What you might want to consider before commissioning a painting

First off, I want to say that I got this idea from a conversation with two fellow artists, as we were discussing just how little the general public knows about the painting process, whether it is a commissioned portrait in oils, or a quick sketch or study in pencil. This is nothing to be ashamed of, but it can lead to awkward exchanges. One of us had the idea to write a primer to hand out to potential clients, in the hope to avoid an awkward exchange.
This is part of what he had to say:

If you are planning on commissioning a portrait, please do some research before speaking directly to the artist. It can save him/her insult, and it may save you from sticker shock. A good template to start would be to search http://www.portraitartist.com/. It is easy to navigate, and can show you several different styles and degrees of skill. You will also notice that most of the artists list a breakdown of what their fees are. This should give you a basic idea of what you should be paying to have a painting commissioned.

Also, many artists work 9-5 jobs and do their artwork in their “free time”. If this is the case, find out how long of a turnaround to expect. Most portrait painters, for example, require 6-12 months for delivery. If you were hoping for it by the weekend, you are going to be disappointed.

And whatever you do, do not go into this thinking that you are doing the artist a favor. Even if the artist is family, a friend or if you are his or her landlord who is about to evict them.

Very diplomatic.

Just to add further to his point, I would say that you should inquire about the artist’s method and technique. I paint in a classic, glazing technique that requires several layers of paint and a lot of patience. This is a lot more time consuming and often much more work than an alla-prima, wet-into-wet technique. A recent figure painting that measured 24”x30” took me a total of 40 hours of painting to complete. This did not including the photo references, the building of the stretcher bars, the stretching of the canvas, the 3 layers of primer/gesso and sanding it down to a smooth, eggshell coating. To give you an idea of cost, when I factor in hours spent and the cost of the art supplies, if I was to sell this painting at a gallery for $2000 (sounds like good money, right?), after the standard gallery cut, I would essentially be making less than $15 an hour before taxes. And, that’s IF it sells, which could take months.

They don’t call them starving artists for nothing.

And that leads me to the point of all this. If you would like to work with me on a project or commission a painting, the following is a breakdown and a description of the process. Keep in mind that I would prefer to be paid nothing and work on a composition and subject matter of my choosing that appeals to me (and end up with a finished painting that I own), rather than work for what essentially would be minimum wage on something that doesn't interest me.

And please, PLEASE, do not ask me to work quicker, or to not put as much into the finished piece in an attempt to lower the cost. It is insulting to both of us. I would rather you punched me in face than have you say “it doesn’t have to be a masterpiece”, or “can’t you just whip something together”.

Maybe a little less diplomatic, but I hope I got the point across.









Portraits in oils or pastel:

If the painting is done from life, involving several sittings (not recommended for children) and some photo reference, an hourly wage can be worked out on contract, or a quote can be done in advance based on the degree of difficulty. The hourly contract will almost always be less expensive. If the painting and sittings are done at my convenience, and in the composition and size of my choosing, then no deposit is required, and you will have the option to buy when the painting is completed. If the work is not from the composition of my choosing, or is not the size I recommend, then I will require a 50% deposit (based on an initial quote, whether the work is done under contract or a previously agreed upon price) before work is started and you will have the option to buy when the painting is completed. If you decide not to purchase the painting, you will lose the 50% deposit.


I would rather not work only from photos, and if I have too, they must be photos that I have taken. All paintings of children will be handled with photos, but may also benefit from one or more brief sittings. Just like painting from life, an hourly wage can be worked out on contract, or a quote can be done in advance. Paintings from photo reference will require a 50% deposit (based on an initial quote, whether the work is done under contract or a previously agreed upon price) before work is started, a photo representing the composition will be presented for approval, and you will have the option to buy when the painting is completed. If you decide not to purchase the painting, you will lose the 50% deposit.

Group portraits will be handled on a case by case basis, but will almost always be from photo references and will require a 50% deposit. Each additional figure will add up to a 50% premium on the quote.









Pets will be done from photo reference, and will require a 50% deposit.

All preliminary sketches and studies will be treated on a case by case basis, and will effect the cost accordingly.









Landscapes and all other projects:

All other projects will be done by quote and an agreed upon price, with a 50% deposit required before work is started.

All preliminary sketches and studies will be treated on a case by case basis.

That's it. I hope that clears up any awkwardness. let me know if you are ever interested in discussing a painting, or if you would like to learn more about the process. Happy New Year everyone.

Ryan Black
December 31st, 2010

A New Englander’s Guide to Dunkin Donuts Etiquette

After years of research, involving multiple daily trips to Dunkin Donuts franchises throughout the country (and one in Nassau), I have complied a list of frustrations and faults that have plagued me to the point of madness. But, unfortunately, my addiction leaves me powerless to do anything but write about this frustration, in the hopes that many of you will learn something and hold people to a higher standard of behavior.

There are some basic rules to follow, and some that need in depth explanation. The 3 most obvious ones are:

If you are at a small location, like one that is part of a gas station, and there is only one or two people manning the register, do not order food they will then have to prepare. Go to the larger location two blocks away for that. Most Dunkin Donuts have someone constantly working the ovens and preparing food, and ordering a breakfast sandwich will not hold up the people behind you for 10 extra minutes.

If you are ordering more than $5 worth of anything, then go inside. Leave the drive-thru for the people ordering coffee only, and prevent a ten car pile-up in the process. There should be signs that state this at every location, but people would assuredly play dumb and demand their disgusting breakfast anyway (More on this one later…).

Dunkin Donuts are high traffic spots that encourage constant turn around. Knowing that, pay attention when you are driving in, parking, and when you leave. My destiny in life is to be killed in the parking lot with coffee spilled over my corpse, because some idiot pulled in at 60mph and wasn’t looking. And also, considering the high turnaround, park accordingly. If you think you’re hot shit and park across 3 spaces, your cars gonna catch a beating. The bat in my trunk is there for precisely this purpose.

If you manage to follow these guidelines, you have already successfully avoided many problems and are a step above most people. -- But here is where direction is needed, and etiquette needs to be clearly defined.

Part 1:
The Coworker dilemma

If you have been to Boston or its surrounding suburbs, you know that there is a Dunkin Donuts on roughly every corner. It is not uncommon to have multiple Dunkin Donuts visible from a street-side point of view. But still, during the morning commute, lines build up and people are forced to wait. Jittery, uncomfortable, miserable about the day ahead and most importantly - under caffeinated, these lines can be a disaster if something diverges from the norm. So please, keep it moving people, nothing to see here.

That said there are several unavoidable problem customers that pop up from time to time. This can end in bloodshed or, if handled correctly, can be dealt with and moved on from with few casualties.

For years, I visited a particular D&D on my way to a job that started at 9:30am. This unorthodox half-hour late start meant that I had to suffer the dreaded Coworker dilemma.

The Coworker Dilemma, or Office Bitch Phenomenon, is when a company delegates the job of getting everyone’s morning coffee and breakfast for them, preventing them from having to go through the regular channels of waiting impatiently with the rest of us. Instead, we are subjected to waiting in a moving line, only to become bottle-necked when some douche orders $125 worth of munchkins, an assortment of breakfast sandwiches and 28 coffees each taken with a different, complicated ratio of cream/milk/soy/Snow-Leopard urine to sugar/splenda/equal/sweet-and-low/crystal meth.

Proper etiquette:

When this occurs, it is the responsibility of the office bitch to realize and take in his/her surroundings. A judgment call will need to be made. First off, knowing that your order is going to slow things down considerably for the people behind you, the proper etiquette is to turn around and ask the person behind you if they are just getting a coffee. If they are, let them go in front of you. If the person behind you is a guy, this is just a common courtesy. If the person behind you is female (this goes double if she is cute) this is mandatory. It is only necessary to do this once, and it can save you a lot of trouble. If he/she behind you is ordering muffins and donuts and whatever else, screw em’, you did your part. Also, if the line is moving at an impossibly slow pace, due to the indifference of the staff, then this etiquette is not your concern and all bets are off.

Failing to do this can often result in sighing, cry’s of “You gotta be kiddin’ me”, stamping feet and sometimes (rarely) having a chair broken over your back by me.

Part 2:
The Rookie

As with any well oiled machine used to moving along at a steady pace, if you throw a wrench in sparks will surely start to fly. Such is the case of the Rookie (here, performing the aforementioned role of “The Wrench”). The Rookie is the guy who doesn’t drink coffee, and is therefore better than the rest of us because he/she has the magical ability not to kill everyone around him if he/she does not have the proper levels of caffeine in his/her system. But every once in a while, one of these elusive creatures will stumble upon a Dunkin Donuts and decide that they would like a donut, bagel twist abomination, fruity coolatta or something else I need never concern myself with. When this happens, this doe-eyed newby often waits patiently, taking in the culture that is so alien to him, until it is his/her turn to order and the record comes to an abrupt, screeching halt. I once even heard such a creature mutter “What’s good today?” to the blank faced girl behind the counter. Listen closely – The person behind the counter knows about 8 words of English, and all of them have to do with variations of coffee. This isn’t McDonald’s or Dairy Queen. Do not wait until you reach the cashier to decide what you want to order. Do not order a soy latte with non-fat whip because you are not at a Starbucks. Do not bother asking what is fresh and just assume everything has been sitting out like that since last Tuesday. In fact, don’t order the food at all and learn to drink coffee like the rest of us you freak.

Proper etiquette:

The only proper solution to this problem is simple. Don’t be that guy. Seriously, that burning you feel on the back of your neck is me shooting daggers from my eyes. Just don’t do it. Being that guy can often result in sighing, cry’s of “Look at this fricken guy”, stamping feet and sometimes having a chair broken over your back by me. There is only one thing worse than a rookie, and that is a pretend rookie.

