One thing that set this year apart was the clear division between commercial films and artistic, critically praised films. I know, I know, Toy Story 3 and Inception straddled the fence, but otherwise, the inclusion of the 3D fad (and it is just a fad) and big, loud event movies helped widen the rift between the two schools. I am actually happy about this division (though I will later complain about the disappearing middle-ground in all walks of life), because it makes it that much easier to predict which films will be good and which will be terrible. In years past, it was a $10 gamble when you went to the theater, whereas now it’s obvious. Basically, if it has Katherine Heigl, Jennifer Aniston, or has “3D” actually added to the title, it will be awful. The studios are actually telling you to stay home, which is nice of them. There were really only a handful of films that came out this year where I can say that I was let down and disappointed. And out of those, a couple of them I can look back on and think - I should have known better.
Another thing I am noticing is a clear changing of the guard when it comes to filmmakers and their audiences. There has been a generational shift, much like what happened in the seventies with the “Film-School Generation”, where a younger generation has taken the reigns from the previous group of auteurs. If I had to list the five filmmakers working today that would guaranty getting me to the theater, all but one were barely (if at all) known a decade ago. And I am a big fan of the classics and not some green, progressive and pretentious film student that thinks Danny Boyle invented the montage or that an ironic soundtrack starts and ends with Tarrentino (Ok, claiming to not be pretentious may be a stretch). And again, this is not a bad thing. The greats like Scorsese are still making their mark and Terrence Malick has made 3 films in a 13 year span (more than he made in the previous 25 years combined). But directors like Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky, both unheard of before the tail end of the Clinton administration, are making the most consistent, compelling films year in and year out.
Ok, back to complaining – which is the heart and motivation behind any good critique. Speaking of Critiques, I have been asked the same question quite a few times over the last couple years, and that is: Why do I write this review? The answer is simple, it is a compulsion. I see something I can’t stand or a grave injustice of some sort, and I need an outlet to vent my frustrations (and an outlet for my narcissism) . Basically, I am having an argument with myself. And that is what a good critic does – they debate. They argue. I am not saying I am a good critic, but I have come to really resent the current state of what film and art criticism has become. In this 24 hour news cycle we live in, quick sound-bites and one-liners are all that exist of critiques, and the debate aspect has all but vanished. The positive/negative review, summed up in a single sentence, doesn’t leave much middle-ground. There’s that term again, middle-ground. If I am honest with myself, and with you, I will say that there is very rarely a film I loath all aspects of, where there is not a single redeeming quality or that I cannot at least see the filmmaker’s good intentions. And the flipped side of that coin is that there is almost never a film I love so completely that I cannot find minor flaws with or whole portions that I feel didn’t work. But middle-ground has no place in society anymore. Everything is either one way, or the other.
What I was saying before about the widening gap in art vs. commerce applies to the world of critics as well. The pretentious indie-snobs dismiss anything with a name actor, in favor of whatever pushes the envelope or is considered avant-garde. Favoring originality over quality is what killed the art world and why no one under 40 has any knowledge or interest in art, so tread carefully critics; a lot of us are still reeling from what Tom Wolfe called “Cultureburg”. The other extreme is the US Weekly or E! Channel form of criticism, concerned more with the gossipy goings on behind the camera. This type of critique is completely worthless, as time washes away such nonsense in a matter of months. If you care about on-set romances or if a particular actor’s personal life is the deciding factor in which ticket you buy, you may as well stop reading now. A good example is the upcoming film The Beaver staring Mel Gibson - Some critics will praise it for holding a mirror to Gibson’s troubled personal life. Not really relevant when considering the film after the dust settles and no one cares about the conditions when it came out (Here is where a particularly savvy reader could complain about reviews of mine in the past that have specifically sited the conditions a film came out in adding to it’s cultural impact and resonance. But, let’s just ignore that and move on). This is just another problem with the celebrity worshiping culture we reside in.
This is also the reason I do not review Documentaries (which is the other question I am often asked). Unfortunately, everything needs to be placed into category A or B. No middle-ground. With Documentaries, a particular political slant is award the film before the public is able to see it. Therefore, if you like a specific film, that means you are obviously (insert party, ideology, sexual preference, race or any other quick label that can be stuck to your forehead). Politics has its place, just not in these reviews.
Say it with me kids – No more middle ground. It’s the phrase of the day. Middle-ground is what was once called being rational. God forbid.
So, where am I going with all of this? Basically, I would like to bring back the debate and the argument side of being a connoisseur, an aficionado or a critic. With every critique the “I think”, or “I feel” is assumed at the start - so when I say that “The Town was a mess and an unsuccessful film“, what I am really saying is “I felt that The Town etc, etc…” And the idea of someone who feels differently voicing their opinion in contrast is a lot richer and much more interesting. No more quick sound bites and yes or no answers. Show your work in the margins provided. This brings me to my plan for next years reviews. I am thinking of inviting some open debate to the process, and then posting the transcript (could also be a pod cast or I may film the whole thing and upload the video). Opening arguments, closing statements, and all of the drama in between. Ideally, it would be a diverse panel of opinionated people, discussing the films they saw in the previous year. Realistically, I’ll be lucky to con just one of you readers into joining in on the fun. So, let me know if you have any interest in being part of something like that. Man up! We can iron out the details over the next year, but I will warn you, homework will be assigned.
Ok, on to the main course. Like the last few years, I would like to take the time to say that this is, primarily, a list of the “Top” films I have seen this year, as well as some that I felt did not live up to the hype. I do not see every film that comes out during the year, but I do make an effort to see most of the films that have made an impact on the film landscape, or that have a realistic chance at critical praise and awards. And, again, this is my opinion, not anything written in stone. That said - if you feel differently, I do invite you to challenge my arguments and express your opinions. No one seems to give this much of a go, although I do get a lot of E-mails and messages from people claiming they disagree and that they have a good case. But then they never follow through and make it. I guess I’ll just take it on faith that the argument for Public Enemies or The Blind Side being good films resides in the pockets of a select few people.
If a specific film is not reviewed on this list and you would like to get my opinion on it, let me know. A lot of films I saw this year just do not warrant the time it would take to write a review. I am going to try and skip a few of the lesser films this year, as last years review came off as overly negative, even in a year as bad as 09’.
Just to cover the bases, and because “discussion” seems to be a reoccurring theme, I plan on talking about the films I review. I don’t want to have to cryptically reference things in the film that only make sense after you’ve seen the film in question. Sorry, I tried that and it just doesn’t interest me. I am going to reference specific moments and scenes, which may cause you to infer certain events in the film being reviewed. If you want to call them spoilers, fine, let’s get this out of the way (and this is for you, one random dude I’ve never met who E-mailed me last year because I didn’t post this before my reviews) … *SPOILER ALERT!!*… nerd. You have been warned.
One major change this year will be the lack of any thumbs, stars or easy indication of whether I recommend the film or not. If you want to know how I feel, read the review. Like I’ve said before, a return to rational thinking and argument is something this world is currently lacking in.
No more sound-bites.
There are several films this year that I have seen, but do not feel are great films or are just predictably bad, and either way I am not going to take the time to review them. Films like Scott Pilgram vs. the World, Iron Man 2 (cough, huge disappointment, cough), Robin Hood and several more. Also, big summer “blockbusters” like Prince of Persia, The Expendables, The A-Team and Clash of the Titans are all not worth reviewing because, whether I’ve seen them or not, they are exactly what you expect them to be. Take from that whatever you’d like.
Every year I’ve done this so far, someone has complained about the lack of comedies. I like to think I give comedies their due, but humor is extremely subjective. Therefore, whether a comedy makes you laugh is often up to you, and even if it does, that does not make it a good film. I was laughing non-stop throughout Hot Tub Time Machine, but that does not make it a good film (far from it actually, I felt like the writers had a few opportunities to take the story in some really creative and darkly funny places, but opted for the safer, simple references that pander to the lowest common denominator. Dumbing it down is unforgivable. Sorry). So that is why, if you are upset about the absence of Dinner for Schmucks, Date Night, Grown Ups, Get Him to the Greek or Jackass 3D, I’m sorry, but none of those films was original enough or surprised me enough for me to want to write a review. And don’t say I only like drama, because my favorite film is Doctor Strangelove and I still laugh every time I see it.
And, as I mentioned before, I do not see every film that comes out each year. I wish I did catch all the good ones, but it’s tough even with Hollywood getting more and more obvious as time goes on. Two years ago, I originally wrote reviews for the films of 2008 without seeing The Reader or Synecdoche New York, two films that would later crack my top 20 films of the decade. And this year, there were several films that, for some reason or other, I was just not interested in sitting through. A lot of the time, if a film doesn’t spark my interest by the time it comes out, I (like most people), can be swayed by word of mouth and public consensus as well as the critic’s reviews. Some of the films that suffered this fate were The Next Three Days, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Greenzone, The American, Salt, Fair Game, Unstoppable and several others.
I have not had a chance to see Io sono l'amore (I am Love), Biutiful, Fair Game, Animal Kingdom, Tamara Drewe, Mike Leigh's Another Year or Peter Weir's The Way Back yet, but I plan to in the next few weeks. If they warrent it, I will amend this list acordingly. And again, if you feel I missed an opportunity to say something relevant about one of these films or another not mentioned, please let me know. Maybe you’ll be the push I need to see one I missed or bring my attention to an obscure film I never considered.
And, as always, thank you for reading and thank you in advance for all the angry E-mails, curse-filled text messages and mean-spirited phone calls.
Let’s get started.
Alice in Wonderland:
I can not stand Johnny Depp. Sorry, I can’t. It happened at some point over the last decade, as he was playing these bizarre caricatures like Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, Sweeny Todd and now The Mad Hatter. I just can’t see his stupid face without wanting to punch something. Ok, sorry, I had to get that out there before trying to look at this film objectively.
Originally, I saw the trailers and all the advertisements, and decided to skip this film. I had almost no interest, and I knew it would be bad. Bad in the same way that the Willy Wonka remake was bad: so bad that it tarnished a fond childhood memory. But then the reviews started coming in, and all the right people were saying to give this one a chance. Terms like, “visually stunning” and “wholly original” were used and seemed to be sincere. Praise for Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and the new Alice, Mia Wasikowska was good across the board. Sure, a few good friends told me it was terrible, but it was too late and I had developed a need to see it for myself.
As little as I was expecting, Alice in Wonderland still managed to disappoint. More so for the fact that, if you had told me fifteen years ago that Tim Burton would do a film based on Lewis Carroll’s imaginative world, and that Depp would play The Mad Hatter, I would have smiled ear-to-ear and waited patiently, watching Edward Scissorhands daily and letting my excitement consume any sanity I had left. That is how far my faith in both Burton and Depp has fallen.
