Strong Men Also Cry

Thinking In A Non-Narrative Way For The First Time

2012-01-26T14:20:00.004Z

In any of my creative experiences, I have always had a fondness for storytelling. Whether it be through music, film, prose etc. Sometimes a mesh of them all ie. a music video for a song that is lyrically composed as a short story. There were always so many stories I wanted to tell through music, and there's still time. For now though, my creative outlet is film which gives me the opportunity to think about telling stories visually. But that's just it. A film is as much about sound as a song is, and the narrative techniques employed in a song are even more relevant when thinking about how the sound of your film can end up defining it.

All storytelling aside, I am making two films this term; one of which is in a non-narrative form. At first, I found it a struggle to think in a non-narrative way for the first time. It's certainly an alternate way of thinking to any way that I've thought before which got me thinking. Can I still tell a story but present it in a non-narrative way? It's these kinds of big questions that I'm sure my lecturers will be thrilled to learn I am asking.

I've come to the personal conclusion that all art tells a story, but when presented in the non-narrative format, the story is variable. A narrative film has coherance and structure that can only be perceived in a limited amount of ways, whereas the non-narrative film is fairly open to perception. The film's creator will have had definitive ideas about meaning when putting it together, but overall, the point of the piece will be to challenge the viewer/listener and invite them to make the film their own in terms of what feeling and thought it provokes from within themselves.

I feel like I'm starting to understand it all now. Not so fast, John Cage.

We just come from a bad place.

2012-01-10T23:53:00.008Z

Over the last few years or so, it seems that the meaning of taboo has gotten lost. For the most part, we have become desensitised to extreme violence and sexual content. Hell, violence is becoming forever sexualised, with sex being occasionally and manipulatively violencised (I'm not the first person on the internet to ever use that word before). And religion? You can pretty much say or depict it in any way you please without hardly offending anyone, it seems. That infamous scene in 1971's 'Straw Dogs' has become entirely socially irrelevant. In fact, not only has it been all but forgotten about, it's been remade this past year to the sound of little controversy. Where a certain film's graphic scenes of torture once ignited conversation about how they made us squirm, we all now laugh at the many sequels that followed, praising the most creative ways in which a filmmaker can take a life. So what is left to shock us? What is left to challenge our principles and arouse what is left of our senses?

'Shame' is the second feature from maverick director and Turner Prize winner, Steve McQueen CBE. Like his debut film, 'Hunger', it stars current Hollywood golden boy Michael Fassbender, and in many ways his female counterpart, Carey Mulligan. Considering both of their ever rising statuses in the game, the roles undertaken by the pair are staggeringly brave.

Fassbender, in the midst of another stellar year, continues to shine in the role of Brandon. Brandon is 30-something, moderately successful in the NYC office game, with a cool white, modern apartment in Manhattan. Externally, he is a catch (Bateman, anyone?). People want to know him, and people want to be around him. Women, namely. Is this because he is able to offer them something more than they are accustomed to? The answer is yes, simply, in the short term. Playing off the failures of his sleaze bag, family man boss's tequila fuelled attempts to lure pant-suited blondes back to his penthouse, Brandon is able to charm (the pants off) the same blondes by simply identifying the colour of their eyes (a first hurdle at which his boss David (24's James Badge Dale) falls flat on his face) before proceeding to literally eyef**k the s**t out of them from across the room. David is in awe. How?

By all accounts, Brandon is a master of seduction. To a point, this is true. He knows how to get what he wants, which in most cases involves convincing his prey that it's what they want as well. I use the word 'prey' for a reason. While Brandon doesn't necessarily victimise his sexual conquests, they certainly fall victim to his obsessive influence whether they realise it or not. This is where the torture of sexual addiction becomes a more complicated affliction than say, alcohol or drug dependency. The latter are harder to keep a secret as they outwardly affect the people around you. Family and friends are able to easily identify the noticeable changes in appearance and behaviour, and the addiction is able to be confronted head on. As mesmerisingly addressed in 'Shame', sexual addiction is a wholly inner struggle that can only be reckoned with upon exposure.

Cue Sissy, Brandon's equally but indifferently troubled younger sister uncharacteristically but unbelievably well portrayed by Carey Mulligan. Until her reintroduction into his life, Brandon has been able to comfortably satisfy his urges without consequence. There has been a substantial lack of guilt, and a definite lack of shame up to this point, it seems, as Brandon has isolated himself into a world without intimacy, dominated by pornography, prostitution and one-night stands. He continually ignores her attempts to contact him, culminating in a desperate answer phone message in which is she attempts to get a rise out of him by claiming she has a week to live. That being what it is, a grotesque use of falsified disease in order to hear his voice, what choice did he really leave her with? As we come to learn, she is a sufferer of her own afflictions, namely depression, and is desperate for the intimacy that Brandon could not care less for. Before he knows it, she has moved in and onto his couch via a strangely comfortable welcome that is passed over in the most uncomfortable of fashions courtesy of a Steve McQueen trademark single take, single shot scene in Brandon's bathroom.

It is upon Sissy's arrival in Brandon's life that we are able to see his addiction for what it is; an emotional numbing of the heart driven by denial, hypocrisy and selfishness. As if he had spent all of his available energy on feeding his addiction and keeping it a secret, his forced awareness of Sissy's own struggles and shortcomings moves him to, for the first time, show cracks in himself. For starters, he overlooks his use of pornography at work, only for his buddy-boss to end up ignorantly blaming an intern and getting him off the hook. Where he once selected partners based on sexual attraction, he begins to inadvertently entertain himself with the idea of genuine affection. The result being, the inability to perform, and having sex with a loveless prostitute just to get the taste out of his mouth.

This slow transformation is presented stunningly by McQueen in a series of visually arresting sequences that can last for minutes at a time without a single cut or line of dialogue. He invites you to understand Brandon's world without ever being forced to feel uncomfortable within yourself. What you see is certainly graphic and over extended periods of time, but it is all integral to the characters and their progression through the story. McQueen's cinematic techniques strive to create a realistic sense of discomfort for the characters, not the viewer. Without these scenes of destructive realism, the theme of sexual addiction would become completely redundant, and the film itself, pointless.

It is not simply Sissy's presence that plays on Brandon's consistency though. Sure, without her on his couch he would never be caught masturbating by anyone, nor would his online sex chats ever be discovered. These are all elements of his continual exposure that he is able to deal with through a variety of outlets and resolutions. If anything, it does him good. What Brandon is unable to cope with is another person's dependancy on his company and support. Sissy's insecurity and acute depression has eventually led her back to him, her apparently only available lifeline. From the sounds of things, their parents are either dead or entirely estranged, though it is never mentioned. All we know, is that the tormented pair come from 'a bad place'.

If we are to imagine that Brandon's own personal battles mean that his head is only slightly above the water, the addition of Sissy's need to be recognised as important to someone else's existence is the heavily weighted sinker that proceeds to drown him. While he will never admit it to himself, he struggles so hard to be responsible for himself that being remotely responsible for someone else's emotional health, even a family members, is completely out of the question. His addiction drives him to be outwardly angry with Sissy in such an unconscious way that through his attempts to debase her, he in turn is able to further deny himself. In this new found proximity, he finds further cause to defer concern away from himself by way of embellishing the struggles of his sister. When she begins to question him, his immediate defence is to hypocritically force her to question herself. In the end, this continued act of blind selfishness proves to be more of a reckoning than Brandon could have ever imagined.

In a year full of overwhelming performances, none are as bold or as raw than that of Fassbender and Mulligan. Fassbender is all but assured an Oscar nomination for his pained performance, and judging by the current five frontrunners, I would say with confidence that this is the standout male performance of the year, on a level par with Tilda Swinton in 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'. He encapsulates Brandon with such beautiful honesty that it's hard to imagine the likes of Pitt or Clooney topping him. Unfortunately for Fassbender's film, it is up against the much more academy-friendly 'Moneyball' and 'The Descendants'. Two films that are no less impressive, but staggeringly less controversial. Whether he can achieve what he deserves all depends on the balls of the voters. Being recognised by the Hollywood Foreign Press is a start; a controversial nomination by all accounts, no doubt in response to Fassbender's unrelenting success with the critics' associations. My allegiances now lie with him though, and I will be crossing my fingers from now until February 26th.

Carey Mulligan's turn as Sissy is simply another level of outstanding. I suppose what's most impressive is the fact that it is completely outside of the comfort zone that she has established for herself over the last three years. 'Drive' was somewhat of a departure in terms of the type of film she was featuring herself in, but the role selection was typical as far as what we've come to expect of her. Sissy is a fragile, distressful character, and in her first stab at the psychologically gritty, she absolutely nailed it. Flexing her expressive dramatic muscles for the first time, she latches onto Fassbender from the first second she appears on screen, not loosening her grasp on his psyche for the remainder of the film. Little screen time as she may have, it is more than enough time to affect the story in the most incredible way of any supporting character in film this year (2011).

Looking at the list of Supporting Actress hopefuls, I would fully expect to hear Mulligan's name announced on January 24th. As someone who has witnessed a great deal of impressive performances throughout the past year, I would hope that she will surprise the masses and take home her first of prospectively many Academy Awards when the winners are announced next month. Again though, it comes down to the film itself, and whether the Academy can bear to bestow greatness on a film as aggressively honest as 'Shame'. It's a funny old game, the Oscars, with undeserving winners walking away with gold year after year. I find that part of the fun though. When your deserving underdogs come through and upset the masses, it's a fist pumping moment for any serious film lover.

'Shame' is certainly not for everyone, it's true. Some will argue that it's not for anyone. What it absolutely and unequivocally is however, is an astonishing piece of visceral storytelling from a truly gifted artist brought to life by the two best dramatic performances of the year. On that merit, it is well worth your time even if you'd rather not experience it in a crowded auditorium on a first date.

New York City: Woody Allen vs Martin Scorsese

2011-11-21T12:44:00.007Z

How do Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese use the city of New York City not only as an object of affection, but as the means for an ideological stance in their work?

New York has long been ‘base camp’ for East Coast filmmaking in the USA. In many ways, it possesses clout that Hollywood has only ever dreamed of. In a filmmaking sense, the spirit of New York has forever been evident in the art that is exported from America’s largest city. One might even argue that New York is the true home of modern cinema rather than Hollywood as the world’s first film featuring synchronized dialogue sequences showcased the Jewish ghettos of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, an area that over time became synonymous with present day storytelling (When Harry Met Sally and Once Upon A Time In America etc). If asked to name New York’s first quintessential film, modern auteurs would more than likely place Alan Crosland’s The Jazz Singer at the top of that list. Through that film, filmmakers like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese were able to feel what it is like to not only see, but hear their city on the big screen for the first time. It is a memory that I am sure they both share, as their work has gone on to provide the more lasting examples of how New York has looked and sounded through the ages of cinema.

While there are noticeable similarities regarding their New York-based work, the pictures painted by the two directors are greatly contrasted. A parallel fondness is evident in their films, but only in the way that their relationship with the city is like a relationship with a lover. Allen’s New York is the quirky, easy-going life-partner, while Scorsese’s is the short-tempered, domestically violent prone bitch that you can’t divorce because you’re Catholic.

In Allen’s ‘comedy of manners’ aptly titled Manhattan, his admiration for his hometown is evident within the opening sequence through a variety of attractive establishing shots of the city coupled with a male voice-over (his own) that lists numerous reasons as to why he ‘adored New York’. This is presented through the device of a writer trying to write the first line in the first chapter of a book. Literal scene setting as it may be, it never feels like a gimmick. Through this voice-over, Allen covers temperaments ranging from soppy (‘this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin’) to aggressive (‘to him it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture’) while never losing sight of his key point; love, beginning every passage with the line, ‘he adored New York City.’ The entire opening sequence (not coincidentally) is shot in black and white with a Gershwin soundtrack. Somehow, through these opening frames of Manhattan’s bustling streets and regular Joes, none of the magic is lost through the lack of visual colour. Even though the bright lights and neon signs of the city are dulled visually, Allen more than makes up for this by allowing New York to shine through his light; an appreciative opening voice-over that poetically dances with Gershwin, proving that sometimes through words, there can be colour. Or even, that colour is irrelevant when you’re saying the right things, a viewpoint that Allen commonly credits to the work of Ingmar Bergman, who trademarked the use of colourful, realistic, and often improvised dialogue between his characters.

