What’s Good: Duvall’s beard. 
What’s Not: The rest of the movie.

“Get Low” opens with a stunning visual. A house burns bright in the middle of a dark and dusty landscape. Suddenly, from far away, a figure jumps out of a window on fire and runs past the camera. My god, I though, this could be another “There Will Be Blood.” That was the last time that thought ran through my head. It’s not that “Get Low” is bad, it’s just that it’s so content with being cute and coy and reverent that it ends up being little else. The “tall tale” set in an unspecific but long time ago past stars a scruffy Robert Duvall in a sort of book end version of the “benevolent falcon” Boo Radley he played so many years ago in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” The film, not quite a western and not quite a period movie, is about this “crazy old man” and his quest to throw a living funeral for all the people who hate him. The film, by the way, thinks this little plot detail is a lot more clever than it actually is and to be honest it is really not enough to sustain a feature length film. Maybe it would have worked as a short. I don’t know and I don’t really care. For mysterious reasons that will, of course, be revealed in very calculated increments, this bearded old ghost has been a shut-in for nearly 40 years, toiling away in his log cabin with only a donkey to talk to. By the film’s end I would have killed to switch places with him or, hell, even his donkey.

There is an abundance of “mystery” surrounding this figure and his dark, dark past that the film lays on very thick and with very little finesse. I hate the small town movie genera as a rule (and am rarely proven wrong) and this film indulges in almost every tired rural cliche in the book including a fight with a local bully, a old flame rekindled (Sissy Spacek), colorful locals that pop up when the script needs them to, a preacher, an honest young protégé (Lucas Black) that learns many valuable life lessons, a small town radio broadcast and of course a cranky man who is reformed by the wonders of community. The film milks its premise, or maybe just drags it along, but does little to deepen the character’s admittedly intriguing (on the surface) mythology. Instead, “Get Low” opts for exploring the man’s social connections which is the least interesting part of the movie. Now, Duvall is a good actor and this is a decent performance (aside from Duvall’s usual ticks that involve exaggerated emoting where the actor contorts his face while mumbling things like “oooohhhh-hehehe”) but it suffers from the film’s inability to gets its hand dirty with his psychology. Juicy lines like “They keep telling me to ask Jesus for forgiveness, I didn’t do anything to him” keep the film afloat and hint at the gravity that could have been but any glimmer of hope is ultimately dragged under by the corny sentiments of the director (Aaron Schneider) and writers who play it safe every chance they get.

Once Duvall’s character gets it in his head that he wants to “make right, ” which is very early on in its short but seemingly endless running time, the film begins its downward spiral into indie movie mediocrity, complete with bad music and stiff performances. Sure this is a nice and pleasant enough experience with a harmlessly stupid sense of humor and a big ol’ heart but, in a way, it’s also a waste of time. The reason being that the film draws everything out until its big finale where, in typical small town movie fashion, the town gets together for a moment of grand catharsis and transformation. Here, Duvall reveals his BIG SECRET, a contrivance that goes against the character’s personality and central motivation and does nothing to explain why he’s the way he, why the town hates/hated him and why he imprisoned himself in the first place. To say it’s an underwhelming revelation is an understatement–”Get Low” has a non-ending so cavernous that it almost eclipses “Inception!” That I have not yet mentioned Bill Murray as the shifty funeral home director is a testimony to how light weight this “Gothic mystery” is.
Grade: C-

What’s Good: Nolan is one of the few masters the cinema has left. His films are beautiful puzzles. Flaws are secondary to the ambition, clarity and intense, German-like origination of his vision. However one chooses to look at this movie it is a landmark science fiction film that we will be talking about for years.  
What’s Not: However garishly constructed, when you dissected or deconstruct some Nolan films you often are left feeling empty handed and betrayed. ”Memento” was that kind of film and in a lot of ways so is “Inception.” The screenplay is one of the biggest assets and flaws. DiCaprio is miscast as usual. The action is unnecessary and illogical (can’t believe I said that). And while I have a lot more bad things to say about it than good, I like the movie, I’m just not going to pretend it’s an all around masterpiece.

Note: Given the nature of “Inception” I thought it best to write about it with my gut and heart more than my head. The second after watching I was moved to get whatever I had to say down as quickly as possible but not to over think it’s “meanings” because doing so might lead to levels of madness of DiCaprian proportions. My reaction is obviously going to change for the better or worse after have some time to sleep on it (though I wish I could sleep in it as well)  but know that I’m writing all this immediately after seeing the movie. I’m posting this three and a half to four hours after STARTING, not finishing, the movie and that’s give or take the time it took for all those IMAX trailers, driving home and feeding my hungry dogs that were waiting for me in the dark when I got home. Whatever the following response is, it may be more unrefined and impulsive than usual but, really, not much more than my usual crap I’m capable of. Given that at this moment the film is ranked on the IMDB as the third best film ever made there’s (you gotta love IMDB users)  a lot of knee jerk(off) reactions are around even though none of us really know how it will hold up. The drive to talk about this film is just that powerful and just that’s welcome given the sad dearth of thought (un)provoking summer movies.

I have a feeling that the more someone likes “Inception,” the more in denial they are about how much they like “Inception.” It’s as great and technical and expertly crafted as a film can be. It is also as hollow and empty –but beautifully so– as one of Esher’s stair cases leading to nowhere. That it looks hypnotically fabulous on its way there counts for something or, in this film’s case, everything. Like one of Esher’s playful works, this film is aware of itself and made to be looked at as such. There is a scene where the mark/dreamer is told by the protagonist that he’s in a dream. His dream in fact and that he is being told this so that he can be taken further and deeper down into various levels of this overarching dream. Noland is doing to us what he has in the previous films of what I would call his head-trip trilogy. In “Memento” his character broke all sorts of fourth walls to guide us into his fractured and, as it turns out, literally fleeting attention span. As he ran from his reality, we were brought closer and closer to it and while it seemed to signify so much at the beginning, it all evaporated after we revisited it and applied the film’s own logic to its plot. The entirety of “The Prestige,” Nolan’s best film to date, was built as a cinematic magic trick that the audience was brought in to participate in because a magic trick cannot exist without someone there to be (willingly) tricked. That film worked perfectly because when you take the pieces apart you get something substantial–a timeless parable about human obsession and the thin line between magic and science in our world. And with “Inception” Christopher Nolan takes our hands once again, using his firmest and most aggressively forceful grip to date, and plunges us in a very mediated journey into the world of dream espionage (which is a lot cooler than calling it dream stealing). It’s a bit “Matrix,” a bit “Open Your Eyes”/”Vanilla Sky” a bit of a Joss Whedon dream episode and a whole heap of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” Also substantial is the amount of in-dream shooting and clunky metaphors pertaining to our unconscious mind where people literally lock up their secrets. The film is strangely lacking in surrealism but, given the plot and even tagline “the dream is real,” it’s very refreshing that the director didn’t resort to any nonsensical dream related Dali-esq “randomness.”  The dreams of “Inception” have weight and a consistent internal reality that the film, whatever its flaws are, benefits from sticking to all the way to the end. The final, open to interpretation shot existing as a fun little existential joke that only Nolan is capable of ending his film with.

What I admire is all the work that went into it. And who wouldn’t? To watch it unfold is to enjoy the power of any well thought out and choreographed cinematic achievements. It’s as if the impossible has happened, Kubrick merged with Fellini! What I do not admire is also very clear cut. While the craft is there and at the top of its form, this movie’s basic plot is just not very interesting and it spends a lot of time masking that with fantastic sights and constantly juggled Rube Goldbergian machinations. It’s a flashy and well made hurricane of a movie, but to what end? What are we left with? When the layers are taken apart we are stuck with a very thin story that has almost no reason for existing on its own terms. It’s about a man who is not very interesting that has lost something that was not very interesting or original to begin with! He does everything he can to get “it” back and I kept waiting to get to the heart of what that is exactly and once I did was not impressed. The thinness of the story brings with it of course very thin character motivations as well and, worst of all, a very thin excuse to have people shooting guns at well dressed cyphers, existing as a built in security measure (an dream defense army whose job is to protect their host’s mind). The action scenes where characters shoot at each other feels off. Pondering “what is real” is of course nothing new and feels even more shallow in a college philosophy class kind of way this time around then it did when “Matrix” came out. The plot I will not waste my time describing because, first, this is not the kind of film you get people to see by explaining it and second, well, as I said: what plot? There’s lots of talk of getting “information” and beyond lazy MacGuffins featuring  hard to crack safes with hard to locate combinations and hard to care about documents within these mind-lockers. Such heavy handed icons never break free to signify anything other than themselves and I was never once pleased to find out what “vital information” any given characters was hiding. Perhaps that’s a deliberate way to impress upon us how, in real dreams, feelings are always more profound and lingering than the minute details. But that would assume that the film has much feeling or emotion. As is, the details are unclear and the emotions lack even definition.

I could talk about the beautiful, near non-stop music soundscape that Han Zimmer has created. This is amazing work by a seasoned composer that is able to lull us in with dreamy orchestral synths that guide without ever bringing us to the surface as, say, John William’s did with “A.I.” The editing is also first rate. It has that elliptical, metronome like construction that “The Prestige” used so well to its advantage. All the cuts are in service of the story’s vision rather than providing us with visual indulgences and I think that’s an important distinction to make. Same goes for the special effects. When characters float around and buildings topple into themselves, there’s a reason for it. Not a reason that is particularly engaging but a reason none the less. The way the film is put together, first in Nolan’s mind, second in the always brilliant Wally Pfister’s visual mapping and finally in Lee Smith’s cluttered but somehow coherent cutting room. These combine to form a effect worth treasuring and a big reason to come back again and again to this special world. The cast, in true human fashion, introduce flaws to Nolan’s otherwise perfect technical construct. He’s like Kubrick in the sense that humans always taint the notion of film in its pure form.

The film is has a pair of great actors, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and an underused Michael Caine. There are also competent but sometimes overrated performers such as Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Marion Cotillard. There are even WTF casting choices that rival Eric Roberts in “Dark Knight;” Tom “where have you been” Berenger and Levitt’s “Brick” co-star Lukas Haas appear. Oh and, yeah, Leonardo DiCaprio. Except for Leo, nobody really does a bad job. The characters, however, are all as distant and faceless and as mechanically driven as all those unconscious/subconscious Mr. Smiths running around people’s dream worlds trying to seek out the foreign body. Nothing about these characters except for that persistent dream stalker played by Cotillard, the beautiful Freddy Kruger of this dream worlds (she acts as a much needed wild card that comes in and disrupts the dream team’s “plan” in very cool ways) stand out in any way that inspires or evokes much feeling or depth. I didn’t not really like these characters but that’s only because I did not know them! Or their highly specialized jobs for that matter. They may be the “best” at what they do but I was always are left having to take the film’s word for it because what each character’s job is, such as a “dream architect” that could learn her job and be the best in the world at it after about a half day of unconscious training, makes no sense but at least the film doesn’t dwell because what good would come out of that? Even after spending two and a half hours with these people I didn’t come close to having any sort of organic connection with them or what they do. When Levitt pecks Page on the lips it was the only moment of genuine human involvement and while I liked it a lot it also seemed like an after thought, and a tease of one at that.