This is an ugly film, start to finish. Last year I mentioned that CGI was potentially the worst thing to happen for Terry Gilliam after seeing The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. That goes Triple for Tim Burton. It wasn’t “visually stunning” (at least in the way it was implied), as much as it was visually garish.
The one constructive thing to come from this train wreck is Mia Wasikowska. If anything held this film together at all, it was her performance. She has potential to be a long lasting star, and in twenty years we might look back fondly at this film as the world’s introduction to a quality actress. Besides that though, the rest is a muddy mess best forgotten.
It may be too late for me to ever give Depp the shake he deserves, and unless I see something spectacular from Burton in the next few years, I may have to red flag his films. Some directors have burned me one too many times, and even if a film looks great and seems to have everything going for it, I always check my expectations because of their involvement. It‘s shocking to me to have to consider Tim Burton in that category, especially considering what he meant to me 20 years ago.
The Town:
The thing that disappointed me most about The Town was just how much hype there was around it, particularly in and around Boston. You would think that this movie is on par with Mean Streets let alone The Departed or any of the Dennis Lane films that came out over the last decade. And I’m not someone that’s going to sit back and bash Ben Affleck because, to be honest, I have no problem with him as an actor, and I think he’s a pretty good filmmaker. He has definitely had some roles he hasn’t been great in but then he’s had some roles, like the role of George Reeves in Hollywoodland, which was actually quite good and convincing.
When looking back at Affleck’s previous film Gone Baby Gone, it helps to know that Lehane’s detective series all have a sense of ease about them where the characters overcompensate their own fear by cracking wise and playing the situation as if it was lighthearted, when in reality they are terrified - So all of the drama in Gone Baby Gone had that same lacking sense of urgency or threat, but that translated well because of the book. To see this again in The Town I think shows a flaw in the director. Maybe it was because Affleck was attempting to direct himself and it was too difficult for him to work both sides of the camera, but what the film ended up as was a dress rehearsal. It felt as though the actors were simply walking through the film speaking their lines and never believing them.
Surprisingly enough Jeremy Renner has been receiving a ton accolades. Thankfully I don’t think he has a chance of winning anything. Maybe it’s just follow-up praise from The Hurt Locker (as if that film hasn’t received enough undeserved praise) in the hopes that he will be the next big action star, but personally I just didn’t see it. Even Rebecca Hall, who up until this point I have loved in almost everything she has worked on, was a major disappointment. The one actor in this film who I thought handled his role and his character very well was John Hamm. I am not too familiar with Hamm’s work, having only seen a few episodes of AMC’s Mad Men, but here he played the antagonist very well and help sell the otherwise lacking concept.
Having grown up around Boston, I can honestly say my intelligence was insulted by having the multiple robbery scenes take place in such recognizable locales. Seriously this would’ve been the equivalent of having a gritty crime drama set in New York where the thieves attempt their robberies In Times Square, Shea Stadium and the Statue of Liberty. I understand why we have to have the constant shots of Bunker Hill, but after the narrow streets of the North end and the bank in Harvard Square, do you really need the films climactic ending to take place at Fenway Park? If this was a Bollywood movie, I could understand it, or if you were attempting to teach Boston geography to a classroom in Japan, but otherwise this took me right out of the film.
And again maybe it was the hype that killed this film for me. If I had gone in expecting it to be a mediocre heist film or a poor man’s Heat, maybe I wouldn’t feel the need to be so hard on this film. But, only a few short months ago people were talking about a potential Oscar. I think when the dust settles on The Town what we will have is an easily forgettable film, the kind you see in the $4.99 bin at the supermarket two months after it comes out on DVD.
Love and Other Drugs:
It is truly a strange time we live in, as film has progressed into something that is able to satirize itself without intention, and movies are no longer sexy. I honestly think the general public gets their rocks off more on over the top, stylized violence than they do from seeing well known celebrities getting it on. I blame internet porn, Wal-Mart and a growing percentage of attention deficit disorder, but that’s neither here nor there. But seriously, movies used to be sexy and that was something that got people into the theater. Now, I guess it’s guns (and not the allegorical type) if you go by the recent trend in movie posters.
Here is a film that, based on the skeleton of the story is an attempt at combining a basic romantic comedy formula with the topical pharmaceutical obsession in this country. But, realizing that is not enough to sell tickets, they also filled it chock-full of nudity and tried to make it a film that said something poignant about sex and relationships. But in the end, it wasn’t sexy (and that is coming from a big fan on Anne Hathaway. Mmmm… Anne Hathaway).
This film had an episodic feel to it, and could easily have been a sitcom on HBO or Showtime. It had that sitcom sense of humor to it, only slightly peppered with real cynicism. As an audience, you know these two main characters are not as shallow and narcissistic as they are attempting to come off, and the more they act out the more defensive they come off, and in that light, both Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal are convincing in there roles. But, if they were able to be a little more likable and relatable, then I think the film could have been as appealing and as sexy as was the intent (and chemistry, which is really the make or break ingredient in romantic comedies, wouldn’t have hurt either). Instead, throughout the film they keep prodding you along to obvious conclusions, which for me was a constant reminder of the films forced, cookie-cutter origins.
This is a film that will probably be best enjoyed rented or watched late at night on cable. Not all bad and (maybe) worth seeing, but it is a big reminder of the direction the world of film is going. And don’t be fooled by the somewhat serious tone surrounding this film - this is a textbook romantic comedy. The only reason I felt the need to add this film was the perception that it is something more.
The Kids Are All Right:
I’m confused. Was this really supposed to be a comedy? Was there anything remotely funny about this film at all that could rationalize this label? No. At least not intentionally. But, that doesn’t mean it was a bad movie.
Of course, I wouldn’t call it a great movie either. It had a few good things going for it - for one thing the actors were all very good in their roles. At first I thought Annette Bening was playing the butch role a little too cartoonish, but her character develops (even if she doesn’t change) as the film goes on and really defines the gender role reversals that flip-flop throughout. My guess is that the way she defines the statement of the film is the reason her performance has been singled out for awards. In truth, I felt that Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Mia Wasikowska really owned this movie, but they also had much more likable characters who were able to transform as the film went on. In fact, Ruffalo and Moore playing off each other was my favorite thing about this film.
Another positive is the way that, through subtext, the film was able to show the reoccurring theme of trying to fill some hole in your life and force things to be better. Each character attempts this with tragic results. Of all of the points this film attempts to make, this one really succeeds.
What doesn’t work is everything else. Early into the film I felt like all the scenes depicting everyday domestic lesbian married life were a little unnecessary. If this film came out thirty years ago (or yesterday in Arkansas), it would be groundbreaking and I could see why the focus was there. But it’s 2010 and the film would have been that much better had the narrative come from these characters that treat this lifestyle as all they know. Yes, things become more complicated and interesting, and the characters are given some real layers in the middle of the film, but then it’s right back up on the soapbox - except that I’m not sure of the point that was trying to be made. I would have preferred it if there was none, and the characters would have come off as that much more realistic. But somewhere in this mess there was a murky point - something that rationalizes the righteousness at the end - but I couldn’t find it.
Maybe this film is better than that, I don’t know. I had a huge issue with the way that Ruffalo’s character was dismissed in the film, so it’s hard for me to swallow the happy ending. Admitting that, I still can’t find the exceptional quality that gets this film nominated for Best Picture. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t there. Then again, maybe it’s just hiding with the point and the comedy.
The Millennium Trilogy:
These films were tough to categorize. They came out in 2009 in Europe, but all three came out in America in 2010 to coincide with the release of the final book of the trilogy (The American translation). Should I count them as this year? Ah, who cares, I want to review them and so I’ll review them. If I was making a formal list though, these three would get an asterisk.
If you’re seeing a trend in this year’s films, I would have to say it is novel adaptations. And these are no different, in the sense that I will try to look at the films in the light of never having read the books. I said TRY. But before I do here is some background, as well as my thoughts on Stieg Larsson and the upcoming David Fincher adaptations:
It was near impossible for me to read these books without the constant feeling in the back of my head that American audiences will not accept this. And I’m not talking about middle America’s unwillingness to root for a bisexual, Atheistic heroine that looks like she just stepped out of a shopping spree at Hot Topic (though, that certainly doesn‘t seem like a bankable match). No, my concern is with Larsson’s (and the trilogy of novel’s) politics. Make no mistake; Larsson was further to the left than America’s comfort zone. Here is a man that, upon his death in 2004, attempted to leave his entire estate to the Communist party of Sweden. Here in America, we listen to polarizing arguments from Newt Gingrich calling Barrack Obama a socialist, where as from Larsson’s perspective, they are both so far right as to not be able to discern the motivation for there policies from one another.
And, at its heart, the Millennium Trilogy is really a revenge fantasy. Here is a man that saw the world as having a corrupt, fascist Right-Wing ruling class, stepping on the throats of the second class and the impoverished. “Dragon Tattoo” is really a statement about big business and corporations being the new Nazi party. And the revenge aspect is seen in the constant use of role reversal, domination and sadomasochism. And, my political tendencies aside, that is what made these novels so interesting and different.
Where am I going with this? Well, David Fincher very recently made some comments about how Steven Zaillian’s script for the American adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo “Improved” some of the issues with the novel, and that the script varies from the source material greatly. And he said this like it was a good thing.
Listen, I am a fan of David Fincher, and a huge fan of Steve Zaillian. When I found out they would be the team adapting this material I thought if they have to make this so soon, these are the guys to do it. But when I heard this particular sound bite, I hit the ceiling. These books have sold tens of millions of copies worldwide and are still extremely fresh in the minds of their readers, and you are going to “fix” them? Wow. Sadly, I took this to mean that they will be “fixed” in the politically correct sense of the term, meaning they will be made safe for release in Kansas. Sigh. Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully the motivation behind this new trilogy is not just to get the audience that will not read the books and will not read subtitles - Because if it is, it might as well be a cartoon and come with a pair of 3D glasses.
I would also like to point out that the critical success of these upcoming films is riding on David Fincher winning an Oscar for The Social Network. This is absolutely huge for Sony if Fincher takes home the gold because, while most remakes (I know, this is not really a remake of a film, but another adaptation of the book. But there are about a billion people who will refuse to see it that way) do not have a chance at awards, Fincher’s success will all but guarantee critical recognition for this film next year. It’s just how these things work, right or wrong. Somewhere Stieg Larsson just rolled over in his grave.
Anyway, on to the individual reviews.
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo:
I can’t believe that I am the voice asking for more exposition, but here is a rare case when a film actually needed it - Because, if you haven’t read the book, this story will seem to have the consistency of Swiss cheese. But I’ll come back to that in a moment.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, or, as it was previously know throughout the rest of the world The Men Who Hate Women, is a story about usurping the reigns of power and exposing the corrupt and evil people who have been put on a false pedestal. It is about imbedded prejudice and role reversal, and about righting the wrongs of the past.