This brings me to…

Part 3:
The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

These are my least favorite people, who I will refer to as Undesirable Number One. This elite club consists of the pretend rookies, who feign ignorance of their surroundings and whose every decision is calculated, but seems to be spontaneous. This often results in attempting to cut several people in line, pretending to not know who is next, shouting orders over people as though it was a crowded bar and overall playing dumb so that people will let you pass because you don’t know any better.

First off, I don’t care if you’re 100 years old, speak only Portuguese or if you’ve had your head down texting for the last 10 minutes, YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A LINE! You’re Mexican, not Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. Don’t play dumb with me, because I’m on to you. You’re suspect! Yeah you! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen it happen. Maybe a thousand… A line of people is patiently waiting to get their fix (coffee), and someone walks right up to the counter, playing the part of the retard. They “suddenly become aware” of the line of people, and then try to find out were they should stand. Let me give you a hint. Back of the line you worthless @*^&! And don’t pretend that you would have been somewhere in the top 5 if you hadn’t made the mistake. And don’t start asking people standing there if they are in line when it’s f@ck!ng obvious. And, please, if you do ask someone if they are in line and they say yes, do not ask the person in front of them if they are too. This act can and will get you injured.

Proper etiquette:

If you are Undesirable Number One, then the proper etiquette is to kill yourself in a painful manner. Or succumb to old age, as several of the guiltiest offenders are very elderly and attempting the time honored tradition of playing the batty old lady for sympathy.
If you are a bystander in line, then the proper etiquette is to not let the person get away with it. The offender often does get a pass from the people in line, and that is why it happens more and more frequently. It has to stop.

Failure to comply with said etiquette will often result in frustrated grunts of disapproval, and most likely a chair broken over your back by me.

Part 4:
The Dunkin Donuts Racist:

I was, up until my recent moment of clarity, guilty of this charge. I often even drove out of my way to confirm my misinformation.

Let me clarify: I was under the impression that the reason I always got a messed up coffee was 100% the fault of the workers at two separate franchises of Dunkin Donuts. At either of the two locations, if I ordered a large ice-coffee dark with little cream and 2 equal, I would be handed something that looked like a White Russian. ¾ Cream, with a shot of coffee. Gross.

It happened every day. Most days I would send it back, much to the disappointment and resentment of the people behind me in line, and for some reason confusing for the mouth-breather who made the mistake. I was the one holding up the line. I then switched to milk, but still got the same result. The person behind the counter would often ask me to repeat the amount of equals, as thought she didn’t hear me correctly or I had a stutter.

I came to the short sighted and prejudice conclusion that it was because the people working at these locations were almost all Brazilian. I thought, maybe that is how people in Brazil take their coffee.

So I started back-tracking to a Dunkin Donuts on Rt20 in Sudbury, where eager young American kids worked hard pretending to take their job seriously (having been used to the indifference and scorn at the other locations, this was a pleasant surprise). When I ordered my Ice coffee, it came to me exactly as I had hoped. It looked and tasted like coffee, and not some sugary dessert. Whenever possible, I would go out of my way to visit this Dunkin Donuts, and no other.

I had found the answer, even though I was asking the wrong question.

You see, after a while, I started listening to the people in front of me order, searching for violators of the etiquette explained in this rant. And the answer came to me soon after. It is not the people behind the counter; it is the people in front of it. Next time you are in line, listen for yourself. The reason I was so often asked to repeat myself, is that everyone else is ordering their “coffee” with extra cream and extra sugar (or 6 Equals or 10 Sweet & Lows). People have done to coffee what cocktails did to booze. They took the edge off it, and made it into a dairy treat, like a milkshake or ice-cream. They put shots of flavored syrup into it and cover the top with whipped cream. It was different when I went to the one in Sudbury, which is apparently the Mecca of hot young moms whose sole job is to stay in shape and work out while the kids are at school or with their real mother, the Nanny. They were ordering their coffee black, or with a single shot of skim milk, and no sugar.

Interesting…

The more prominent and often visited of the first 2 locations is on Rt9 in Framingham, which is a main artery of commuters. It makes sense that these people would need some sort of treat/pick me up before 8 hours of mind-numbing work trapped in a cubical, apparently hoping for Diabetes to expedite the sweet release of death.

As it turns out, I was the wrench in the machine, being different and slowing things down for the other patrons. But you know what – screw that! Coffee is still coffee and everyone else is disgusting for “drinking” this stuff in the early morning. I put “drinking” in quotes, because, if it comes with a spoon, you’re not really drinking it. It’s basically an ice-cream sundae you’re wolfing down at 8am on a Monday. Which is gross. Man up. And while you’re at it, put down the Cosmo and order a bourbon next time you’re at the bar.

Wuss.

Ryan Black

8/7/2010

Last thoughts on John Locke

Six years later and what have we learned? Well, if there is one thing that this show has taught me it is this:

Big, ambitious mysteries do not work in the current format of Television watching. Sure, week-to-week whodunits like Law and Order or C.S.I. might do well and stay on the air until the end of time, and even season arching mysteries like Veronica Mars might be able to maintain a level of quality throughout (until their network decides that it would be better as a tween-friendly CW soap-opera, and then promptly cancels it. Sigh, I really liked that show. At least I have Party Down now). But, mysteries that define a show are destined to disappoint. And if you don’t believe me, then let me ask you this: Who killed Laura Palmer?

The problem is telling a finite story, in a medium that is essentially written by focus groups. Namely: You. Yes you, with the remote-control in your hand and the ability to make or break shelf lives and careers.

If your show is an across the board hit, then the network will want to milk it for every penny it is worth. Twin Peaks was originally written as a film, then converted into a finite miniseries and then, ultimately once it became a cultural phenomenon, it was allowed to develop into a weekly scripted hour-long, squeezing every last drop from the audience. The problem was: what do you do once you answer that initial question? Who killed Laura Palmer was the toothpick that held the audience’s eyes open and watching their televisions every Friday night.

But, then what happens? Well, the direction Twin Peaks decided to go in was to answer the question, but by doing so they opened the door to another big, ambitious mystery (Spoiler: it was her father, but he was possessed by the disembodied spirit of someone named Bob, a child molester who apparently escaped what, if I understood it correctly, was a waiting room to Hell called “The Black Lodge”. Not exactly Professor Plum in the library with candlestick).

But, at that point the focus group (you) were done. Question answered, show over. Twin Peaks went on to limp into cancellation and a confusing ending. It did however spawn an extremely underrated movie two years later in Fire Walk with Me, but that’s beside the point.

On the other hand, if it is not pulling its weight then the network will cancel it before it is able to successfully build the story and eventually the reveal. Mysteries are all about the prestige, the final act of the play, and the payoff.

All that said, LOST is a hell of an achievement. We will not see anything like it on network television again. Too big, too expensive, too ambitious and too risky. They can produce a reality show for a one-hundredth of the cost, and you (the focus group) will watch it and ensure that quality continues to fade, and that only Cable channels can have quality scripted shows with any continuity.

So, here we are at the ending. Will it be the ultimate letdown, a redemptive comeback that reminds us why we loved this once great show, or some gray area in between that leaves us all with a collective “meh”?

I see 3 possible resolutions to end the 2+ hour series finale.

The first:
Jack and Locke, on the beach like Jacob and the smoke monster from last season, talking about destiny/free will and endings as another ship/plane/space ship crashes on the island and we do this all over again. This, I will dub “The Sopranos” ending. 5-1 odds.

The second:
Jack sacrifices his life in some heroic way and leaves… wait for it… Kate to be the new Jacob. This would be a very cyclical ending, with both the irony of Kate, who has always run from anything grounded in life and been unwilling to stay in one place, living forever on an isolated island. Also, the shows Pilot episode originally had Jack being killed by the smoke monster and Kate learning to be the leader the castaways needed. Very cyclical and an acceptable end to the larger story arches throughout the series. 3-1 odds.

The Third:
Jack reveals his purpose on the island is not to become the new Jacob, but to break the cycle of what keeps happening. Everything that keeps happening, seems to be doing so because it happened before, and the castaways (all of them, the Others, the Dharma folks, everybody) have been acting out this game for two kids who were raised as zealots. They have laid the groundwork to show both Jacob, and the smoke monster as not being entirely good or evil, which I believe has been for a reason. I don’t think the writers of this show would take 6 years to write a series that argues faith over reason or destiny over free will. In this ending, the island could end up under water, helping to connect the two divergent streams. But it doesn’t have to; as I am sure Disney will not want the potential sequels to be handicapped. This ending, I’ll dub “The Tempest” (which has been an influence since the beginning). This is the way it SHOULD end, in my opinion, and is also my odds on favorite. 5-2 odds.

One thing I’m pretty sure off: Desmond will reenact his sacrifice in the swan station on a larger scale. Remember the failsafe key that resulted in his heady trip trough time? This time, I’m guessing the outcome will be a little bigger.

Place your bets.

All in all, tonight’s episode will be special, even if it disappoints (which, for most people, I’m convinced it will). It will end the greatest example of “water cooler television” we have to date. It will also be the last new episode featuring one of the greatest characters in any modern medium, John Locke, played amazingly by Terry O’Quinn. Up there with Homer Simpson, Tony Soprano, Al Bundy and anyone else you think may belong in the mix.

So, take from this what you will. I’m probably way off, but it is fun to hypothesize. Just wanted to share my thoughts and help eulogize this long discussed and argued piece of pop culture.

Anyway, feel free to do the same and say some last words.