Also integrated awkwardly is a pivotal snow-set section of the film which is not only narratively bland and unclear but represents the only instance where the technical aspects let the film down (stark but dull visuals and hurried editing make it hard to get a fix on anything that’s going on in the snow–it was like a level out of “Moder Warfare 2″). The actors are given very simple performance tools and very challenging physical demands to play with and while few bring much to their characters beyond exactly what is required of them, at least they don’t take away from them either. Except for DiCaprio. As usual he is out of league and unable to draw me in to his reality. He is unconvincing and uninteresting. Another actor, Christian Bale for example (I know, I know, you don’t have to say it, I’m too much of a Bale fan), could have finessed the part up a bit, adding perhaps small touches of humanity and some wry humor to go along with all that overwrought intensity. DiCaprio, who is always so wound up in his movies (and always so damn obvious about his turmoil), fails to hold the dream at large together because he is always so glacially sober which, again, is ironic given the fluid subject we’re dealing with. The character is just a drab fellow that is never fun or energetic on screen. He’s a total drag. To his credit, Leo was having a good year after a somewhat similar turn in a far more (as performances, and perhaps films, go) successful mind bending “Shutter Island.” Both movies exist to takes us into the corridors of this actor’s crumbling psyche, failing to realize of course that there’s just not that much in there to get lost in.

Grade: B

Has any of this made any sense?

What’s Good: Noah Baumbach manages to make his most dramatic film also his funniest. He just gets better and better. And speaking of better, this is one of the year’s best.
What’s Not:People who don’t “get” Greenberg. Actually I can understand why this film would turn people off. Museum crashing Stiller fans need not apply because this is not the kind of Stiller comedy you may be expecting. Also, while I usually hate hearing from critics (in any way and about petty much anything) I included the AO Scott review of ”Greeberg” from recently dead At the Movies show because Scott is one of the few critics to give “Greenberg” the credit it deserves.  

 

“Greenberg” is out! Usually DVD/Blu-ray releases don’t interest me but this bit of news is an event and a reason to celebrate. I haven’t been very into movies this year for the simple reason that none of them are really worth writing about. Actually I’ve just been really lazy when it comes to writing, talking about movies, going out to movies or for that matter leaving my apartment. But, still, on top of that is the fact that movies have been sucking. Hard. Except for “Greenberg.” Seven months into the year and “Greenberg” is still the best thing out. I usually hold that personal info close to the vest so as to give my year end top ten some heat //term used ironically// but this year is so uneventful that I must appreciate the one great film of 2010 because I may not get another chance to do so after “The Last Airbender” gives me a brain aneurysm and kills me right where I sit. 

From “Greenberg” to this month’s solid but not particularly earth shattering ”Cyrus,” man-baby movies are very in right now. These are movies about or featuring men so selfish and entitled that the world must meet their every selfish demand or feel their totally powerless wrath.  More often than not, in a movie like “Step Brothers” or “Cyrus,” men literally act like babies (to comic effect) and have a whole lot of mommy issues whereas in a film like “Greenberg” it’s more a part of the behavioral makeup of the character. Somehow we are able to like such characters played by top man baby actors John C. Riley, Ben Stiller and of course the biggest man baby of them all, perhaps even the inventor of modern man babyisms, Will Ferrell who, to his credit, seems to be channeling the classic literary man baby progenitor Ignatius from “A Confederacy of Dunces.” This character type rings true for a lot of reasons, the topmost of which  might be that male adults these days are indeed trapped in an infantilized, womb like haze of me-me-me self entitlement. Which brings me to the film at hand. “Greenberg” provides the most incisive, biting, funny and most dramatic treatment of this popular new cultural trope.

It’s kinda sad when you see a deliberately unlikable character and think to yourself that it could be you in ten years if you don’t stop what you’re doing right now and get some therapy. Greenberg is a character that has given up on life and success and happiness yet still desperately wants attention, validation and credit. He’s a walking conflict. This is a character that hates growing older while at the same time also hates the young and energetic. When his ever patient best friend played by Rhys Ifans exhaustively rehashes that Oscar Wilde line about youth being wasted on the young Greenberg feels that’s not cynical enough and fires back with “I’d go one step further. I’d go: Life is wasted on… people.” With great zeal he then adds, rhetorically perhaps, that ”I’m strangely ‘on’ tonight” while the dinner party looks at him without an ounce of agreement. I have used that line many times in the months since “Greenberg” has come out. Capturing the self loathing vibe and sour humor of Woody Allen, Noah Baumbach’s ”Greenburg” speaks to the misanthrope in me, perhaps us, and is honest enough to admit that we may all have a little Greenberg lurking inside of use.

That alone would make the film rather hard to tolerate so Baumbach balances his broken compass of a character with a 25-year-old babysitter played by “Mumblecore” (hate that term) princess Greta Gerwig. In this wonderful performance, a much needed base to Greenberg’s acid, Gerwig plays a family babysitter who is helping Greenberg watch over his brother’s killer pad and sick dog in L.A. while he’s out of town. Of course she ends up babysitting the mentally ill or perhaps mentally eccentric Greenberg, falling in a very depressing sorta love in the process. Even here the writers (this time Noah teams up with “Margot at the Wedding” star Jennifer Jason Leigh) do not fall back on the conventions we’d expect with these types of movies. The easy thing would be to give her the Helen Hunt in ”As Good as it Gets” treatment, positioning her as the patron saint of patient women who put up with ass-holes for no clear reason. She’s also is not some sort of bombshell that would not normally fall for this guy except for in movie world (she’s cute, Greenberg, muses, but only if you had to work with her in a all day, every day sort of way), nor is she terribly witty in that annoying indie movie way. She’s normal and yet what she does makes sense because the writers take the time to develop the character and explore her psychology. Not enough good things could be said of this performance.

Noah Baumbach is one of the best filmmakers around because he’s not out to sell us one his cleverness and not out to drone on about how much life sucks. His films contain all the humor of his collaborations with Wes Anderson but fare better for my money because he sits down and actually attempts to deal with and engage his audience in some sort of unspoken dialogue with these characters. And sometimes, as in a film like this, “dealing” with a character does not mean fixing them and hoping for that happy off-screen ending, either, which is to be applauded. Baumbach characters in this movie, while funny, are all grounded and match their respective intelligence levels. While plagued with psychological troubles Greenberg is not a ”Shine”-like savant or brilliant anti-social writer and his friends are just normal people who happened to grow up a little faster than Greenberg. While suburb and often underrated I always felt his characters in “The Squid and the Whale” and to a lesser extent “Margot,” especially the children, talked in a very stylized intellectual manner. Which is fine because so are many if not most of Allen’s characters. However it’s that kind of closed-off writing style that, outside of the Allen-verse, is impossible to sustain without coming off as a bit of a pretentious prick (Hal Hartley, Diablo Cody, etc. al.). Not Baumbach and definitely not “Greenberg.” 

“Greenberg” also happens to be Baumbach’s most skilled work as a filmmaker. The pacing and visuals doing a good job at keeping up with the story and writing. Shots of a solitary Greenberg or visual metaphors like a hose spewing water and spinning around in a pool attain a poetic quietness that help sell the film’s somber but not sad tone. Even the awkward (an obligatory facet of comedies these days) or dramatic moments are scaled back to avoid “Meet the Parents” sized exaggerations and, on the other side of the Ben Siller spectrum, cheep melodramatic storytelling shortcuts like the drama filled but somehow hollow attempted suicide scene in “Royal Tenenbaums”–a scene I don’t like in a movie I do… depending on what mood I’m in (I have a weird love/hate relationship with that movie that even I don’t understand).

Ben Siller should be commended for acting in a “real” movie. How considerate of him. Stiller does a fine and nuanced job here but those words lack proper weight and I understand that saying so is about as useful as say Adam Sandler is good in all of “Punch Drunk Love” and small parts of “Funny People.” It also does me no good to state that now that he’s made his money he should stick with quality directors like Wes Anderson, Noah B and, strangely enough, himself because they all seem to be the only ones giving his career longevity. I guess I’d add Neil LaBute to that list well as he was fantastic in “Your Friends and Neighbors. Stiller’s willingness to dive into this troubled man and ability to render him vulnerable but not in a cheap or sentimental way results in his very best performance to date. We have a really unlikable guy to contend with here and are often are left wondering why people would even bother meeting him a second time after receiving a mean (but delightful on the other side of the screen) diatribe. Yet for all his miserable ways the film is not mocking Greenberg or laughing at him or studying him under a microscope. Gerwig sums the enigma of Greenberg up best when she tells him, simply, that ”mean people treat people mean.”
Grade: A

What’s Good: Lots of fan service, which, for a film like this, is all that matters. One of those rare reboots that updates the formula as much as it pays tribute to the original.  
What’s Not: Waiting for the next Predator film.

“Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.”

You have to understand, fans of “Predator” movies are not like other fans. We don’t expect greatness, we don’t even expect good-ness. Unlike bitter and whiny fanboys of other franchises (ahem, “Star Wars”) “Predator” fans have the remarkable ability to be content with what we get, which is not often and not often that good so when we get a “Predator” film, any predator film, we also know enough not to complain (too much) because we’re getting a Predator film! Our expectations are always low but spirited despite knowing that this franchise maynever (a) surpass the first “Predator,” and (b) yield a full on mainstream success. As jungle planet movies go, this ain’t Pandora and thank the sci-fi Gods for that! Realistically, Fox is doing us a huge favor whenever they throw us a predator shaped bone so imagine my surprise when something I don’t expect or even need to be any good is actually good. Unnecessary but thank you very much for that.

Maybe I shouldn’t speak for “us fans” because, honestly, I’ve never meet a real Predator fans in person so the “we” in question is more of a projection of “me.” So from myside of things, “Predators” is everything a Predator film should be and actually a little bit more. This new high stakes jungle adventure is both a fantastic tribute to the classic John McTiernan film right down to the musical score that is basically a re-composition of the original (John Debney by way of Alan Silvestri), but it’s also a sturdy and competent reboot of a franchise long dead or as H.P. Lovecraft would call it, a “dead but dreaming” state. This film, R-rated and proud of it, comes off as being written by people who actually respect what the first film was about (human nature more than alien nature) and understand what the series needs to thrive in films to come if indeed there are any. “2 Fast 2 Predators” is my title suggestion for the next “Predator” which I hope gets made sooner rather than the standard one “Predator” per every twenty or so years. Included in this third (or fifth if you count b0th “Alien vs. Predator” films which most fans don’t or won’t or maybe just can’t) are key aspects like a slow and steady build-up which is an essential and I should think rather obvious ingredient that, somehow, most”Predator” films missed. Various hunter/hunted and predator/prey themes are also very strong, so strong that the cold protagonist even quotes that bear of a hunter Earnest Hemingway–that’s where the above quote comes from. Awesome weapons, seedy humans that die off one by one, stealth kills, gruesome Mortal Kombat-esq kills (no kidding: a Predator yanks a dude’s skull and spinal chord, Scorpion-style), fearsome non-Predator creatures (that’s a new one!), well timed explosions, booby traps, alien ships and while I could go on I will settle by stating that everything is calibrated just right. There is a build up to be sure as the Predator doesn’t rear it’s ”one ugly motherfucker” head for a while, but the story never drags. Like the Predators themselves, the film is quick and over before you know what hits you. The film even adds to the always mysterious mythology/methodology of these tribal creatures by including different species within the Predator kingdom of creatures. I took a perverse pleasure in learning from this film that even Predators can be racist.