Scorsese’s ‘Mean Streets’ in which ‘he drew on his youth in New York’s Little Italy’, though entirely different tonally, still draws parallels with ‘Manhattan’ during it’s own opening sequence. Its features shots of the city at its most alive (during 9-5 work hours and evening street parties) and features a voice over from the director (as Harvey Kietel’s character, Charlie). Scorsese though, paints a slightly different picture of the city he calls home.

‘You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it.’

Between this voice-over and the Motown-laden title sequence, Scorsese is able to establish the tone for his entire film in a short scene featuring the film’s protagonist. Charlie disturbedly wakes up in his apartment; visually panicked and alone. It’s daytime outside, but the blinds are drawn. He gets up and inspects his face in the mirror only to lie back down as police sirens sound. Using only this short sequence, Scorsese managed to completely convey a character living in constant fear of his surroundings. So afraid, and so stressed that even the sleep he eventually manages during daylight hours is disturbed. Questions are instantly asked. Why is he afraid? Why can’t he sleep at night? What is it that happens at night that has affected his sleep pattern so?

The sequence portrays New York as a dark, shadowed city of sin. With the subtle addition of siren-sound and a lack of natural light, Scorsese creates feelings of threat and isolation; both themes conveyed in under 90 seconds. All of these questions begging answers that will reveal themselves during the film. To be able to establish location, character and atmosphere and ask this many questions in such a short space of time is classic cinematic storytelling at it’s strongest.

Allen’s leftist emphasis on the collective and communal offers up the city as the home of ‘beautiful women and street smart guys who seemed to know all the angles’. It is defined in his opening monologue as a city that is ‘tough and romantic’; a place that is both edgy and beautiful, with something for everyone. A New York that is varied in character, but ultimately equal in its appeal.

‘Mean Streets’ very much takes up a rightist, hierarchical stance through a use of the instillation of fear as a leadership tactic over the course of the picture. The idea of a fearful respect for chains of command is a theme that plays out from beginning to end, immediately instilling that fear in its opening scene. If rightists insist that that ‘the brightest and best are entitled to a larger share of power and wealth’, then the characters of Michael (the head strong loan shark) and Johnny Boy (the reckless gambler and borderline psychotic) are literal support of this particular ideology within the film as a whole. The idea that authority should be respected and that privately owned institution (Tony and Michael’s bar) should be driven by profit are two further examples of the rightist stance that is evident throughout Scorsese’s film.

While both films share strengths in their initial narrative footholds, glorifying New York as the perfect place to tell a story, it is in their ideologies that they differ considerably. When considering the two films from a ‘Democratic vs Hierarchical’ point of view, they could not be more different.

Allen, Woody (1979) Manhattan, USA: United Artists

Bordwell, D and Thompson, K. (2010). Ch. 12 - Film Art and Film History: The New Hollywood and Independent Filmmaking. In: Film Art - An Introduction. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. p478-479.

Linzer, D.A. (2011). The Left-Right Ideological Spectrum in Global Mass Opinion. Available: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dlinzer/Linzer-leftright.pdf. Last accessed Nov 2011.

Löthwall, L. (1968). AN INTERVIEW WITH INGMAR BERGMAN Originally published in Take One 2, no. 1 (September-October 1968): 16-18. Available: http://bergmanorama.webs.com/takeone_68.htm. Last accessed Nov 2011.

Scorsese, Martin (1973) Mean Streets, USA: Warner Bros.

Old School Movie Ratings

2011-11-19T22:46:00.005Z

I've been meaning to watch 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' for absolutely ages. It's been years, and this cold November evening seemed like the perfect opportunity to revisit THE action adventure film of my youth. But wait, kids are allowed to watch this movie? Check out this list of stuff that happens and then tell me how this film is rated P-freaking-G.

1. A rotting dead guy on some spikes

2. Alfred Molina dead on some spikes

3. South American guy dead with loads of peashooter arrows in his back

4. Indy shoots guy on fire IN THE FOREHEAD (blood everywhere)

5. Indy shoots Arab swordsman in broad daylight

6. Nazi Colonel's face shrivels like a raisin with blood pouring for every orifice.

7. Indy runs over blonde Nazi in big truck.

8. Belloq's head EXPLODES during the opening of the ark.

9. Toht's Nazi face melts and all his skin comes off and there's blood everywhere.

10. Big Nazi guy gets churned up by airplane propellor blades and blood goes everywhere.

I feel like I could go on! In this day and age, I would expect 'Raiders' to warrant at least a 12A. If someone can explain how 'The Matrix' is a 15, and 'Raiders' a PG, I've love to hear it.

This is not to say that I didn't enjoy 'Raiders'. Of course I did. Faces melted and heads exploded. It just left me wondering just how film classification has evolved in the last 30 years. What other films were incorrectly classified simply because of the era in which they were made? I've managed to rustle up a few examples, but I'd welcome any more suggestions anyone might have. So...

1. 'Hostel 2' and 'Once'. One involved slashing penises and blood showers. The other was about two Irish musicians falling in love. Yet, in America, both received an R-rating meaning that if you were under 17, a parent or guardian was required to accompany you. Go figure.

2. 'The King's Speech' receiving an R-rating in the States. Are you seriously telling me that kids under the age of 17 shouldn't be watching this charming, period drama just because it has a teeny tiny amount of swearing in a purely therapeutic context? Come off it.

3. 'Watership Down'. That whole movie should have been at least a 15. Apparently the BBFC still receive complaints about it's U-rating to this day.

4. Whilst researching questionable movie ratings, I just discovered that 'Jaws' is a PG. SAY WHAT?

5. 'The Witches'. Anyone who remembers the film adaptation of this Roald Dahl classic knows exactly what I'm talking about. When the witches all take their wigs off? Remember? Absolutely bloody terrifying. Nevertheless, rated U!

6. 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'. Say what you want about this Disney classic. The child catcher was a massive paedo and that film would get slapped with an 18-rating if it were released today. And to think people are calling for films with smoking to be reclassified. Pfft.

7. 'Poltergeist'. Strangely enough, this was a 15 in the UK and a PG in the states. That's right. A PG. Not only is it scary as balls but a man RIPS HIS OWN FACE OFF.

It's hardly surprising then that Steven Spielberg is in fact partly responsible for the existence of the PG-13 rating in the States. So many of his films pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in a PG that a good few of them (including 'Temple of Doom') were reclassified once the PG-13 rating was introduced as the median between PG and R. This was as a direct result of Spielberg lobbying Jack Valenti and the Motion Picture Association of America to push the rating through so that the Temple of Dooms of this world could exist without parental scrutiny. As far as I know though, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' remains but a PG. Shocking.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Dissertation banter

2011-11-19T18:51:00.005Z

So, my girlfriend is writing her dissertation this year. Luckily for me (we live together), she's writing about one of my favourite films, 2001: A Space Odyssey. When I say she's writing about it, of course I mean that she's become completely besotted by everything 2001. Every book, every documentary; she's seen it and she's read it. She's even spoken on the phone with the writers of the books (well, the ones that live in Norwich anyway). Witnessing this kind of passionate (but not quite obsessive), 'dive right in' attitude has got me thinking. What film or filmmaker is going to win my heart in two years time? At the moment it's a toss up...

1. Christopher Nolan/Inception - As much as I admire Nolan and all of his work (even Insomnia!), I can't imagine I'd be alone in my wonderment. In my first week on the course I met a girl who was writing her dissertation on 'Batman Begins'. Point proven.

The philosophy of 'Inception' is fascinating to me. It has been since the first time I saw it. In the year or so since release, at least two books have been published about exactly this. It's definitely something I would consider, but as I say, I would fully expect the work of Nolan (especially 'Inception') to be a hot topic among the minds in my year group and would probably opt for something a little bit more personal to me.

2. Terrence Malik/Cinematography - Another director who is fascinating to me; not only because of the quality of his work, but because of the way he makes movies. A man shrouded in privacy, Malik one of the most respected but most reclusive figures in the history of cinema. These reasons alone make him of particular interest to me.

Should I choose to focus on a particular element of Malik's work, it would (without hesitation) be the cinematography on display. 'The Tree of Life' and 'The Thin Red Line' are modern classics by all accounts, beautifully shot and beautifully told from start to finish. I, of course, would want to go back further still to his earlier films, 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven'. The latter of which, Christopher Nolan himself cites as one of the main reasons he felt compelled to dedicate his life to filmmaking. Big talk, no?

There are certain cinematograhical traits Malik possesses that I would certainly like to explore further at some point over the next three years. Whether or not I end up deciding to undertake something (and someone) so grandiose, God only knows.

3. Saving Private Ryan and it's importance in modern culture - Had there been no 'Saving Private Ryan', there would be no Call of Duty, no Band of Brothers, no The Pacific, and almost no renewed interest in World War 2. The success of 'Saving Private Ryan' offshot into a million directions and is still regarded just as highly almost 15 years on. Spielberg was able to capture the glory and the humanity of war, and as a result spawned a new generation of WW2 films, and eventually video games.

4. The symmetry of Wes Anderson - Anyone who's ever watched more than one Wes Anderson film has more than likely recognised that one of his most interesting traits is the fact that almost every shot of every scene is almost entirely symmetrical. This is no accident. Wes Anderson is a master of set design and shot framing. It makes his films easy to watch and easy to feel, when everything is so concisely placed.

Not only would I like to explore why he does this, and how effective it is when it comes to storytelling, but I would want to explore a possible link between Anderson's film and obsessive/compulsive disorder. I have a friend who suffers from this disorder and he absolutely adores everything Wes. I would want to know if a link has already been documented, if there is evidence that particular films and they way they are shot appeal to certain types of people who see and feel the world around them in a specific way.

Four is enough to be marinating on, wouldn't you say? Teatime on this cold Autumnal evening.

It's easy to be alone, even if it turns out that we're not.

2011-11-18T23:46:00.007Z

Tonight I was lucky enough to watch one of the finer indie flicks of this year. I've always been partial to sci-fi that concentrates more on the human element; '2001', 'Solaris', 'Primer', anything by Duncan Jones, that sort of thing. For me, the best sci-fi shines through when the science fiction is a subtle backdrop to what is essentially a well-presented drama. What Mike Cahill's debut feature, 'Another Earth', does so well is that it takes a very normal and possible story, adds scientifically fictional possibilities and creates something that is beautifully impossible. The emotional attachment to the characters is all the more affecting to the viewer because of the implausibility of the story. You find it hard to figure out why you are moved. How can you empathise with something that is impossible? I think that the fact that human stories can be granted infinite possibility when lightly blended with sci-fi is one of the more exciting aspects of modern storytelling. 'Melancholia' is another very good and recent example of this, but as a rookie filmmaker, to see a film like 'Another Earth' is extremely rewarding as far as learning the craft is concerned.

The film, by the looks of things, was filmed entirely on location on a handheld. It even looks documentarian at times. That realism coupled with a gorgeous script and consistently solid performances from the leads lead to an end product that is nothing short of buzz-worthy. I don't really want to go into the plot too far as it is a film that I would highly recommend you see for yourself, but it roughly follows a young woman who forges a friendship with a man of whom she took everything. It takes place four years after she recklessly took the lives of his wife and son in a car accident. Interestingly enough, it wasn't purely her inebriation that caused the crash. Her focus on the road was distracted as she gazed into the night sky to catch her first glimpse of the newly discovered parallel planet, 'Earth 2'.

In that opening sequence, there is already a fine example of that beautifully subtle use of science fiction to tell a story. It could have involved just another drunk teen driver, but the fact that the crash was arguably caused by something entirely impossible opens up the story onto a different plain that it wouldn't have otherwise. This use of science-fiction is something that is hard to get right, but when done well leaves a lingering impression. 'Another Earth' achieves this by the constance of it all. There are no sections of the film that are more impossible than others. The science-fiction is just there, being non-offensive but thought provoking and affecting the characters at every turn.

As impossible as it all is, one's fascination with science-fiction is in fact all about the thought of possibility. The more realistic the story is presented, the more questions about that ultimate question it can ultimately get away with asking. That question of course being, are we alone in the universe? The more realistically this question is answered as 'no', the more humanity is able to be found in something that is impossible. Thus we are able to be moved by it. I found myself almost moved to tears during a scene where the family of the female lead is gathered in the living room watching a live telecast whereby the head of SETI makes first radio contact with what turns out to be her parallel self on Earth 2. It is absolutely astonishing to watch and presented through such a poetic use of dialogue that the mere possibility that we aren't alone managed to somehow tugs on your heartstrings. I've bore witness to the discovery of alien life on more than one occasion, but until 'first contact' was with (this is awesome) YOURSELF, I never felt moved by it. But then your head starts to hurt. It is alien just because it's not of our earth? It is alien just because it's not you? The answer is that is is you. Not being of this earth, it seems, is not the same as being from another Earth.