Ryan Black
May 23, 2010

Films of 2009

Let me start off by saying – 2009 was easily the worst year for movies in my admittedly short lifetime, which is really sad considering the state of things. In times of economic struggle, the movies are supposed to be there for an escape. Even in a day and age where we all have big screen TV’s and home theaters, going to the movies can be a cheap way of going out and forgetting your troubles. The film industry really dropped the ball this year, and let go an opportunity to really make good and interesting films that could have made a lot more money than in a time when business was booming. Yes, Avatar made money by the truckload by being an amusement park ride that all ages could enjoy; but I’m talking about making films that last with you and give you something to ponder long after leaving the sticky floors, reeking of burnt popcorn.

So, because of this less than stellar year of films, I’m going to format this list a little different this year. Instead of counting down a top ten or twenty, which really would not be possible because there just are not enough good or great films that came out this year, I am going to review a batch of films, good and bad, that have been hyped up to be greater than they are - In most cases anyway, as some films this past year proved to be better than expected (Unfortunately, these seem to be the exception that proves the rule). I’m only going to review films that people really responded to or were showered with praise, skipping films that no one was expecting to be great (but for some reason, in most cases, people went to see in droves anyway. Sigh) like the second Transformers movie, Couples Retreat, G.I. Joe, I Love You Man, Paranormal Activity, The Ugly Truth or any others that seem absent from this list.

And I'm going to run them down, loosely, from worst to best.

This year, I am going to adopt a classic grading system from the great Roger Ebert – the thumbs up/thumbs down formula. But, as I don’t have a Gene Siskel of my own, I will be choosing up to all four thumbs. Easy enough to follow, right? Good.




Inglorious Basterds: DDDD

Somebody, please explain how taste has fallen so far, as to let a film as horrible as this one have a chance at winning anything, let alone an Oscar for Best Picture. Please explain how intelligent people can be sold and convinced that this is anything other than cheap, base level, ugly entertainment.

Back alley, low budget and poorly acted revenge porn.

Absolutely unforgivable.

Violence is cheap drama. Conflict is drama, and when a writer has to resort to violence, it should be when the conflict has built up to that point. I’ve heard Quentin Tarantino speak about how, as a child, he felt ripped-off when the camera would pan away from a scene, as to not show gore, blood, violence or nudity. Apparently, he feels he knows better than all the directors who used this device to great effect. Directors like Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, or Sergio Leone… (Cough, ahem). What Tarantino doesn’t realize is, for me anyway I can’t speak for the rest of you, the effects of violence and gore pull me out of a film much quicker than something happening off screen. So does horrible and pointless voice work from recognizable actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.

But sheer ugliness aside, the greatest flaw of this film and what I took the most offense to, is something a lot of you may not have noticed or appreciated. This is a film that drags a lot of filmmaker’s names through the mud. All the not-too-subtle references… to tie them to such a disastrous film, is to not have understood what made them great to begin with. I had to endure all the Leone references so poorly conceived in Kill Bill, but it is much worse here. Here, it is almost poking fun at or satirizing Leone’s films. This is a crime, and so many people are applauding it. All of the interrogation scenes in films like C'era una volta il West (Once Upon a Time in the West) or Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), where the audience knows one person is lying and the suspense builds to a breaking point – here it is overdone, over-used and far from an homage. I’m surprised Lee Van Cleef wasn’t CGI cut and pasted into Inglorious Basterds just to cement the point. And Sergio Leone isn’t the only one. Imagery directly influenced by John Sturge’s masterpiece (and one of my, and Tarantino’s favorite films) The Great Escape is used throughout. The French village setting, as well as Mike Myers’ portrayal of the Scottish/English General immediately invoke images from the hilarious 1966 cult classic Le roi de Coeur (The King of Hearts). Knowing that these films were somehow responsible for the atrocities in Inglorious Basterds is hugely insulting and should be offensive to any lover of film.

I’ve never seen Quel maledetto treno blindato (aka The Inglorious Bastards), the film that was supposedly the original to Tarantino’s remake, but honestly, its relationship and proximity to this horrible film is enough to ensure that I never will.




Watchmen: DDDD

I will be the first to admit that I did not expect to like this film. I expected to watch it and have a neat visual to go along with the original medium, but to ultimately come away from it with the realization that Alan Moore, Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and Darren Aronofsky were right: The source material is unfilmable. Hell, I knew that when I picked up chapter 1 almost 20 years ago. But in recent history, going in with low expectations has helped me to enjoy several mediocre films more than I probably should have. In this case, any expectation wouldn’t have mattered.

This film is an abomination.

I could write a book on how horrible the make-up and special effects were, but will leave those alone to focus on the real issues.

This film is such a train wreck that it may be a career ender for several people that worked on it. It will, at the very least, be the last film by Director Zack Snyder that I ever pay money to see. He has the visual sensibility of a 10 year old on Ritalin, and manages to coax a terrible performance out of very capable actors. For some of the unknown actors in this film, it will be hard for them to shake such a horrible job from their acting résumés. I for one would find it hard to take Malin Akerman or Matthew Goode serious in any future roles they take now that I have seen how atrocious they were in Watchmen.

But making a bad film can be forgiven, and that is not where the true crime in all of this lies. The unforgivable transgression is taking something that is so beloved by so many people, and butchering it all the while claiming to stay true to the source material. And even though 1 million extra copies of the trade-paperback have sold in anticipation of the film, the larger audience will be experiencing Watchmen for the first time when they see it on the screen.

Snyder claims that he took on the job of filming Watchmen, because he was afraid of it in the hands of someone that didn’t love the source material. Well, if this is at all true, it surprises me. Because that would mean that he loved the original - without understanding it. Everyone that understands the relevance of Watchmen, and why it is considered amongst the most important pieces in pop culture history, can tell you why it resonates. Two main reasons: The sardonic and satirical take on the idea of superpowers (whether they be a country or a person, either way in Moore’s eyes that equals “bully”), and the brilliant structure that to this day stands as the closest thing to prose in a visual medium (a genius, layered mosaic of panels that is the real core of Watchmen, and the reason why it is impossible to translate to film). The satire of each chapter is as poignant as Gilliam’s Brazil or Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, of which there are two forced references to in the film, almost as if only to use for arguments sake. But the narrative structure… the real heart of each chapter… is abandoned completely. It’s no big secret that the weakest aspect of Watchmen was always the plot and its characters. So why make a movie about those things, ultimately watering down the original medium. And another huge mistake – Snyder tries to make the characters in his film edgy and cool. Sure, he gets that they are also damaged and fascist, and ultimately that is what it would take to get someone to put on a costume and beat people near or to death all in the name of some warped form of justice. But these people are not cool. They are social misfits, and barely likable. And that is what was so revolutionary about them.

Just to establish my geek credibility, I should let you know about my history with Watchmen. When I was 13 years old I picked up issues 1 and 2 on a recommendation from the owner of a local comic shop, just to see if I would like it. After inhaling the first 2 issues, I scrounged together $17.50 (no easy task back then) and bought the trade-paperback which collected the entire story and supplementary material. The impact this made on me at the time is still being processed today. Reading The Catcher in the Rye at 15 had a similar, but less profound effect on me. I have always been wildly defensive of this masterpiece, only now I have a reason to be. I can’t imagine what it would be like to read this for the first time today, almost 30, in a world so drastically different from when I first read it. I’ll never know, because every time I pick it up (and it is still fairly often) I am instantly 13 again. For a still-life project when I was 17, I was instructed to gather items that represented me, and I included that tattered, worn out trade-paperback (which at that point, I had only probably read cover to cover, a measly number in the double digits. You read that right). That copy of Watchmen travels with me whenever I pack a bag, and has seen a few countries and oceans in its day.

And you’ll notice how I refer to Watchmen as “source material” and “trade-paperback”, as opposed to “Graphic Novel”. That’s because I am old enough to remember that this was never a Graphic Novel, as it came out in chapters. “Anthology” or “comic book” would be more appropriate and less pretentious. Be wary of anyone that calls it a graphic novel, because that alone shows their ignorance. And Alan Moore, the genius recluse whose name has been dragged through the mud lately even though he did his best to distance himself from this horror, owns a small piece of my soul. He also bares the blame for why every film I see or book I read seems watered down and unwilling to take risks by comparison. Poor Alan Moore, I wish I had the strength of will to stay away from this film like you did. But curiosity got the better of me. And for all the people qualifying his attitude towards this film as lunacy; you would be a (so called) paranoid conspiracy nut too, if Hollywood was hell bent on destroying every creative property that you were unable to retain the rights to. Thankfully, they should be about done now, having saved his magnum opus for their big finale.





The Lovely Bones: DDD

Not much good I can say about this film besides - Sometimes, as an artist, you go into a project with the intention of feeling your way through. Making it up as you go is usually a detractor, and this is a text book case of just that. But, it doesn’t mean that the director’s heart wasn’t in the right place. Instead, this technique can be used to create something true and natural. And that must have been an appealing idea to a director like Peter Jackson, coming off of huge blockbusters like King Kong or The Lord of the Rings. I can only imaging all the pre-visuals and storyboards that went into creating those films. In The Lovely Bones, I assume a lot of the design and look was conceived in post production and in the editing room. I only say that because, nothing seemed to work. The look of the film, the acting and the way it all barely comes together, they all seem to be a bunch of pieces rearranged in the wrong order, like a portrait by Picasso - only less recognizable.

I don’t know if Alice Sebold’s book is structured the same way. I’m sure a lot of it is very descriptive and surreal, which is tough to translate to film. Maybe it was just a book that should have never been adapted.

That doesn’t mean that Jackson and everyone else that worked on this film do not deserve some blame. This film is so bad at some points that I couldn’t help but laugh at it. Considering the material, that is a huge flaw.

At one point, there is a completely out of context montage of Susan Sarandon’s character that seems to go one for ten straight minutes. I feel I really need an explanation for that, as it almost seemed like a DVD deleted scene or even a blooper reel.