The film just kicks ass. All kinds of ass. If you ever wanted to see a samurai sword wielding Yakuza tussle with a Predator, this film has that! If you ever wanted to see a Predator get a shiv in the chest and called a “space faggot” from a surly inmate, this film has that too! And for anyone thought that Aliens fighting Predators was just about the coolest thing ever, this film offers up a sight that may just be cooler: Predator vs. Predator! I’m gushing but I can’t help it, it’s that awesome. I may be embellishing as to how good this movie actually is but I have no problem blaming that on timing and the lack of a single worthwhile summer film this year.

This film understands that a big budget does not make a “Predator” film better or worse. Similar to the “Pitch Black”/”Chronicles of Riddick” schism where more is not anywhere close to better, this film gets back to the basics. Tension and atmosphere, if done right, do not necessarily need to cost a lot or be over thought and while I am usually very reluctant to give Robert Rodriguez credit for much of anything except for ”Desperado” I’ll concede that his down and dirty filmmaking philosophy works very well on this type of project. But this is not a RR film, director Nimrod Antel (Kontrol, Vacancy) may not be a great or stylish director but he clearly understands how to use atmosphere.

“Predators” is set on a prison planet where people are dropped from the sky while Predators lie in wait. That simple hook (and I’m not spoiling because the trailers give that away–which sucks but that’s the world we live in) gives the plot a perverse sense of hopeless pessimism that even the first “Predator” did not have. Even if you are able to defeat the enemy at hand you’re still stuck on the planet which is one giant big game reserve. Also, killing a Predator, as we learn from a deranged and seasoned vet who has been on the planet for “ten seasons,” will only cause more to come because apparently they dig the challenge. Dutch had it easy because he was able to GET TO THE CHAPPA by getting the hell out of Dodge or Central America as it were. Not so much this time as the setting is literally an amusement part for the world’s most demented race of “higher beings.” Advanced Lobster men with dreadlocks who have somehow figured out the whole interstellar travel thing and yet look, and act, no more evolved than the main portion at a Red Lobster. To contradict myself for a sec, while watching I actually thought about the nature of these Predator “monsters” and a part of me, a small part, could almost makes a case for them not being monsters. He or she (though nobody’s ever seen a female Predator as far as I know; maybe they’re huge nags and that’s why the men go halfway around the universe to distract themselves with the hunt of primitive human bipeds) is a hunter and a warrior and follows what appears to be a strict set of codes and customs. They may be violent but at least they have honor. Humans… not so much. I mentioned a samurai fight: in this scene, the bad ass Predator could easily shoot the sword wielding ninja with his three red light missile contraption a la Indiana Jones in that funny “Raiders” scene but, no, he steps up and uses his hand knife. And they fight. To the death. In tall grass. And it’s awesome! There is a dignity to that gesture and I appreciate the hell out of it. Yes, the “monster” wants to kill humans but they are not innocent or unarmed humans. Predators don’t want it to be easy and that separates these aliens from other movie aliens.

I’ve saved the cast for last. Not without reason. They serve the plot well but unlike Predator 1 or 2, no great personalities emerge. The cast offers a very strange range in styles and personalities. You know something’s off when Adrian Brody is cast as the Arnold of the movie. He speaks like Clint Eastwood (minus the humor) and carries a very large gun. It feels like a joke at first (the dude is no sexual tyrannosaur) but the character grows on you even if it’s no where close to how Arnold or Danny Glover did. There’s also the always welcome Rodriguez favorite, Danny Trejo, as a Mexican gangster (or something), a Russian military thug who gets to use Jessie the Body’s chain gun, a convict played by Walter Goggins (so good at playing a sleaze in The Shield, Justified and now Predator), an African death squad guy, the Mr. Eco of the group, played by Mahershalalhashbaz Ali(as opposed to Majdkajfksjkfdajskjfaskdfaskljfdk Ali) and, of course, the obligatory “Predator” movie staple of casting a hot Latin co-lead (Alice Braga, who made “Blindness” better and “I Am Legend” worse). Topher Grace, the one “non warrior” of the group, appears as a out-of-place doctor and Lawrence Fishburn even pops in to offer a few great surprises that I won’t spoil except to say his intro is brilliant. The film has a timeless set-up where a bunch of strangers wake up in an unknown place for an unknown reason. That kind of story has been done before (“Saw,” “Identity,” every other “Twilight Zone” episode and even Agatha Christie) with the only difference being that the characters in this story wake up while free falling towards the ground. With guns! And a parachute that may or may not work.

As I said, this is not a great film but it ends up being great by simply offering something that’s missing. Fun, non pretentious summer action and sci-fi thrills. That was once common but a precious commodity in the era of CGI kids movies, superfluous 3D action films (effin “Clash of the Titans,” “Last Airbender”!!!) and Kathryn Higel movies. The summer movie, as we knew it, is dead. ”Predators” recalls a time when B-grade sci-fi were not only found on syfy channel late at night. In fact, films like this were once an event and for however brief a moment in time, there are once more.

Grade: B+

Lost Seasons Ranked
Season 4–Perfect for a lot of reasons. The first is that season 4 is when Lost finally became a true sci-fi show and it’s flashbacks, er, forwards (trying to get back to the Island!) became something other than filler content. The drama of getting back actually enhanced the Island reality, which is something season 1-3′s flashbacks never quite did. This is the season where the mythology of the show finally catches up with the stories it tells. Everything comes together. 
Season 1–I can’t think of any great show that started this great. Usually it takes a few seasons for a show to get really good. Lost was great right out of the can. Such a good start in fact that the show had nowhere to go but down for a few seasons after.
Season 5–Mindbending and unlike every other network show on TV that year or most any year, smart and challenging.
Season 6–A bit of a come down from the great time travel arc but season 6 had a lot of good writing and a strong backbone thanks to the episode where we finally find out what Jacob was protecting. That the iffy sideways stuff actually amounted to something is a relief.  
Season 3–The show still couldn’t find its footing in most of the season 3 episodes but you can clearly see itself working its way to something resembling a good show. A transitional season if anything. It tried and even gave us a lot of cool moments (the Desmond episode, Charley at his most doomed and interesting and the classic “we have to go back” moment).
Season 2–A few good episodes punctuate way too much time in the Hatch and way too much time on pointless back stories of characters we know already. Not a total waste, at least we got Eko this season only to have him killed off way too soon.

Best Lost Episodes:

1. Walkabout (Locke)–This is “Lost” at its best. Most of the great season one episodes were written by David Furry (Buffy). He never showed up for a season two, instead writing for 24′s best season (five).
2. Ab Aeterno (Jacob/Man in Black/Richard)–It shouldn’t have worked. It did. I would argue that this episode is the most important in the entire series. It sets everything up, past and present. Just about perfect. So much heart and soul here too. Works better as a series finale than the actual finale!
3. Almost every episode in Season 4, especially The Shape of things to Come (Ben), one of the best Ben episodes of all time (which is saying something). Who wrote it, you ask? None other than Brian K Vaughn (Y: The Last Man) and Drew Goddard (Buffy) which is like total nerdgasm time.
4. Pilot parts 1 and 2–Abrams had pretty much nothing to do with this show except for kicking it off. He still gets way to much credit for this show but in a way it might not even exist had the pilot not been this good and the pilot (of the Oceaninic flight) not been that bad. It was as good as any movie released that year.
5. The Other 48 Days–This tail section survivors episode contained a whole seasons worth of material play out in one packed episode. Ironically, that “season” is better than the season it’s actually in! Also great because the show got to experiment with its structure and formula in a big way.  Not only did it feature a new cast but it was a non flashback episode or, more accurately, a non flash on Earth episode.
6. The three big Desmond-centric episodes went on to define what people really love about the show. A trippy sci-fi show that also has the capacity to be a touching love story. The Constant (considered by many to be the best ever Lost episode), Flashes Before Your Eyes and Happily Ever After.
7. Through the Looking Glass (Jack)–Great because it pretty much ended the two season “Lost sucks” streak.
8. The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham (Locke)–Poor, poor Locke/great, great, episode.
9. The Man Behind the Curtain (Ben)–Ben kicks all kinds of ass in this episode. His dad gets it, the Dharma twits get it and even lost gets a bullet. Wow, go Ben! It’s really the kind of episode where a character makes a show worth watching, which, given its placement in season 3 was a godsend. It’s also the first Jacob episode.
10. Expose (ugh)–Nickey and Paulo’s famous episode. One of the most disliked episodes of lost ever. I loved it for it’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern-esq behind the scenes antics and cleverness. Seeing so many of the classic events on the island through new eyes proved to be a fresh and unique way to tell a story in Lost. People gave and still give the characters crap but that’s the entire point of this episode! It’s an episode that seemed to have been made just for the haters… that ended up being hated. I loved it though and, yes, I hated N&P as much as anyone.

Worst Lost Episodes:

1. Across the Sea. If Walkabout captures everything about Lost that is good and pure and mysterious then the late season 6 episode AtS turned out to be the antithesis, the anti-episode, the Man in Black to Walkabout’s Jacob, the worst Lost episode ever. Since the first Jacob/MiB back story episode easily ranks amongbest of Lost (it’s my number 2), it’s quite surprising that the second turned out so overwhelmingly bad. In what could have been a great experimental episode unlike anything we’ve ever seen before turned into an entire episode about Jacob and his brother’s messed up mommy issues and trips the glowing cave of magic. Horrible, unnecessary, redundant. And stupid, let’s not forget stupid. It was also a waste of time, valuable time, valuable time that could have been spent on just about anything else, and given all the lingering questions we were left with, that time could have done the legacy of Lost a lot of good. Worse than all that though is the fact that the episode demystified Jacob and the Island itself! A 40-minute flashback episode of Hurley stuck in a bank with Vincent the dog a la Family Guy wouldn’t have been better (but not by much).
2. How about Born to Run? How about Left Behind? How about Eggtown? What do they have in common? Kate. That goddamn Kate ruined almost everything she touched. The answer to What Kate Did (a bad season 1 ep) and What Kate Does (a worse season 6 ep) is and will always be I DON’T CARE.
3. That Jack tattoo episode called Stranger in a Strange Land–most Jack episodes were lame but none were this lame.
4. Season 2
5. Jin and Sun episodes (…and Found, House of the Rising Sun etc)–Jin was an interesting character that kept getting sucked into Sun’s dull family drama. Her dad’s rich and EVIL. They don’t love each other. They love each other. They have kids. The run from dad. They get separated. They go back to the island. They die. The End. It all seems so pointless.