In short: As beautiful as it is challenging. Asks an endless amount of questions without fully answering, but that is in no way a bad thing. The last scene will leave you floored. 8.5/10*

'Another Earth' is released in the UK on December 9th, and is released on Region 1 Blu-Ray and DVD on November 29th.

*I've tried to put off rating films this way but seeing as what I end up writing seems to be more of an analysis than a review, I thought this was an easy way to sum up how good I actually thought the film was. So yeah. Goodnight, world.

Full Speed Ahead! Part One

2011-10-17T16:51:00.010+01:00

Admittedly, it's been a long while since I posted anything on this blog. Why? Well, there's lots of reasons. I would be lying if I didn't put general laziness at the top of that list, but honestly, it wasn't the only reason. Between work, preparing for film school (yay), moving house and raising five kittens, I genuinely could not fit in regular blogging. Oh, and my 5-year old laptop finally called it a day. And I wasn't about to handwrite this thing. As for using the city library to do some writing in, well, you try and tell a 'Jeremy Kyle' to piss off Bejewelled.

So, I'm back. This time on a Mac. And there's no room for slack, at least that's what my course leader tells me. My quest through the realms of film school has officially begun. And you know what? I'm not even the oldest person on my degree. Jurassic Park.

The year has brought many a cinematic treat thus far. And with awards season quickly approaching, 2011 as a whole is only going to get stronger with the cream of the crop still yet to be released. So far, Terrence Malik has asked the big questions in 'Tree of Life', Bradley Cooper squared off against Bobby D in 'Limitless', Jake Gyllenhaal entered the Duncan Jones-iverse in 'Source Code', Ladies owned some gentlemen comics in 'Bridesmaids' and JJ Abrams continued to impress with his latest sci-fi offering, 'Super 8'. With 'Super 8' though, came an unwelcome barrage of star vehicle blockbuster fodder. 'Transformers 3' was pleasant enough to look at, but was inherently flat. 'The Green Hornet' and 'The Green Lantern' have ruined that colour for the time being, at least until it's saviour returns to our screens next year alongside Jason Segal and Amy Adams. Sequels and prequels littered our screens in the form of the uncomfortably rushed 'The Hangover: Part II', the kiddy-friendly 'X-Men: First Class', and the horrific 'Pirates 4'. Even Pixar failed to impress this year in the form of 'Cars 2'. It's not all doom and gloom though (although 'Apollo 18' nearly made me give up watching movies all together), as the small studios capitalised on this lacklustre summer and provided some of the finest films of recent years with 'Tree of Life' and 'The Guard' (to name a few) showcasing just how strong Fox Searchlight and Sony Pictures Classics have come to be by subsidiary standards.

There were some big screen joys though, let's not be too negative about the classic popcorn movie. I thoroughly enjoyed 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes', and would rank it in my Top 10 of the year (probably). And although it reflects poorly on me, 'Final Destination 5' was the most fun I've had at the cinema all year. I shit you not.

All of these films though, have been and gone. There's nothing we can do about it now. We all paid our eight pounds and were either blown away or grossly disappointed. But that's films for you! I will of course cover awards season with rigorous vigour, so allow me to return to 2011 as a whole at a later date. Today on this particular November evening, I want to look forward to the Christmas Season and the first six months of 2012, and share with you just some of my thoughts about what I think will be the ten (or fifteen) strongest films of the next eight months or so. So sit back, enjoy some trailers, and allow me to offer you substantial entertainment to tide you over until 'The Dark Knight Rises' becomes the best film that anyone has ever made.

Starting us off with a bang is a film that looks truly incredible, and I don't use that word lightly. Michael Shannon has long been an under appreciated favourite of mine, and when I heard of a middle-American psycho-drama that coupled him with the more recently impressive Jessica Chastain, I figured I was in for a strong feature. Then, I watched the trailer. Now, I can say with absolute certainty that Jeff Nichols' 'Take Shelter' is going to be one of those American indies that will stay with you for a long, long time. Shannon worked with Nichols previously on 2007's 'Shotgun Stories', and is currently filming Nichols' follow up to this film. That in mind, let's just assume for the sake of argument that Nichols' gets the best out of the now Oscar-nominated Shannon with each role he casts him in. Early reviews rave Shannon's performance, exclaiming that it is his finest yet.

For emotional support and strain, we have Jessica Chastain who is easily independent cinema's lady of the moment. Something about this coupling and it's mergence with the mid-Western setting and religious/apocalyptic themes just rustles something inside of me. It's a feeling though, that I don't think I will be able to fully understand until I see the full film. For now, the spectacularly uncomfortable trailer speaks for itself.

Before we venture into anything remotely lighthearted, one film I feel entirely compelled to push upon you is Justin Kurzel's debut feature 'Snowtown'. Personally, I have a massive soft spot for independent Australian drama, with last year's 'Animal Kingdom' being the most recent evidence of just what a bold nation of filmmakers Australia is. 'Snowtown' in no way takes it's foot off the gas either. What transpires is the story of an uneasy friendship between a 16-year old and an extremely charismatic father figure. The father figure though, turns out to be Australia's most notorious serial killer, John Bunting.

Fans of Shane Meadows will lap this up for sure. For me however, it looks seven shades darker than anything British cinema would be able to conceive. Maybe it's something to do with all of that wide open, unknown space that Australia possesses that simply unsettles me a little deeper. I can't be sure. As far as the way unnerving suspense, uncompromising evil, and gritty authenticity goes, what I am sure of is that this is about as gut-wrenching as you can possibly get. Look forward to brutally honest performances and the inability to look away, but be prepared to write off any chance of a possible repeat viewing.

Brutal.

Moving swiftly on to a film that looks delightfully charming and relentless fully due in no small part to it's source material, legendary director and powerful quartet of acting talent. Based on Yasmina Reza's stage play, Roman Polanski directs this 'comedy of manners' as two couples meet in an upmarket New York townhouse to discuss a schoolyard brawl that occurred between their respective sons. The hosting couple played by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly gleefully square up against Kate Winslet and (Uncle) Christoph Waltz in 'Carnage', a film that is sure to garner acting and screenplay recognition across the board.

It would be easy indeed for me to assume that this will be Waltz' film. Fanboy though I am, I'm going to hold back on making that assumption based on the fact that every cast member looks be absolutely and absurdly hilarious throughout. From the looks of things, the casting is bang on and we can look forward to strong, grown-up comedic showings from all four Award-winning actors. Like a single-set, high budget, less crass, full length Curb Your Enthusiasm-eque powerhouse, 'Carnage' is right at the top of my list of films I 'must see as soon as tickets are available for me to buy'. I would say I hope you all enjoy the trailer, but it's an inevitability.

Onto something completely different, and we find Ralph Fiennes making a strong British case in the wake of the UK Film Council with his long overdue directorial debut. A modern take on Shakespeare's 'Coriolanus', the film of the same name promises to be a dramatic offering that will appeal to the Shakespearians and COD-heads alike with it's appearingly seamless blend of effortless thespian dialogue and modern warfare. Fiennes looks to shine in the lead role, but a striking supporting cast consisting of Gerard Butler (being Scottish good-and-proper for once), Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, James Nesbitt and (of course) Jessica Chastain mean that this will be anything but a one man show. Toss in what one assumes will be a powerful adapted screenplay courtesy of John Logan (The Aviator, Gladiator, The Last Samurai; not to mention Scorcese's 'Hugo' and even further down the line Spielberg's 'Lincoln') and I feel pretty safe in shelling out my eight pounds one what may well be one of the strongest British films of the year.

An interesting choice, next. Interesting because I feel like this is not a movie I should trust for a few reasons. Firstly, it is the third feature from a director who up until this point has predominantly directed music videos and concert docs. Instantly, one thinks of Michael Bay and we all know how that ends. Saying that, Mark Pellington did direct 'Arlington Road' which to be fair wasn't all bad, forgettable though it was. 'I Melt With You' looks like a completely different monster, like if 'The Hangover' had been written by Hunter S. Thompson which, to me, doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. Our fearless foursome consists of Christian 'Orson Welles' McKay who needs to seriously be in more movies; Rob Lowe, who it is refreshing to see in something other than television; Jeremy Piven (oh yes) and finally the only potentially weak link in the form of Thomas Jane. Using the trailer for evidence however, Jane looks like he could fit into this quartet of talent quite nicely.

The film centres around four grown men who meet up once a year to catch up and get wasted. Some seem to be more grown up than others it seems, and the relationships seemed to have strained with time. To me, it looks like a movie that could be an interesting insight into male camaraderie and the desire to cling to youth. Maybe that's just me. In the back of my mind I feel like it may be total trash, but on the other hand I want to give it a big ol' chance.

Next is a biggie. An indie blockbuster by all accounts. I mean, you don't get much bigger than Hanks and Bullock. See? I don't even have to tell you their first names. Unless of course you instantly thought of Colin Hanks. In which case, go you!

'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close' looks to be a touching and memorable piece of work from Stephen Daldry, whose last film finally brought an Oscar Kate Winslet's way (no easy feat according to the Academy). This fact alone makes me hopeful for a powerfully acted film. Not that I was worried about Hanks and Bullock, obviously. What worried me ever so slightly was the casting of first-timer Thomas Horn in the lead role as Oskar. I'm always a bit reluctant when it comes to child actors anyway, but then Daldry did introduce the world to Jamie Bell all those years ago so I suppose we should all trust him in that respect.

The film looks set to tug on similar heartstrings to Spike Jonze's 'Where The Wild Things Are' whereby the innocence of the child lead simplifies the emotionality (thanks, RDJ) of the story, and in turn makes it more emotionally accessible to a wider audience spectrum. If this is indeed the case, then this film could be even better than I already anticipate it to be. The only thing that could hold it back, as I've mentioned already, is the unknown child lead. Should Horn prove to be on a Max Records talent level though, I've no doubt that praise will once again be heaped on Stephen Daldry and Oscar-winning screenwriter Eric Roth (Forrest Gump, The Insider, Munich, Benjamin Button). Finally, here's hoping flashbacks provide ample screen time for Hanks who has been sorely missed on the big screen, playing to his strengths.

And oh yeah, it also stars Viola Davis, Max von Sydow, Jeffrey Wright, James Gandolfini and John damn Goodman.

So, it can be a pretty ugly world we live in. The newspapers, the television, all spewing stories of lies, money and death. We all search for something uplifting in every day that we wake up to. Amongst the sordid politicians and Z-list gutter trash though, there lies the true unsung heroes of modern media. People that positively affect people's lives every day they go to work, and don't ask for anything in return. No money for a transcribed tale of dieting woe or destructive relationships or stories of a 8-month coke binge. Some people in the entertainment industry, believe it or not, are purely in it for the joyous thrill of putting a genuine smile on a persons face. Instilling joy, can you imagine being blessed with such a respectable talent?

'Being Elmo' tells the fascinating story of Kevin Clash, the man who has single-handedly (literally!) 'been' Elmo for the last few decades. As Elmo's popularity skyrocketed, Clash's schedule greatened. When offered assistance from other puppeteers, he politely declined. Why? Because his personality encompasses Elmo. Not convinced? Watch the trailer, and then look forward to a film that will almost certainly challenge for Documentary Feature awards all through the upcoming season.

On that much lighter note, Part One of my lengthy look ahead concludes. Part Two will surface sooner rather than later, but for now I must dedicate my concentrations elsewhere within our wonderful world of film. Do bear with me, but believe I am back for you to read.

The Fighter: The Best Damn Sports Film Of The Year

2011-01-12T16:02:00.003Z

One of the more interesting angles you can take when putting together a film that is intended for a wider appeal is that of a hard-hitting family drama. 'The Blind Side', anyone? That's right. We all remember the 2010 Best Picture nominee that took white people and black people, football and family, threw them all into a Sandra Bullock powered mixer and ended up raking in over a quarter of a million dollars at the US box office. That staggering figure was based purely on a wide appeal. Susie Homemaker-mothers saw the trailer and instantly bundled their tough-guy, Coach Carter of a husband and four strapping quarterback sons into the Town & Country, and it was off to the multiplex. 'This will be nice,' she thought. I can only imagine the increasing moisture in the corner of her eye as Leigh Anne 'intimidates' some ghetto hoods by threatening that if they were to be threatening her son they would in turn be threatening her also. Realistically, following her emotionally charged street outburst we would have witnessed a nine pressed firmly against her forehead as she began to cry and beg pitifully for her life. Now THAT'S hard-hitting family drama.