And, as wonderful as Rachel Weisz is, her great acting cannot balance out how terrible Mark Walberg is. Maybe if she had more screen time. Saoirse Ronan, who I thought was great in Atonement, does her best with the material she is given, but it is hard to take anyone seriously as she is skipping through some CGI fantasy land. And Stanley Tucci, for all the praise he’s been receiving, is only half descent. And that is only if you can look past the bad make-up, wig and contacts.

Not sure if this is the shape of things to come from Peter Jackson. I was hoping this film would remind me of Heavenly Creatures, Jackson’s wonderful film from way back in 1994. But instead, this is the second straight film of his that have left me shaking my head.





The Blind Side: DDD

This type of dishonest, melodramatic garbage is usually quarantined to the Lifetime channel. Unfortunately, this film somehow escaped that stigma, and showed the true flaw of the film-going public. Apparently, you all (yep, I’m excluding myself because I usually make a concerned effort to avoid this junk) crave this type of force-fed lie, as this film cleaned up at the box office and was somehow nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. Wow.

Every scene in this film seemed insincere, completely unbelievable, and incredibly forced. The characters were so adorable, saccharine and touching that this film left me feeling like a kid trying to sleep after eating a pillowcase full of Halloween candy. This film left me feeling so bad because, people do not act like this. Every line of dialogue was impossibly simple yet witty, and disappointingly safe. Not every film has to strive for reality, but don’t shovel bull$#!t at me for two straight hours.

Sandra Bullock has somehow taken the crown of America’s Princess from Julia Roberts, even though she did a movie called All about Steve this year which is leading in nominations at this year’s Razzies. And that brings up a relevant comparison. Julia Roberts, because of her royal standing, won an Academy Award for 2000’s Erin Brochovich, beating out the much, much more deserving Ellen Burstyn for Requiem for a Dream. This year, the same thing is going to happen with Sandra Bullock and the much, much more deserving Carey Mulligan for An Education. It makes me very sad to write that, because compared to Sandra Bullock in this film, Robert’s role in Erin Brockovich may have well been Robert Deniro in Raging Bull. Pray, pray, pray for an upset.




Public Enemies: CDDD

The less I say about this film the better, as this was a huge disappointment for me. I have followed Michael Mann’s career very closely, and the current decline of quality in his films is hugely upsetting.

Mann is still a master when it comes to use of natural light and setting, but here, his collaborator Dante Spinotti has some trouble with the breakneck pace of this film, so the camera work suffers. You’re still left with several scenes that look picturesque and beautiful, but whenever the action kicks in the film looks very amateur.

And all the pretty scenery in the world couldn’t save this film from the script or the acting. The story, about the media’s portrayal and glorification of a likable bank robber, is never as interesting as the premise would have you think.

And the acting is atrocious. Johnny Depp and company act as if they were given no direction, or they have no concept of who each character is. I usually like Christian Bale, but even in the very short amount of time he is on screen, I found him to be not much more than a cardboard cutout. Actresses who were fantastic in other roles this year, like Carrey Mulligan and Marion Cotillard, are either given too little to work with or were just completely miscast in their roles. But it is Depp that deserves the most amount of blame here. His John Dillinger is completely over the top and even annoying at times. Playing all of these larger than life cartoons like Jack Sparrow or Willy Wonka must make it difficult to transition back to a character with some layers or sense of subtlety.

Again, Michael Mann takes another step away from his A-List status. With each film he puts out, Mann becomes more and more of a faceless Director, whose films are better known for the actors that star in them. The Insider was ten long years ago, and he has been on a steady descent ever since. I will continue to see his films, in the hope that the next one will put him back on the right track. But, only for so long.




The Hangover: CDDD

I was going to leave this film off of this list, along with other throwaway movies that came out this year like Old Dogs, Land of the Lost or Jennifer’s Body (none of which I‘ve seen, so that‘s not really fair). But it turns out a lot of people feel strongly enough about it and even consider it one of the best films this year.

Me, not so much.

I pretty much thought that is was a very average, run of the mill slapstick comedy. A handful of films like this come out every year and, for the life of me I don’t understand why this is such a stand out. In fact, I think it doesn’t hold a candle to any of the Judd Apatow or Adam McKay films that have come out in the last few years. I would put it instead in the same category as a movie like Dude, Where’s My Car? In fact, both films have the exact same plot. Would you have liked this one so much if it had been called Dude, Where’s My Car part Deux: The Search for More Money?

I will say, I did think Zach Galifianakis was pretty damn funny. Scratch that; he was very, very funny. But he couldn‘t handle a whole film. And the rest of the cast was nothing special. In fact, I thought that their characters were kind of… douche bags (pardon my language).

Maybe people liked the fact that this movie captured the myth of Las Vegas. From counting cards to Mike Tyson’s pet tiger, a lot of the low brow bases are covered. But I don’t think that’s it.

I think that this is a kid’s movie, like the type of comedy you might see watching the Disney channel; only this movie has adult language and themes. That’s the recipe. And if I was a Pre-teen, or even the age I was when I first saw Billy Madison, I probably would have thought it was hilarious.




The Informant!: CDD

I love the premise of this film. It is a reminder of the fact that - Humanities greatest gift is the ability to reason. It is just too bad that we only ever use this gift to rationalize our own selfish, hormonal and instinctual actions, instead of using reason to make our decisions in the first place. We can rationalize anything, and even the best intentions of good hearted people can lead to insanely deceitful and evil actions.

And here, Steven Soderbergh takes that mission statement and proves it over and over throughout the film. And, whether it was intended or not, this film became an allegory for America’s failing economy due to corruption and greed.

Matt Damon was fantastic here, as with most of his roles. This is a transformation that, had the film been better or the story more interesting, Damon probably would have received an Oscar nomination.

The problem I had with this film was that, besides that honorable goal and being well acted, the film fell flat in almost every other aspect. It was a comedy that barely made me laugh. It was lighthearted enough to never be dramatic, and I left with the feeling that this film could have accomplished the same satirical goals in about 45 minutes. That means the other 53 minutes felt unnecessary, which is a recipe for disaster.

Soderbergh’s two films this year, The Informant and The Girlfriend Experience, both were very small, intimate and independent films, in contrast to 2008’s bloated and under-edited epic Che. Unfortunately, all three suffered from being a little slow and uninteresting. I’m not saying I expect all of his films to be mass-appealing, typical Hollywood fair like his fantastic Ocean’s Eleven, but it would be nice if he could find some middle ground to work on.




Sherlock Holmes: CCDD

Was this a fun movie? Hell yes. I loved seeing Robert Downey Jr. reprising his role of Tony Stark, only more of an obsessive compulsive. And Jude law showed a humorous side that I only saw glimpses of in 2004’s Closer and 2006’s The Holiday (Kate Winslet was in it, cut me some slack).

Was this a good movie? Eh… I had some issues with it. The biggest of which was, this film missed an opportunity to really establish a great setting and transport the audience to that place. Sure, the film takes place in late 19th century London, but only as a background. And I say that because, this was a film that seemed completely …American. And it has nothing to do with casting an American as one of England’s most iconic characters. No, where this film lost me was all of the guns and all of the explosions and jumping out of windows and huge special effects scenes of slow motion terrible destruction, etc, etc. I remember reading several of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries as a kid and as a teenager. One of the things that stood out even back then was the complete and total lack of guns. Policemen didn’t carry them; the villains didn’t use them or blow things up. In fact, any damage done would have most likely taken place before the story started, and it was Holmes job to sniff out the culprit. All of these things, at the time, helped define these stories as very…British. But in this film, everyone is shooting at each other and blowing stuff up. Maybe they should have just changed the name from Sherlock Holmes to Die Hard 7: London Bridges falling down (hmmm… not bad).




Big Fan: CCDD

I’m not one who usually shies away from brutal reality in film. This year had several affecting, severe films like The Messenger and Precious, but none made me cringe like Big Fan did. If anything frustrates me to the point of shutting a film off, it is idol worship and celebrity culture, and that is exactly the point of this on the button film.

This is the down side of fandom, and where it goes horrible wrong. And some sports fans just don’t understand the draw of the game, and instead turn it into the male version of reading US Weekly.

If you don’t know what the film is about, it is the story of a hardcore Giants fan who gets violently attacked by his favorite player for approaching him at a Manhattan nightclub. And Patton Oswalt’s character deserved to get beat up (and not just because he’s a Giants fan because if there is one thing I hate more than Giants fans, it is Giants players. Sorry, I’ll get back on subject). Am I saying the ruthless attack was provoked and anything other than a juice head moron beating on a defenseless fan of his? No, of course not. But the guy is 36 years old, lives with his mother and has a cheesy poster of this player hanging over his bed. He needed the wake up.

That’s were the film lost me a little bit (Well, that and the fact that I didn’t know if I was watching a serious drama or a satirical comedy) It is one thing to play him as the victim, but to have it be surprising that he doesn’t stop rooting for the home team? I can’t help but think that Robert D. Siegel, who wrote the phenomenal script for The Wrestler, isn’t that big of a football fan. Either that, or maybe he though that most people would see his behavior as extreme and not relate at all. The sad truth is that the isle at the grocery store is filled with tabloids for a reason. Unfortunately, there are more people like this than you might think.





Invictus: CCDD

On Clint Eastwood’s resume, this one would fall somewhere short of Changeling, but well above Flags of our Fathers. A very uplifting, decent film; but not the A-list drama we have come to expect.

And, it is a film where it is easy to see what went wrong.

First off, Matt Damon’s role was small enough that they should have shot for historical accuracy over a big name actor. Sure, he nailed the accent and probably brought a lot bigger audience to the theater, but if you went to see a Matt Damon movie, I can’t help but think you left disappointed. He was supposed to be playing the 6’3” Francois Pienaar, who was built like a brick wall, and that’s a stretch that even Damon couldn’t pull off. And, Damon being such a prestigious actor leads into my biggest issue with this film.