Ten Best Lost Characters

1. John Locke
1. Ben Linus (Ben and Locke, Locke and Ben, Lost would not be Lost without either)
3. Daniel Faraday (such an underrated character)
4. Sommabitch Sawyer 
5. Miles
6. Hurley 
7. Frank Lapidus (a personal favorite. another great season 4 character!)
8. Desmond 
9. Mr. Eko (so cool… so dead)
10. Smoke Monster/UnLocke/MiB
11. Richard Alpert
12. Juliet (she should have been the Kate of the show) 
13. Jacob (would have been a lot higher if “Across the Sea” hadn’t made me hate him)

Worst Lost Characters

1. Kate
2. Kate
3. Kate
4. Claire
5. “WALT!” (why did the Others want him again?) 
6. Jacob’s Mom
7. Sun
8. Shannon
9. Aaron (not the character or actor obviously but the fact that the character, like Walt, had so little meaning in the end)
10. Bernard’s wife, I never even bothered to learn her name. 
11. Kate

Until I wrote out this list I had not realized how few good female characters this show actually had. Not one in my top ten favorite and six in my ten least favorite. Odd. The only thing more odd is Jack. While he’s technically the main character (it begins and ends with him after all) I don’t think the lead of a show has ever been this unessential. He doesn’t hurt the show, he just inhabits it like a know-it-all squatter. We tolerated him but never really liked him. Followed his journey but never really lost ourselves in it in the same way we did for Locke and Ben. Poor Matthiew Fox, I don’t think it was his fault either. The show just didn’t know how to write for him. While I found myself actually liking Jack for the first time in the latter half of the last season it was definitley too late for him. The ship had sailed so to speak.  

Must. Purge. LOST……….

The final “Lost” episode ever, ever, ever (everrrrrhhhh-nooooooo, it can’t end, what am I going to do with myself?!) didn’t go off with a season 5 sized nuclear bang but a warm and gentle and somewhat confusing glow. Contrary to what I had read from “Lost” Gods Cruse and Lindoff, warnings of a “Sopranos” style reaction where 50% of fans would “hate” the final episode, the last thing I expected ”The End” to do is played it safe. Though I’m grateful the “Lost” team handeled their “End” with a lot of hurried care and caution, the first thing it does do is play it safe by relying on cosmic magic to answer the unanswerable (scheesh, I’ll never get religious people). The episode is not hateable but it’s also not extraordinary. It ends with dignity but not clarity as unanswered plot details linger but do so in a way that invites thought and discussion rather than frustration. Anyone still watching “Lost” at this point and still expecting “answers” is to be pitied because this show will provide no more answers than God himself speaking into our ears and I think that’s the whole point. We must allow for a certain amount of mystery because a world with out that is not worth living in. The shows knows this but viewers didn’t and as such both became slaves to the tyranny of logic and narrative symmetry. Let go people, it’s about the process. It’s about the questions. It’s not and will never be about the whys because, as Jacob’s lover/mother put it, “Every question I answer will simply lead to another question.” That’s a perfect mantra for the show.

Season six of “Lost” tried very hard to canonized itself into a new science fiction based religion (the “Star Wars” of television). Yet it pushes its dogma on us even though the religious mechanics (magical water, glowing caves of wonder, the twinkly promise of an afterlife etc.) comes off as blunt more than something truly profound. It’s still a worthwhile effort because divine intervention might be the only explanation left for a show as convoluted as this. Why did such and such happen? Uh, God and magic. That being said this uber “spiritual” (in the words of the writers) season of “Lost” is mostly agreeable but numbing and not particularly challenging or philosophically earth shattering. The final episode follows those traits. So, yes, ”The End” is passable; “good” by virtue of the fact that it was not a horrible F-you to it’s fans. If anything it’s very loving and accepting and even emotionally involving (tell me you didn’t feel something when Vincent joint Jack at the very end) and I can’t hate something so noble even if it’s also grandiose. That, plus, Jeff Fathey, the pilot, didn’t die! Yeah, the episode provides a lot of fan service with coo (if not always meaningful) cameos and fresh new concepts such as the awesome actuality of the sideways verse. This may not be the earned ending I or anyone had hoped for but it’s a nice one and I’ll settle for that.

The critical side of me however was left disappointed at how poorly the episode was put together but that’s to be expected as series finales are usually rushed and aesthetically all over the place. Still, the “Lost” team had three years to plan this “End” and they settled on a non-denominational Fellini-style church shindig? Really?! The new sets were boring and just plain goofy (more Disney theme park ride than an ecstatic religious experience), the big apocalyptic storm was murky, dark and uneventful while the “sinking” island involved nothing more than camera shaking and characters going all season 5 time shift wobbly on us. Also, the editing didn’t flow well and the writing may have done it’s job at getting a lot of information across to us but even at two plus hours it felt rushed and didn’t set the bar higher as the great episodes of “Lost” have done in the past. Sure I feel like the show needed more time to really sort its mythology out but, again, it had to end somewhere. As I sit here pondering somewhat trivial, episode specific question such as Where is the plane going and how exactly does that destinion relate to the sideways existence? What’s with the corny collective mental church creation and why are certain island characters there while others are not? Why did Ben not join the others (not Others mind you but others) in the church? Does that mean he won’t die, or that he’s suck in limbo for his sins or could that even imply that he’s the new and necessary dark half to Hurley or another Alpert type of helper? Is Smokey really dead? If so why does the island need to be protected? And why would any God be dumb enough to keep the totality of the universe together with a literal cork in the ground etc. There is of course less-trivial/more-nagging series-wide questions about Aaron’s specialness, Dharm true role on the island (just for research?) and why can’t women give birth on the island? I have to say don’t mind the prospect of spending eternity with these lingering issues because they are interesting rather than maddening “Twin Peeks” or “Battlestar Galactica” sized questions that were made specifically to torment and haunt its fans to their graves.

Less than a day later I honestly have no idea what the reception of this ending will be but after Now I’ve gotten this stream of consciousness vomit off my chest I might actually enjoy finally checking out where fans go with the show now that it’s finally, finally, FINALLY over. No more speculation (which I’ve never, EVER been into). Like it or not the end we get gives us a lot to chew on but, come on admit it, the geek in me (in us) is still hoping for a “Lost” spin-off years down the line starring Hurley and Ben. As fans go I’m pretty sure there will be a few types now that the (black) smoke has cleared. Flashback people, flash forward people and flash sideways people. Most will choose the flashbacks because it defines the essence of the characters but I found that to be mostly filler and extraneous information that could/should be answered ON THE ISLAND and, as such, will always be more fond of the flash forwards because it’s the stuff of pure sci-fi ambition and the first time the show excelled at turning its wild metaphysics into a pure and even thoughtful form of entertainment. Few if any will end up being sideways people but this alternate reality season was not a total loss in my opinion. It was cool if tricky how this season’s sideways reality turned into what people thought the island itself was from the beginning: a purgatorial place where lost souls gather before they move on to the (now literal) light. When the bomb went off in season 5, sideways is where everyone ended up to finish things up in their own way. Or is it? Either way the show got to keep the “they’re all dead” aspect of that long favored end point theory but does so in such a way that it gets to exist as one aspect rather than the whole; the other being the island itself as the hub of existence sealed by a literal cork being guarded by a fat man who talks to dead people. Jesus, that sounds silly and makes no sense. And that’s why I love ”Lost.”
Episode Grade: B
Season Six Grade: B+
Series Grade: A (There was Twin Peeks, there was X-Files, there was Buffy and now there is was Lost, a show that has finally earned the right to join that club)

What’s Good: Great sense of style, character and pacing. And with dialogue this good who needs a story? I was surprised at how much I liked this movie. Not better than the first, not even close, but a solid effort.
What’s Not: Matt Fraction didn’t write this movie. Stupid third act. Race track sequence very lame (lets just say it’s no Afghan cave). Also… Pepper Potts nagging. I just hope a third ”Iron Man” does not come out before the “Avengers” movie because I don’t want to see it rushed. 

From the moment I saw the trailer I’ll admit that my heart sank. Robert Downey Jr. with his shoe polish facial hair, eye liner and frizzy due, looked more like an 80s porn star than a modern superhero. The trailer also showed him going to more parties than fights. What’s with that? Then there’s the whole matter of Col. Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle) who, while not quite looking like a porn star (though he did in “Boogie Nights”), also didn’t look like Terrance Howard. Also featured in the trailer was Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) looked as bland as ever and it was hard to forget Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) looking like chewed up and spat out supervillain crap–a joke villain out of “Kick Ass” more than the most high profile comic book movie in two years. 2s are hard to get right because of how much we expect. That being the case I didn’t expect much and, as I often foolishly do, declared that ”Iron Man 2″ would suck (last time I did that: “Avatar”), something that friends and Metacritic only confirmed. Well the only thing all that proved was (a) that the trailer was not any good and (b) that I was dead wrong.  

The first “Iron Man” was better than everyone thought it would be while the second lands somewhere in the region of what most people thought the first would be. I disagree. This franchise is as relevant and exciting as it ever was because it favors its interesting characters as much as its high quality action. Playboy Industrialist Tony Stark is of course a great character being played by an even better actor. Unlike last year’s Capt. Kirk (Chris Pine), Downey Jr. finds the right, dare I say “perfect,” balance of cocky and cool to imbue his larger than life character. We root for him even though he doesn’t need our help because he’s rooting for himself louder than we ever could. Some of that’s posturing of course as Tony’s underlying flaws are actually insecurities. ’Iron Man 2″ accomplishes the very difficult task of transitioning this character from the heroic origins of his first venture to a genuinely fleshed out figure that has evolved quite a bit. Right off the bat the film does not turn into the trite alcohol after-school-Iron-Man-special that many expected–I’m glad it didn’t as I prefer Stark to be a happy, William Powell in ”Thin Man’ type of drunk rather than a Nick Cage  in “Leaving Las Vegas’ one. Rather, the film does some a lot more challenging by making Tony a ticking time bomb. That’s interesting to me because normal Tony is a ticking time bomb while a Tony that knows he’s dying is a total party! I mean that literally, he throws a party and shoots his laser at guests. In this film, even more than the first, we understand why Tony doesn’t so much like being a hero but needs to be one because he’s protecting (and literally shielding) himself as much as he is protecting us. Unlike a lot of tedious movie superheros like Spider-Man (my favorite whipping boy, by the way), the reason for his reckless actions has as much to do with thrill seeking as it does duty and personal fulfillment. The added psychological element (daddy issues) adds another fascinating layer upon the Stark mythos, especially when that dad is played by John Slattery in full whiskey drinking, Camel puffing ”Mad Men” mode.