The simplest way this is manifested is with the main female lead, Lisbeth Salander - played flawlessly by Noomi Rapace. She is a small, slender girl who looks half her age and about as threatening as a kitten - except for the uniform she dons, like a warning signal not to get too close. Each character she comes across sees the dark make-up, piercings and tattoos and makes the error of not taking her seriously. Everyone that is, but the moral center of the film (and obvious proxy for Larsson himself) Mikael Blomkvist - an adulterous divorcee and liberal journalist.
The film reduces the somewhat convoluted mystery about a missing girl from 40 years past, and really makes it about Blomkvist’s and Salander’s bizarre relationship and mutual respect. And, to be honest, I was okay with this choice. But it made for some strange plot issues, like reducing the isolation of the island where the majority of the story takes place. There were some very tricky exposition scenes that are just completely ignored in the film, that when taken out, you could really feel their absence (how about the explanation - SPOILER - She hid under a blanket as her nearly identical cousin drove off the island. That’s it?!?). And the insight that Blomkvist’s many relationships gives to his character – here absent – was felt throughout. Cutting his relationship with Erika Berger and Cecilia Vanger was a mistake. And, his character lacks any depth because of this omission.
But none of these decisions were handled worse than the ending. Sure, I could nitpick about a lot of important missing pieces from the book and the tunnels they left in the story, but it was nearly 3 hours as is so most of them are forgivable. But the ending is not. To completely ignore the compromise - one of the most important scenes in the book - where the murders are covered up, really seemed to miss the point. And my favorite part (of all three books), where Salander throws Blomkvist’s gift in the garbage and we get a rare glimpse into her humanity - was cut. To say the last twenty minutes of the film (really, everything after the climactic car chase) felt sloppy and rushed, is the biggest understatement I could make this year.
I don’t know what the answer is. The film was really long already, and I don’t know if adding another hour would have been the solution. What I do know is, I went in with a particular vision of Salander, and Noomi Rapace completely changed that by the end of the film. She was fantastic. I guess that is all this film can aspire to - I nice visual to go along with the book, that can sometimes surprise and delight you. But if you are thinking of watching it without reading the novel first, prepare for a mess that really doesn’t make much sense.
The Girl Who Played with Fire:
Better. No question either, but in the first films defense - this book was far easier to adapt. Even still, this film is really a very simplified version of the source material, broken down to a handful of scenes that comes in under the two hour mark - a big change from “Dragon Tattoo”. And even though they did not have to omit whole storylines this time around, the lack of exposition and frantic pace did not help this film to feel any less anemic or rushed.
To be honest, I preferred The Girl Who Played with Fire as a novel to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and felt like this was the story that showed you the layers and humanity these characters possessed. Yes, at times it was campy, attempted to be more of an action set piece and Salander was built up to almost superhero status, but it was also much more suspenseful and intriguing. Where the film got it right was cutting a lot of those campy scenes, and focusing more on Salander’s motivations and mental state (thank god they cut the tornado scene – hopefully Fincher is smart enough to do the same).
But again, my biggest complaint was the sense of being rushed through the film and the barely explained scenarios that drive the action. Back-story can be essential for a scene to work. Maybe if I had not read the books I would not have felt that way, but I’m betting I would have.
The other big complaint I had was with the action itself. Granted, this was not an over-produced Hollywood summer movie up to the standards of Michael Bay, but some of the action seemed cut from a low budget eighties TV show. The boxing/fight scene reminded me a lot of the old Bill Bixby Incredible Hulk episodes, and the use of slow motion was like something cut right from the ending of Michael Mann’s 1986 “period piece” Manhunter (I like Mann a lot, but this is not a compliment). I guess what passes for a big budget blockbuster in Sweden is still very much an art-film here.
I could nitpick this film to death if I wanted, but instead I will leave you with my first impression, which was surprisingly good based on my expectation after “Dragon Tattoo”. And again, Noomi Rapace was fantastic in the title role. She may be the current “It girl” and it is in fashion to praise her, but I will tell you right now that it is completely deserved. I think she will transition just fine into more mainstream English-language roles.
I also loved how, just like the books, the second and third films are really just one complete story. Here, they even chose the same director to film these last two back-to-back. This brings me to…
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest:
Second verse, same as the first. Meaning that all the issues I had with the second film are the same in the third. That said, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest is far and away my favorite of the trilogy. Because everything I liked about the first two films shines brightly in the third. Noomi Rapace gives her best performance of the three films, and as many faults as I had with the adaptations, I was left very sad at the end knowing this is that last we will see of her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander.
This one is more of a courtroom drama, and really showcases the politics that drive this series. And that is really where Larsson shined as a writer – getting the reader to really feel the satisfaction of sticking it to the status quo. And nowhere is that mission statement more apparent then in the courtroom scene – the resolution and defining moment of the trilogy. My biggest complaint about the film version though, is the decision to play the antagonist’s as real movie villains (I hope Fincher avoids this, but I doubt he will). The beauty of the big reversal is that the “bad guys” don’t believe they are bad, even after the outcome. Because history has always told them they are in the right, they are that much less prepared for the outcome. Still, that smug satisfaction still comes through and brought a smile to my face.
My other big issue is not one that is owned solely by the film version. I hated the last thirty or so pages of the book, and the movie stays true to this flawed source material. To me, it always seemed wrapped up too neatly in a bow – prompting me to question whether or not the ending was altered after Larsson’s death. It really seems like the book is heading one direction, and then abruptly changes and sloppily fills in the holes. But I can’t fault the film for that.
All in all, I would say read The Millennium Trilogy before seeing these films. And then see them – they are worth your time. Most of you will wait for the Fincher versions if you haven’t seen these already, which is fine too. Just know that, if you were a fan of the character of Lisbeth (which, everyone that has read the books is), then you are missing out on a spectacular interpretation by a great young actress.
Get Low:
I’m not sure where I stand on this film. I enjoyed it, but I’m not sure I should have. I loved the premise, and the casting was both inspired and creative.
The premise - an old hermit that has been built up in the town as a folk legend comes out of exile to throw his own funeral - has the makings of a Greek opera and is borderline Shakespearian. The idea is that the town’s people will recite the tales and rumors about this hermit with him there to enjoy them, and at the end he will tell the truth - or at least his version. Unfortunately, we never really get to the former, and by the time the later comes, it is pretty obvious. Here is where I think the film missed a real opportunity to define itself, as I was always more interested in the myth than in the truth.
I am a huge fan of Robert Duvall, and Bill Murray just might be my favorite comedic actor in film history. Here, Duvall steals the show from the opening scene, and the best thing about this film is his performance. By far. Murray on the other hand, seemed to working on a different film from the other actors. He was his deadpan self, but his peculiar and comedic character did not fit with the tone of the rest of the film. And that sums up where I felt this film went wrong. Not every film needs to be a tight, polished effort, but this one could have used some refining. Much of the dialogue and whole scenes seemed improvised, and while not ever screenplay should read like Aaron Sorkin wrote it, it would be nice if there was actually a script to read from. Maybe this happens in experimenting with film, and most of the time it is groomed in the editing room. But here, I was left scratching my head on multiple occasions. Now I’m not saying every film has to be neatly defined by a specific genre, but sometimes clashing tones can pull you right out of a movie.
I enjoyed Get Low, but I like the idea of it so much, I was always going to enjoy it. That is how much concept matters, that execution can be such a wide miss, but the film still works if the story is solid. And when you get such a great performance from such an accomplished cinema icon, it is hard to steer too far off the path.
The Company Men:
I’ve read a lot of books on screenwriting and most of them could be re-titled How to Write a Terrible Script that will Sell. And that is because the myth of breaking into the business is just that - a myth - and just like most industries, people will expect you to pay your dues. Meaning, you can only write a great film after you’ve proven that you can write a safe (see also: shitty) one. And that is the type of script The Company Men is: safe, predictable, sappy and sentimental. And going in, that is exactly what I was expecting. But somewhere early on, I got hooked and dragged along anyway.
Sure, in the back of my head I was tearing the obviously pandering schlock apart, but I was also becoming invested in these characters. And yes, this is a cookie-cutter attempt at Up in the Air and play at the topical fear of layoffs. I know, I know… But I can also see where the writers tried to pepper in some interesting and even captivating turns. For instance: here is Tommy Lee Jones, a Rockwellian grandfather type and the obvious moral center of the film, and a third of the way through we find out he is cheating on his wife with a hot younger blonde who also seems to be the de facto antagonist to most of the main characters. And, while I understand that the more the main character has to lose the more drama there is in the story, so it makes sense to have Ben Affleck be so rich and out of touch (or so it seemed at first anyway), but the filmmakers also went a step further and made him a bit of a douche. And not just in that special Ben Affleck way. Interesting… These are not normal character definitions in your everyday Hollywood Hallmark crap. Or, maybe I’m trying to make excuses for why I liked this film.
Sure, Rosemarie DeWitt and Kevin Costner’s Bahston accents were absolutely laughable, and having grown up there I can tell you right now that Affleck’s character could not have afforded that house in Sudbury on 160k salary. Sure, Affleck was out acted in almost every scene in the film and I still can’t figure out how he is getting big staring roles. But that would be nitpicking.
Tommy Lee Jones and Chris Cooper were fantastic. Maria Bello, Craig T. Nelson and (ignoring the accent) Rosemarie DeWitt were all great in their supporting roles. They pulled me into their lives, and I really did care. And, according to some people, I’m a cynical guy. So if I cared, you will care.
Is this an Oscar worthy film? Of course not. But it is absolutely worth seeing. It is a very good expression of this bizarre time we live in - with discussion about CEO’s and CFO’s making millions in a crumbling economy and the ethics and morals (or lack there of) that come with employing thousands. This is a film that will hit close to home for a lot of people, and that was obviously the goal from the start.
The aforementioned cynic in me will just have to ignore the obvious parallels to film as big business, and the exploitative aspect of targeting this unemployed audience. La la la…
127 Hours:
I think that this film was a test for director Danny Boyle. He had, up until this point, made his name making ensemble films with large casts and conflicting personalities. Here, he makes a film about a reclusive bohemian who comes to understand the benefit of a community and a social lifestyle, because of his time stuck alone in a canyon, trapped by a boulder. And that’s the film, this loner, stuck in a cave. For any director, it would be a daunting task to make such a claustrophobic, enclosed film, let alone a director who is know for expansive scenery and several moving parts.
Does he pull it off?