This is a film that couldn’t decide if it wanted to be the next Rudy, or the next Million Dollar Baby. It could have been another Disney-esque, uplifting big game movie, or it could be a film about healing the wounds of South African Apartheid and a real Oscar contender. You can’t have it both ways.

That said, Morgan Freeman was fantastic as Nelson Mandela. This was a transformation that was so believable and never fell into simple impersonation. It was a very complete performance, and Freeman may surprise everyone by upsetting Jeff Bridges and taking home an Academy Award. It was his portion of the film that I thought was the strongest, and I would never have been emotionally rooting for the rugby team to win, except for the ties to Freeman’s Mandela.

I do think this is a film that will age quite well. It’s a film that will do well on cable and DVD. That probably stems from the uplifting, big game aspect of the film. But if you don’t know rugby, you may want a quick rundown, as the film expects you to understand all the action of the game. It is well worth watching, but don’t expect the chills that come from watching really great, Oscar worthy sports films.




Star Trek: CCDD

Of all the films that came out this year and were praised across the board, this one (with the obvious exception of Inglorious Basterds) confuses me most. Sure, it had the potential to be awful, and far exceeded the expectations for most reboots or prequels. But do people really think this movie should have been a Best Picture contender, or that the Academy snubbed it because it is a major Hollywood franchise? C’mon people, this film was far from exceptional. In fact, I thought it was way too corny, overly melodramatic and not too well acted. Not to mention completely unbelievable, but it is a Star Trek movie so I can let that one slide. For the life of me, I can’t see what people responded to in this film.

The special effects here, as well as in Avatar, made the film a lot of fun. I may be a pretentious snob at times, but I am not above enjoying a good explosion or space battle. Does that make it a great film? Please, if that was the case then those Transformers films can take their spot right next to Casablanca on the AFI’s list of all time greats.

I even enjoyed seeing these young actors take up such iconic roles and handle them well without dipping too much into homage. I did think that the film gave way too much time to showing these characters meet and shake hands etc, which was something that only hardcore fans would really appreciate.

Maybe the sequel will spend less time gushing over the work of the original actors and story, and give us something original to enjoy. The tag line may have been – This is not your Fathers Star Trek – but really, that is exactly what it was: Nothing risked and nothing gained.




In the Loop: CCDD

For the most part, I’m a big fan of British humor. And I love a good satire, especially if it is a poignant look at humanity and war (My favorite film is Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb). This was a film that seemed tailor made for the film lover in me. Unfortunately, In the Loop was a big letdown.

I’ve never seen the BBC series The Thick of It, which In the Loop is based on, so I can’t comment on how much of a continuation it was or how true it kept to the source material. All I can do is comment on how it came together as a film. And, with that in mind, this film was…Ok. Nothing spectacular or meaningful or even a clever take on the human beings that make the decision on whether or not to go to war (which is what I went in suspecting). It was more about how some higher-ups manipulate the media and play the blame game. Not a bad premise, but nothing too creative. The other complaint I have - and let this be a warning to you if you plan on seeing this film - I was a little unsure of how much of this film was based, even loosely, on real life events. Something I would have known, probably, if I had seen to original show. Was this about The United States and England’s questionable decision to go to war in Iraq, or was this just a general satire of how the decision to go to any war is handled? If it was about the former, then there are a ton of historical and chronological inaccuracies. From references to movies that came out years after 2003, to technologies that did not exist yet, I can‘t help but think that the filmmakers could have clarified this further. I know it’s a satire and can’t be picked apart like that, but for me, it took me out of the film.

Thankfully, what saved this film for me were a couple of very funny performances. Peter Capaldi had me laughing with every profanity laced tirade, which was every line of dialogue his character had. His character Malcolm is why I will probably go out and buy The Thick of It on DVD. And his negative, Tom Hollander, is so Milquetoast as he strives to stay under the radar yet still be important, that the contrast of the two characters makes for great comedy.

I’m still trying to make my mind up about this film. I went in with high expectations, and left a little disappointed. I’m still glad I saw it, and definitely recommend it to anyone that is looking for something a little different from you usual predictable fare.




The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: CCDD

With bits and pieces adapted from Faust, or more accurately The Tragic History of Doctor Faustus, as well as some Pygmalion and The Tempest, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a story you think you know or have seen before. But it is also something wholly original. Basically, it is a story about an ill-advised wager.

I am a huge fan of Terry Gilliam. Even the real out there stuff like Tideland, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, and Time Bandits. And his classics like Twelve Monkeys, The Fisher King and Brazil are some of my favorite films of all time. That said, I am worried about the direction his career might be headed.

I watched the Criterion edition of Brazil recently, and after almost a quarter of a century, the effects still hold up and look great. The use of miniatures, animatronics and green screen look stylized and purposeful. But the use of CGI as the standard in today’s special effects might be too enticing for Gilliam to pass up. His imagination is vast, and the freedom that CGI allows a filmmaker like him is overwhelming I’m sure. But he should look at the moral of his own film and realize he is making a deal with the Devil, because CGI is what killed this movie. This movie often went back and forth from stylized street performance, to a bad SyFy channel movie of the week. It is a shame too, because, as a fan of his, I can easily envision what these fantastic scenes would have looked like if he had stayed true to his roots and made a surrealist fantasy film in the style of Baron Munchausen or Jabberwocky.

The performances in this film were extremely uneven. I’m sure everyone that went into this film was expecting greatness from Heath Ledger, but unfortunately he is not as big a piece of the puzzle as you may have been expecting. Also, it seems his tragic death took place far into this film, but a long way from finished. The three actors that stepped in to finish the role (Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell), as noble an act as that may have been, cannot make a seamless transition into the character, and really ham it up in their short scenes. In fact, because of the exaggerated pace and style of the film, and what makes it feel like a dream or nightmare, most of the actors seem to have a hard time defining their characters.

Except for Christopher Plummer. He is absolutely fantastic. As this movie progressed, I was always anxious and eager for the next seen with him playing off of the Devil in Tom Waits. As much as I love Gilliam’s films, it was Plummer’s performance I came out admiring most.

If you have trouble with Terry Gilliam’s style, then you may want to skip this film. He turns it up a notch here, and it may be jarring for some viewers. But if you love films like The Fisher King, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, then at the very least you can appreciated the carnival show that is this film.




Avatar: CCD

More of an amusement park ride than it is a film, Avatar definitely is a game changer, and accomplished what director James Cameron set out to do. And when I refer to it being a theme park ride, I am referring to the Imax 3D version. I’ve seen it both ways, and let me tell you – Seeing this film in a regular theater is like watching a movie about being on a rollercoaster, where as the Imax 3D is like actually riding one. Huge difference.

I thought that the film industry was in trouble. Audiences were staying home on their comfortable couches, in front of their big-screen HD TV’s with their 7.1 Dolby Digital surround sound, and avoiding the high school crowds. Because that’s who goes to the movies on a Friday night now – the desired demographic has gone from men, ages 17-34, to boys and girls, ages 13-18. How was the film industry going to react? The answer, unfortunately, has been huge event movies and blockbusters that have to be enjoyed amongst a crowd and on a screen that was 60 feet, not 60 inches. Now that Imax and 3D have been thrown into the mix? Forget it – Hollywood will never look back. In the next few years, we are going to see a huge influx of 3D, big effects and bright, shiny films that go after that newly beloved demo. Independent films will be pushed down, back into the hole that they occupied before the mid-nineties. And, it is not all Avatars’ fault, but in ten years it may seem that way.

Ok, back to Dances with Smurfs. I mean Avatar, sorry. Really, looking at this movie, I can’t help but think of some nerdy, Dungeon’s and Dragons type kids, sitting around and cherry-picking aspects of their favorite movies in an attempt to create a screenplay that would never have a chance of being green-lit.

Like the Matrix? We could have the main character “plug” himself into this other world, and make the audience feel that much more in tune with the narrative. How very Meta.

Like The Lord of the Rings? We could make the setting an exaggerated fantasy world of huge mountains and trees, and even develop culture and a new language for the human-esque beings that live there.

What about the plot? Something with a good message and something with prestige that has worked before… I’ve got it! We can take Dances with Wolves, The New World and Pocahontas, which are all almost identical in story, and not change a thing! Brilliant!

Oh, and throw in Ripley from those Alien movies!

But, James Cameron had the Hollywood clout to actually pull it off. The crazy thing is: no one is calling him out on it. Instead, people are praising the story as being hugely original. Wow.

If you thought the visuals in Avatar were beautiful, I have two films for you to see that are both related to this film. The first is not really a film, but a series of documentaries also staring Sigourney Weaver: Planet Earth. The second film, mentioned above, has the same basic story as Avatar, only told much better: The New World. The nature and visuals in both films are far superior to Avatar, but the thing that makes them that much more amazing and beautiful is - they are not cartoons. Really, all the CGI in Avatar mixed with human actors make me think of watching a modern day Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Don’t get me wrong, I liked Avatar. As I said before, I’ve seen it twice. It was a hell of a ride. But, I agree with Roger Ebert and would love to use a recent quote from him, after hearing the news that Avatar had just won the Golden Globe for Best Picture – “All hail Avatar, yes, but the year’s best picture? Give me a F--cking break.”




The Hurt Locker: CCD

I had a hard time with this film. Part of me wanted to really like it. Most critics loved it. If the subject matter was about say, the Vietnam War, I may have been able to get past the stylized violence and overall mission statement and just enjoyed a good action movie. But, this is about a war that is going on. This is about people, soldiers that are in harms way and risking their lives right now. And I can’t forgive a film that, in my mind, does them a disservice or lessens the horrors of war that they see every day.