The problem, if there must be a problem, is simple; the script by Justin Theroux of all people. Theroux, or JT as I call him in my personal life, could be called awesome. He not only starred in “Mulhollad Dr.” and “Inland Empire” (earning so much indie cred that I’ll let his “Charley’s Angels 2′ appearance slide). He also co-wrote ”Tropic Thunder,” another great Downey Jr. movie. His script, while competent and full of great dialogue (“I have successfully privatized world peace” Tony tell the Government before flashing a peace sign), doesn’t stir the soul the way the first “Iron Man” did. The nerd in me knows that such a problem would have been solved by hiring Matt Fraction who, after his work on the brilliant “Invincible Iron Man” comic series, has a better handle on the Iron Man universe than anyone alive. But studios hardly ever hire comic book writers so on those grounds the story we’re stuck with is still good and I can say that because the film passes the test of being strong even when Iron Man is not on screen! For instance, people may not be talking about Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash as they would many great superhero villains but for my money he really overcomes how stupid he looks. And speaking of looks, if you look at it a certain way this character is an Eastern mirror of Tony Stark. He’s got father issues (his dad worked with Stark Sr.), he’s as brilliant as he is eccentric, he drinks too much and he commands technology to accommodate some sort of insane personal drive for attention and validation. I found myself understanding his motivations and if I must tell the truth was actually won over by Rourke’s heavy Russian accent which is funny, but even more importantly, not distracting when it’s not funny. After teaming up with a sleazy war-mongering Government politician (the best actor of last year: Sam Rockwell) the Russian has one demand: ”VEEERS MIE BEIRD!.” “You’re what?” “My BIERRRD! IE VANT MEI BEIRD!” ”Oh, okay here’s your bird.” “DAT’S NUT MEI BEIRD!!!” He’s saying he wants his bird by the way, and it’s one of many great touches. Also included to the roster of actors playing characters who should have sucked is Samuel L Jackson in the thankfully beefed up role of Nick Fury. Fury in particular works nicely within the Iron Man universe as a ball busting mentor or sorts that manages to out-cool Tony. “I got my eye on you,” the one eyed Fury says before shooting a patented Sam Jackson glare in Tony direction. There’s only one actor in existence that could do that and lets just say Faverau hired that one actor.  

Unlike the new (and, okay, better) “Batman” franchise I could see how and why so many got the feeling that this film comes up short. It’s not the “Dark Knight” of ”Iron Man” movies and it’s foolish to expect so much of it–or anything for that matter. Everyone was so eager to make an “Iron Man” movie and, in turn, everyone else was so eager to see an “Iron Man” movie that the specifics and quality of that “Iron Man” follow-up that everyone wanted, and wanted as soon as possible, shouldn’t be taken for granted. This movie could have easily just filled in the blanks but instead supplies fans with necessary storytelling. The plot explores the aforementioned whip toting, Vodka drinking, toothpick sucking, bird lovin Russian genus thug and throws in the plot-line of Tony being made “sick” by the same thing keeping him alive and manages the time to chases those two whoppers with a more standard Government going after one of its superhero storyline. I am still sick of the superhero on the run plot device but “Iron Man 2″ at least gets creative with that trope. After destroying his home in a drunken fight with Rhodes, Tony is forced to up his game, save is name and his life and none of that would have happened if the Government wasn’t a total dick to him. When the ask to give his technology in the interest of public safety Tony fires back with a great line that goes to the heart of what the character’s about: “I am Iron Man. The suit and I are one” he tells a Senator played by a smirking Garry Shandling of all people. That he allows Rhodes and the Government to steal one his suits and create “a war machine” is ideologically problematic and inconsistent but, then again, so is Tony Stark.        

Actor/director Jon Favreau may never be considered a “great” director but he gets the job done and knows exactly what this franchise needs at this point in its cycle. Being as funny as he is (“Made,” a film he starred in, wrote and directed is even better than “Swingers”) he never takes things too serious, which could have really hurt this movie. In terms of style and subject matter Favreau doesn’t overdo it but even if he did he gets credit for not being Brett Ratner. The scenes of flight and combat are not as exhilarating as in the first but they are snappier and streamlined in many places. We even get a better sense of the people underneath the machines when the film cuts to Jarvis’ POV. 

I had a chance to re-watch the first “Iron Man” again and I’m glad I did. It occurred to me how special that movie is. There’s one big action set piece in the first act and a bigger one in the last. The middle chunk is easy to dismiss but it’s actually the best part. It’s about Tony figuring out who Tony Stark is as a man, how he thinks and what he wants to do with his gifts. That he’s not a complete ass kissing do-gooder is why he’s so interesting. When he ended that film with the self-actualizing statement “I am Iron Man” it felt like one big mission accomplished on everyone’s part. That rare origin story that actually earns it’s badge or shiny suit as it were because it took the time to develop all the necessary aspects without giving into the demands of the typically and retardedly fast paced summer movie. More than about action the film is about an imperfect man that strives for perfection through science, engineering and big brass balls. Literally half of the first “Iron Man” is just one big gear head construction project that we all got to sit in on.

“IR2″ wisely follows the first film’s action/looooong set-up/action formula without loosing track of the heart of its character. I give this sequel credit for also not artificially cramming in a pointless action scene in the middle potion of the film. The sequel also gets to revisit the usual superhero who-am-I? questions without feeling redundant as “Spider-Man 2″ was when it basically just remade the first film by making Parker loose his powers only to be forced to re-learn them. Now, successfully following the original does not come without a few hiccups. Namely, the first film’s third act was not its strongest even though The Tony vs. The Dude (protegee vs mentor) showdown holds up surprisingly well if you watch it today. The third act of “Iron Man 2″ does not come out of nowhere (at least we see Whiplash and Hammer cooking up their evil plays) but it might as well have because it’s not inspired at all. Once again Iron Man must fight a larger and stronger version of Iron Man™ with the only difference here being that he has Rhodes, an ally in an Iron Man suit joining him to face-off against Whiplash in, uh, another, bigger Iron Man suit… with LIGHT SABER WHIPS! And not only does Iron Man and Iron Man fight Iron-er Man, but they also face an army of Iron ManRobots modeled after the Army, Navy, Marines and whatever. Watch out for those Navy robots on dry land, Tony! These scenes are literally one big cluster-F if you ask me but not so horrible when you really stop to consider the lack of alternatives available. Should Tony’s Iron Man fight a human? No, too easy. Should he throw down against a monster? Nah, that wouldn’t fit with this series’ semi-realistic style; this isn’t “Hellboy” after all. Should he fight his inner demons? Doesn’t he do that already? So what’s left other than hot and steamy mech on mech action? I don’t know but then again I’m no writer. Lucky for us Justin Theroux is. Well, kinda. 
Grade: B+

What’s Good: I haven’t read the graphic novel but I have a feeling it hasn’t been tampered with by the studio which is always a good thing. The irreverent humor rocks! So do Big Daddy and Hit Girl! Bravo to Nick Cage for finally being in a halfway decent superhero film. While I can see him playing a comic book villain Nick Cage knows he’s too old for tights and thus picked the perfect role. He is forgiven for Ghost Rider.
What’s Not: Roger Ebert. I love the guy but he’s got to shut up about two things: video games and “Kick Ass.” The non-superhero sequences involving Dave/Kick Ass are not particularly interesting. “Spider-Man”-esq scenes dealing with girls, family life and school don’t work even though I can understand why they are included.

“Kick Ass.” It sure does. And does, and does and does some more. This is one of the most unusual “parody” superhero films ever made. With titles like “Sky High,” “Mystery Men,” and “The Incredibles” dominating this sub genre it was, until last week, hard to imagine anything other than kid friendly superhero comedies. After “Kick Ass” it’s now hard to imagine going back to those tepid kid films. “Kick Ass” does not hold its punches in service of the comedy aspect. In fact that only makes it punch harder. It’s the “Fight Club” of superhero movies in that respect. Don’t get me wrong, the violence in this movie is funny but it is also mean and jarring. The tone is all over the place as well. It’s a funny teen comedy where kids slip and fall on the bad guy when trying to save lost cats. It is a half baked critique on hero worship in the Internet era where, for instance, Kick Ass’s kitten saving/bad guy stomping antics end up on My Space (people still use that?). On the other hand it’s also a lame and corny “Spider-Man” type of “will the hot popular girl like the nerd” High School film. And finally, how do I put this, the kind of movie where someone is thrown into a giant microwave and cooked. The effect of all of the above is overwhelming at times but in a way that I have to admire because while real Superhero movies only go so far with action and moral conduct ”Kick Ass” found a way to go farther while still somewhat keeping you in the movie and, most importantly, liking its characters.

The hero kicks the story off by telling the viewer about his average teen life. “With no power comes no responsibility” he tells us, riffing on Spidey’s bombastic style. The kid is played by a soft spoken, easily bruiseabe Aaron Johnson who goes on to illustrate his lack of talents, skills and strength. Inspired by the comic books he reads he becomes a not quite super hero called Kick Ass for the hell of it and after very little time “crime fighting” his self aware heroics inspires others. But not necessarley in a good way because he inspires people who are far from well adjusted. The film might be saying that the superheros, if looked at objectively, are actually pretty off balance.  That’s when/why the film gets interesting. “Real” superhero Big Daddy, played by Nick Cage (Adam West era Batman meets The Punisher meets, um, Nick Cage), and his daughter Mindy aka Hit-Girl are the movie’s real crime fighters. We are introduced to the two memorable anti-heroes on a father daughter weekend activity that involves Big Daddy testing out a new bulletproof vest on his daughter. Standing on opposite sides of the screen he shoots her right in the chest. Being only 11 she practically flies off the screen, landing with an emphatic oomph. If you’re not laughing at the act of a grown man shooting his daughter then you WILL NOT like “Kick Ass” because that’s one of the lighter scenes. This film is hardcore but I really have to say that it is not without heart.

While the non-hero hero is doing his own thing (which mostly consists of having people laugh at how stupid he looks before beating him up) Big Daddy and Hit Girl exist in their own separate superhero movie. A much darker one and a much better one. Kick Ass just wants to play around on the streets of New York while the other two are serious about their hobby. Dead serious. Seriously, they’re sadistic and their quest to stop and punish a drug king pin (Mark Strong in that rare bad guy role–yeah right) is a long and bloody one that’s more “Kill Bill” pot boiler than “Spider-Man” foot cozie. The murderous father-daughter duo don’t so much fight crime as they torture it and I really have to say that Hit Girl, played by the young actress Chloe Moretz, steals the show then proceeds to rip it to shreds. This tiny psychopath is a great movie character because she runs counter to almost every side-kick-kid trope ever. There’s a deeply ironic undercurrent to Hit Girl but there’s also a genuine and emotionally engaging character here that is equal parts lovable and scary. Seeing this tiny purple blur fly around the screen, impaling drug dealers leaves you, and the out of his element Kick Ass, speechless. I can’t speak for Kick Ass but the lack of speech on my side of things relates to my usual dislike of child actors/characters in movies. I’m going on record by saying that this is one of those cases where a precocious child actually makes an action movie better! Not only that but the same precocious child that made “(500) Days of Summer” worse! I don’t think that has ever happened before. Okay so maybe it has, but it’s not often and Moretz is in the same league as Newt from “Aliens” and Natalie Portman in “Leon/The Professional.”