Yyyeeaah…. I’m not sure. It is a mediocre/good film, at best. It was impressive the way that visually, and as far as story structure, the film was kept interesting and never too one-dimensional. It is a film that will be shown in film courses for years for that reason. But is it a successful film? I would have to say... maybe. It is, at times, overly stimulating and at others completely stationary, with no intermission to buffer the two. It was also tough to root for a character that I had so little in common with and could not relate to. I guess if I was a hipster Phish Head like the main character, I might project myself into the situation more, but I never felt that connection. I never saw myself in this predicament, which was the entire intent of the film.
James Franco did a fantastic job, and I do not want to put any blame on him. He was extremely convincing, even in the most exaggerated, melodramatic scenes. I never once looked at him as someone trying to make a flawed character more likeable, but instead just took him for being that person, flaws and all. He had a heavy weight to carry in this film, and was able to do it convincingly. But for all his efforts to make his character real, it wasn’t enough to pull me into the setting.
Maybe it was the filmmakers attempt to make a small story more interesting, and to keep the audiences attention throughout, but the kinetic, over-stimulating cuts did not define the narrative, but instead gave the effect of watching an over-edited MTV special on X-treme hiking. Not exactly high art.
There were things I really liked about this film. As I said before, Franco’s performance and the creative camera work that kept an enclosed space fresh and interesting, as well as the many highs and lows that Aron Ralston, Franco’s character, endures throughout his 127 hour ordeal - Particularly, the films big climax and much discussed scene where Ralston hacks off his arm with a dull all-in-one tool (by far the best scene in the film). But the real low point, and the deciding factor for whether or not I thought this film was a success, came with the films main MacGuffin - Ralston’s premonition of his unborn child as the source for the willpower to cut his arm off and escape death. Really!? Apparently, the filmmakers did not think dying of thirst was a primal enough instinct to get behind and needed a sappy, Hollywood touch to push it over the top.
I will continue to watch Danny Boyle’s films, even if they continue to put the director’s visual style above the film itself. He is an extremely accomplished director who, even at his worst can make a film worth viewing. But, like Michael Mann and Tim Burton and several other visually orientated filmmakers that I have loved in the past, I fear may be past his prime and on the downward slope of his career. Please Danny Boyle, prove me wrong and make a film as compelling and unique as Trainspotting or Millions, and I will be your most appreciative fan.
The Killer Inside Me:
If you take issue or offense to this misogynistic and brutal film noir, take it up with the writer of the novel, because this is a film that strived to capture what was previously thought to be unfilmable - and it was a successful adaptation. I remember little of the 1976 Stacy keach version, but the consensus seems to be that it was a cheap rip off of Psycho. All I can say is – at least we get a neat explanation of where Norman Bates went wrong, whereas here, Lou Ford is just a cruel SOB - a child, burning ants with a magnifying glass. And here, Casey Affleck plays him perfect.
This is a film that doesn’t make excuses for its brutality, and exposes violence as a sickness that is not something that is necessarily nurtured, but is ingrained in some of our nature. And the reason why the novel and this film are so unlike other tales of murderous villains is that we are put in the driver’s seat. The narrative source is the monster, and the hero doesn’t exist. And this makes for some pretty dark cinema.
The nearly unbearable aspect of the horrors depicted in this film is not the violence itself, but the excitement and enjoyment felt at the expense of the victim. Notice I did not say – that the character feels – when I said enjoyment, because that is what the film does so well, it makes you feel what Lou Ford feels. This is at times sick and disturbing, and at other times a terrifying nothingness. And if you are looking for hope or waiting for the gratifying resolution that makes sense of all this, then you are watching the wrong movie.
Michael Winterbottom has had an uneven career, in my opinion, up until this point. This is the first time that he really showed me what he was capable of and really crafted an engaging and involving (at times, uncomfortably so) film. Casey Affleck, on the other hand, has continued to improve with every film I see him in and is quickly becoming an actor that can get me excited about a project. The hesitation I had going in really surrounded the supporting cast, specifically Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson. Both actresses do not inspire confidence in taking a film seriously, but here they are both surprisingly efficient. In fact, their sweet, Hollywood lightheartedness may have even added to the twisted darkness of the film.
Maybe it was the low expectations that let me enjoy this film as much as I did. I don't usually like violent movies, and gore can quickly pull me out of a film, but I felt that The Killer Inside Me worked. The psychological aspect (or lack there of) gave it an originality and made it something more than a cheap thrill. Is it the greatest film in the genre? Absolutely not, but it does deserve some recognition for it’s willingness to explore the darkness, and reintroduce us to the depths of film noir.
Four Lions:
A lot of press has been written comparing Four Lions to Doctor Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb, and if you go in expecting that level of brilliance, you are going to be left very disappointed.
Kubrick, while editing Doctor Strangelove, cut one of (what can only be assumed) the funniest scenes of the film - the climactic pie fight in the War Room. It took amazing discipline to be able to cut such a fantastic bit (the way it read in the script anyway), because he felt it defined the film, and tipped it over the fence into slapstick and not satire. Unfortunately Four Lions has no qualms about jumping back and forth from Three Stooges level gags to dark and poignant social commentary. And this makes it an extremely uneven film and severely diminishes any point the filmmakers were attempting to get across. In fact the somewhat humanizing climax, which came out of nowhere, almost ruined the rest of the film for me.
But Four Lions does work to accomplish another feat, just as the posters claim. This film is funny. Seeing these morons blowing each other up is pretty damn hilarious, once you let go of the worldly implications. I probably laughed out loud at this as much as I did at Hot Tub Time Machine. But it is obviously a much darker tone of humor.
They play it safe in one aspect, clearing their names as far as devote Muslims are concerned, playing these characters as unreligious and just plain stupid. That said, will these filmmakers have a fatwa placed on their heads? Probably. And if that’s the case, I wish they would have gone whole hog and tried to say something important.
I liked Four Lions, even if it wasn’t the satire I thought it would be. It was extremely funny and dark. If you want to see some faux documentary about the vulnerable Islamic youth played for humor - which is what I was expecting going in - Four Lions is not that film.
But, if you want to see an idiot in a Ninja Turtles costume explode…
Toy Story 3:
Raise your hand if you cried. Be honest. Well then, you with your hands up bought into this one big time. This was easily the most obvious attempt to capitalize on the soft spot these characters occupy in your heart. Every single scene put these characters in real danger and ended with an overly syrupy, sentimental and heartwarming resolution. Did the desired effect come through, and can this be considered a successful film? Absolutely. It is a new Toy Story for a new audience, as most of the kids who enjoyed the original release would be in their twenties by now.
But am I the only one that misses the wit and humor of the previous two? Granted, it’s been a while and the first two films might not hold up to the idea in my mind, but as far as Toy Story 3 goes, where were the laughs? Seriously, this is an action film, not a comedy. And I’m on the fence on whether or not that’s a good thing. On the one hand, the first two films had Joss Whedon written all over them. The stories were written by committee, but it was his brainy humor that made the scripts brilliant and the reason that they are considered amongst the greatest animated films of all time. When I heard he was not involved, my first thought was: Well then it’s not really Toy Story. That said, I find it easier to accept because they didn’t attempt to make a Joss Whedon film. But it could have still been funny. Sure, the creepy baby toy that goes all Darth Vader on the purple bear was pretty clever, but it was quirky and weird, not funny.
I never laughed. Sure, I was grinning ear to ear when the toys joined hands and accepted their fate, and then again at the unbelievably over-the-top schmaltzy scene at the end. But I never laughed.
So I guess it was a winner. And I guess I liked it. It is something completely new and I’ll need some time to process it’s place in the Pixar hall of Fame. This is a new Toy Story, if you can even call it that, and maybe it’s just that stirred up sentiment, but it doesn’t hold a candle to those first two films.
Somewhere:
Consider this a warning, if you didn’t love Lost in Translation, do not even bother with Somewhere. Because it makes Sofia Coppola’s first few films look like summer blockbusters. I did happen to Love Lost in Translation, and even enjoyed several aspects of The Virgin Suicides, so I was already on board for this quirky little film. And that is what Somewhere is, a little film in both story and scope. In fact, you would have a hard time finding a film with less dialogue, and during the first fifteen minutes barely a word is spoken at all.
These aspects have an interesting effect on the tone of the film. It is obviously a very personal work, and the actions and reactions of the characters are so true to life that they must come from personal experience. Most of the time that translation does not work in film, even if it portrays an elevated level of realism, because in two hours or less every line of dialogue needs to be smart or funny or shocking or whatever - as well as move the story along. Here, the scale of the film is so un-ambitious and the dialogue so sparse, that it actually works. And you don’t feel that lacking, the sense of going nowhere, because that is what this film is about: Making the decision to stop driving in circles and actually do something worth while.
And it is a film that lives and dies by it’s performances. Stephen Dorff and Dakota Fanning’s little sister Elle do not exactly inspire hope for recognition in acting, but they are both fantastic here. I was afraid going in that I would spend the whole film trying to figure out who exactly Dorff was sending up or hinting at - one flaw that comes up every time I watch Lost in Translation - but I quickly dropped that monkey off my back and was able to see him as a complete character, and that is a testament to Coppola’s direction. Subtlety is clearly the desired effect.
If I was going to point out me biggest complaint, it would be the device that bookends the film. If you thought the rat at the end of The Departed was a little too obvious, then you will have an even worse reaction than I did to the two scenes in question. Of course, this is a minor flaw in my opinion, and is a far cry from the biggest complaint that I have heard about this very simple film: That it’s lack of ambition makes it meaningless. I think that complaint is completely unfair, and the scale of a films emotional impact is completely subjective. Just because it doesn’t have some melodramatic breakdown scene doesn’t mean the mission statement is any less potent. In fact, I found that this sense of realism made the point all the more meaningful.
Somewhere is a very simple and small film, and for that reason I’m not going to put it up there with Inception or any of the big, ambitious films this year. But I did think it was a very good film, and worth a shot if you can handle a film that isn’t just a vehicle for escapism.
Conviction:
Another film set in Massachusetts complete with accents; Conviction had awards and prestige written all over it from the start. The parallels between this film and The Fighter are really interesting, and I see a DVD double pack in the near future.
Conviction is a strong film, with an important message. Sometimes, when the message is the heart of the film, it can overpower everything else, but here they go about with a clever twist: If I didn’t know the history, for the first half of the film I would have thought that Kenny Waters, played to perfection by Sam Rockwell, was guilty.
The narrative was complete with blinders, so that the main character was in denial of what a scumbag her brother was – an opinion we were getting in spades from the supporting cast. In fact, the first half of this film is really remarkable because of this narrative. You will lose faith as the viewer and Betty Anne Waters, Hillary Swank’s character, never strays, making the story that much more compelling. And, as sentimental as it is it works because, given the exposition and history, Waters would have a “me against the world” type kinship with her brother. The film continues with this uphill battle, which is such a classic tale of trying to right a previous wrong that this never feels like a biopic (though that could also be attributed to gross historical inaccuracy).