Is this a good film? Yes. Worth seeing, even if you come away from it, like I did, disagreeing with its point of view. The performances are as good as they can be based on the characters, and the tension and suspense is handled beautifully. This is a very anxious, violent, edge of you seat type film. And, of the three films that have a chance at winning the Best Picture Oscar, I am hoping this wins (or that Up in the Air achieves a huge upset). Because, it is a better film than Avatar, and compared to Inglorious Basterds, it may as well be Lawrence of Arabia.

But is it a great film, as many top critics would have you believe? No… far from it actually.
Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve never been to Iraq, or even served in the Armed Forces, so I can only give my opinion and what my gut reaction tells me. And what it tells me is that this film is incredibly dishonest. The characters actions and reactions seem extremely fabricated in order to get the point of the film across. The main character, played by Jeremy Renner, is portrayed as a hard-shelled, but secretly sensitive adrenaline junky with almost no control or the ability to reason. And, as James Dean and heartthrob as that may come off, it is not the character I have an issue with, but the interaction between him and the other soldiers that surround him. Not to overly generalize, but this is not how men behave. Even immature men put in horribly mature situations. And certainly not when you add rank into the equation. But it facilitates the mission statement and attempts to sell the point.

And the point itself is something I passionately disagree with.

The point is that (**minor spoiler**) - this character, who is an expert and extremely valuable in his field, is not motivated by saving lives or serving a purpose greater than himself or being unable to sit idly by, knowing that this job he does so well can make a difference. No, instead we are supposed to believe that he is just unable to do menial chores like clean gutters or be around his gorgeous wife and newborn child… because he craves the adrenaline rush. I could believe that he, as many soldiers probably do, started out this way. But, witnessing and gaining a sense of mortality changes people. You grow up real fast when you realize that your life, and other people’s lives, is all of a sudden your responsibility. But Renner’s character never grows up. If anything, he becomes more desensitized and cynical.

Again, maybe I’m wrong. But a director’s job is to sell the audience on a particular point of view or narrative. And Kathryn Bigelow did not sell me on this one.

To all my friends that have fought in the Iraq War, I would love to hear your thoughts on this film, and the accuracy of the people portrayed in it. And, as always, thank you for your service. You deserve a film that truly honors you, and much more.




The Fantastic Mr. Fox: CCD

I love stop motion. Always have, always will. Since I was a kid it has always fascinated me, so I never miss an opportunity to see a feature film done in this remarkably patient medium. Throw in Wes Anderson, and this was a no-brainer for me.

This was a very fun movie, which really captured the tone and charm of the Roald Dahl children’s story. But is this another The Nightmare before Christmas? Not even close.

Ultimately, I think that this will be the film that showed Wes Anderson’s range, or lack there of. This film had his style and pace, no question, but it lacked the humor that live actors could have delivered because of it. And, the flip side of that is, another director not attempting a specific style could have used the animation for extremely funny, more kid friendly humor.

Worth seeing, but I can’t help but think that this film could have been better. Then again, if Anderson was not involved then the actors that made it enjoyable would never have signed on.




Nine: CCD

This is a film that really could have been great. Instead, it is a film that a lot of people will not like or appreciate, which is really a sad thing. I liked it though, at least much more than I was expecting to.

I liked Rob Marshall’s last feature musical, Chicago, quite a bit. But I liked it because of the visuals, which are also very strong in Nine, as well as the fact that it was a bit of a satire of big flashy choreographed numbers. And the music was great. Very catchy stuff that had me humming all the way home.

And that is the biggest problem with Nine, and the reason why so many fans of musicals will walk away from it disappointed. But more on this in a moment.

First, the acting: Daniel Day-Lewis is the best actor working today. Period; end of conversation. And here, he shows us why. He doesn’t simple play Marcello Mastroian‘s role, or even Federico Fellini, but instead makes Guido all his own. It is truly and amazing feat that he can tell you everything you need to know about his character in a single shrug of his shoulders. Before he said a single line of dialogue, I knew Guido was going to be a self-important narcissist who is also extremely insecure.

His supporting cast is made up of some of the biggest names working in film, some I love and some I can’t stand. As much as I absolutely adore everything that Penélope Cruz touches, I don’t think she deserved the nomination for Best Supporting Actress (though she should have received it for her role in Broken Embraces). She was fantastic as always, but she was not even the Best Supporting Actress in this film. That distinction belongs to Marion Cotillard, who is absolutely amazing in every second she is on screen. And it’s a tough role that Cotillard pulls off. You don’t usually find yourself rooting for the passive wife, knowing and accepting that her husband is unfaithful.

Second, the story and dialogue: Just look at the source material they were working from. It’s genius. Fellini was decades ahead of his time. Every interaction is filled with such heartbreaking subtext, that these characters become real and three-dimensional with a raised eyebrow or stutter. The film within a film plot has become its own genre in Hollywood, and there are only a handful of films that come close to being as good as this original.

Third, the visuals: Italy never looked so good. Marshall, as well as cinematographer Dion Beebe, certainly has an eye for light and shadows, a trait many filmmakers try to skip or wash out. My one complaint, and this could easily be chalked up to studio intrusion, is that several of the musical numbers were violently over edited. They looked like MTV music videos.

And lastly, the most important aspect of a Musical, the music: It was terrible. (Sigh) it really was. It was repetitive filler, rehashing the subtext from the preceding scene. All the well choreographed, well lit and well acted scenes couldn’t keep you from noticing. I know they were working from a play, and did not want to change much, but they had to know. They had to know that audiences weren’t going to look past that. It was really that bad. At one point, I even thought to myself - Why do they even need this music at all? Unfortunately, the answer came to me quickly. It’s only Nine because of the music, without it, you are left with 8 ½.




District 9: CCCD

Nothing like what I was expecting. Much more suspenseful and thought provoking than the trailers or the press would have you believe, District 9 is one of those rare gems that are completely original, disguised as safe Hollywood special effects garbage.

The other aspect that came as a total surprise was Sharlto Copley’s fantastic descent and transformation. Easily one of the best and one of the most overlooked performances of the year. And this was a film that hinged on his believability, and would not have had half the affect had this role been given to a recognizable star.

And, if the setting had been a place like New York, Washington or Tokyo like most alien invasion films tend to be, this film would have never worked. Sure, the allegory of apartheid gave this film a layered and meaningful mission statement, but it also gave the film a sense of reality that Science Fiction films often dismiss in favor of action and or special effects.

In a year of prominent Science Fiction films, I think District 9 stands at the top of the mountain (side note: I don’t consider Moon to be a Sci-fi film, but a psychological thriller instead). Instead of seeing Avatar for the fifth time, I recommend giving this film a chance.




Precious:Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire: CCCD

If your first thought of Manhattan in the late eighties is that of the self important yuppies from Bret Easton Ellis novels, then what life was like a mile north may have well been on another planet.

This is a hard, ugly film, as the trailers would have you believe. But you may not be prepared for the depths that this film sinks into. But it is the darkness and ugliness that makes the small, brief moments of hope all the more relevant and affecting. But they are small and they are brief. You go in thinking that this is going to be a film about physical abuse and an unhealthy household, but it doesn’t prepare you for the mental, verbal and sexual abuse that make you redefine what unhealthy is.

This film, like the Messenger, is a tough, Transporting film that lives and dies by the performances. There are three unexpected and absolutely phenomenal performances in this film. Mariah Carey (no, I’m not kidding) is unrecognizable as the empathetic social worker who thinks she’s seen it all. Mo’Nique is terrifying as one of the most awful, monstrous villains in recent film history (and she will win the Academy Award for the role). And, my favorite and the most subtle performance in the film, Paula Patton is fantastic as the hard-shelled teacher who struggles to find some sense of fairness and justice for her young student.

Lee Daniels second outing as director looks and feels a lot like a sophomore effort. The camera work, particularly in the confined space of Precious’ home life, gets extremely creative so as not to be repetitive. Harlem looks so different today, that the filmmakers are very limited in showing the setting, but they do well to hide it (even though there are a handful of very jarring chronological mistakes that take you right out of the film). But this is a film full of extremely emotional interactions, so the setting falls to the background as it should. The best thing I can say about the director is, that he didn’t shy away from or water down any of the scenes. For that reason, I look forward to seeing his career play out and hope he never learns to play it safe.





The Men Who Stare at Goats: CCCD

Yet another film about (and satirizing) war. And again, this one is about Iraq - is it me, or was this the overwhelming theme of every other film that came out this year? In the span of about one week, I watched this film, Brothers, The Hurt Locker and In the loop, so maybe it just seemed that way. The one thing I can say about this one is: it certainly made me laugh the hardest. This is classic satire, with the actors all playing it very straight and completely unaware of the joke we, as the audience, are all in on.

First off, if you are a very spiritual person and believe in mystical third eyes or that, with the right amount of focus, you could walk through walls - this film is not going to work for you. But me? I’m a notoriously cynical atheist, and it cracked me up. The premise only works if you see these soldier’s actions as completely ridiculous, and are able to take the same educational journey as the narrative source, a young and ambitious journalist played perfectly by Ewan McGregor. And where this journey ends up is why this film works so well. I’m not going to give the ending away, but it reminded me very much of the ending of Le roi de Coeur (The King of Hearts), another classic satire about war.

I’m sure this is going to be an unpopular review, because most of the people I have spoken to did not seem to completely understand this film, or mistook it for being avant-garde. But for me, this is the type of film I love and wish there were more of. It is poignant and very creative. And it doesn’t hurt that the cast reads like a list of my favorite actors. Sure, it’s not a perfect film, but in a year as weak as this one, it is one of my favorites.




Crazy Heart: CCCD

By the end of the first act, I was 100% convinced that this film would be my favorite film from 2009, and that Jeff Bridges’ name is already inscribed on the Academy Award for Best Actor. But unfortunately, that was premature as there was a lot of film left to go.

