DVD Review: City of Life and Death

2012-01-05T12:02:00.001-08:00

City of Life and Death *** ½

Directed by: Chuan Lu.

Written by: Chuan Lu.

Starring: Ye Liu (Lu Jianxiong), Yuanyuan Gao (Miss Jiang), Hideo Nakaizumi (Kadokawa), Wei Fan (Mr. Tang), Yiyan Jiang (Xiao Jiang), Ryu Kohata (Ida), Bin Liu (Xiaodouzi), John Paisley(John Rabe), Beverly Peckous (Minnie Vautrin), Lan Qin (Mrs. Tang).

When you’re a Chinese filmmaker making a film about the Japanese Nanking massacre of 1937, and you manage to piss off both the Japanese and the Chinese, you’ve most likely made a good film. And Chuan Lu’s City of Life and Death is a good film – a very good one. One that is difficult to watch, but impossible to turn away from. The unspeakably horrible actions on the screen are contrasted against the beautiful black and white photography. There is no uplift here – no sentimentality, no real hope. It recounts the events, and shows you images you will never forget.

The movie offers little back story – because none is really needed. It basically opens with the Japanese breaching the walls of Nanking, and then cuts back and forth between the desperate Chinese trying to escape the city, and the Japanese soldiers trying to pen them in. This part of the movie is hectic and chaotic, but remarkably, Lu Chuan manages to make it both epic and intimate. Epic because of all the chaos, all the bloodshed, all the murder on a huge scale going on. Intimate, because he often pauses on the participants faces. A few emerge as memorable – especially Lu (Ye Liu), a Chinese soldier we follow from the beginning of the massacre until he, along with thousands of others, is trapped and massacred.

But this is one the first part of the film. The majority takes place in the refugee camp after the initial massacre, where a few kind hearted souls try their best to take care of and protect the surviving residents of Nanking. But the Japanese continually raid the camps – murdering some, and raping many of the women. Finally, the Japanese offer the refugees a deal – if they give them 100 women, who they assure them will be returned alive in 3 weeks – then they will leave the rest of them alone. The mass rapes that follow are as difficult to watch as all the bloodshed that continues throughout the film.

I mentioned off the top that both Japanese and Chinese people were upset with this film, but for different reasons. The Japanese do not like any mention of the Nanking Massacre at all – it does make them look bad, and this film, that dramatizes it with horrifying detail, is worse than normal. Many Chinese people will were offended because they felt Lu Chuan whitewashed German Nazi John Rabe – who stayed and tried to help the refugees, before being ordered home by his superiors, because they did not want him jeopardizing their relationship with an alley. Even worse, according to them, was the presentation of Kadokawa (Hideo Nakaizumi), a sympathetic Japanese soldier.

But I think Kadokawa is key to the entire film. Yes, he is horrified by what he witnesses his countrymen doing, and he does not take part in the worst of it. When it is his “turn” with one of the 100 women, he’s even nice to her. But when his time is up, he just sits and watches another soldier rape this poor woman once again. That pretty much describes Kadokawa – horrified and disgusted, but never moved to action. Kadokawa is key to the film because he humanizes the Japanese – which makes what they do all the more difficult to watch. Every time there is a massacre, some people call it inhuman and the perpetrators monsters, but that let’s them off the hook too easy. The cruelty on display in this film is human cruelty.

City of Life and Death is a difficult film to watch. Many won’t want to watch it at all. Unlike a film like Schindler’s List, it offers no hope. No film can truly, accurately capture a massacre on this scale – but City of Life and Death comes as close as any film is likely to.

DVD Review: Tuesday, After Christmas

2012-01-05T12:01:00.001-08:00

Tuesday, After Christmas *** ½

Directed by: Radu Muntean.

Written by: Alexandru Baciu & Radu Muntean & Razvan Radulescu.

Starring: Mimi Branescu (Paul Hanganu), Mirela Oprisor (Adriana Hanganu), Maria Popistasu (Raluca), Dragos Bucur (Cristi), Victor Rebengiuc (Nucu).

Tuesday, After Christmas feels like eavesdropping on real people’s lives. Directed by Radu Muntean, the visual style of the film is simple – there are very few edits, and the camera moves only when the characters would have otherwise moved out of the frame. The film, which takes place during the week before Christmas (the title date has not happened yet at the end of the film, but we know what will happen on that day), and it watches as Paul (Mimi Branescu), a married, middle aged man with a 9 year old daughter, decides whether he wants to stay with his wife Adriana (Mirela Oprisor) or leave her for his younger mistress Raluca (Maria Popistasu). During the course of the running time, not a false note in struck.