Somewhere deep in the second act, the film does take a turn into cable Movie of the Week and Lifetime cinema, and never makes good on the promise of the first act. It tries too hard for those chill inducing moments, that they never really make it there. But still, it had me rooting for a positive turn. Maybe this is subjective, as I have always had an irrational fear of being wrongly accused and imprisoned, and films and stories such as this have always appealed to me.
Swank and Rockwell carry this film to the next level, and they are both finding there way into an elite club of actors working today. They are both fantastic and it is somewhat frustrating that they have not been receiving more praise. I suspect that the political slant the film veers into has something to do with the lack of press (to say that Martha Coakley doesn’t fair well in this film is a massive understatement). Also Melissa Leo, assumingly working weekends here while filming her extremely similar role in The Fighter, Minnie Driver and Clea DuVall were great in the supporting cast. Even Juliette Lewis’s cartoon character alcoholic was good for a laugh.
I’m not surprised that, in the end Conviction did not receive a ton of prestige, despite its grooming. I know they went far from the actual events and into the realm of fiction, and it probably wasn’t worth the inevitable backlash from the opposing sides. That said, I liked this film far more than I expected to. It is very much worth seeing, if only for the performances, and especially if, like me, you are interested in stories about people trying to fight against the injustices of a corrupt system.
The Fighter:
I had issues with this film going in, but I would like to think I was still able to give it a fair shot. The word-of-mouth surrounding The Fighter was all good by the time I made it to the theater, the three fights between Mickey Ward and Arturo Gatti were extremely fond memories for me and I had been following the progression of this film from the time when Matt Damon was involved and it looked like Darren Aronofsky was going to direct. This film certainly had Aronofsky’s stamp still on it when it hit the theater, and will easily draw comparisons to 2008’s The Wrestler. For me, that is not necessarily a good thing, as The Wrestler is a far superior film.
For starters I never liked the casting of Mark Walberg as Mickey Ward. The sad thing is he would have been great as Arturo Gatti as he has several facial features in common with the late champ. But he looks nothing like Ward. The other thing that Mark Walberg brought to this film, for me anyway, was a fear that this would be a Disney-fied approach to the subject matter. What I mean by that is - I had feared going in that The Fighter, like last year’s Invictus, would not know what type of film it wanted to be. Was this going to be a gritty, realistic portrayal of hard times in Lowell, or was this going to be the Rudy of boxing films. Knowing the background, I did not want to see a feel-good family film. What I got was a very uneven film from start to finish that wasn’t really sure what it wanted to be. Just as I had feared. And that’s just where my issues started.
Before I start picking this film apart with what I did not like, let me first mention what I did like. Christian Bale was fantastic as Dick Eklund. And make no mistake; this is his film as much as it is Mark Walberg’s and Mickey Ward’s. Another instance of the Academy getting it wrong, Dickey’s journey is as important to the film as Mickey’s, and is far more compelling drama. In no way is Christian Bale a supporting actor in this film, in fact I think he is more of the lead than Walberg. Especially considering that Walberg’s Mickey Ward commits one of the most basic fouls in film: you cannot have a protagonist who is not proactive. You see it more often in a biopic and it is the reason why most films about real people are not any good. The narrative source comes from someone who does nothing, whiles all the action, both good and bad, is done to them. Ward comes off as beyond passive while his life is being decided for him by an awful mother, a crack-head brother and an overly defensive sometimes-girlfriend. That would be fine if at some point in the film he took control and gathered the reins of his life, but even at the end the decisions are made without him and the conflict is overcome while he is off screen.
Sorry, I started going off on the bad again. Melissa Leo and Amy Adams are both great in their roles as well, even if we have seen the roles before. What I mean by that is David O Russell tried way too hard to make this a Darren Aronofsky film, long after Aronofsky had dropped out. Amy Adams could have been Marissa Tomei’s under study in The Wrestler.
All of the shoulder cam shots following the characters and the semi-documentary feel had Aronofsky’s fingerprints all over it. Now I’m not someone who usually likes to point that finger, and throughout the 90s I hated how every film featuring men with guns was referred to by the media as Tarantino-esque. But here, I was reminded over and over again that the film was trying way too hard to be something that it was not.
Sorry, I went off on the bad again. Speaking of that, I have not even mentioned my biggest fault with the film. And this is a big one. How can you have a film about Mickey Ward, and about boxing, and not feature any of the three fantastic battles between him and Arturo Gatti? Seriously, I need this question answered. This is worse than if Rocky had ended abruptly right before the fight with Apollo Creed. And knowing all the drama that came later makes it even worse.
All in all The Fighter is a good film, though you might not know it from this review, but it is far from a great film. Part of the reason I wanted to make these arguments against it is the overwhelming praise I have been hearing from most critics as well as my close friends. Maybe growing up close to Lowell means we all have a soft spot for Mickey Ward (and maybe this would explain The Town as well. But really, it seems like every Oscar contender this year took place in Massachusetts: Conviction, The Social Network, The Fighter, The Company Men, The Town, etc…) but if I asked 20 of my closest friends what film they would like to see win Best Picture this year, I’m betting a solid 15 of them would say The Fighter. Personally I think this film would barely sniff my top 10. But film can be subjective. At least that’s what they keep telling me.
True grit:
Not what I was expecting at all. I went in expecting No Country for Old Men, and what I got instead was an episode of Little House on the Prairie. And I mean that in a good way. Now I‘m not someone who needs a lot of shock and gore in the films I see (unlike the greater movie going public), and was worried that the Coen brothers would play into the current zeitgeist and make a film full of over-the-top, stylized violence. Instead, what True Grit ended up being was a meditation on humanities ideas of storybook justice. It focused more on the after affects of violence as opposed to showing and glorifying the acts themselves. The idea of “true grit” in the narrator’s mind is a fable, a fairytale - a quality she is searching for and arguably never finds. But if anyone in this film has “true grit”, it is her, as her persistence and relentlessness drive her to her childlike concept of a just world. The journey of this film is her journey to the realization that the world isn’t black and white, and there is no such thing as pure good versus true evil. As she seeks justice for the death of one man, her journey leaves a wake of corpses in its path and she struggles with morality. It really is a coming-of-age tale, which I was not expecting going in. Especially from the Cohen brothers. This is the big difference from the John Wayne version, and is not something they are playing up in the media campaign for this film.
Based on the trailers and ad campaign, you would think that True Grit applied to Jeff Bridges portrayal of Rooster Cogburn. And from those same trailers, and from the hype going into awards season, you would think that he was in the starring role. The reality is that Jeff Bridges has only a slight amount more screen time than Matt Damon’s character, and they are both supporting roles. The star of this film is Hailee Steinfeld, as her character Mattie Ross is both the narrative source, and the driving force behind each event in the film. This is what the Academy, and several other awards associations get wrong every year: just because a star is given top billing does not mean that they are the lead in the film. Was Marlon Brando the lead in Richard Donner’s Superman? His character died in the first 5 minutes. A few times this year I was left wishing for some sort of oversight when it comes to judging a supporting role versus a lead, because Jeff Bridges was great in this role, he just doesn’t have a chance at real recognition because he really is there to support Hailee Steinfeld. There was no question that when the majority of nominations were announced that Bridges would be nominated for lead actor and Steinfeld would be up for the supporting category. And that is so, so backwards.
In the end, I really enjoyed True Grit. It was no Unforgiven (which several critics have compared it to) by any means, but it was rich with moral and ethical ideas of what justice means to us as children, and what we find to be truth in the real world. If I had one fatal flaw with the film though, it was that despite the Coen Brothers attempting to adapt the book and not remake the John Wayne version, they still ended up with extremely similar films. I’m not against remakes across the board, but I do think they should be handled accordingly - meaning I do not think True Grit deserves Best Picture and I was somewhat disappointed that the Coen’s were even nominated for best director, taking the place of a more deserving candidate.
Shutter Island:
If you are not a fan of Alfred Hitchcock, and you have never seen films like North by Northwest, Vertigo, Rear Window or Psycho, then I do not know how you will feel about Shutter Island. Because, make no mistake, that is what this film is. It goes beyond homage, as Shutter Island is not merely Martin Scorsese trying to channel Alfred Hitchcock, but is an attempt to make this film as Hitchcock would have. From the Herman-esque score to the elaborate matte painting backgrounds, this film could have been made in the period in which the film is set. That said, if you are someone who does not know and does not recognize this aspect of the film, you are going in without the tools to fully appreciate this spectacular accomplishment.
And that’s not even covering whether or not you are familiar with the Dennis Lehane novel. I am going to try and look at this film objectively, as if I did not have the background that the novel grants, but there are a couple things I would like to say before I do. First - of all of Lehane’s novels I felt that Shutter Island was probably the weakest, but also the one that would translate best into a movie. Second - in the novel, the much debated twist at the end is much easier to see coming. In fact I was somewhat surprised to hear so many complaints about the final act seemingly coming out of nowhere. Of course already knowing what happens going in does not put me in a position to judge. I am sure that the writers, producers and Scorsese himself probably wanted the feeling of pulling the rug out from under the audience, because my favorite chapter of the novel was omitted from the film (a scene where Chuck and Teddy play poker with the guards, where we get a good amount of insight into both characters, particularly Chuck). This chapter was where I first suspected the coming revelation, and had it been in the film it would have made the inevitable twist much easier to predict.
Besides that, as well as a few other secondary scenes, the screenwriters stayed extremely true to the source material. Something I was not expecting after seeing the many trailers, and the overall perception that Shutter Island was going to be a horror movie. Instead, it was a classic thriller - Suspense worthy of Hitchcock. I think this fact has fueled the polarizing reviews and overall disappointment for a lot of people. Most people, if they had not read the novel and were going in with no expectation but the trailers, would have been expecting a much less cerebral film, and a film with a lot more “jump out of your seat” moments.
When Shutter Island was postponed last year so that it was ineligible for 2009’s Academy Awards, my expectations were lowered severely. Films that come out in February are usually films that the studios have no confidence in (The Silence of the Lambs being a big exception). Unfortunately, that February release date also dooms the film to obscurity when it comes to this year’s Oscars, having no hype to fuel it. Otherwise, had Shutter Island come out in December, I feel it would have as much chance as any of the films that are in contention for the film industries highest honor.