This type of gritty realism is more along the lines of David O. Russell's 'The Fighter'. A film which literally (sorry in advance) pulls no punches in its inspirational but often upsetting telling of life in Lowell, Massachussetts for the family and friends of a real-life pair of semi-pro, boxer brothers. Minutes in, wide appeal goes straight out the window. If you thought 'The Blind Side' was just a glossy Hallmark movie-of-the-week before, 'The Fighter' makes it look like GCSE Drama homework scrawled on the back of a wet tea towel.

The first thing anyone should know before watching 'The Fighter' is that story of the film is as true and as interesting as the film's story. After four rewrites between 2003 and 2007 and being rejected by Martin Scorcese, Darren Aronofsky was brought on board to direct in 2007. Following his departure from the project in 2008 in favour of 'Black Swan' (a great move on his part considering the film's eventual similarities to 'The Wrestler'), Mark Wahlberg called upon his previous two-time collaborator David O. Russell. By this point you're thinking, why is Mark Wahlberg in charge of hiring directors? And it's quite simple, this is Wahlberg's movie. While his lead performance may not be the strongest in the film, his dedication to the project and the true story behind it (as a producer) is entirely unrivaled by anyone in the industry as far as I'm concerned. With Relativity Media on board to finance, and distribution sold to The Weinstein Company, 'The Fighter' was finally set to start shooting. Principle photography began in July 2009 (four years after Wahlberg began to train for the role of Micky Ward) on a budget of $11 million.

While Wahlberg's determination to bring Ward's story to life is already evident, it should be noted that Christian Bale's trademark dedication was equally as impressive. Not unlike his turn in 'The Machinist', the role of Dicky Eklund required (in Bale's professional opinion) drastic weight loss in order to accurately portray the crack-addicted ex-title fighter. Furthermore, he even went missing for hours at a time to mentally prepare himself for the challenge that lay ahead (an act of preparation that becomes obviously evident once you've seen the film).

Mindset in place, Bale proceeded to entirely own the 33-day shoot. As a Bale fan, I have been long waiting for the role that may come to define him. Sure, he's a cult hero. You only have to watch 'American Psycho' or 'The Machinist' to remind yourself of that. And sure, he's a box office superstar. Hell, he's Batman AND John Connor. However, until last week I was always feeling like maybe he was going to end up heading down the Jeff Bridges route. I don't know about you, but for me it's hard watching brilliant actors being consistently under-appreciated critically. And by under-appreciated, I think you know what I mean (*cough* AMPAS *cough*). Needless to say, Bale's performance in 'The Fighter' will most certainly earn him his first Academy Award nomination. And if I were a betting man, I'd probably go as far as saying he's the odds on favourite. Don’t get me wrong, I'm sure that Geoffrey Rush is typically superb in 'The King's Speech', but from what I've seen firsthand, the bang-on embodiment of Dicky Eklund is the stand out supporting performance of 2010 by a country mile.

What instantly demands your attention from the opening scene is the way Dicky 'ticks'. David O. Russell has been quoted as saying, 'Dicky has a whole rhythm to him, a music. Christian had to understand how his mind works.' The way that Christian Bale approaches any role he undertakes involves doing exactly this. He will take on the behaviours and mannerisms of his real-life or literary counterparts and literally (if it's possible) become that character for the duration of the shoot. He uses this practice not only on set, but even in interviews and promotional material attached to the film. Lest we forget that Bale is in fact English, or had you forgotten?

Maybe it's the wide eyes of denial, and later the tired, sunken gaze of a man self-realised that give Bale's performance such lasting impact, power and purpose. You are forced to watch a man helplessly addicted to drugs behave with such blasé intent that at times it is deeply upsetting. So genuinely upsetting in fact, that it becomes an important catalyst in making the eventual redemption all the more uplifting. In a roundabout way, it's precisely this angle that makes the film itself such a powerhouse. You are given enough time with the characters to form not only opinions, but bonds with them as they are one-by-one exposed to their emotional cores. In the end, what really resonates is the knowledge that through all of their imperfections, mistakes and abusive tendencies towards one another, that the love is always there. It remains.

As outstanding as Bale is, it would be as criminal as his character to let him overshadow the other two award-worthy supporting performances in ‘The Fighter’. Both come in the form of strong-willed female characters, but on opposite ends of the spectrum. In opposing corners, shall we say. More obviously, you have Melissa Leo as Micky and Dicky’s mother Alice who as well as being an overbearing parent has also acted as manager for both boxers at some point in both of their careers. What Leo does so well is that she encapsulates so many different aspects of Alice’s personality over the course of the film, and in this practice ends up completely disappearing within her character. There is the in-front-of-the-camera Alice who dolls up and exudes almost embarrassing amounts of confidence not only in her boys (namely Dicky) but in herself, as well as the Alice who through all her ‘tryharding’ is unable to succeed in ambitions regarding her sons. It is the latter Alice that interested me particularly as within this half of the character’s psyche there were a further two sides to her. One side tends to overdramatise things and uses guilt trips either to get one of the boys back on her team (usually Micky as Dicky relishes any and all attention that comes his way) or to get her own way, where as the other side is the genuinely broken and bared Alice. The Alice that accepts her eldest son is a destructive crack addict and that her only other son is verging on hating her. The Alice that is battling the system every single day to support her seven grown daughters (and one grandson) who day after day populate her house contributing next to nothing. The Alice who can’t bear to lose the opportunity to profit monitarily off of her son’s exploits, who accepts his physical punishment fight after fight in the knowledge that win or lose, you get paid. The love though? It is always there. It remains.

More subtly but no less brilliant, Amy Adams is Micky’s girlfriend Charlene, a college dropout barmaid whose own toughness rounds off Micky’s. Where as he is able to handle himself in the ring, she is able to handle his family without a glint of fear or intimidation. One scene in particular that demonstrates the impact she has on Micky’s confidence is the scene in which she meets Alice for the first time. Up until this point in the story, Micky always felt the need to shy away from potentially disappointing his mother and brother, even if that meant compromising his own feelings about situations that involved him and that realistically, he should have been taking charge of. It is evident in this scene that in the three weeks Micky has been seeing Charlene, he has clearly opened up to her no end, so that when Alice typically tries to win Micky back from her, his words do not hesitate to come from Charlene’s mouth like they would from his. Everything he has wanted to say concerning Dicky holding him back and turning down the opportunity to get paid to train year-round in Las Vegas, she feels empowered to say. She feels it more than necessary to have Micky’s feelings considered by his own family, and rightly so.

What’s probably most important to consider about the character of Charlene is the fact that she is the first person Micky has ever become close to outside of his family since he started to box professionally. Her no-bullshit attitude coupled with intense concern for Micky’s wellbeing is what spurs him on to victories not only in the ring, but in life. She completes his circle of strength and in this strength he finds his confidence.

With Charlene by his side, Dicky in prison, and Alice at home rather than ringside; he has a new manager backing him and a new trainer in police sergeant O’Keefe (played charmingly by Mickey O’Keefe himself! Ward’s real life trainer!). The pieces are firmly in place for the fighter to mount a title challenge.

Whether or not ‘The Fighter’ itself will end up mounting a title challenge of it’s own is yet to be decided. The competition in 2010 was as tough as it’s ever been with films like ‘The King’s Speech’, ‘The Social Network’, ‘Black Swan’, ‘Inception’ and ‘True Grit’ all serious contenders for the year’s top prizes. If there was ever a film that had momentum in it’s favour though, ‘The Fighter’ is it (followed ever so closely by ‘True Grit’). It initially stunned us all with it’s six Golden Globe nominations, and then proceeded to be short listed for the all important and all telling Director’s Guild of America award last week. For those of you who don’t recognise the importance of the DGA award, allow me to break it down for you. Only 6 times since the award’s inception in 1947 has the recipient failed to win the Oscar for Best Director.

With David O. Russell stepping up and denying nominations for the likes of previous winners Danny Boyle and Joel and Ethan Coen (for ‘127 Hours’ and ’True Grit’ respectively), I think it’s safe to say that he is a legitimate threat. His use of Beta camera fight footage and punch-for-punch bout reenactment is what really sets the film apart from any other sports movie I've ever seen. The question is, can he overcome the likes of Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky and David Fincher and provide ’The Fighter’ with that final push it would need to be a serious Best Picture contender? Probably not, but one thing is for damn sure.

He’s not a stepping stone anymore.

The Fighter is released on February 4th.

The Year That Comedy Dies And Drama Thrives

2010-12-15T17:05:00.003Z

It’s been too long, my dear friends. Firstly, let me briefly apologise for my lack of content over the last year. As important as my writing is to me, I just haven’t been able to find the time to keep my blog going with the consistency that it had this time last year. Saying that, it’s awards season.

Following the first few critics’ associations pitching in with their end-of-year awards, today brings the first real signs of spring. The Golden Globe nominations were announced this morning and let me tell you, there were some truly shocking inclusions as well as some pleasantly surprising (but half-expected) ones. Sitting comfortably? The Road To The Oscars begins now…

BEST MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA

BLACK SWAN
THE FIGHTER
INCEPTION
THE KING’S SPEECH
THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Four out of these five were no-brainers. ‘The Social Network’ has been cleaning up at the critics’ awards so far so will be regarded as the front runner by a whisker, but only because ‘The King’s Speech’ is yet to receive it’s general release. Early reviewers have been nothing short of astounded with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush’s performances being hailed as ‘magnificent’, so expect a heavily contested race come January.

At the same time, both ‘Inception’ and ‘Black Swan’ would be worthy winners, thus proving just how strong a year it has been for dramas on both major and independent fronts. My only concern is with the inclusion of David O. Russell’s highly anticipated ‘The Fighter’. No doubt, it will feature career performances from both Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale, but whether or not it should be there over ‘True Grit’ is surely debatable. From the look of things, The Coens have really pulled one out of the bag with their reimagining of the adventures of Rooster Cogburn. With a surplus of talent, an undoubtedly masterful screenplay and cinematography of epic proportions, how it was overlooked in favour of a Boston-based family drama is at this point questionable. I have every confidence in this film, don’t get me wrong, but Wahlberg (though I like him) is an extremely one dimensional actor who only really shines when he’s portraying a hometown hardass. Additionally, ‘The Fighter’ was penned by a combination of writers whose credits include ’8 Mile’, ‘The Mod Squad’ and (wait for it) ‘Air Bud’. Oh you know, that basketball playing golden retriever? How that beats out a Coen Brothers masterclass is beyond me but hey, I haven’t personally seen either of these films yet so who am I to judge?

WINNER: THE SOCIAL NETWORK
ALT: THE KING’S SPEECH
MY PICK: THE SOCIAL NETWORK

BEST MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY

ALICE IN WONDERLAND
BURLESQUE
THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT
RED
THE TOURIST

Where to start? The fact that ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘The Tourist’ have been nominated for anything is truly astounding. The only explanation I can find is that journalists just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp, but we’ll get to that later. Let’s be straight though, neither of these travesties have got even the most remote shot at picking up this particular prize. Neither does ‘Red’, charming as it was. Unfortunately, these nominations highlight just how scarce quality comedy is these days. Like the Drama category before it, this is a two horse race. ‘The Kids Are Alright’ and ‘Burlesque’ will be locking horns in January for sure.

WINNER: THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT
ALT: BURLESQUE
MY PICK: THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE – DRAMA

JESSE EISENBERG – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
COLIN FIRTH – THE KING’S SPEECH
JAMES FRANCO – 127 HOURS
RYAN GOSLING – BLUE VALENTINE
MARK WAHLBERG – THE FIGHTER

Showtime! Could this race possibly be tighter than last years? In the end, Jeff Bridges had the whole academy behind him, but at this point in the year it was anyone’s statuette. I could literally see any one of these five astonishing performances walking away a winner. While I’d love for Ryan Gosling to be in with a shot, I think there has been a bit too much controversy and not enough buzz surrounding ‘Blue Valentine’ for him to be a serious contender. I think you can probably also count out Jesse Eisenberg who was predictably superb as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in ‘The Social Network’. Why disregard the leading man in the year’s best film spitting lines from the year’s best screenplay you ask? Well, it’s simple. Colin Firth (by some divine miracle) has somehow managed to top his performance in ‘A Single Man’ with the turn of his career in ‘The King’s Speech’. Despite the strength of all five nominated performances, if there is a front runner it’s Firth. By the time the Oscars roll around, we may see a late surge from James Franco who is always a threat or even (god forbid) Mark Wahlberg if the Academy deems him this year’s ‘Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side’. I’m fairly certain though that our Colin’s time has finally come.