“Kick Ass” is directed by Brit Mathew Vaughn who has managed to combine the no-nonsense grittiness of his breakout “Layer Cake” with the subversive fantasy of his underrated “Stardust.” This project is a good step forward for the director who wisely balances the film’s style so that it never takes away from the story or calls attention to itself which it could have easily done given the hip and geeky subject matter. Just look at the Edgar Wright’s “Scot Pilgrim Vs. the World” trailer for an example of an opposite but hopefully equally enjoyable approach. You might remember that Vaughn was initially slated to directed “X-Men 3″ (the one Brett Ratner ruined) and I’m glad he knew enough about his comic book sensibilities to stay away from mainstream conventions. At the same time though this movie adaptation tends to be very conventional at times. Many scenes involving the teenagers don’t quite work as intended (they’re not always very funny and not always as interesting as they should be) and the animated cell comic narrative device within the movie falls a bit flat. I’m not going to let those minor flaws that affect my overall enjoyment of “Kick Ass” however because in a way it needs to have a conventional backbone for the very reason that when it breaks those conventions it comes as a shock. And if this film proves anything it’s that it knows how to shock. 
Grade: B+

Best Indivdual Shots of the Year

Sure the “motion” part of motion pictures is the selling point but I’ve always been a fan of single movie images. These moments in time or as Roland Barthes would say, “shadow[s] of the frozen moment,” remind us that movies can provide us with 24 works of art every second. Even bad movies can stumble into moments of visual greatness, quick as they may last (see my “Public Enemies” shot at #10)! Powerful images have a way of freeing themselves of the tyranny of the whole. They exist on their own artistic terms yet never get enough credit…

1. A Serious Man
D.P. Roger Deakins
I also have an obsession with the absolute first thing we see in a movie and the last. They are, after all, the alpha and omega of a story’s universe yet far too often filmmakers take these impressions for granted. Not the Coen Brothers. No final image was better last year than “A Serious Man.” The main character’s son is listening to music on once confiscated radio at school just as he’s about to finally pay that bully back (long story… but a good one). Suddenly, out of nowhere, a tornado hits. Random but also… not because the moment is juxtaposed with the boy’s father learning of his fate across town. This absolute final shot gives me chills. It’s an absolutely perfect cut-to-black moment. The shot is visually atypical of the rest of the movie (therefore not really a spoiler shot) but hammers home the notion of divine intervention, God’s wrath and… Jefferson Airplane.

2. Two Lovers
D.P: Joaquin Baca-Asay
“Two Lovers” was the second new film I saw in 2009 and it certainly stuck around, ranking as my number two film overall. Once again a movie with Two in it’s title ranks as number two. Grey is clearly a great visual filmmaker and I’m sure he would be quick to credit his cinematographer. While many of the extended two-shots (another two!) in this movie such as this or this or, yikes, even this (shameless self promotion) resonated, I fell in love with the above shot the second I saw it. Phoenix’s look is priceless. I said to myself that it’s so powerful and quirky that I had to find some way to talk about it. What’s great about how this shot comes off is the isolation in Phoenix’s character’s world. We not only can see but also feel how out of his element the charater is. That piece of art looming above his head (which was on location when Grey and co. got there) is perfect because adds a splash of strange humor.

3. Thirst
D.P Chung-hoon Chung
Speaking of strange humor. This show kept me thinking about the notion of what it means for a vampire to reach the absolute bottom of the barrel and a priest laid out on the floor and sucking blood from the IV of a man in a coma is pretty much there. Well, maybe not quite–Brad Pitt sucking on a dead rat in “Interview with the Vampire” might lower but that’s up for debate. The way he lays down implies a feeling that this man is far, far away from being human at this point. He’s a monster but in the most non monster-y way possible and between this and “The Host,” Korean filmmakers have nailed the realism of horror. I also love cinematography involving that white roomthe the two vampires make for themselves to mimic day and a shot and the end with the empty shoes which I won’t get into for obviosu reasons. But, really, nothing spells out the film’s quirky and dark tone than what you’re seeing. Plus, it’s kinda funny.

4. Antichrist
D.P. Anthony Dod Mantle
Hard to find a shot in this movie that isn’t striking. I’m even transfixed even when von Trier and Mantle zoom in on a plant in a jar of water. The one I settled on is not only a great shot but chilling in an undefined archetypal sort of way. The poetic visuals of a completely ruined human being laying alongside animals (known here as three beggars) in a cabin is iconic and will not be soon forgotten. To hammer home how much Lars von Trier and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle have shifted we really should consider the meta-sparse visuals of “Dogville” side-by-side with the hyper stylized “Antichrist” to see two polar opposite aesthetic approaches executed in equally effective ways; hard core function in one and harder core form in the latter. Filth, flesh and nature is what “Antichrist” is all about. And all are combined in this shot which, to me (and what do I know?), is like a neoclassical painting (horrible things are happening to beautifully naked people) come to life. Compare it to this, that or one of my favorites Death of Marat by Jacques-Louis David and you may agree… or you may not (I know jack about art after all) or it just may confirm how much of a creepy ass hole Lars von Trier is.

5. White Ribbon
D.P. Christian Berger
Perfectly captures the eerie, off-balance tone of the movie in a way you can’t quite put your finger on but that’s reverberating through your body. A visually imposing and hypocritical authority blocks out the foreground while sheepish followers stand in the middle. One of the few innocent people in the whole movie meanwhile gets punished and relegated to the back. Life suck. This image says all that yet comes off so natural and unplanned. It just knocks me out every time I look at it. Something’s not right here. Something is very, very wrong. And beautiful.

6. You, The Living
D.P. Gustav Danielsson
The camera never moves and the editor never cuts. Images, then, have a way of lingering in this wonderful movie. This shot is the one most loaded with meaning, humor and horror. Roy Anderrson’s sensibilities are fascinating. Slow, depressing and morbid. In this scene a dinner party is huddled in a corner (no explanation for this… as if one is needed in an Anderrson film) as a man attempts to do that old trick of pulling the dinner cloth from a table. Anderrson’s interpretation of this age old gag is not just funny (all the shit falls…) but surreal (…to reveal a giant swastika on the table!!!). He’s also making a comment on Sweden’s hidden pro Nazi past. By the way, the guy pulling the cloth gets arrested (perhaps for revealing such a past) and, in the next vignette, convicted by a panel of beer swigging judges to be sent to death.

7. The Road
D.P. Javier Aguirresarobe
As epic as it is bleak. This vast shot conveys depth, death (all plant life in this movie looks like that) and man’s small  and fleeting place in this post civilization world. For the overall look I picked Aguirresarobe as the best cinematography of the year and this shot is at the top of the reasons why.

8. Inglourious Basterds
D.P. Robert Richardson
A classic movie shot. There are many great shots in this movie but this is the iconic moment. And it’s official: a new generation of film lovers finally got their Rambo moment!

9. Moon
D.P. Gary Shaw
The decay of flesh juxtaposed with the corporate coldness of space and science. Note: The image looks crappy because I didn’t grab this directly from the movie. I don’t have a way of doing a screen caps on blu-ray–and if you don’t see Moon on blu-ray you’re missing something.

10. Public Enemies
D.P. Dante Spinotti
Christian Bale aims, shoots and fires. Michael Mann’s film may have missed the mark but this shot sure didn’t. Mann and the always great Dante Spinotti have a keen eye for cool shots (literally) and that’s probably because doc inspired handheld style allows for more experimentation and unplanned composition. This one, though, was very planned and it’s easily the film’s most memorable moment. And by that I simply mean that it’s one of the few things from this movie I haven’t purged from my memory banks.

Guilty Pleasure Shot: Knowing
D.P. Simon Duggan
What you’re looking at is balls. Total balls. Sometimes the goal of science fiction is to transport us to a different place. A place we never could have expected when we started the film. Knowing’s final shot is a thing a of audacious beauty. So full of hope, symbolism and painterly beauty that it turned many off. It feel the moment is earned and contains more ecstatic religious power than any Mel Gibson movie I’ve suffered through. It also managed to blow the socks off of “Battlestar Glatica’s” strangely similar but far more literal “new earth” ending concepts. With this, director Alex Proyas continues his streak of perfect final shots; “Dark City’s” pier closer is dear to me and “I, Robot’s” robo-Jesus final moment never gets enough credit so I will include it.

Best Poster Art
AKA poster art most likely to be displayed in my dingy apartment

 

…wow. wow, wow, wow. This is the most rich and evocative poster I’ve come across in a long time. I want this but may never get a print because it’s a limited edition deal. The poster is by David D’Andrea was made for Fantastic Fest.

…should have been the main poster for Basterds.

…the humans only angle is just brilliant marketing. And it doesn’t even say the movie’s name. Looks cool too.

…another Antichrist poster. I could see someone hating this poster design but I really grabbed me. Especially when I think about how these scissors are used in the movie. When I look at this I think the alternate title should be “There Will Be Blood.” Hum, I think that one’s taken though.

…usually Paul Giamatti movie posters are bad but this one gives off a cool “Being John Malkovich” vibe. Well, that and “Men in Black” (‘member that alien inside the head… aw, never mind). This is such an interesting poster I’m surprised nobody saw the movie. I’m including myself in that large group.

…yup, that about sums the movie up. That poor, poor priest. I particularly love how the human figures are positioned in such a way that implies the infinite loop of misery these two immortals sinners will be engaged in. Not just misery though, lust too.  The look on Kang-ho Song’s face says it all.

Worst Poster…

Extract. Someone got paid to come up with this? Really? Is this a joke? Sadly… yes. There are no redeeming qualities to this poster. It’s tacky and nowhere close to being clever which is ironic because the film’s pretty good in a cult comedy sort of way. It’s almost as if someone at the studio wanted to sabotage Judge’s film. And it worked. That the film is funny is the biggest tragedy of all.

Runner Up: Ghost of Girlfriend’s Past

Screams out, in every way possible, WE’RE NOT EVEN TRYING. WE GIVE UP.

Best Trailer

Fitting that the film with the best shot of the year also has the best trailer to go along with it. Now why didn’t this make my top ten again? I starting to freak out at the idea and may never let myself forget that I relegated “A Serious Man” to #12. Even so, I said it from day one that “A Serious Man’s” trailer is the most visually exciting and artful mainstream movie trailer ever made! It’s rapid fire editing and use of sound is absolutely perfect. It’s so good I’m surprised it didn’t convince the usual multiplex philistine to see, gasp, a Coen Brothers period movie. The rhythmic flow in the clip below does not represent the style and flow of the film itself (thank god) but it exists as a work of art in its own right which, some could argue, is the point of a well made trailer.

Worst Trailer#1: After Last Season
BEHOLD………………

Worst Trailer#2: The Boys are Back
Ever seen a trailer and made a audible sound of dejection? Something like EWICK or awwwaghh? Well this was a total ewick/awwwaghh!!! moment for me. And here I though the Brits (esp Clive Owen) were above bein so trite. Still not sure if the trailer is bad or just has the misfortune of trying to get people to see a worse movie. Since I would rather die than sit through this sappy crap I’ll just assume it’s both.

Trailer I had to see so much I got sick of: Duplicity and Shutter Island. When you see dozens upon dozens of moves in the theater in 2009 you don’t exactly expect variety in the trailers but to see the same two every time is agony. I sat through the two trailers so much I had to be creative or risk losing my mind. Ironically both movies were decent but I almost didn’t watch them.

Okay, I’m almost ready to let go of 2009. Just one more list to go and that’s the worst movies of the year.

Continuing my streak of missing at least one in the big category I got 7 out of 8 but I don’t feel bad because nobody could have predicted Precious winning screenplay. Plus it’s great to see Jason Reitman not get something for the first time in his life. Overall I got 17 out of 24 in my guessing which is down from my 19/24 tally last year. What killed me was Avatar’s losses in the sound department (sure Hurt Locker was better but, come on). Very boring show but it’s saying something that this is only the third time in a decade where a good film won Best Picture. No Country and Lord of the Rings were the only other two.