I still think Bridges will win the Oscar. I also think he should. But it is far from a sure thing. He is fantastic. Especially when he’s a charming, barely on his feet drunk, playing his way through a lucid dream of smalltime gigs at bowling alleys and honky-tonks. But, like all good characters, he is forced to grow and learn and evolve. Unfortunately, as much as you root for him to succeed, you are left with much less compelling drama.

And, it is quite an accomplishment for him to step out of the shadow of Jeffrey Lebowski. I thought I would always see Jeff Bridges as the Dude (or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing).

Where the film hit’s a wall is Maggie Gyllenhaal. She does a great job with the character, and my complaint is not with her acting. It is where her character takes the story that I have issue with. The second act is much less fascinating and interesting. The writers go for more conventional fare, opting for a romantic relationship that they hoped could carry the film. And the film never recovers from this mistake.

But let’s focus on the good. Bridges character, country blues man “Bad” Blake, is a classic Springsteen song waiting to be written. This years Randy “The Ram” Robinson - A tragedy just waiting to happen. Bridges plays him as a man going through an exceptional routine, day after day, just waiting for God or anyone to step in and hand him the break that will fix his life. Instead, it is a series of bad things that force him to wake up and make those changes himself.

This is another film that is good, but easily could have been great. The direction the story takes could still have been interesting if the decision wasn’t made to wrap the whole thing in a neat little bow. This, unfortunately, seems to be a theme this year. But the film is still very good, and you should see it for, if nothing else, Jeff Bridges’ tremendous performance.




Brothers: CCCD

It has been a while since we’ve seen a truly great film from Jim Sheridan. Probably since 1993’s In the Name of the Father. But I am always impressed with his films, and always amazed at the performances he is able to get from his actors. Brothers is no exception, as each of the three lead roles were handled better than I would have expected.

Seeing that cast, with the exception of Natalie Portman and Sam Shepard, I was not expecting believable and emotionally taxing performances. I have never liked Jake Gyllenhaal (in fact, his acting has nearly ruined movies for me in the past), but here he is surprisingly fantastic. He plays a very unlikable leach of a brother just being released from prison, and his flaws are both very believable and very human. Toby Maquire has been good but never great in films like Wonder Boys, Seabiscut and The Cider House Rules. This is his best performance to date and it is an absolute joke that he has not received any acknowledgment for it. He was the personification of post-traumatic stress, and a time bomb you are left waiting to go off. Natalie Portman, as a lot of you know, is one of my favorite actresses working today. She has been in some bad films, but never seems to mail in a performance. She is also an actress who obviously seeks out roles that are a huge stretch for her, and this film is no different. Of the three lead roles, her character is the least interesting and she is given the least to work with, but she disappears into this mid-west suburban housewife and makes the most of a very passive role.

I have not seen the film that Brothers is based on, the Danish film Brødre, but have heard that they are extremely similar. I usually would like to see the original first, but it was Jim Sheridan’s involvement that brought this film to my attention. His films, like The Boxer and In America are always worth the price of admission, and this one is no exception.




The Messenger: CCC

This is just a tough, tough film about going from one impossible situation to an even worse one, and about how people deal with grief. And it is a film that doesn’t attempt to pull punches or grant you any resolution. That is a very remarkable and commendable trait for movies nowadays. So many films this year gave you a happy ending that feels forced and dishonest, while The Messenger tells you very clearly that such endings don’t exist.

This is a small film, about a very real and topical reality. Because of this, the film hinges on the performances of its two leads. And Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson deliver the goods. They are both fantastically human, warts and all. In fact, where the film is compelling is in their flaws. I am hoping the Academy recognizes Woody Harrelson here in a supporting actor role, but will probably honor Christoph Waltz instead for his role in Inglorious Basterds. What a crime.

There is a scene in this film I want to recognize, where Samantha Morton’s character is discussing her deceased husband with Ben Foster’s character. She goes on to paint him in a bad light, saying he was different when he came back from war. As she is explaining his actions, we as the audience know that this same occurrence happened with Foster’s ex-girlfriend played by Jena Malone. It is absolutely heartbreaking to watch, as she slanders her dead husband, knowing that she is basically describing the damaged man she is speaking with. This interaction is arguably the best, most affecting scene in any film this year. It is also difficult to watch. And that really sums up this film. Affecting, and hard to watch. Because, the reality of it is that we would rather pretend that this stuff isn’t going on. Or, that it is happening thousands of miles away, which somehow makes it less real.




The Brothers Bloom: CCC

Rian Johnson’s follow up the brilliant 2005 film Brick, The Brothers Bloom was a while in the making and much anticipated - At least by me anyway. Again, expectation can be a killer, and I am completely aware that I am nit-picking and judge this film too harshly. This is a really, really good film. Just not a great one.

Worth mentioning: This film was never in the running for any awards, because it hit the festival circuit in 2008 but was never released until this year. So if you are wondering why you have never heard of it, or why it did not get much press, blame the distributors. Do I think this film would have received a Best Picture nomination? Hey, in a ten film category, The Blind Side got a nomination so I should hope that this film would not have been completely overlooked. Like I said, this is a really good film, just not great.

Maybe it was the casting. I usually like Mark Ruffalo, and Adrien Brody has been hit-and-miss throughout his career, but here they seemed miss-cast as brothers and never sold me on the premise. And they were no Michael Cain and Steve Martin from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Luckily, I would happily pay my ten dollars to watch Rachel Weisz sit there and eat an orange for two straight hours, so she quickly made up for any casting issues. And, she was phenomenal.

Maybe it was the handling. It was a very hip and stylish film, but just didn’t have the fun that most con man/heist films tend to have. At least the good ones anyway. This is a film that had moments of greatness and moments that were very, very funny, but looking at the film as a whole, I would hesitate on calling this a very funny film.

I still have very high expectations for Rian Johnson and will be first in line to see his next film. Hopefully, a few of you will read this and be excited to see this film as well as the far superior Brick, and be willing to get in line with me.




Moon: CCC

This is a film that is much more than a Science Fiction set piece or a psychedelic space drama. It is more about being institutionalized than it is about the future.

This is a film that is all about isolation.

It is a psychological exploration into what a person would become after nearly three years of isolation and deprivation, cooped up in a confined area and surrounded by the infinite cold and death of space.

Sam Rockwell is an actor who, for every great film he does, there is a terrible one. For every Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, there is a Charlie’s Angels. For every The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, there is a Choke. Thankfully, this is one of the good ones. In fact, this is probably his best performance to date. At least, it is the one that required the most amount of acting.

And once again, Clint Mansell demonstrates why other composers fall short of his brilliance, and why score is such an important and vital aspect to the enjoyment of film.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to review this film without getting into some major plot points and spoilers. If I tried to, it would read as a very cryptic and unfinished, and who wants to read that. So, I will simply say this – I was constantly trying to figure out what and who was real throughout this film, and was left unconvinced even at the end. And I mean that as a very sincere compliment.




Up In the Air: CCC

Here is a perfect example of how expectation can effect a first impression. There is no question that time is the greatest critic of film. When Up in the Air came out in limited release, it already had a huge amount of buzz behind it and was pre-labeled as the film to beat come awards season. Therefore - it never had a chance. If you didn’t see this film in Toronto last fall, then you went into this film, like I did, with unfair expectations. And ultimately, like me, you may have felt a little let down.

That said; this is a really good movie - Extremely topical, with a great amount of heart. Jason Reitman’s second best film, no doubt. But for me, I was hoping this film would surpass 2007’s Juno, but don’t count that against Up in the Air.

George Clooney and Vera Farmiga were great in their roles. Is it Clooney’s best work? Far from it and I don’t think he has a prayer at a gold statue. Farmiga really holds her own, which came as a bit of a surprise because I thought that she was the glaring weak spot in her role in The Departed. But it was Anna Kendrick that really steals the show in this film. She is very funny and believable, and her perspective is why this film works so well. She makes this film more of a coming of age tale, and supplies the eyes and ears for the audience. I was completely unfamiliar with her before this film (you might recognize her from her role in the hugely successful Twilight films), but I think she has a great chance at a long career in Hollywood. She doesn’t have a chance, but I am hoping she might steel a win for Supporting Actress.

With three films under his belt, Reitman has become one of a handful of Directors that can get me into a theater seat. His films, and the characters in them, evoke a great amount of empathy and heart, which is a formula for breaking down genre barriers and for continued success.




A Serious Man: CCC

The Book of Job, as told in an early seventies Minneapolis suburb. A Serious Man is a film that only established filmmakers like the Coen Brothers are able to pull off, as well as get to tell in the first place. The first thing I look for in a quality film is honesty, and a clear sense of passion from the director. It is great to see the Coen’s return to this formula that made me love them.

This is a great film. Not everyone is going to feel that way about it, but it is. It is a very rare type of film; completely original, un-adaptable and obviously personal. This story is too well developed and the characters too intricate for this to be just a work of fiction.

It is a story that is rooted in so many parables and fables, which we are all familiar with. A man, unsatisfied with the direction his life has taken, wants to be acknowledged by God, or just the community around him, and wants an explanation as to why, in his mind, his life is so unfair. But, like all those great morality tales, life is relative. It could easily be worse.

I went into this film a little worried about the acting. It is one thing to cast unknowns, but this filmed seemed full of everyday people, not actors. But I was wrong (don't get used to it). These actors were very carefully chosen to represent the clear vision behind the film. And they were each of them great. Especially Michael Stuhlbarg, who is the reason this film works at all.

My only issue with this film is, like The Informant, it is a film that had scenes that should have never seen the light outside the editing room. Scenes that don’t move the film forward, sideways or even backwards, just scenes that seemed unnecessary. The opening of the film, for example, wasn’t needed to establish the sense of superstition and the idea of the rational versus the mystical. But, this is sometimes what you get from very personal films, scenes that the filmmakers are too invested in to cut, but that the audience doesn’t react to.