WINNER: COLIN FIRTH – THE KING’S SPEECH
ALT: JAMES FRANCO – 127 HOURS
MY PICK: COLIN FIRTH – THE KING’S SPEECH

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A LEADING ACTRESS – DRAMA

HALLE BERRY – FRANKIE AND ALICE
NICOLE KIDMAN – RABBIT HOLE
JENNIFER LAWRENCE – WINTER’S BONE
NATALIE PORTMAN – BLACK SWAN
MICHELLE WILLIAMS – BLUE VALENTINE

Lovely to see Michelle Williams getting some recognition. She is a beautiful, elegant actress who deserves acclaim from all angles. I’m even going to go as far as suggesting that she may be a strong outsider in this category. The competition here isn’t quite as fierce as in the men’s, but there sure are some incredible performances.

Firstly, I think we can safely remove Halle Berry from the picture. She’s already an award winner for one, and from the early reviews of ‘Frankie and Alice’, it is a poor film that serves simply as a statue-vehicle for Berry. A great performance is no good if the film is guff, and you can take that to the bank. Similarly, I won’t discount Nicole Kidman just yet, but ‘Rabbit Hole’ may end up being just a little too depressing to win over voters.

Now that it’s narrowed to three, things start to get interesting. If we’re talking numbers then Natalie Portman is your odds on favourite, but she could easily be upset by Williams or (especially) Jennifer Lawrence. Sure, she is young and a total newcomer, but the buzz around ‘Winter’s Bone’ and more specifically Lawrence’s performance hasn’t subsided since it’s release in September. Don’t be surprised if this 19 year-old unknown ends up snatching away Portman’s proverbial golden carrot.

WINNER: NATALIE PORTMAN – BLACK SWAN
ALT: JENNIFER LAWRENCE – WINTER’S BONE
MY PICK: MICHELLE WILLIAMS – BLUE VALENTINE

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY

JOHNNY DEPP – ALICE IN WONDERLAND
JOHNNY DEPP – THE TOURIST
PAUL GIAMATTI – BARNEY’S VERSION
JAKE GYLLENHAAL – LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS
KEVIN SPACEY – CASINO JACK

This category is entirely absurd. Johnny Depp shouldn’t even be nominated once, let alone twice. The only person who should ever be nominated twice is Aunt Meryl because she’s special. So, for Johnny ‘Officially the Greatest Actor on the Planet’ Depp to swoop in, do a deuce and leave empty handed seems a little pointless and a waste of two prestigious slots. But then, that begs the question, who else would you nominate? Jim Broadbent in ‘Another Year’? Mark Ruffalo in ‘The Kids Are Alright’? ‘Fraid not. They would probably fall into supporting role territory. Maybe at a push the HFPA could have thrown Robert Downey Jr a bone for ‘Due Date’. Even that ridiculous scenario would mean ONE nomination for Depp.

Alas, we are stuck with three serious contenders. And do you want to know why? It’s because over the last 12 months or so there has been an unexplainable lack of decent comedies. What did this year offer? Due Date? Cop Out? Gulliver’s Travels? Little Fockers? Without a strong couple of Apatow offerings every year, the genre is bound to suffer (saying that, even the mighty Judd has fallen off the pace). It’s almost as if mainstream comedy peaked with ‘The Hangover’ and all of a sudden the funniest movies are entirely animated. Then before you know it, you’re filling leading actor categories with two substandard performances by the same person just to make the numbers up!

Back to the race, and it’s anyone’s game. At first I thought Giamatti would be a lock, but I think Gyllenhaal may just pip him to the post this time. Or maybe Kevin Spacey will make a surprise return to the podium? What do I know? All anyone cares about are the nominees for Drama anyway, as they will be the five nominated for the big O.

WINNER: PAUL GIAMATTI – BARNEY’S VERSION
ALT: JAKE GYLLENHAAL – LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS
MY PICK: JAKE GYLLENHAAL – LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY

ANNETTE BENNING – THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT
ANNE HATHAWAY – LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS
ANGELINA JOLIE – THE TOURIST
JULIANNE MOORE – THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT
EMMA STONE – EASY A

This race is a tad more open (and interesting). Instantly, we can disregard Angelina Jolie. Not a hope in hell considering how atrocious a film ‘The Tourist’ turned out to be. Any of the other four could be taking home this prize though. I doubt it will be Anne Hathaway based purely on what I’ve seen of her in ‘Love and Other Drugs’ clips, but she is a media darling so don’t be shocked if her name gets called. A more likely scenario is a friendly battle between the stars of ‘The Kids Are Alright’ (who even shared a naughty scene) that is thwarted at the last minute by Emma Stone in a shock upset that earns her her first Oscar nomination. I like the sound of that.

WINNER: ANNETTE BENNING – THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT
ALT: EMMA STONE – EASY A
MY PICK: ANNETTE BENNING – THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE

CHRISTIAN BALE – THE FIGHTER
MICHAEL DOUGLAS – WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
ANDREW GARFIELD – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
JEREMY RENNER – THE TOWN
GEOFFREY RUSH – THE KING’S SPEECH

This is more like it! Yet another scorching race in the supporting actor category that poses many, many questions. There is certainly no Christoph Waltz or Heath Ledger type shenanigans this year. Some may say it’s between Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush, but I’m not so sure. Bale has been due some sort of critical recognition since ‘American Psycho’, and Geoffey Rush, well, it’s Geoffrey Rush. Personally though, I think both Andrew Garfield and Jeremy Renner will end up attracting a lot of votes which will make this category one to watch. Both were exceptional in their respective films, and Hollywood loves to acknowledge the men of the moment. The HFPA could end up holding Bale’s infamous rant against him, and likewise feel that Geoffrey Rush has already had his moment of glory. The chances of that happening are slim, but I wouldn’t put it past them. My money is on Bale, but my heart is with Garfield.

WINNER: CHRISTIAN BALE – THE FIGHTER
ALT: GEOFFREY RUSH – THE KING’S SPEECH
MY PICK: ANDREW GARFIELD – THE SOCIAL NETWORK

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE

AMY ADAMS – THE FIGHTER
HELENA BONHAM CARTER – THE KING’S SPEECH
MILA KUNIS – BLACK SWAN
MELISSA LEO – THE FIGHTER
JACKI WEAVER – ANIMAL KINGDOM

Another interesting battle here with some first time nominees and overdue heavyweights thrown into the mix. ‘The Fighter’ has been a relative latecomer to awards season, so we will probably be seeing either Amy Adams or Melissa Leo wearing this particular crown. Adams has been entirely consistent for years now, and Leo could have won Oscars for ‘Frozen River’ and/or ’21 Grams’, so this prediction couples those facts with the insane amount of buzz their film has drummed up over the last month or so. Bonham Carter’s performance will end up being trumped by those of Firth and Rush, while Mila Kunis was always going to be playing second best to the majestic Natalie Portman. That just leaves Jacki Weaver who will pose the only real threat as an ‘out of nowhere’ dark horse whose film ‘Animal Kingdom’ was a Sundance favourite earlier this year.

WINNER: MELISSA LEO – THE FIGHTER
ALT: AMY ADAMS – THE FIGHTER
MY PICK: AMY ADAMS – THE FIGHTER

BEST DIRECTOR

DARREN ARONOFSKY – BLACK SWAN
DAVID FINCHER – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
TOM HOOPER – THE KING’S SPEECH
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN – INCEPTION
DAVID O. RUSSELL – THE FIGHTER

The award for direction has always been my favourite alongside the screenplay gongs. It always tends to be the most competitive, year after year. This year is no exception. The likelihood is that David Fincher will finally scoop some gold this year as his efforts with ‘The Social Network’ were nothing short of flawless. Either that or he’ll be overlooked again but for good reason. The good reason that Christopher Nolan deserves to win this award. Not necessarily because ‘Inception’ was a better film than ‘The Social Network’, but because the direction simply had more scope. Overall, it was even more impressive that Fincher’s dialogue laden masterclass. Having had the chance to see how Nolan created the ‘world of the dream’, I can only side with Nolan throughout awards season. The man is a total visionary. After missing out on even being nominated for ‘The Dark Knight’, he took a few years off from his glorious Batman franchise and created an entirely original film the likes of which may never be seen again, and that needs to be recognised.

That’s not to say though that the leading pair won’t face a hefty challenge from their competitors. Tom Hooper gets better with every film he makes, and with the reviews ‘The King’s Speech’ has been getting he could end up surprising us all. The same could be said for Darren Aronofsky who is the original arthouse heavyweight. However, his trademark bleakness may just about write him off. As for Russell, what can I say? I like the guy’s films through and through, but even with the buzz of the moment on his side I don’t think he or his film will be strong enough to overthrow Fincher or Nolan. In fact, I will go as far as saying I don’t feel like he should have been nominated. Really, the fifth slot probably should have gone to Danny Boyle for ’127 Hours’.

WINNER: DAVID FINCHER – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
ALT: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN – INCEPTION
MY PICK: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN – INCEPTION

BEST SCREENPLAY – MOTION PICTURE

127 HOURS – DANNY BOYLE, SIMON BEAUFOY
INCEPTION – CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT – STUART BLUMBERG, LISA CHOLODENKO
THE KING’S SPEECH – DAVID SEIDLER
THE SOCIAL NETWORK – AARON SORKIN

What makes the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay so intriguing is the fact that there are only five nominees to cover the dramatic, the comedic or musical, the adapted and the original. What that definitely means is that whoever wins this category will win an Oscar in the spring. Aaron Sorkin is a complete lock in my opinion, for the adapted screenplay Oscar anyway. In retrospect, we all thought the same about Jason Reitman and ‘Up In The Air’ last year and look what happened. Whether or not he will beat Christopher Nolan on this occasion though is hard to call simply because the two screenplays don’t really belong in the same category. Elsewhere, Sorkin is sweeping the adapted awards while Nolan is picking them up left, right and centre in the original bracket. It’s only the Globes that slams them all together making this category the most tightly contested race of the whole ceremony.

WINNER: AARON SORKIN – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
ALT: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN – INCEPTION
MY PICK: AARON SORKIN – THE SOCIAL NETWORK

BEST ORIGINAL SONG – MOTION PICTURE

Nothing to report.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE – MOTION PICTURE

127 HOURS – A.R. RAHMAN
ALICE IN WONDERLAND – DANNY ELFMAN
INCEPTION – HANS ZIMMER
THE KING’S SPEECH – ALEXANDRE DESPLAT
THE SOCIAL NETWORK – TRENT REZNOR, ATTICUS ROSS

Another hotly contested showdown between ‘Inception’ and ‘The Social Network’ here. I am in love with both of these scores and honestly cannot choose between the two. Hans Zimmer created a true character in the form of music when he wrote the ‘Inception’ score. It defines intensity, hope and imagination for all 148 minutes of the film and leaves you feeling breathless afterwards. His use of volume is what’s most striking, varying it throughout whilst maintaining intensity levels even in the smallest of moments. It was also refreshing to hear Zimmer coupling his traditional style with electronic sampling as well as the guitar tones of The Smiths’ Johnny Marr. It gave the score individuality the likes of which have never been experienced by Zimmer making this particular piece of work his best and most likely to scoop awards for the legendary veteran.

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, you have Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ new age score for ‘The Social Network’. Like with ‘Inception’, I bought the score as soon as I had heard it in full for the first time simply because it is so listenable. If you haven’t heard it, it is like no score you have ever heard before. Reznor’s Nine Inch Nails influence is more than evident, and he sounds more darkly cinematic than ever. In places, the sound is deeply raw and organic. In the blink of an eye though, you can be thrust into the heaviest end of electronic madness and industrial psychosis. Forget that it’s intellectually brilliant, it works! Like a rug and a room, it really ties the movie together. Using powerful crescendos and diminuendos (in almost the exact same way that Zimmer did), the score surges the film forward from the opening scene creating an edge of your seat vibe that you wouldn’t normally think possible for what is essentially a courtroom thriller. Breathtaking, really.

I wish I was able to pick one, but I honestly can’t. Two (well, three) men enter, one man leaves. Either one is fine by me.

WINNER: HANS ZIMMER – INCEPTION
ALT: TRENT REZNOR, ATTICUS ROSS – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
MY PICK: either or

BEST ANIMATED FILM

DESPICABLE ME
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
THE ILLUSIONIST
TANGLED
TOY STORY 3

If there was ever a solid bet, this is it. And that goes for Oscar night too. ‘Toy Story 3′ was the best reviewed film of 2010. It really is that simple. The competition is classy, but no one will come close. Pixar rule once again. It’s almost a shame considering that any other year, you would be looking at a tight fight between ‘Despicable Me’, ‘How To Train Your Dragon’ and ‘The Illusionist’. All three are absolutely fantastic films, they just chose the wrong year to release.