When the casting first came out and Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo were announced in the leads, I was extremely skeptical. Not because I think either wasn’t capable, but more so because of DiCaprio’s image and reputation for roles about men coming apart at the seams. My feeling was that his casting was a little too spot on, and having him work again with Scorsese, I felt that I knew exactly what to expect going in. And to some extent I was right. I still think that a less obvious choice would have given the character and the film a little more depth. That said, they were both very convincing in their roles, and Sir Ben Kingsley was predictably great. Arguably my favorite role in the film though was the tragic role of Dolores - In the few scenes that she has, Michelle Williams was brilliant and heartbreaking.
Again, if you don’t have the primers going in, you may not end up enjoying this film on the same level that I did. In fact, my first thought leaving the theater was that many people would feel slighted and frustrated at Shutter Island. That said, I still feel that - had I not had the background, I would still have enjoyed this very tense and very personal psychological thriller.
Never let me go:
First off I have to apologize because I will be the first to say leave expectation and any background information at the door when going to see a film. This goes double for a film based on a book that is dear to you. Realistically, if I am going to be writing these reviews, I should be able to separate the book from the movie. But in this case I just can’t. The book is too important to me. In fact, Never Let Me Go is one of my favorite books of the last 20 years. And I read a lot. If you have not read it, do not see this film unless you are positive you will never read it, because it will ruin an amazing and unique experience. Let me briefly say this about the book: it was one of the most layered and emotional pieces of fiction, rich with subtext, metaphor and analogy that I have ever read. And going in, my fear was that the film would reduce it into simple story, and nothing more.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement, but I think if I had gone into this film without knowing the source material I would not have felt this way. The visuals and the direction in general by Mark Romanek were superb, and the film had the same atmosphere that I envisioned while reading the book. The three starring roles played by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield were all fantastic. Carey Mulligan is quickly becoming an actress that can get me into a theater seat - and her transformation is phenominal here - but in my opinion it is Keira Knightley that steals the show. Again, this is based on having read the book, but the role that had the biggest chance of going wrong was definitely the role of Ruth, Knightley’s character. I went in hoping for passable, but I think she knocked it out of the park. Based on difficulty alone, I would have been thrilled if she had been recognized by the Academy for a supporting actress nomination this year.
The biggest fault I have with this film is the cowardly way they pandered to the widest possible audience. And I knew I was going to be disappointed less than 1 minute into the film - the film opens with a short paragraph describing the slightly askew world in which the characters live. And right then I knew that the producers had opted for the easy way out. In the book, there is no such explanation and we experience this world as through the eyes of Kathy H. It is pure narrative and we know nothing of the world outside of her life. In fact, the “secret” of the book is very slowly peeled back throughout, and you never get a clear explanation of the world they live in. And that makes perfect sense, because it is the only world the narrator knows.
Now I have no issues with science-fiction and I feel that great sci-fi films deserve their place amongst the greatest examples of drama, but to me this book was never limited to one genre. I recently watched an interview with Kazuo Ishiguro where he was asked if Philip K Dick was a large influence on Never Let Me Go. His answer - that he was ashamed to admit that he had never read any of Dick’s fiction - was surprising and seemingly insulting to the audience. Personally, I wasn’t shocked. And I felt that the question was extremely limiting to the book. It was also a reminder of why the producers would have decided to over explain and spoon-feed the audience. And the sad part is that the film didn’t stop there with the constant reminders and explanations. The decision to put scanners into the students at the school, my assumption is to heighten the sense of imprisonment, was really the last straw for me and made me unable to really enjoy the film, even viewing it as a simple visual companion to a fantastic piece of literature. I could deal with all the missing pieces and the loss of all the subtleties that often take place when a book is adapted to film (In fact, some of the changes made really worked for me and were insightful into the meaning of specific chapters), but here it is overshadowed by the need for exposition. It’s just too bad they needed to label this film with a specific genre.
What does carry over is the looming mortality in the novel. Here, maybe even more so than in the book, there is no escape from the limits of a brief life. And, of the many analogies that abound in the novel, none are more obvious, important or heartbreaking than this. I know a lot of people take issue with the ending, both of the book and of the film. I’m not surprised either. In the book it makes much more sense that these characters would knowingly succumb to their fate, because it is the only option they are aware of and is the only life that they know. Ishiguro has stated that this is something that he feels is part of his Japanese heritage (having been born in Nagasaki less than a decade after it was decimated by a hydrogen bomb. A very telling fact that clearly influenced the world of Never Let Me Go), and is in relation to an ideal of honor and duty, whereas American audiences may be more inclined to respect and wish for personal freedoms. I’m not sure that is the case, and I think that all people would fall into the same traps that the main characters succumb to. In fact that is the real beauty of the book, there really never is any question of whether they will run off together. That is how much the narrative brings you into their mindset and into their world.
All said, my biggest flaw is that this film should have been spectacular. It should have been one of the best films of the year, if not the best. The truth is, without the perspective the novel grants, maybe this is one of the best films of the year and I just can't see it. But I do say only see this film if you have no intention of ever reading the book. I cannot think of a recent novel I could recommend more.
The King’s Speech:
This is what trailers and add campaigns can do so well. To convert someone like me, who really has no intention of seeing a movie based on the concept alone, and completely change their mind. For me I could never get on board with such a sappy, sensitive topic like a stammer or a speech impediment and I wasn’t convinced I could watch a two-hour movie based on someone’s personal experience and struggle with one - even if that person happened to be a King. But after seeing the trailers and getting a sense of, visually, what this film was about, I was hooked and determined to see it for myself.
And you know what? When I saw the film, it was sensitive and it was sappy. In fact, by the end I half expected Geoffrey Rush to open up his umbrella and fly away like Mary Poppins. But it was also gorgeous. The colors, as well as the absolutely beautiful and atmospheric settings that so richly created the time period, that is what really made this film worthwhile to me.
It was also such an interesting narrative to have all these regal and royal scenes played as terrifying, as though from the mind of a nervous child. The fear, doubt and the lack of confidence in the narrative really came through, and you can understand the genesis of the King's stutter. Just from the brief history and exposition of him as a child, the filmmakers make no attempt to categorize his stammer as a physical disability, but instead a psychological one. And from his point of view, a stutter would be earth shattering. It would be terrifying. And though it seems a little lighthearted and almost humorous when you’re going in, you will quickly start to see it from his perspective. All the scenes in the trailers that may look overly sensitive and melodramatic actually end up working extremely well in the context of the film.
Because of this heightened narrative, I’m not sure I can give the same amount of praise to these actors as has been bestowed upon them throughout this entire awards season. But I will say, Colin Firth has a real shot at winning best actor, and I would be more than happy to see him holding the statue. Helena Bonham Carter was fantastic, and is as warm and likable character as has been onscreen all year. Geoffrey Rush is good in his role, but if any of these actors came off as too storybook, too sweet and witty, he is definitely the guilty one. The majority of the dialogue that bordered on too saccharine all seemed to come from his character.
I like this film very much. It is a tough film not to like, and you will find yourself rooting for the characters the entire way. This is the type of film the Academy loves. It is the type of film that gets you emotionally invested and pulls at those heartstrings. Unlike The Social Network and several other films that have been receiving a ton of praise this year, this one attempts to make you feel something and react, which is what, traditionally, the Academy looks for in awarding a film. Am I saying I think that The King’s Speech will win best picture... probably not. But don’t count it out completely. Tom Hopper is a sophomore director, who does a fantastic job here, but I think the Academy likes to see someone build a body work before awarding them this type of praise.
What I do hope this film is recognized for is both cinematography and art direction. Just the main set piece alone, the London apartment where the speech therapy is practiced, is a work of art. Yes, it is appropriate for the time period, but the walls and furniture combined with the angles of the camera create something textural, as though pulled from a Lucian Freud painting. The rich pallet of color and the atmosphere create an expression of London through the eyes of a true artist.
I hope this film does well. I hope that the same crowd that go to see lighthearted and uplifting films in droves will choose to see a film like this. The same weekend that this opened nationally, Little Fokers opened to sold out shows, while the theater I was in was half full at most. The King’s Speech is at least as uplifting and light, and while I probably will never see Little Fockers, I’m guessing at least as funny.
Don’t let the R rating sway you, because this is a film appropriate for the whole family, despite what the cowardly and pathetic MPAA has to say about it. I had heard about the ruling before going in to the theater, and decided I had to see this for myself. I have a lot of respect for the studio deciding not to change or censor the film. Unfortunately, what could have been a $20 million Christmas weekend, was doomed to mediocre returns because of one scene where the King swears a few too many times (In the context of the film, it is completely necessary to keep this language in, and the cursing is only used as a speech aid). This is a sad reminder of the worth of art in this country. Between this, Blue Valentine, and the horrible history this country has when it comes to re-editing films for an American audience (Bladerunner, Brazil, Leon, Once Upon A Time In America just to name a few horrific and unforgivable offences), we should all feel insulted and a little ashamed, and really reassess our moral and ethical priorities.
This film is appropriate for kids of any age. If you have kids who are at least old enough to appreciate and understand the concept of this film, especially if they have any type of learning disability or speech impediment, I would say this is a great film to expose them to. But, if you stay away because you are afraid of a single word and the power it has, then I wouldn’t be surprised if your child does have a stammer.
As of right now, The King’s Speech is the Vegas odds-on favorite to win Best Picture. Within days of the Oscar nominations, I heard the complaint (from about ten different people) that The Academy is going to give Best Picture to another art film that barely anyone went to see. Man, the general public just doesn’t get it. This isn’t an indie-film - This is typical Hollywood awards bait. But, unfortunately, the gap between rational arguments for what is right and what the public wants is at it’s all time widest. I don’t think the general public will be happy until the Best Picture category is made up of the highest grossing films of the year. Just imagine it – And the Best Picture Oscar goes to… Transformers 6: the Search for more Money. If we could just take away these people’s right to vote, the world would be a much better place ;).
Winter’s Bone:
I’ve been all over this country and witnessed all sorts of living conditions, but after spending most of the last decade in the affluent north east it is hard to understand how environments and situations like what is depicted in Winter’s Bone are still relevant and real in America today. One great thing about this fantastic little film is that it doesn’t shy away from showing this life in a realistic light. Too many films about an impoverished community will portray the camaraderie and strength of human spirit lifting the main characters above their dilemma. But how about the reality, where life is hard and cruel and when people don’t have much, they are often more protective and defensive about what little they do have.
This is a tough film - gamy, like a fried squirrel on a cold winter day. And just like that squirrel, not for the queasy or faint of heart. Like last year’s Precious or The Messenger, this is a film that pulls you in to a horrible situation and makes you feel every atrocity committed, either by or to the narrative source. But this film had something that those others lacked - something that defines great films and great characters – the tenacity to overcome an impossible obstacle.