After a shaky decade, it is good to see Joel and Ethan Coen end on a high note. I really enjoyed this film. It is never laugh out loud funny, but is extremely relatable yet transporting at the same time. I can’t recommend it enough.




Los abrazos rotos (Broken Embraces): CCCC

No surprises here - A Pedro Almodóvar and Penélope Cruz
Collaboration and it’s one of my top films. And this is one of their best. The biggest change here though, is that Cruz is not the star. She is very much a supporting role, and does not have a ton of screen time. She is more of a catalyst, and the goal of the main characters. None the less, she is absolutely fantastic and once again, Almodóvar makes us all fall hard for her.

Like most of his films, this one has moments of great romance, of great comedy and of emotional sensitivity. But what he is best known for, and for good reason, is the beautiful visuals that make up his films. And this film is no exception. In fact, it may be his best looking film to date. He does owe some of that praise to the great Rodrigo Prieto, who shot several of the best looking films of the last ten years.

This film felt extremely personal, which is not surprising considering the story. This is a film about the power of… film. How, film can be voyeuristic, it can be very passionate, it can capture anger and hate, and it can capture longing and love. It can be completely honest, as well as tweaked to be false and untrue. Film, as this one would have you believe, is very powerful.

I want to make a point about films that are not shot in your native language. I know so many people that immediately skip over a film because of subtitles, and I’ll be the first to admit that there is something lost in translation. Dialogue and language has a poetry to it that is lessened quite a bit in subtitles, but, if you only see what Hollywood sells you, you are really missing out. If you want to see films that immerse you into a diverse, rich culture, or just a film with a new and different narrative, you need to look outside of the celebrity bubble. Give something new a chance. If you start with the films of Pedro Almodóvar, I’m sure you will be pleasantly surprised.




Where the Wild Things Are: CCCC

Other films have tried it in the past, but to much lesser effect; creating a film that really captures the pure, emotional and expressionist brush stroke that is a child’s narrative perspective. And this film nails it to the ground. Obviously this is an insanely personal and important film from Spike Jonze. And when an artist of any medium brings that emotion and passion to a particular project, it is almost always worth the price of admission.

I have been extremely surprised at people’s reaction to this film. It seems a lot of people didn’t “get it”, or were expecting something so different that they couldn’t enjoy the film. This isn’t so much a kid’s movie, as it is a movie about being a kid. For me, that was the whole point and why I rushed to the theaters to see this film. Is it something you would take your kids to see? As much as they might enjoy the giant-teddy bear like creatures, probably not.

I love the idea of personifying each child-like emotion in these huge beasts. Each of them was handled so well. And for all the motion capture/CGI characters in Avatar that are receiving so much praise, I thought James Gandolfini’s voice work as Carol fleshed out the most layered and human character in a non-human role.

One thing to know about me: I love animatronics and physical special effects. Yes, CGI was used in the emotions of the Wild Things, but it was their textured, physical presence that makes these creatures so lovable and relatable. This was a film I went into wanting to love and leave with an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, which is almost always a recipe for disappointment. Here, for two hours, I was a hyper-active, nine-year-old spaz again; which is to say I was not let down.




An Education: CCCC

This is a fantastic film, and one that is probably doomed to fall into obscurity and forever be one of those underrated films that people never get around to watching. And that is very sad, because it is a film that says a lot in a short amount to time, and it is a film that I think everyone should relate to. Maybe the Academy nominating An Education for Best Picture will save it from that fate, but I doubt it.

If ever there was an argument against the current awards ceremony system - where all of the films that have a realistic chance for an Oscar come out at the last possible minute, so that their hype is in full swing when voters make their decisions - then here it is. This film unfortunately hit its stride on the festival circuit and was seen as a sure frontrunner for Best Picture and Best Actress. But, in Hollywood time that was forever ago, and now Sandra Bullock has all the momentum for her role in The Blind Side (Which is a really, really, really terrible thing). Carrey Mulligan’s performance as the 16 year old Jenny is spectacular. Easily the best performance of the year, male or female, and An Education is without question my pick for the best film of 2009.

Nick Hornby’s adaptation of the Lynn Barber memoir is written with an amazing understanding of narrative source and perspective, and Lone Scherfig films it with just that in mind. This is a film about how we perceive this world at certain ages, and how an education is simply what we take from our experiences out in it.

Scherfig handles this film with a personal and passionate brush stroke. It is a shame that, in the same year that Katherine Bigelow is being praised so completely for being a woman and helming the somewhat disappointing The Hurt Locker, Lone Scherfig is being overlooked for being a female director and helming a far superior film. In another director’s hands, even a very capable one, this film would not have been the achievement that it is. The scenes at the dog track, the night club and auction all have a heightened sense of reality and pace to them, as if they are the real world and the rest of Jenny‘s life is a dream. The scenes of her seduction into this world of late nights and intellectual freedoms are so engaging and believable that we are seduced and make the same mistakes that she does.

The acting is fantastic, especially considering the unlikable aspects of several of the lead characters. Peter Sarsgaard plays a suave and charming borderline pedophile, and Alfred Molina (who should win an award for Best Supporting Actor but alas, was not even nominated) plays a hypocritical father who is more than happy to see his sixteen year old daughter courted by a much older man, as long as he is well off. Not exactly Atticus Finch. Also worth noting, even though it is a small role was Olivia Williams’ role as Miss Stubbs, which I found to be very understated yet crucial to the film.

Is this a perfect film? No, definitely not. In fact, I found the last few minutes to be extremely damaging to the rest of the film. But, at its best, this is a film that, if not for an ill advised voice-over meant to wrap things up in a neat little bow, may have cracked my top ten of the decade.

---

Ok. Time for my Oscar picks and predictions, in case you’re interested:

Best Picture
Should Win: An Education
Will Win: The Hurt Locker (I have a feeling about this one)

Best Director
Should Win: Lone Scherfig for An Education, but because She’s not nominated, I’ll say Jason Reitman for Up in the Air
Will Win: James Cameron for Avatar

Best Actor
Should Win: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart
Will Win: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart (but don’t count out Morgan Freeman in Invictus)

Best Actress
Should Win: Carey Mulligan in An Education
Will Win: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side

Supporting Actor
Should Win: Alfred Molina in An Education, but because he wasn’t nominated, I’ll say Woody Harrelson in The Messenger
Will Win: Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds

Supporting Actress
Should Win: Penélope Cruz in Broken Embraces, but because she wasn’t nominated, I’ll say Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air
Will Win: Mo’Nique in Precious

Adapted Screenplay
Should Win: Nick Hornby for An Education
Will Win: Geoffrey Fletcher for Precious (just barely beating Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air)

Original Screenplay
Should Win: Joel and Ethan Coen for A Serious Man
Will Win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglorious Basterds

Cinematography
Should Win: Rodrigo Prieto for Broken Embraces, but because he wasn’t nominated, I’ll say Barry Ackroyd for The Hurt Locker
Will Win: Mauro Fiore for Avatar

Art Direction
Should Win: John Myhre and Gordon Sim for Nine
Will Win: Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg and Kim Sinclair for Avatar

Editing
Should Win: Bob Murawski and Chris Innis for The Hurt Locker
Will Win: Stephen E. Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron for Avatar

Original Score
Should Win: Clint Mansell for Moon. But he wasn’t nominated so… Hans Zimmer for Sherlock Holmes
Will Win: James Horner for Avatar

Enough! Let’s stop there. I get fired up about these things enough already, I don’t need to start an argument over best Make-up.

---

* So, before I bump into you at a Dunkin Donuts and you tell me I’m not in tune with what people like, or that I’m too hard on certain movies or (and this one is my favorite) that I only like boring films, please read this next part.

For those of you sitting around and wondering why there are not a lot of good movies out there and why everything you watch is disappointing, I’m going to tell you the secret reason.

Let me first start by running you through a typical conversation I have, on a weekly basis, with any of several friends of mine.

Me: “I saw (insert small, highly praised by critics but box office nothing here. In this case, let’s say Broken Embraces) a couple nights ago. Great film.”

Anonymous friend: “Cool. I saw (insert big budget, box office hit but critically panned film here. In this case, let’s say 2012) a couple nights ago. What an awful movie.”

This happens, over and over again every time I see several(!!) people I know. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? It is the action of doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.

If you want to know why so many of the films you see these days are so bad, then stand up and go find the closest mirror. When you get there, I want you to look yourself in the eyes and say - “Don’t be that guy.” - Don’t be that guy, older than 25 that lines up with all the 14 year olds to go see the inevitable G.I. Joe sequel. Don’t be that girl, over 25 that lines up for the next big vampire franchise with her team Jacob T-shirt on. Seriously.

And please don’t qualify a bad film under the pretense of it being “entertaining”. What does that mean? That it held your attention? You know what I find entertaining?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrVh8BB68_Y

That doesn’t mean it should be awarded your praise or your hard earned money. And that’s what gets me so fired up. Every time you pay to see a bad film, you are telling the production agencies that you don’t care about quality.

Demand better films.

More mature, more coherent and thought provoking films. Send Hollywood a message with every trip to the theater. There are plenty of good and even great films out there, and I’m not talking about just the films from this past year. There is a library of great films you have never seen. I’ve been doing my best to watch as many of them as possible and yet, if I spent the next 10 years watching great films, I still won’t scratch the surface of what‘s out there.

“Take a chance” on some critically praised films that have actual actors, not just vapid movie stars in them. Know the director’s name of the film you are lining up to see, and whether or not you have liked the films he or she has made in the past. If you do these things, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

As always, thank you for your time and interest. I hope you enjoyed this and please leave a comment. I am always looking to improve this blog and am interested in hearing from you on how to do it.

See you next year,

Ryan Black