WINNER: TOY STORY 3
ALT: n/a
MY PICK: TOY STORY 3

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

BIUTIFUL – MEXICO/SPAIN
THE CONCERT – FRANCE
THE EDGE – RUSSIA
I AM LOVE – ITALY
IN A BETTER WORLD – DENMARK

Finally, a lovely little category that I have been becoming more and more intrigued by over the last few years. It’s great to see foreign language films at the forefront of film making and not cast aside because of the language barrier. It’s true that subtitles put a lot of people off, but if they don’t bother you then you will find the world’s finest storytelling in foreign cinema. This year may not be as strong as 2009, but there are certainly a couple of gems here. ‘Biutiful’ has to be the favourite though. It was received well at Cannes with Javier Bardem collecting the award for best actor, and with the director of ‘Amores Perros’, ’21 Grams’ and ‘Babel’ at the helm, it’s going to be hard to beat. ‘I Am Love’ is attracting a lot of late attention if only for an astounding lead performance from Tilda Swinton, so we may end up with a sort of ‘Une Prophete’/'The White Ribbon’ situation on our hands. Realistically though, ‘Biutiful’ has been top trumps since it’s Cannes premiere so I would fully expect it to walk away a winner both at the Globes and at the Academy Awards.

WINNER: BIUTIFUL
ALT: I AM LOVE
MY PICK: BIUTIFUL

In closing, 2009 was always going to be a hard year to top, but a few powerhouse directors and even more legendary performances have just about managed it. With no ‘Avatar’ to moan about, it’s a far more positive and open race all around. We can expect to see some shocks and surprises as well as some dues being paid. Names will be made for themselves and unjustices will be had. But hey, that’s awards season for you.

OMG, Ewan McGregor is SO gay in real life.

2010-03-26T15:41:00.008Z

Jim Carrey is so versatile it's unreal. Although hugely successful, he's always been a bit under appreciated when it comes to his talent. Of course by under appreciated, I mean he's never been nominated for a 'big one'. After two Golden Globes ('Man on the Moon' and 'The Truman Show'), Carrey started to undertake challenging roles on a more regular basis. His performance in 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' was a wonderful shock to the system for every Carrey fan, but alas there was still no Oscar nomination. In fact, I'd be interested to know if any actor has been nominated for more Globes without receiving an Academy Award nomination. Astonishing for a performer of his caliber. History aside, if they snub him this year after allowing Sandra Bullock to beat Meryl Streep then my faith in that particular voting body will be well and truly shaken.

'I Love You, Phillip Morris' is apparently a true story. If that is so, then middle-America is even more Bush-ed than I thought. I actually lost count of the amount of times that Carrey's Steven Russell managed to con the legal system into letting him walk out the front door of a penitentiary. Politics or no though, 'Phillip Morris' is a wonderfully original (really) gay comedy about the pursuit of true love and the verging-on-unbelievable lengths a person will go to for their soul mate. The only difference with this story though, is that our smitten lead has a complete disregard for the law.

From credit card fraud to identity theft to embezzlement to forgery, Steven Russell does it all. He experiences the luxurious highs of being a successful conman and the existential lows of life in prison, all while falling further and further in love with the far more openly gay Philip Morris played the incredible Ewan McGregor. As his besottedness grows, so does his superfluousness and before you know it, Governor Dubya has sentenced him to life. The first thing most prison escapees would do upon reaching freedom is head straight for the border with the intention of getting as far away from incarceration as possible. Not Steven Russell. The first thing he does (on more than one occasion) is put on a nice suit and march straight back to that there prison to fetch Philip, the love of his life. In a weird, confusing and super gay way, this is intensely touching to watch thanks in part to the spectacular performances from both Carrey and (especially) McGregor, who is sure to secure a supporting actor nomination, but also to the strength and originality of the story which is both insanely comedic and beautifully dramatic.

The journey from scene setting to climax is nothing short of downright ridiculous. Believe it or not, the movie begins in Georgia where Steven is a policeman married to a woman. I know, right? It's not long though before he is pounding away at a random partner before moving to Miami and buying over-sized sunglasses and under-sized dogs. His life of crime begins there and continues to escalate, escalate and escalate some more all in an effort to satisfy the ones he loves. The difference with Philip is that he is Steven's true love, and never asked for all the wealths Steven constantly goes out of his way to provide. Wanted or not, Steven loves Philip so much that he never wants him to have to work another day in his life even if it means risking life in prison, which to be fair is kind of sweet.

This movie can be graphic, it can be light on it's feet, and it can be heart wrenchingly deep. Not many films can be a lot of things at the same time, but 'Philip Morris' really pulls it off (literally, in some scenes) admirably. Carrey's trademark physical comedy is evident, but not overpowering. It leaves enough space for a memorable dramatic performance from himself, and a potentially statue-winning performance from McGregor. It leaves enough space for a plot buried in emotion and originality, enough space for the best gay comedy since 'The Birdcage' (unless you count 'Brokeback Mountain'. Oh, how I laughed when Heath spit in his hand).

For more views on 'I Love You, Philip Morris', check out Thisfilmison from NME film critic Owen Nicholls.

"Big-e-Low for Cameron" - The Sun (probably)

2010-03-08T22:59:00.008Z

'The Hurt Locker' brutalized 'Avatar' Sunday night. In fact, I don't remember the camera cutting to Cameron at all during the second half of the broadcast apart from when they announced his ex-wife's name. Crushingly for him, she was sitting but one row in front of him for the duration of this one-sided takedown. As he gazed at the back of her pretty, talented head, 'The Hurt Locker' proceeded to scoop six Academy Awards. Best Picture and Best Director yes, but that was (in my opinion) a foregone conclusion. It also picked up Best Original Screenplay which went to a controversial Mark Boal who (angry military man aside) wrote a script that matched the intensity of the action piece by piece. Personally, I think that Quentin should have been considered for this one. Shows how much I know about how screenplay voting. I thought 'Up in the Air' was going to walk the adapted category. Silly me, right? But, we'll get to that later.

So, not only did 'The Hurt Locker' win Original Screenplay (which 'Avatar' was not ever remotely considered for), it managed to royally tax some of the technical awards which most people would have assumed 'Avatar' to walk away with. Alas, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing both went to the Bigelow pic within seconds of each other. It also picked up the Best Editing award which I figured was a landslide as the entire 'Hurt Locker' experience was based around the precision cuts that kept the film on its toes for an hour and a half. 'District 9' would've been a close second as I'm sure you'll agree. Lowly 'Avatar' (the most successful film of all-time) was reduced to Cinematography (which it shouldn't have won), Art Direction and Visual Effects. Both of those latter two it was totally entitled to thanks to truly stunning stuff from Cameron and his team of movie scientists. It was double trumps though for Bigelow and co. The first female directing award was presented with no stop for the Best Picture statue as Tom Hanks rounded off a long, impressive evening hosted unbelievably well by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin.

The Supporting Role categories went as planned. The first award of the night was the easiest to call as Christoph Waltz elegantly accepted his final award of the season for his perfect performance in 'Inglourious Basterds'. Once again, he took to the stage with intellectual grace and poeticly bromanced Quentin Tarantino. Kindly spoken too was Mo'Nique who collected for her role in 'Precious' in which she silenced all her critics within seconds of appearing on screen. Considerably shorter than her Globes speech, she eased up on the Hallmark but still led us to believe that she and her husband are terribly in love. It was nice.

An overlooked big winner on the night was most definitely 'Up' which rightly was awarded Oscar gold for both Animated Feature and Original Score. Michael Giacchino could easily have been nominated twice for his musical contributions to cinema this year, so it was good to see him up there making a meaningful speech. And it's always a good year when Pixar makes the best animated movie. Dreamworks tend to be a tad Fox Network-y if that makes any sense? Solid movie, solid wins.

If the Oscars were about one movie this year, they were about one man. One man who has proved to be one of Hollywood's most consistent talents over the years, but amazingly had never won the big one until last night. That man of course is The Dude. And boy, did he abide.

After a beautiful performance in Scott Cooper's 'Crazy Heart' as the over-the-hill, whiskey-dependent Bad Blake, Jeff was finally able to take a load off (maybe smoke a J) and let the praise roll in. That's not to say that his competition wasn't stiff though. In fact, the Leading Actor category was this year the strongest its been in the last five which makes Bridges' win all the sweeter. Any one of the leading men nominated was a worthy winner, except maybe Morgan Freeman who was outshone in his own movie by Matt Damon. Colin Firth was the main threat for what I understand to be a truly emotive performance in Tom Ford's 'A Single Man', but this prize could just as easily have gone to George Clooney for what Empire described as 'a gift of a performance' in 'Up in the Air'. Renner was an outsider in 'The Hurt Locker', but it's not as if he was there to make up the numbers.

Following a heartfelt tribute from Michelle Pfieffer then, it was finally The Dude's turn. With his first Academy Award nomination coming almost 40 years ago, it was always going to be an emotional moment for everyone involved. I'm actually suprised that Jeff didn't just run on stage and shout 'It's about f*cking time!'. Reserved and humbled, he saved that kind of colourful language for Radio 5 Live and proceeded to make a lovely little speech in which he held high his wife and his parents.

Emotional too was Sandra Bullock who won for her leading role in the wasteful Ameridrama 'The Blind Side'. Having seen the film, I can confidently ensure you that this win was a complete joke. Don't get me wrong, Bullock was good in it. As good as you can be portraying a Southern, conservative mother-of-the-year type. Yeah, it was a career performance for Bullock, but the film really was terrible. On top of that, I didn't ever really picture SaBu as the Oscar-winning type so for her to come out on top for a above-average performance in a mediocre movie was hard to swallow. Carey Mulligan was absolutely stunning in 'An Education', as was Auntie Meryl as Julia Child in 'Julie and Julia'. Apparently Bullock was the frontrunner the whole time, but that certainly wasn't the case in my circles. Is there something we're missing, America? I'll never understand it, I guess. Nor will the millions of film-lovers around the world who know for a scientific fact that Mulligan or Streep should've won. Hell, I'd put first-timer Gabby Sidibe above Bullock having seen both 'The Blind Side' and 'Precious'. No brainer.

Finally, we come to Adapted Screenplay. This was the only real unexpected upset of the night for me. Having won the Globe, the BAFTA and countless other awards for its exceptional writing, this award should have gone to 'Up in the Air'. Hands down. Not only was it Jason Reitman's finest work and the best screenplay of any movie last year, it was one of the best written films I've ever watched. That's a personal opinion of course, but I'm not exaggerating. I loved it from start to finish. So for Geoffrey Fletcher to sneak in and nick it for 'Precious' was heartbreaking. He wrote a brilliant film, no doubt. But, as high as I hold 'Precious', if anything it was the writing that held it back from being truly great. 'Up in the Air' on the other hand offered nothing short of masterful dialogue. The characters were more true and more defined that any character in 'Precious', and it brought a poetic, quirky and involving feel to often overlooked and depressing subject matter. When Fletcher's name was called, my heart sank. The only film that I would have been okay losing to was 'An Education', but the Academy would have never gone for a Brit-flick.

2009 was an astounding year for film, but strangely enough the Oscars were particularly easy to predict. Maybe that's because I saw all ten Best Picture nominees before the awards took place this year. Maybe it's because there was so much quality separating the best from the rest (not so fast, 'The Blind Side'). From the looks of things, 2010 is going to be equally as impressive. Right now though, my money's on 'Inception'. Just you wait.

for more movie news and opinionating, go to Thisfilmison.

FINAL Oscar Predictions (seriously, this is it)

2010-03-07T12:23:00.005Z

So, just after the nominations were announced I wrote (at length) about who I thought would reign supreme in each catagory. Not much has changed over the last month, apart from I’ve now seen ‘Crazy Heart’ twice and am fully in love with its soundtrack. I have also re-watched ‘Precious’, arthoused it for ‘Un Prophete’ and treated my parents to some great performances in ‘Invictus’. During this period, there have also been many an award ceremony and many a controversy (ie. naughty ‘Hurt Locker’ producers). Needless to say, ‘The Hurt Locker’ has picked up pace winning big at the BAFTAs and (impressively) at the DGAs. ‘Basterds’ winning at the SAGs may have shaken things up a big, but only slightly. At best, it will mean a screenplay win for Tarantino.