I loved Winter’s Bone, and am thrilled at all the good press it has received throughout the year. In fact, had it come out at the right time and had the hype behind it, I would consider it a real underdog threat to win Best Picture. Because, when you strip away the harsh and unforgiving setting, what you have is a real underdog story, and that is something the Academy loves.
Jennifer Lawerence is fantastic and one hundred percent believable in the lead role, a 17 year old dropout forced to play mother to her two young siblings. She is absolutely deserving of the Academy Award nomination. That said, I felt that John Hawkes stole this film. He was brilliant and is my pick for Best Supporting Actor, even if he doesn’t have a prayer at beating Christian Bale. In a film where so much is implied instead of made known through exposition, his character speaks almost solely in subtext and really solidifies the mission statement.
I’m guessing that, out of the ten films nominated for best picture, Winter’s Bone is the one that the fewest of you will see. And that is a real shame, because while it is a very small film, it is great nonetheless, and at least as worthy as most of the other nine films.
The Social Network:
A handful of months before The Social Network came out in theaters I had a chance to read the script. I’ve read a lot of scripts, including a few by Aaron Sorkin, but my first fear when reading this (extremely long) one was: how are they going to make this into a two-hour film. And really they had no other choice, because any longer and the audience would really lose their focus. Either the young crowd, who would find the technical jargon and cultural impact to be extremely topical and interesting, would most likely not have the attention span to sit any longer (unable to access their laptops, blackberries or whatever new technology is at their fingertips by the time I finish writing this) - and the rest of the world I would fear would be long tired at the two-hour mark, having sat through enough talk about being “wired in” and whole conversations based around writing HTML code. But David Fincher was able to get convincing performances from his actors while having them read their lines at a Hitchcockian pace. No small feat. Really, go back and watch that opening scene at The Thirsty Scholar, it reminds me of a Micro-Machines commercial from the early 90s with that guy who was a teacher on Saved by the Bell.
The Social Network is a good film, at times bordering on great, but I maintain what I said after walking out of the theater “The Social Network is not a lock to win the Academy Award for Best Picture”. I know it is currently cleaning up at all of the other award shows, but I don’t think that is all because of its specific quality. Unfortunately I think it has more to do with wanting to stay current and topical. These organizations and critics associations do not want the label or impression that they are out of touch. Which is funny considering how old and out of fashion, in terms of technology, social networking is today. My mother is on Facebook, yet she can barely work a cell phone. The reason I think that The Social Network might not win Best Picture is really just a reaction to what I heard coming out of the theater - Two separate groups of people over 50 discussing how for the last two hours they had no idea what was going on on-screen. And the Academy, unlike several of the other associations, is typically considered traditional and old. That reason… and I don’t think it necessarily deserves it.
One of the reasons I think that the across-the-board praise has to do with wanting to better public perception, is that a lot of the performances in The Social Network are gathering up awards. If these same organizations understood what makes The Social Network so creative and unique, then they would understand that it is not the type of film that stands on its acting. Essentially each character is forced to play multiple roles considering the Rashamon like composition of the script. That is why the film works so well, and is a real courtroom drama. Each portion of the film is told from a particular characters perspective so that the other characters come off good or bad based on the narrator’s personal bias. So no, I do not think that Jesse Eisenberg deserves a Best Actor Oscar. I don’t think he deserves to be nominated. And the same goes for Andrew Garfield (I thought he was better in Never Let Me Go anyway). I’m not saying they didn’t give good performances, just that they were not given enough time in each section to fully develop a real character. And any talk about Justin Timberlake being nominated just has to be treated as the joke it is. I think Timberlake has a great career in front of him, but I felt he was a real weak spot in this film.
This brings up another point I would like to make. If you know me, then you know that two of my biggest pet peeves (besides the biopic - which this technically falls into), the things that really drive me crazy, are censorship and the hijacking of someone else’s art to further an agenda. Both have, unfortunately, been huge issues that have repeatedly popped up with this year’s crop of films. Here, The Social Network, having won international acclaim and awards, has been the victim of the later offense. Several groups have run the filmmakers names through the mud in order to draw attention to their (very admirable) causes, sighting a negative portrayal of women and minorities. Yes, The Social Network does not portray either group in a particularly favorable light, but that is artistic license and here it served a purpose – to show the anti-social point of view of the main characters, which is really the point of the film: The irony that these anti-social, overcompensating and defensive young men developed the standard of social networking. Now if some people can’t understand that, then you can use that as criticism because it is the job of the filmmakers to get that point across. What you cannot do, is point your finger and say that someone was irresponsible or insulting, based on your own ignorance. And, again unfortunately, I don’t think this was the case. Instead, I believe these groups put their own message above the rights of the artists, and tried to exploit an opportunity based on the size of the audience invested. And that, to me, is a far greater crime than the one the filmmakers are being accused of.
Sorry, got a little off topic there. Back to the film. I’ve said it before; I’m a big fan of David Fincher. I have liked each of his films, mostly each one better than the last. He is one of a handful of directors that will get me into the theater every time. I thought he was a strange choice to direct this script that was really just talking heads, considering how visually dramatic he is known to be, but now I cannot picture it done by anyone else. And when I found out who he had chosen to score the film that just about guaranteed the sale of my ticket. I have been a huge fan of Trent Reznor for 20 years now. In most years I would be pulling for him to win an Academy Award for best score, because he deserves it as well as I would love to hear his acceptance speech, but unfortunately for him this year he was just out gunned (see: My top two films). That said, he will probably still win whether he deserves it or not.
I think when the test of time has finished with The Social Network, we will see it for what it is: a very good movie that summed up well the world we now occupy. And the filmmakers should be proud of that, because 90% of the films that come out each year are not nearly as relevant. That said, I hope that The Social Network does not end up being this year’s Slumdog Millionaire. That is to say, I hope it does not win best picture based on hype, only to have us all realize a couple years down the road that there were much more deserving films that fell into obscurity. Luckily, I think that this film is a lot better than those blemishes on the Academy from years past, so if it does win, I can honestly look at it and say “At least it was better than The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, Crash etc…”
Blue Valentine:
If you take only one thing from this film or from this review, please let it be an indictment of The MPAA. Don’t get me wrong, I thought that this film was phenomenal and deserving of the accolades it will receive over time (and there will be quite a few once people actually see it). But it is impossible not to have this crime - this complete insult to the intelligence of the American movie going public - not be at the center of this critique. The mysterious and anonymous MPAA, censoring artwork all the time in this country and almost no one is talking about it. Making and breaking the careers of working filmmakers based on - what? Supposedly they take the context of the content into account and make a judgment based on past precedent and common sense - but who picks these people? They’re not elected. And if common sense and context are involved, how does any rational person explain the R rating for The King’s Speech or the NC17 for Blue Valentine. Both are criminal forms of censorship, and someone’s head should role for it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I honestly think it had to do with limiting the audience for the benefit of the competing films opening at the same time. Sorry if you think I’m nuts but I think the MPAA has about as much integrity as the Hollywood Foreign Press. Which is zero, zip, nada, nothing. And if I was an actual journalist or had any sway whatsoever, I would drag their names through the mud every chance I get. Sorry to get so far off topic, but if and when you see this film you will probably be as confused as I was as to where the rating came from. Just for the record, Kick Ass can show a 10 year old girl throw a knife into some guys crotch and laugh - and get an R rating - but Blue Valentine cannot depict a husband and wife having a drunken sexual encounter, mostly in the dark, without getting an NC17? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this country? Eleven years ago when Requiem for a Dream got an NC17 rating, do you know what the reason was? Because it showed the use of contraceptive being used during a sexual act. Yup, because the film depicted safe sex, it was too much and too real. Wow.
And that is the only thing I can see that would motivate this censorship - just how real everything in this film is portrayed. The films biggest detractors will claim that the film was lacking in metaphor, analogy and any other benchmark we use to define what is well written from what is not. But this film is so honest and real, that it transcends this criteria. Fiction can be so great - Blue Valentine is more honest and realistic than any documentary or any bit of reality programming you will see all year. And it achieves this height of realism through two absolutely fantastic performances.
I was really pulling for Ryan Gosling to at least get an Academy Award nomination for this film. I actually would have been pulling for him to win. At least Michelle Williams got a nomination, which will help this film from disappearing completely from the public consciousness (hers was my second favorite performance this year, behind Natalie Portman). And I really can’t say enough about these two actors. Yes, they disappeared into these very defined and flawed characters, but they were also able to pull you so far into the film emotionally and make you so totally invested in their lives, that the result is so crushing, so heartbreaking, that the lines between fiction and reality completely disappear. Seriously, I attempted to talk about this film with the few people I know who have actually seen it, and all anyone wanted to talk about, including me, was which character was more at fault and where things went wrong - as if these were actual events that took place in our lives or as if there were actually a correct answer. We weren’t talking about the acting, the directing or anything else that usually dominates a discussion about film. I swear, after the film I felt worried for Dean (Gosling’s character) and wondered where he would go.
And that is just about the finest praise a film like this can receive.
I’ve heard and read all about how much of a passion project Blue Valentine was for director Derek Cianfrance, and I believe every word. It took a decade to make, and it shows in the film. It makes me very sad that, because of the stigma and label put on it by The MPAA, that so few people will actually get a chance to see it. But, an NC17 label does make a twisted kind of sense, because Blue Valentine is the most adult and mature film to come out this year.
And here is where we see some separation. My top two films this year are two films that would be my top two in almost any year. They alone are the reason I consider 2010 such a great year in film history. And, as far as the order goes, ask me tomorrow and you may get a different arrangement - because at this level is where subjectivity and personal taste really come into play. Is a Caravaggio better than a Vermeer? The Caravaggio may be brilliant, both technically and aesthetically, and directly influence the next 400 years of artwork. But the Vermeer might capture lightning in a bottle. How do you judge the importance?
Inception:
Where to start? How about, Inception is probably the closest thing to a perfect movie to come out in a decade. Too much? Nope, I’m sticking to it. And just because it is not my top film this year, does not mean it’s not the best film - because it is. It is a film that no other filmmaker could make. The type of film that a studio would only back and give you final cut on if your last film grossed a billion dollars. Thankfully, this combination of events and personnel came together perfectly, and what we got was, arguably, Christopher Nolan’s best film to date.
I could write a book on this film, as many already have, dissecting and discussing the wildly original concept and execution, but I’m going to try and keep it short. The best way I know how to do this is to point out that no film, in my lifetime, has ever inspired so much opinion and debate -not on the quality of the film directly, but on theory and speculation pertaining to the events shown. That’s what this film was: a small window into a whole new world of possibility. For months after this film came out, I had fiery conversations about wedding band/totem theories, the reason for Michael Caine’s character, who the real target was and the significance of Ellen Page’s name “Ariadne” and why she always wore red. This is what art is! Conjecture, subtle references, implied and inferred meaning - and it’s right there in a huge summer blockbuster. My favorite debate involves the idea of Inception being a very thinly veiled analogy to Nolan’s experience making films: Basically DiCaprio is playing him as the director (even dresses and looks like him), Gordon-Levitt is the producer, Hardy is the actor etc, etc… It really fits too, with descriptions like how the people that make up your subconscious (the audience) will turn on you if they feel you are stretching reality too much. Basically, you could replace “dream” with “film”, and you would have a whole other movie on your hands.