Best Picture

• “Avatar”
• “The Blind Side”
• “District 9”
• “An Education”
• “The Hurt Locker” (saw the mistake. I’m NOT picking Blind Side to win. Changed at 5:04)
• “Inglourious Basterds”
• “Precious”
• “A Serious Man”
• “Up”
• “Up in the Air”

Note: All final predictions to be locked in by Saturday night. I usually flip-flop at the last minute.

My Vote Would Go To, in this order: Inglourious Basterds, Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, District 9, Precious, Avatar, Up, An Education, Up in the Air, and Blind Side in the back, way waaaaay waaaaaaaaay in the back. Sadly, the only two with any shot here are Hurt Locker and Avatar. Funny how even with ten nominated films there are still very few surprises. I half think that spineless Oscar voters tend to vote not for what they think is the best but what has the best chance, or most hype. The problem is that Avatar has a lot of hype. In fact, it’s all hype. Still, Hurt Locker is a film that plays much better on DVD screeners. Without the novelty allure 3D Avatar’s many flaws become clear. 
Should Not Be Here: It’s a shame that Blind Side got a nomination. Not quite as bad as Blind Side but still should not have been nominated are Up, Up in the Air, An Education, District 9 and Avatar. Whew, that’s a lot.
Robbed: Too numerous to count.

Directing (all predicted winners labeled with a red asterix)

* “Avatar” James Cameron
***“The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
* “Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
* “Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

My Vote Would Go To: Tarantino first, K-Big second, nobody third. QT is just too good to win a directing Oscar. I have this suspicion though that there might be a picture/director but if there is one it will probably be an Avatar Picture/Bigelow Director split so Bigelow is safe for now.   
Should Not Be Here:Reitman and Daniels.  
Robbed: James Grey (“Two Lovers”) was once again overlooked.

Actor in a Leading Role

*** Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
* George Clooney in “Up in the Air” (and I usually love the Cloonster)
* Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
* Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
* Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

My Vote Would Go To:Tough one. Renner and Firth, two very different performances, are as good as they got last year. Bridges is also pretty damn cool in “Crazy Heart” (one of those bad movies/good performances deals) and when he wins I’ll be clapping.
Should Not Be Here:Clooney. I love the Cloonster but he’s done better. 
Robbed:Viggo Mortensen in The Road. Kang Sung in Thirst. And call me crazy but Jason Statham was underrated in Crank: High Voltage.

Actress in a Leading Role

***Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
* Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
* Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
* Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
* Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

My Vote Would Go To:Nobody could have done what Gabourey Sidibe did in “Precious.” I didn’t care for any of the other performances nominated but would be happy if Streep won.
Should Not Be Here:Might as well have nominated Sandra Bullock for All About Steve cuz she’s such a good actress.
Robbed: Maria Onetto in The Headless Woman. A more high profile snub was Melanie Laurent’s omission in this category. She should lock the doors and blow up the Kodak theater in retaliation.

Actor in a Supporting Role

* Matt Damon in “Invictus”
* Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
* Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
* Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones” (first ever Oscar nom for someone doing a Dr. Evil impression lol)
***Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

My Vote Would Go To:Waltz. End of story. Would be happy if Plummer had more of a shot.
Should Not Be Here: Damon. Boring performance in a boring movie. 
Robbed: Steven Lang, the heavy from Avatar. His character came to life while all the others put me to sleep.

Actress in a Supporting Role

* Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
* Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
* Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
* Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
*** Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

My Vote Would Go To:Gyllenhaal was surprisingly good in this thankless performance.
Should Not Be Here: Kendrick first. Her performances is all wrong for that movie. Cruz was also nothing special in “Nine.” 
Robbed: Samantha Morton, my favorite actress, did so much with so little in “The Messenger” that she should have an Oscar by now.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

* “District 9” Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
* “An Education” Screenplay by Nick Hornby
* “In the Loop” Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
***“Up in the Air” Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

My Vote Would Go To: In the Loop is the only truly worthy script of the bunch because it actually adds something to the source material. Too bad it has no shot but that’s usually the case with this historically bankrupt category.
Should Not Be Here: As usual the probable winner, Up in the Air, is the one film with no business even being nominated. An Education was also pretty bland but Hornby was once a pretty good author so it’s fun seeing him nominated as a screenwriter.  
Robbed: The Road managed to capture McCarthy’s prose better than “No Country for Old Men” did.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

***“The Hurt Locker” Written by Mark Boal
* “Inglourious Basterds” Written by Quentin Tarantino
* “The Messenger” Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
* “A Serious Man” Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
* “Up” Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

My Vote Would Go To:Easy. Basterds. But I was totally won over with “Serious Man,” one of the Coen’s best scripts in years. I’m also a big fan of “The Messenger” and its writer who made the great “Jesus’ Son” a number of years ago.
Should Not Be Here: Everything should be here except for the overrated/overwritten “Up.” 
Robbed: Robbed: Sure, a lot of good scripts were robbed but for the first time in years I like the Original Screenplay category for the most part. The sloppy, haphazard writing/plotting of Up is the only exception.

Animated Feature Film

* “Coraline” Henry Selick
* “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
* “The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
* “The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
***“Up” Pete Docter

My Vote Would Go To:“Coraline” made me remember what I forgot, that Neil Gaimen is really good at making kids stories for adults. I also didn’t hate “Mr. Fox” as much as I thought.
Should Not Be Here: I’m not going to say “Up” but… um, “Up.” 
Robbed: WHERE’s FUCKING PONYO, AHHHHHH FUCK YOU!

Cinematography

*** “Avatar” Mauro Fiore
* “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
*“The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
* “Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
* “The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

My Vote Would Go To:Potter, Ribbon then Basterds.
Should Not Be Here: Funny how one of the best movies here, Hurt Locker, is the weakest in this category. 
Robbed: Robbed: White Ribbon. Oh, wait they actually bothered to watch that movie. Cool! How about The Road and Two Lovers. Or Serious Man. Or You, The Living. Lots of great Cinematography last year.

Art Direction

*** “Avatar” Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair
* “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
* “Nine” Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
* “Sherlock Holmes” Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
* “The Young Victoria” Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

My Vote Would Go To: Holmes, the most unlikely underrated film of 09, looks fantastic. From the city streets to dirty alleys to that big ass boat to science labs up to no good to Holmes’ dark nest of OCD filth, this is the most amazing art direction undertaking since The Prestige. There’s just so much (besides Downey’s wonderful scenery chewing) going on within the frame. 
Should Not Be Here: Young Victoria. Looked fine but it’s nothing we haven’t seen before.
Robbed: Watchmen captured the look of the comic perfectly. That’s way harder to pull off than Young Victoria.

Costume Design

* “Bright Star” Janet Patterson
* “Coco before Chanel” Catherine Leterrier
* “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Monique Prudhomme
* “Nine” Colleen Atwood
*** “The Young Victoria” Sandy Powell

My Vote Would Go To: The Good Doctor just because it’s good to see a non period drama win this for once.
Should Not Be Here: Period (yawn) dramas. 
Robbed: The  tattered yarns of The Road. People seem to forget that great costumes are not always supposed to look good.

Documentary (Feature)

* “Burma VJ” Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
*** “The Cove” Nominees to be determined
* “Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein
* “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
* “Which Way Home” Rebecca Cammisa

My Vote Would Go To: Food Inc.
Should Not Be Here: Haven’t seen enough and there’s a reason for that: dees dare some boring docs.
Robbed: Anvil! The Story of a Doc Snubbed In Favor of Tedious 90s era Doc Noms.

Film Editing

* “Avatar” Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
* “District 9” Julian Clarke
***“The Hurt Locker” Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
* “Inglourious Basterds” Sally Menke
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Joe Klotz

My Vote Would Go To: Basterds! No question about it. The editing really helped set the many varying moods and transition between the many characters and plot actions.
Should Not Be Here: The editing in Precious is too grandiose when it’s doesn’t have the standard cutting of a TV movie.   
Robbed: Antichrist, Two Lovers and The Box.

Foreign Language Film

* “Ajami” Israel
* “El Secreto de Sus Ojos” Argentina
* “The Milk of Sorrow” Peru
***“Un Prophète” France
* “The White Ribbon” Germany

My Vote Would Go To: White Ribbon is a timeless movie. I have a feeling it’s not “social” (read PC) enough to win. The “inverted Scarface” Prophet’s got a lot of momentum but it’s not the top or even second movie most are picking to win, that would be Ribbon and something called El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secrets in Their Eyes) which must be good since so many people are including in (Update: just read the synopsis about a unsolved murder and it does indeed sounds cool). I hope I’m wrong about Prophet.   
Should Not Be Here: I don’t know, whatever. Not a good year for foreign films.
Robbed: Thirst was hurt by the fact that it’s a vampire movie. Besides, the Academy really sucks when it comes to recognizing good (or any) Korean films. Fuck em’.

Makeup

* “Il Divo” Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
***“Star Trek” Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
* “The Young Victoria” Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore (huh?)

My Vote Would Go To: None. Makeup is a stupid category.
Should Not Be Here:Young Victoria. Nothing special. Oh, it’s about Royality, I guess the makeup must be good. Stupid logic voters. 
Robbed: The Watchmen

Music (Original Score)

* “Avatar” James Horner
* “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Alexandre Desplat
* “The Hurt Locker” Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
* “Sherlock Holmes” Hans Zimmer
***“Up” Michael Giacchino

My Vote Would Go To: Hans Zimmer is so underrated. His Holmes score fits the movie, the tone and the time period perfectly. I love Desplat but honestly can’t remember any of his music from Fox. Same goes for the music of Hurt Locker, I can’t remember a thing about it.
Should Not Be Here: James Horner recycled his old music (that wasn’t good to begin with!) to make Avatar even more annoying. Trumpets and tribal chants are sucide on the ears. 
Robbed: Once again Nick Cave and Warren Ellis (The Road, The Proposition a few years ago) were dissed in favor of more traditional scores.

Music (Original Song)

* “Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
* “Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
* “Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36” Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
* “Take It All” from “Nine” Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
*** “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

My Vote Would Go To: NONE, all nominated songs suck. Okay, The Weary Kind wasn’t all out bad but it was the weakest song in the movie which really hurt it because it was supposed to be Bridges’ “comeback” song.  
Should Not Be Here: I can’t even remember the songs in Princess and the Frog.
Robbed: Does “Bale Out” count? Totally should.

Visual Effects

*** “Avatar” Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
* “District 9” Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
* “Star Trek” Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

My Vote Would Go To: This is the one category that Avatar belongs.
Should Not Be Here: It’s all good in da hood.
Robbed: Harry Potter’s understated visuals. Oh, and how about Moon? You know, “good” visual effects do not have to ALWAYS be the most expensive visual effects. Sometimes, as in the case of Moon, it’s the way the effects are used that should be rewarded because it’s more creative. Oh, but what does creativity have to do with winning an Oscar these days?