The movie is made up of intimate scenes – mostly between Paul and one of the two women in his life. Basking in post sex bliss and flirtation, a mundane shopping trip with his wife to buy presents, an awkward moment when his wife comes along with him and his daughter to the dentist unexpectedly – and wouldn’t you know, Raluca is the dentist – another awkward moment when Raluca introduces Paul to her mother, who unlike her daughter, is not fooled by him. Raluca is younger, and a little more naïve. She doesn’t quite see why things won’t work out perfectly – she even buys Paul’s daughter a Christmas present. She loves him, and they’ll be a happy family soon enough. She doesn’t even think of his wife.

And yet, Raluca is not the only one in the movie who is naïve – Paul is as well. When he finally sits Adriana down to tell her he’s not only having an affair, but he’s leaving her for the younger woman (not much younger, 26 or 27 he tells her, not realizing to a woman approaching 40, that is a lot a younger). Even in this scene, the centerpiece of the movie, Paul tries hard to be the “good guy”, which he clearly isn’t. He doesn’t understand why Adriana is taking it so hard, wants to part on “good terms” and leave it at that. But for her, the news is devastating. She feels she’s wasted her life with this man who is now just going to pack up and leave her. This scene is long and painful to watch. The actors, so pitch perfect (apparently Branescu and Oprisor are a real life couple so perhaps that explains their easy way with each other) the effect is devastating. We feel for Adriana, of course, she is the wronged party. But even though Paul is in a trap entire of his own devices, we feel for him as well. No he doesn’t have the right to ask Adriana for her sympathy (which he foolishly does), but the decision was a hard one for him – no matter what way he chooses, he’s going to hurt someone he loves, and end up hurting himself.

It’s telling that there is barely a moment between Paul and Raluca after he leaves his wife. She is away on a trip over Christmas, but he moves into her apartment, with the help of a friend, and already, he seems to perhaps be regretting his decision. This is not the apartment of a grown up – it is not a home. And then watch him in the final scenes, on Christmas day, where he and his wife try to keep up appearances to not ruin the holidays. Already, he’s seeing the consequences of his actions – and what his new life is going to be. And I don’t he’s all that happy about it.

Tuesday, After Christmas is a wonderful, quiet little movie about people going about their lives. In an era where divorce is more common than ever, there are lots of scenes like this one played out in people’s lives. And yet, there are few movies made that are this honest, this painful, that examines them. Yes, the people in the movie are Romanian, but the theme is universal.

Movie Review: The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu

2012-01-05T12:00:00.001-08:00

The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu ***

Director: Andrei Ujica.

The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu is not your typical documentary. It is three hours long, features no voiceover narration, and is made up entirely of clips of the “official” Romanian archives on their former leader, who ruled the Communist country for more than 20 years. The title is key, because this movie doesn’t present the “true” portrait of Ceausescu or of Romania at that time, but the portrait that Ceausescu wanted the world to believe. But if you watch the movie closely, reality begins to seep in – especially when you watch the background.

The movie opens and closes with a defiant Ceausescu right before his trial, after which both he and his wife will be executed, telling reporters that he has done nothing wrong. He has no idea about any massacres, no idea why the people have turned against him. He is a patriot.

The rest of the movie is made up of speeches by Ceausescu where he talks about how great Romania is, how great he is, how great socialism is. The movie is roughly divided into three parts – documenting his ascension during the late 1960s, when he was on top in the 1970s, and the long spiral downwards in the 1980s. There are more then speeches – there are photo ops when he goes out into the streets to see the real people, although the events are clearly highly staged. Most eye catching are the elaborate State visits – especially when he goes to China and Korea, and the welcoming committee is so over the top, you realize that the whole “industry” of welcoming foreign leaders must employ thousands of people – none of them look too happy though.

Directed by Andrei Ujica, the film is fascinating because although everything in it was “sanctioned” by Ceausescu – even those scenes where he is defiant at the beginning and the end, which is the public face he chose – this is not a flattering picture of the man. You can tell so much of the film is staged – manipulated for his own purposes. Ujica shows so much of it, and in the background you see glimpses of what everything is really like. In essence, he is using Ceausescu’s propaganda against him.

Some have criticized the film for two reasons – one that the film does not show, or even mentioned, Ceausescu’s execution and the other being that the film doesn’t show what life was like for regular Romanians. But the title explains that – this is Ceausescu as he wants to be seen, not as he actually was. That’s why you need to pay attention to the background.

I have a feeling that the film will be more appreciated by historians, film scholars and, of course, Romanians, then by most others. It is a very long film, and it feels like a long film. If you don’t know a lot about Ceausescu, you may easily become lost at times (I was). But it is a fascinating film – really one of a kind. You most likely already know if this film sounds interesting to you – and if it does, I suggest you give it a chance.