The fact that The King’s Speech, as much as I liked that film, will defeat Inception for best original screenplay is one of the more laughable offences this awards season. The design of the story and the courage it took to refine it to the masterpiece it is, can make my head spin. Can you imagine reading this script and having the faith to say yes to this film? Any other director, including James Cameron, and this does not get made. And that is a testament to just how far removed from the rest of the pack Christopher Nolan is. With only a handful of features under his belt, I already consider him among the great directors in cinema history.
The performances in this film were on par with the concept, and executed just as well. It was a huge ensemble and out of Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Marion Cotillard there was not a weak link to be found. Nobody was winking at the camera, and I feel like each actor must have known they were a working part of something that was going to be great.
The thing that really sends this one into the stratosphere though is the blood-pumping and primal score by Hans Zimmer. Again, I think that music is the most overlooked and underappreciated aspect in film, and without fail, my favorite films each year are the films with the best score. As much as Wally Pfister’s cinematography is gorgeous here, again using the cold metallic atmosphere that was so great in The Dark Knight, it is Zimmer’s score that defines this film most for me. It dominates the film, but there is so much going on - so many layers to take in - that a score that would overpower almost any other film actually works and meets the standard set by each of the other components.
Inception surprised me. I was expecting greatness going in, but what I got was something so new and expansive, I have no precedent to measure it’s genius. I will just have to let time judge, as it always does. And in twenty years, Inception could be my favorite film period, let alone this year.
Black Swan:
Bottled lightning. I should warn you now; this will be less of a critique and more of a love letter. I think that Black Swan is a work of genius. Of all the films I’ve seen this year this is the one that stayed with me the most. I’ve lost sleep about this film long after seeing it, which is not unbelievably rare itself, but to this extent is haunting. At the time I am writing this I have seen it three times.
Might as well get the obvious Clint Mansell praise out of the way early – in a year where music really defined the best films, Mansell’s interpretation of Tchaikovsky as an ominous fairytale is all alone at the top. Because it made the film what it is – a dark and twisted modern fable. I have been listening to the score now for two months, and it is not getting old anytime soon.
This fairytale, filled with recognizable archetypes and themes, is something we instinctually understand, and there is no twist or surprise that catches us off guard. And that is the tragedy of the story, that sense of fate and inevitability - which are only amplified by the parallels to Swan Lake. I love that the world is truly shown through Nina’s eyes, and nothing is given importance unless it is important to her. The scene in the bathroom stall, just after she has thrown up, is shown as just another part of her day. If this were a Lifetime movie, this portion of the film would have been an hour long. Instead, it is just small sample of the many horrors she endures because of her sheltered lifestyle - Nina is a doll, living out her life in a dolls house. She has a very childlike concept of perfection, where aesthetic beauty is not only everything that matters, it is the only thing. Where we might see a hangnail, she sees an insurmountable flaw - An imperfection worthy of self mutilation. She is so concerned with these minor scratches at the surface; she is both unaware and unconcerned about the widening crack within her mind.
Nina struggles with the concept of letting go, of giving in to something primal, when her whole life has been about structure and perfection. But it is only through our flaws that we are clearly defined. The idea that through our flaws we are perfect is completely alien to her and is not something she could ever accept.
At not-quit the middle of the film – as if the sense of duality wasn’t quite dominating the film already – is the unleashing of Nina’s emotional dark side, repressed for too long and represented in a sudden shift in tone and narrative. The transformation splits the film completely, and Nina’s decent is some of the most compelling cinema put to film.
For the first three quarters, the film continuously builds up the idea of what the Black Swan is and what it means to Nina. The Black Swan represents perfection in art, meaning the illusion of alchemy - where even though something is labor intensive and comes from a lifetime of preparation, the art looks as though it came completely natural, as if to imply raw talent or (to be melodramatic) the touch of God. This is an extremely abstract idea, one that has been discussed and pondered for ages, and is an abstraction that would be near impossible to show on screen. It would be one thing if the film attempted to set this scene up with dialogue and exposition, but instead Aronofsky does the impossible and shows us this very thing in Natalie Portman’s countenance. Throughout the film Nina is told to give in and let go, eluding to the idea that she is ready to come by her art naturally, fluidly and through muscle memory, allowing her unconscious and primal self to dictate her every movement. The payoff that the film eventually builds to, the introduction of Nina’s Black Swan is everything it was built up to be and more. Instead of labored breaths and controlled, fearful movements, the Black Swan’s breathing is shallow and easy. She feels the ripple of energy and confidence, like a drug coursing through her veins - which she sees as a plumage of black feathers bursting through her skin - and she accepts this completely and finally lets go. For this scene alone, about 120 seconds of film starting with those wonderful trumpets introducing the Black Swan and ending with Nina alone on stage framed by two enormous winged shadows, Portman deserves the Academy Award for best actress. Whether the famous 32 continuous fouettés were all Portman or not doesn’t matter to me - this was my favorite sequence in film this year, and it was her performance that made it work. This scene, made up of a few long cuts from start to finish, also solidified Darren Aronofsky as the best director working today when it comes to coaxing brilliance from his actors. And as for Portman, I would place her Nina Sayers up there with Daniel Day-Lewis’s Daniel Plainview and Kate Winslet’s Hanna Schmitz as one of my favorite and most complete performances of the last decade.
Black Swan, even with its portrayal of the cutthroat dark side, will probably inspire a whole new generation to want to learn about the world of ballet. That is the severity of the highs and lows this film reaches. Just to warn you going in, if you haven’t seen it, the film is at times melodramatic. Some critics have been citing this as a negative but to them I say, so are some of the best classic Hollywood films that inspired Black Swan. Sunset Boulevard was melodramatic. All about Eve was melodramatic. The Red Shoes was melodramatic. And that is what this is: a classic, archetypal film. Some backlash that this film has been receiving has had to do with its much publicized lesbian scene. The Women’s Film Critics Circle went so far as to award it for “worst female images in film“. Personally I don’t feel that any of Black Swan was gratuitous or unnecessary. I felt it was essential and all the more tragic to show a woman in her late 20s suffering such arrested development as to not understand and be fearful of her own sexuality - which was the entire point of the scene in question. That, and to show a particularly primal representation of the Virgin White Swan - having never had an orgasm. I would like to think that most women could find this scene particularly empowering and not exploitative at all.
Where am I going with this, you say? Well, I want to bring up a point about evaluating or critiquing anything of value – and that is, if everybody likes something and it is praised across the board, it is probably too safe to reach the heights of high art. I know this is a very general statement that could be argued forever, but I really feel it applies. I know several people who were hugely disappointed with this film and even found the intensity to be laughable. And that, to me, makes it all the more worthy. To quote the wise Wayne Campbell “Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees”. So, while I normally encourage debate - when it comes to Black Swan, don’t bother. I’ve heard all the arguments and the film has never slipped from it’s place in my mind - which is way up at the top. And if you don’t see the genius here that I do, well then that’s too bad because you are really missing out.
Well, there you have it. I know this year’s list is going to stir up some anger, and to this I say: Bring it on. I stand by these reviews, and I feel that little will change with time. But you are welcome to try and change my mind.
Ok. Time for my Oscar picks and predictions:
Best Picture
Should Win: Inception (I know, Black Swan was my top choice, but Inception is more deserving of this award)
Will Win: The Social Network. I have been saying for the past few months that The King's Speech will win, and it must seem odd that, now that The King's Speech is the favorite for the first time, I am switching to The Social Network. The reason for my flip-flop? I am 99% sure that David Fincher will win Best Director, and splitting these awards is a suckers bet.
Best Director
Should Win: Christopher Nolan for Inception, but because he wasn't even nominated, Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan
Will Win: David Fincher for The Social Network. This is the award that decided Best Picture for me, as I don't think the Academy will honor Tom Hooper so early in his career
Best Actor
Should Win: I would vote for Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine or Robert Duvall for Get Low, but Colin Firth for The King's Speech is a fine choice of the actors nominated. I really hated these nominations...
Will Win: Colin Firth for The King's Speech
Best Actress
Should Win: Natalie Portman for Black Swan. Not even close
Will Win: Natalie Portman for Black Swan. See above
Supporting Actor
Should Win: John Hawkes for Winter's Bone
Will Win: Christian Bale for The Fighter
Supporting Actress
Should Win: Helena Bonham Carter for The King's Speech or Melissa Leo for The Fighter
Will Win: Melissa Leo for The Fighter
Adapted Screenplay
Should Win: Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network
Will Win: Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network
Original Screenplay
Should Win: Christopher Nolan for Inception
Will Win: David Seidler for The King's Speech
Cinematography
Should Win: Toughest catagory. I loved the work by Wally Pfister on Inception, Danny Cohen on The King's Speech and Matthew Libatique on Black Swan, but the award should go to Roger Deakins for True Grit. Best DP in the business
Will Win: Danny Cohen for The King's Speech. Danny Cronenweth could steal this one for The Social Network
Art Direction
Should Win: Eve Stewart and Judy Farr for The King's Speech. Can't believe Black Swan wasn't nominated.
Will Win: Eve Stewart and Judy Farr for The King's Speech
Editing
Should Win: Andrew Weisblum for Black Swan
Will Win: Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall for The Social Network
Original Score
Should Win: Clint Mansell for Black Swan was not nominated because of the use of existing music, so Hans Zimmer for Inception
Will Win: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for The Social Network
I could go on to Make-up and costumes, but those are secondary in my opinion. And I hate the Animated film category.
Before I go I want to make one more point. Critiquing films is important. I know most people see all of these award shows and just think they are pure self congratulation and a celebration of overwhelming excess - especially in a down economy. But (and I know I say this every year), The Academy Awards are the past century’s Paris Salon. A celebration and affirmation of quality in the last shared/publicly recognized art: the Movies. If you take away the recognition of quality, all that will remain is the garbage that comes out from May to September, and anything poignant and of value will disappear into the fringes of society where pretentious cinephiles like myself will attempt to keep the flag waving. But if these films with something important to say do not reach an audience, then what is the point?
As always, I hope you enjoyed this and thank you for reading - especially those who have made it this far. And, if you have something of value to say, please leave a comment and sign your work so that I can respond. See you next year.
Ryan Black
February 2011