Before I get too carried away chatting Oscar, I thought I would pitch in with my final predictions. Alongside my actual prediction you will find an alternate winner as well as who I would personally prefer to take home gold.

I hope you all are able to enjoy the ceremony tonight, and if anyone is online I will be Twittering the whole shabang alongside thisfilmison.com's Owen Nicholls from 0100GMT at www.twitter.com/htimsttam

Without further ado:

Actor in a Leading Role

Winner: Jeff Bridges in ‘Crazy Heart’

Alt: Colin Firth in ‘A Single Man’

My Pick: Jeff Bridges in ‘Crazy Heart’

Actor in a Supporting Role

Winner: Christoph Waltz in ‘Inglourious Basterds’

Alt: None

My Pick: Christoph Waltz in ‘Inglourious Basterds’

Actress in a Leading Role

Winner: Sandra Bullock in ‘The Blind Side’

Alt: Gabby Sidibe in ‘Precious’

My Pick: Carey Mulligan in ‘An Education’

Actress in a Supporting Role

Winner: Mo’Nique in ‘Precious’

Alt: None

My Pick: Mo’Nique in ‘Precious’

Animated Feature Film

Winner: ‘Up’

Alt: ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’

My Pick: ‘Up’

Art Direction

Winner: ‘Avatar’

Alt: ‘Sherlock Holmes’

My Pick: ‘Avatar’

Cinematography

Winner: ‘Avatar’

Alt: ‘The Hurt Locker’

My Pick: ‘The White Ribbon’

Costume Design

Winner: ‘The Young Victoria’

Alt: ‘Coco Avant Chanel’

My Pick: ‘Bright Star’

Directing

Winner: Kathryn Bigelow for ‘The Hurt Locker’

Alt: James Cameron for ‘Avatar’

My Pick: Kathryn Bigelow for ‘The Hurt Locker’

Documentary Feature

Winner: ‘The Cove’

Alt: ‘Food Inc.’

My Pick: ‘Food Inc.’

Editing

Winner: ‘The Hurt Locker’

Alt: ‘District 9′

My Pick: ‘The Hurt Locker’

Foreign Language Film

Winner: ‘Un Prophete’

Alt: ‘The White Ribbon’

My Pick: ‘The White Ribbon’

Make-Up

Winner: ‘The Young Victoria’

Alt: ‘Star Trek’

My Pick: ‘The Young Victoria’

Original Score

Winner: Michael Giacchino for ‘Up’

Alt: Hans Zimmer for ‘Sherlock Holmes’

My Pick: Michael Giacchino for ‘Up’

Original Song

Winner: ‘The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)’ from ‘Crazy Heart’ by T-Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham

Alt: ‘Almost There’ from ‘The Princess and the Frog’ by Randy Newman

My Pick: ‘The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)’ from ‘Crazy Heart’ by T-Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham

Best Picture

Winner: ‘The Hurt Locker’

Alt: ‘Inglourious Basterds’

My Pick: ‘The Hurt Locker’

Short Film (Animated)

Winner: ‘A Matter of Loaf and Death’

Alt: ‘Logorama’

My Pick: ‘A Matter of Loaf and Death’

Sound Editing

Winner: ‘Avatar’

Alt: ‘Star Trek’

My Pick: ‘Avatar’

Sound Mixing

Winner: ‘The Hurt Locker’

Alt: ‘Inglourious Basterds’

My Pick: ‘Inglourious Basterds’

Visual Effects

Winner: ‘Avatar’

Alt: ‘District 9′

My Pick: ‘Avatar’

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Winner: ‘Inglourious Basterds’ by Quentin Tarantino

Alt: ‘The Hurt Locker’ by Mark Boal

My Pick: ‘Inglourious Basterds’ by Quentin Tarantino

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Winner: ‘Up in the Air’ by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Alt: ‘In The Loop’ by Armando Iannucci, Jesse Armstrong, Tony Roche and Simon Blackwell

My Pick: ‘Up in the Air’ by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Well, there you have it folks. That is EXACTLY what is going to happen. Feel free to post your thoughts and predictions in the replies! If there are upsets to be had, for the life of me I can’t figure out where. Unless Jeremy Renner wins Best Actor and Christoph Waltz walks away empty handed (haha, like that would ever happen), I’d say it’s going to be a fairly straight forward affair! COME ON HURT LOCKER!!

IB artwork

2010-02-21T00:19:00.005Z

Check out this awesome as balls Inglourious Basterds artwork.

This is the best one BY FAR. You can check them all out HERE

How lovely is too lovely?

2010-02-19T23:32:00.006Z

I haven't read Alice Sebold's 'The Lovely Bones'. I was going to read it before I saw Peter Jackson's adaptation of the best-selling novel, but then I thought that for the purposes of my blog it would be easier to analyze the film if I wasn't affected by the books alleged power. I was hoping that as a stand alone piece, the core material would transfer faithfully enough to move me all the same. The last time that Peter Jackson adapted from literature, he created the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and we all know how that turned out).

It was an eyebrow raising announcement to begin with. I don't think anyone thought he would follow 'King Kong' with a controversial family drama. Then Ryan Gosling pulled out last minute because of 'creative differences'. I for one would have preferred Gosling to Mark 'Max Payne' Wahlberg as Jack Salmon, the determined father of a murdered 14 year-old. He brings a more obvious depth to any character he plays, where Wahlberg tends to be pretty one-dimensional. To his credit, this is probably one of his finer performances next to his role in 'The Departed'. He was commendable during the ongoing investigation scenes, but that's not suprising considering his resume. It was when the scenes required honest emotion that he came up short, a problem Ryan Gosling would most certainly have not faced. Considering the type of actor Gosling is, when you hear 'creative differences' you start to consider the quality of the material.

For the first hour-plus, 'The Lovely Bones' is incredibly powerful. You cannot help but fall in love with Susie, our narrator from beyond the grave. Then, just when you definitely have, when she has fallen in love herself, it all goes horrifically wrong. What's unsettling is that you know it's coming, but you will her to live anyway. In that respect, the film succeeds with its aim. If 'The Lovely Bones' is anything, it is unsettling.

Saoirse Ronan is unfathomably magnificant as Susie. It's her eyes. Her eyes radiate with honesty and innocence like two burning suns at the centre of her harrowing universe. It's an absolutely gorgeous thing to see in a performance, and I've no doubt that the already Oscar-nominated actress is headed for truly great things. Her sporadic narrations were beautifully voiced over to complete an overall offering that I think is better than the lead performance that will probably seal Oscar gold next month. Bold? I think not. Alas, no nomination was to be had. I don't think anyone has ever been recognised by the academy twice before the age of 16. Still, her potential is frightening.

One person who did get recognition for their efforts is Stanley Tucci who is equally as affecting as the serial murderer George Harvey. Like last years winner (the late Heath Ledger), he is almost unrecognizable in his role and delivers something that really makes you squirm in your seat. He and Ronan only share one scene, but it is easily one of the most suspenseful and disturbing scenes you'll see in any film this year. Jackson has built the characters up in a way that seems profound once the story hits its tragic turning point. Unfortunately, it is an emotional climax reached far too early.

Once Susie is dead, the movie splits into two halves. One half being a lengthy murder investigation/family drama, the other being a spiritual and visual feast which is totally pretentious and seemingly Weta-fied for the sake of a bit of Weta-fying. The only thing this really provides is a few pretty images to echo the events and emotions of the half of the story that actually takes place on earth, not on some sort of secluded purgatory planet that offers no sort of religious or spiritual tie-in. It's all completely fantastical. Saying that, there are constant references to Heaven throughout which makes the whole 'in between' concept all the more questionable. The 'earth story' on the other hand is delivered with intensity and diligence, but in contrast to Susie's effects laden scenes, the cinematography is sometimes unexplicably amateur by way of handheld cuts that don't really make any sense at all. All of the classic, suspenseful, thriller elements are already there thanks to some fine performances, clever dialogue and a wonderful Brian Eno soundtrack, so why compromise it all with handheld closeups that are reminiscent of 'Cloverfield'?

I hate to say it, but I feel that this was a rather poorly directed film overall. There are moments of brilliance for sure. The production design was particularly interesting, and it was easy to connect with the lead characters on a personal level. All the elements are there, but in the end it is all slightly too fantastical and far fetched to be able to really pluck at your heartstrings. Additionally, there was no need to spend ten minutes on a murderous montage highlighting every life Harvey has taken. I don't need to see dead children in ditches. Nor do I need to see all their smiling faces as they show up like Ray Liotta from the corn to welcome Susie into 'Heaven' once Harvey is outed. It was almost farcical, and I have a hard time believing that it was part of a direct adaptation from the source material. But then, I haven't read the source material so for all I know I could be criticizing Jackson for something that isn't wholly his fault. Nevertheless, I found the majority of the visual storytelling to be over the top and unnecessary, eye-popping as it was.

Finally, there's the demise of the villain. The comeuppance of George Harvey always needed to be violent. After his relentless evildoings, there was no way he was ever going to go to prison (or even worse, get away with it). You've heard of a sticky ending? This movie begs for one for 130 minutes. So much so that after the film's earliest test screenings, Jackson was sent back to the set to shoot a 'stickier' end to Harvey's reign of terror. In this act of unexpected redrafts, Jackson looks to have hurried things along a bit, and in the end we are left with what can only be described as a lazy and obvious wrapup. It comes across as an afterthought that was tossed in when the producers thought, 'Shit, we haven't killed our child rapist off yet. Quick, have him trip over the edge of the most randomly placed cliff anyone's ever seen'. Considering how much we are taught to hate George Harvey over the course of the film, his decline (though gruesome) was still massively underwhelming.

Apart from the acting and select scenes so tense you can hear a pin drop, underwhelming is relatively what 'The Lovely Bones' is as a whole. From my understanding, the 'lovely bones' represent the strengthened connection between the family members following Susie's death. Perhaps if the overall connectivity of the narrative mirrored it's namesake more closely, we would have been left with a memorable period piece. Contrarily, the only real message this film sends is that we should all be excited by the talents of Saoirse Ronan.

An American Werewolf In Tatters.

2010-02-10T23:26:00.006Z

How many times did 'The Wolfman' get pushed back? Like, a million? When any movie gets delayed more than once, you start to worry. You start to think that what probably happened was that it was screened to people in its earliest potentially finished forms, and that everyone thought it was shit. The woeful director of the even worse than 'The Lost World' sequel 'Jurassic Park 3' was forced (and I stress) on more than one occasion to return to the cutting room floor (and more than likely, the set) in the hope than he could somehow rectify the situation and do justice to the proposed modern adaptation of a Lon Chaney classic. At least, that's what I think based on the final product.

The cast reaks of impressive. Benicio Del Toro seemed like a great choice from the start. How his Amerixican accent would be written in was a concern, but they gave him a Latin mother to Anthony Hopkins' father along with a globetrotting American theatre company. Even still, there was no way he was ever English (or Welsh, if we're talking about the 1941 original). Never the less, Del Toro is decent even when plagued with a horrific script. Hardly a standout performer in this particular picture though. It's tough competing against a real heavyweight.

Sir Anthony Hopkins was always the main draw leading up to this film's (eventual) release. Anthony Hopkins can make any movie 'good'. You only have to watch 'Fracture' or 'Bad Company' once to realise that. He is what they call a classically trained actor, which basically means he can do anything asked of him without having to try too hard. Before 'The Wolfman' had surfaced, there were stories of Hopkins requesting a harmonica on the set so that rather than walking ominously down an asylum hallway to a Danny Elfman soundtrack, he's heard mouthing a whacky, wolfy tune (you know, for a laugh). This scene actually ended up being the single highlight of the film. Credit to you, Sir Anthony Hopkins. I guess by this point in filming you had figured out that the whole shoot was a bit of a joke said, 'Hey guys! Let's jazz things up a bit with a harmonica solo. You can't say no to me Joe Johnston, 'Hidalgo' sucked and I'm a freaking knight!' That's exactly how it happened? I thought so.

Emily Blunt is always nice to see in something that's not about royalty, but her accent slipped in a very Sam Worthington type way more often than not in most scenes. So much so that it's kind of hard to believe that she was the subject of early Oscar whispers upon the release of 'The Young Victoria'. I like Blunt though, she brings real emotion to a character. 'Sunshine Cleaning' was also good, so she's had a decent year.