***

The Usual Crap Nobody Cares About…

Short Film (Animated)

* “French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert
* “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell
* “The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia
* “Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin
* “A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park (Can Park ever get enough Oscars? No. He is the anti-Pixar and I love him for that)

Documentary (Short Subject)

* “China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province” Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill
* “The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner” Daniel Junge and Henry Ansbacher
* “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant” Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert
* “Music by Prudence” Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett
* “Rabbit à la Berlin” Bartek Konopka and Anna Wydra

Short Film (Live Action)

* “The Door” Juanita Wilson and James Flynn
* “Instead of Abracadabra” Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström
* “Kavi” Gregg Helvey
* “Miracle Fish” Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey
* “The New Tenants” Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

Sound Editing

* “Avatar” Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
* “The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson
* “Inglourious Basterds” Wylie Stateman
* “Star Trek” Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
* “Up” Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Sound Mixing

* “Avatar” Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
* “The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
* “Inglourious Basterds” Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano (wow, another sound nod for IG. Werid, cuz most of the film is very low key)
* “Star Trek” Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
* “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson (no kidding, the sound is fantastic in this, um, less than fantastic film)

What’s Good: Scorsese’s best film since “Bringing Out the Dead.” A solid screenplay adaptation remains undaunted by an overbearing director and overwrought actor. I also like how this period movie does not contain the usual period music that Scorsese has a tendency to punish us with. Also, I  must say that seeing actors Mark Ruffalo, Max von Sydow, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer and Elias Koteas in a Martin Scorsese film for the first time is a real treat–see Marty, there are actually some good actors around who weren’t in “Titanic.”    
What’s Not: Even overrated directors and actors can make a good movie every now and again.
Fake Peter Travis Blurb: More twists and turns than my small intestine. Martin Scorsese is the best director who ever walked the ear, I want to blow him, um, a kiss. This one’s a real grabber!

With “Shutter Island” Martin Scorsese’s influences coming from a number of different places and thankfully none of them have anything to do with organized crime. Let’s start with the period of movies in which this one is set, the early 50s. This is an insane asylum mystery with all the subtlety of, well, an insane  asylum. Asking the much asked question: “it the patients who are crazy or the system that contains them?” the great Sam Fuller movie “Shock Corridor” came to my mind a lot but probably a dozen more came to Scorsese’s with Hitchcock, of course, begin a clear favorite. One influence that Scorsese couldn’t have foreseen or intended is a palpably empathetic horror aesthetic that plays out like a Hollywood version of the survival horror video game “Silent Hill” with a closely identified character walking down long corridors while people in straight jackets jump out to say “boo!” Another noticeable and random influence comes from the “dark” Spielberg epoch that gave us a ton of crappy films like “Saving Private Ryan” (both share a WWII theme), “Minority Report” (ditto, noir) with a commonality of dead children in all. Like Spielberg’s war and mystery works, “Shutter Island” is a big booming melodramatic murder mystery with vibrant colors penetrating the beautifully bleached cinematography. Unlike Spielberg though Scorsese it too smart to let emotion get the better of him or his characters. Instead, he allows emotion to consume them. The final big influence on Scorsese seems to be Scorsese himself, specifically the frantic “Cape Fear” Scorsese full of anger and pessimism and crazy people and big storms whose godly power puts pithy earthlings in their place until the story is told.

Scorsese seems to work better when he’s not making the kind of movie that he thinks we expect him to make. The god awful “Departed,” “Gangs of New York” and even (don’t hate me, but…) “Goodfellas” are examples of a smart director who is able to channel a lot of creative energy into films that are basically second-hand crime stories that add nothing to the genre except for a fun but ultimately empty sense of misplaced manic energy. “Shutter Island” is not that Scorsese. But that does not meant that it fits with the other Scorsese who stumbled upon his best work in years with “The Aviator” (which turns out to be not even that good in retrospect). Like the protagonist that haunts the shadowy, light flickery institutional corridors, this film exists in-between worlds without ever seeming to belong. Gotta love limbo.

The film features Leonardo DiCaprio in yet another one of his tightly wound performances. As a bonus he even reprises that silly Boston accent from “Depaaaaaaaateeeeeeed.” At least he’s not playing a South African again. Leo is an odd actor to assess because his selection in roles far surpasses his ability in said roles. After “Titanic” Leonardo became a huge name but even then few really thought he was super talented, especially when he followed “Titanic” up with “The Beach” (between those two, it’s no wonder he gets sea sick in “Shutter Island’s” opening scene). Then something happened. He made “Gangs of New York” with Scorsese. That’s all it took. Really?! People instantly started taking him seriously even though he did nothing to prove why we should. In fact, “Gangs” was proof of the opposite as even fans didn’t love him in that (it didn’t help that he was standing next to Daniel Day Lewis). In all of his subsequent films with Scorsese (or Ridley Scott or Woody Allen or Ed Zwick or Sam Mendes etc.) I never understood what either saw in each other because neither brings out the best in the other. This is the one of the most dull actor/director duos of all time, ranking just above the Stephen Sommers/Kevin J. O’Connor powerhouse that yield, to this day, gems like “The Mummy,” “Deep Rising” and “G.I. Joe.” My only guess is that Scorsese became blinded by the school girl allure of Leo (not Leonardo, just Leo) and thus wanted to forge him into his very own De Niro and, like a fluttery eyed ingénue, Leo, in turn, did his best to impress this “genus” and he was smart to do so. The fact remains that DiCpario finds himself miscast in, oh, just about every film he’s ever been in. Okay, “Catch Me if You Can” (Spielberg of course) and “Titanic” used the naughty/clean boy act right and “Shutter Island” might be lucky number three except that’s not a lucky number at all.

Putting the mystery of DiCaprio’s esteemed career aside, there are a lot of fun twists in this mystery, so much so that many people who saw it last weekend fully expected to see ghosts. And maybe they did. Either way, by the end we see how Leo’s performance actually makes a lot of sense given the context he is placed in which I won’t spoil. Aside from a lot of really embarrassing interrogation scenes (DiCaprio is never worse than when he projects disdain for another character), this is a “good” Leo performance if only because it’s the sort of overwrought, shaky-hand and intense-all-the-time performances that the film absolutely needed in order to work and is thus is able to work him into the narrative web rather than the other way around as is usually the case.

The story is not going to win any awards but this is not that kind of movie. Hum, come to think of it “The Departed” also was not intended to be but that didn’t stop people from heaping praise upon it as if it were the last time they were ever going to get to do so with Scorsese. Everything we see in this movie exists through the dark ringed eyes of the protagonist, a U.S. Marshal, and if you follow the logic of his encounter with this strange Island and it’s secret holding overseers (Ben Kingsley is particularly good as a very calm and modern Freudian psychiatrist that rejects the harsh old ways of treatment… or does he?) may be far fetched if you think about it but it holds up much better than it has any right to–or, at least, it holds up as much as one can say it holds up having seen it only once. The plot, about a man looking for lost things on this island (yes, I’m being deliberately vague), does a remarkable job at keeping us and it’s character in the moment (Laeta Kalogridis should be commended for adapting Dennis Lehane’s novel) without ever getting wearing out its welcome. Sure it strings us along but does it so well enough that we want to go along.

“Shutter Island” is particularly adept at reinventing itself at the end of ever act. Not only does the primary mystery get solved half way through but the final twist, an epic though not terribly original role reversal, is not only a whopper but a whopper that’s actually grounded in reality. Granted it’s a dour Lehanian reality, but still. It’s not great art, it’s just good pulp. If there is a flaw it is not that Scorsese is aiming low but that he’s so damn obvious about how low he’s aiming as if he wants points for not being high brow. But is he ever really high brow? Scorsese wants us to know with every twist and turn of the camera and every sharp musical chord that pounds away at our heads like one of Leo’s migraines, is that he’s in on the spooky fun.

“Shutter Island” is a good mystery movie if you can forget that Scorsese approaches it as such a deliberate mystery movie. In the fuck-with-your-head genre, it’s too forced to appreciate in the say way as a David Fincher mystery like “The Game” or Michael Heneke’s “Cache” but I’m not dumb enough to expect more from this project or director than either are capable of delivering. I would be foolish and even lying if I said the end product isn’t totally enjoyable while it’s unfolding. It’s a B-movie in every sense of the word including…

Grade: B

Time for a new theme. I’ll be testing them out.

 

• Avatar
• An Education
• District 9
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Invictus
• Precious
• A Serious Man
• Up
• Up in the Air

Sad that the year the Academy decides to implement it’s ten picture category is a year where 10 Oscar-y films are actually hard to come by. My reasoning: in what other year would a film like Star Trek be a contender (I still don’t think it would make it because three sci-fi best pic nominees is a stretch because the Academy doesn’t even usually go for one. I would even say that even if it were just five, there’s still aren’t enough films! The locks are of course Avatar (or as it’s more fun to say “Aaavadar”), Hurt Locker, Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air.  The rest is totally filler. Also, I’m not going to bother predicting acting/writing etc awards because I don’t see any surprises. I hope I’m wrong.

Possible: Star Trek (what?! WHAT!!!), The Hangover, Julie and Julia, The Blind Side. Damn.

Hoping for: Well, only three of seven probable nominees are any good so how about anything other than what’s here. Oh, maybe there’s four good ones, I’m a closeted “Precious” fan.

Music didn’t do much for me this year but I’m going to force myself to write about it anyway. These were the albums that mattered to me most but, from the looks of it, not that of the critical consensus (Animal Collective is the best band of the year…um’kay) or public taste (Lady Gaga, the most “multi-talented” male “female” “artist” of the year) or just people who think they’re cooler than us (Girls fans, UGH). Overall, I heard 35 good albums worthy of a “best of the year” list. That is both a victory for the 09 album format and a defeat because for every 35 albums that were great to good to, uh, whatever the Flaming Lips album was, there were four times as many that were a mess. The album has been dead for a while and this year it’s easy to see why. On that sad note, check back in a few days for Paper Street Cinema Music’s best tracks of the year.

Click below to find out what the Best Albums of the Year are... 

 

Currently Into…

1. Scribblenauts–Hasn’t gotten old yet, wont get old all year. This week in Scribblenauts I was most blown away by: finding out on my own that I could could evoke “Spaghetti Cat”… then made the “mistake” of making a dog eat spaghetti cat.
2. Smallville Season 8–More than half way through the season and I’m blown away by the show. Then blown away that I’m blown away by this show. Season 9 starts soon and there is no other show this year that I’m looking forward to more. And, yes, writing that makes me sound like a TV idiot.
3. Porcupine Tree, The Incident album–The most underrated band in the country. Prog, of course. A great album whose only fault is that it’s not as great as their previous PERFECT albums, Fear of a Blank Planet and Deadwig.
4. Star Ocean: The Last Hope(Xbox360)–A year without Persona or Final Fantasy?! I’ve been going through serious RPG withdrawals. This RPG is not great but it’ll do the trick.
5. Foundation by Isaac Asimov–never read anything from Asimov (for shame!) but I was in a mood for a good sci-fi read and this came highly recommended. In this book he creates a living breathing world, which is not what I expected because all I ever hear about this author is his ability for creating (robot) characters and backing them up with a hefty philosophy.
6. loljesus.com–lol
7. Ninja Gaidan Sigma 2 Demo on PSN–Would be a lot higher if (a) I could play the full game, and (b) there was blood instead of that damn stupid purple mist that comes out of sliced appendages like it’s an ELO show.