The real treat in 'The Wolfman' though is Hugo Weaving. He's just got a presence on screen that I always find it hard to explain. Be it Agent Smith, Elrond or the faceless 'V', he has a general haunting about his voice when he needs it. If any movie needs an influx of unsettling, Weaving will provide. As the snooty Detective Abberline, he plays confident cop as well as he plays terrified citizen, but again it's the script that severely undercuts any chance this movie has of being remembered past the opening weekend of 'Alice in Wonderland'. Did I just say script? I meant visual effects.

You remember when David Naughton turned into a werewolf...in London? Awesome, right? Yeah, in 1981! You'd have thought that almost 30 years later, after all the Avatars and Lord of the Ringses, they would be able to turn Benicio Del Toro (and more comically, Sir Anthony Hopkins) into a genuinely horrible-looking manbeast with a hint of conviction. I guess in a way it was quite horrible, but to be honest, Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' will keep me up more nights. I don't know if the stop-motion transformations were meant to be some sort of homage to John Landis' Oscar-winning creature feature (which combined with Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' keeps me up most nights), but they sure looked dated. They were also blended with some rad 1995 CGI to give the film the real post-gothic look it was going for. That last part is sarcasm.

Couple all this with the expected plotholes and obvious 'twists' and you've got the latest in what is sure to be a long underwhelming line of remakes, updates and prequels of a genre that needn't be touched. You mean to tell me that 70 years on, horror film-writers can't come up with something scarier than a 'wolfman'? Quit recycling and put something on screen that makes me want to never go to bed again. Maybe a Peter Andre biopic starring Channing Tatum?

Oscar nominations make me crazy.

2010-02-02T18:33:00.014Z

Oh, this Oscar business really does rev my engine. Can't get enough. I was literally on the edge of my seat as the announcements were made, but that's partly due to the fact that I was watching it on my laptop and the speakers are fairly muted. So, ready for some heated debate? Some nice and not so nice suprises? I hope so, because 'The Blind Side' is the worst film I've seen to be nominated for Best Picture. But, we'll get to that later. Without further ado, the nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards...

Actor in a Leading Role

Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

I cannot begin to tell you how excited I am about Jeremy Renner being nominated for 'The Hurt Locker'! After being snubbed at the Globes, this was a fist-pumping moment for me. This was one of the few categories where I correctly predicted every nominee, and rightly so. Although The Dude will surely abide come March, the competition for Actor in a Leading Role is the strongest I've seen in years. My man George was incredibly good in 'Up in the Air', and along with Renner I'd say are the only two potential upsets. No doubt, Freeman and Firth put in top notch performances, career-defining performances, I just can't see them upsetting any of the other three.

PREDICTION: Jeff Bridges in 'Crazy Heart'

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”
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

This category was again, self explanatory. No trouble predicting these five prior to today's announcement. And no trouble predicting the winner either. While all of the performances are strong (I've yet to see 'Invictus' or 'The Last Station'), one man reinvented man's approach to acting last year, and that man is Christoph Waltz. Anyone who bets against him is a damn fool. He's won awards across the board from Cannes to the critics associations to the Golden Globes. No one else stands a chance. Now, that truly is a bingo.

PREDICTION: Christoph Waltz in 'Inglourious Basterds'

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”

This is a catagory I feel quite strongly about this year. Again, I had all the nominees pinned before the announcement, although I only added SaBu last week. Having seen 'The Blind Side', I can tell you that Bullock's outing is over-average at best. Through all the pithy dialogue and white-America cliches, there is no doubt a strong performance by Bullock's standards. Having seen 'An Education', 'Julie and Julia' and 'Precious' though, I can also tell you that her performance is on par with Sidibe's Precious, but doesn't even come close to what Carey Mulligan and Meryl Streep accomplished in their respective roles. Never the less, my prediction is as follows...

PREDICTION: Sandra Bullock in 'The Blind Side'

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”

Okay, so NOBODY saw Maggie G getting nominated for 'Crazy Heart'. That was a nice suprise. I have every expectation that 'Crazy Heart' is going to be a great movie, and Maggie's nomination excites me even more so. As much as I love Penelope, her nomination was a bit of a suprise. Personally, I thought she was incredible in 'Nine' but with all the bad press her film has been getting, I kind of figured that Diane Kruger or maybe Julianne Moore would have occupied the spot that she now does. Good to see both of the 'Up in the Air' girls in there, deservedly so. Kendrick especially, she really was a treat. However, much like the Supporting Actor shortlist, there is only one performer who is going to be walking away with Oscar gold. Mo'Nique exceeded all expectations and delivered something breathtaking in 'Precious', and although I preferred 'Up in the Air' as a film (story and screenplay), it's gotta be Mo'Nique every time.

PREDICTION: Mo'Nique in 'Precious'

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

I guess the question on everyone's minds is, what the hells is 'The Secret of Kells'? Well, it's a lovely Irish story from Buena Vista featuring the voice talents of Brendan Gleeson. Yeah, I'd never heard of it until today either. The trailer looks okay I suppose, but I really enjoyed 'Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs' so was disappointed when it didn't feature in this category. A stronger year than most, with a range of different animation styles. Total walkover though.

PREDICTION: 'Up'

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

I totally fluffed this one. 'Avatar' was my only correct prediction, and I've got to say I'm suprised not to see 'Inglourious Basterds' or 'A Single Man' here. I was even stretching for 'Julie and Julia' but alas, 'Nine' had to get nominated for something. Great to see some love for 'Parnassus', that was completely unexpected. Interesting to see 'Sherlock Holmes' sneaking in with a few nominations as well. Unfortunately though, this is one of those many categories where the other four nominees kind of just make up the numbers.

PREDICTION: 'Avatar'

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

This is more like it! Foreign films getting proper recognition! I've only seen bits and pieces of 'The White Ribbon', but I've certainly seen enough to know that it definitely belongs in this category. And for some reason, I can't help but feel that 'Avatar' doesn't? I mean yeah, we all got to see the fruits of the Cameron 3D Fusion System, and that was really cool, don't get me wrong. In terms of general cinematography though, I disagree. Cinematography is about capturing a magical moment through a performance, through a physical set, through the way something is lit, through the most beautiful angle, and that is where films like 'The White Ribbon' and 'The Hurt Locker' make their impact. Not through 162 minutes of CGI forestry. That's all very pretty, but it's not real! If 'Avatar' picks this up along with all it's other technical awards, I will be fuming.

Oh, and Harry Potter? Pfft.

PREDICTION: 'The Hurt Locker'

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

More Gilliam love! I like it! HOWEVER, nominating 'Parnassus' means no room for 'Inglourious' and that is something I don't agree with at all. The two period, fashion flicks were a lock, then there's your Royal family movie and the Rob Marshall musical. That's all fine. But with the other 8 nominations 'Basterds' accrued, how it missed out on this one I have no idea. Go figure. Should be an interesting result though. This could go anyone's way, and I'm going to be bold for once.

PREDICTION: 'Bright Star'

Directing

“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

The category you've all been waiting for! Can Kathryn Bigelow ride the wave and on the back of her triumph at the DGAs topple the (self-proclaimed) King of the World and become the first woman to pick up the award for Best Direction? Yes, she bloody well can. Lest we forget that the Globes are voted for by journalists, and that we should try not to take them too seriously when predicting the Oscars. 999,999 times out of a million, the winner of the DGA wins the Oscar, and I would be thrilled if that were the case this year. I give 'Avatar' shit, but that's because it was so poorly written. The music was equally as cringeworthy, but Cameron did direct the hell out of that thing. That is a fact (Quarritch!). 'The Hurt Locker' was just intense filmmaking at it's finest, organic and raw, and deserves every accolade it gets, including this one...hopefully.

PS. Sorry Quentin, Jason. I feel terrible for betraying you :(

PREDICTION: Kathryn Bigelow for 'The Hurt Locker'

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

I am familiar with 'Burma VJ', 'Food Inc.' and 'The Cove', and am pretty sure that it's going to be between those three. I'm just upset that there's no love for 'Mugabe and The White African'. That's purely based on bias though as it stars my Godparents' son, Ben Freeth, whose life I have followed intently for the last ten years or so. Never the less, a strong showing of documentaries this year. Could go any way!

PREDICTION: 'Food Inc.'

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

Probably just leave this one for now...

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

This will be particularly interesting this year. Like cinematography, this isn't a technical category that 'Avatar' will landslide. In fact, now that I think about it, there aren't any! Even in Visual Effects, it could very well be upset by 'District 9'. Editing though, is far more integral to the final product of any film. The editor's job is to make the story work in the best possible way, which means that this category is wide open. I'm talking gaping. So much so that I'm struggling to settle on a prediction, so I'll say this now in defense of what I thought was superb editing...if 'District 9' wins this award, I told you so.

PREDICTION: 'The Hurt Locker'

Foreign Language Film

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

This is such a two horse race it's untrue. Thank you for your interest Israel, Peru, Argentina! Any other year, you may have had a shot but this is a total toss up between Germany's 'The White Ribbon' and France's 'Un Prophete'. Now, I was a silly, silly boy and missed 'The White Ribbon' when it passed through my city in the autumn, but I am seeing 'Un Prophete' tomorrow (excited) and have generally read more to do with the gangster epic that the B/W war story. Other award bodies and critics associations are pretty split over the two though, so rather than hastily predict during my post-screening buzz tomorrow, I am going to go ahead and follow my instinct now while I haven't seen either!

PREDICTION: 'The White Ribbon'

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

Another nod for 'The Young Victoria' eh? Interesting indeed. 'Star Trek' was a given, but I was sure that 'The Road' would sneak in here. Very suprised to see 'Il Divo'. Perhaps a sign of things to come? Choosing from three is always tough, and I was ready to predict 'The Road' or 'Nine' for the win, so don't expect me to get this one right next month.

PREDICTION: 'Star Trek'

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

'The Hurt Locker'? Don't think anyone saw that coming as great as the music is. Awesome to see 'Fantastic Mr Fox' getting some proper recognition here, too. For me though, there's only one winner here and that is Michael Giacchino for 'Up'. The music in 'Up' is just about as perfect and as poignant as a score can be (although, anything's better than James Horner's horrific effort). My dark horse is definitely Hans Zimmer for 'Sherlock Holmes'. I included him in my original predictions, and then removed him last week and replaced him with Abel Korzeniowski for 'A Single Man' (seriously, I'm gutted). Since then I've listened to the 'Sherlock Holmes' end credits music on more than a few occasions and can safely say that it's some of the best scoring of the year. Good ol' Hans.

PREDICTION: 'Up'

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

I'm sure everyone's prasing the film lords for the same thing, right? No Leona Lewis! Thank you, Academy, for not recognising what is a truly awful song that sounds more than a little bit like 'My Heart Will Go On', among other songs. Good on yer! This category is particularly interesting because a) 'Take It All' was nominated rather than 'Cinema Italiano'. This could mean 'Nine' upsetting 'Crazy Heart', but I doubt it will. What it does mean though is that we may get to see the wonderful Marion Cotillard recite what I thought was the second best song in the film, and b) two nominations for 'The Princess and the Frog' and Randy Newman. Newman is no stranger to Oscar glory, so to be nominated twice must increase his chances, but I'm still banking on T-Bone to take it home.

PREDICTION: 'The Weary Kind (Theme From Crazy Heart)' from 'Crazy Heart'

Best Picture

“Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
“The Blind Side” Nominees to be determined
“District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
“An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers
“The Hurt Locker” Nominees to be determined
“Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
“A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
“Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer
“Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

Expanding to ten nominees is a very clever idea. It gives the Academy an opportunity to show just how trendy they can be. If there had been five slots available this year, rest assured they would have gone to 'Avatar', 'The Hurt Locker', 'Inglourious Basterds', 'Up in the Air' and 'Precious'. That covers the big box-office epic, the low-budget war film, the Tarantino return to form, the hip and current Clooney-fest, and the underdog drama. Any other year, that's how it would have gone. But expand to 10 nominees and you get to rake in the ratings by including the Pixar masterpiece, the Coen Brothers annual offering, the other sci-fi epic, the coming of age Brit flick and last but not least, Sandra Bullock's sappy American box-office smash, 'The Blind Side'. Absolutely unbelievable.

I wasted 90 minutes on 'The Blind Side' on New Year's Eve and as a result, I have never been so taken aback by a Best Picture nomination. I can list you 20 films off the top of my head that were better than 'The Blind Side' without including any of the other Best Picture nominees. Its inclusion is proof that the Academy pays attention to box-office numbers, and for me that is slightly unsettling. What's less unsettling is safely knowing that 'The Blind Side' doesn't stand a chance, and that if the voting results were accessible, it would come dead last.

While 'Up in the Air' has been performing well in the run-up to the major awards, taking home best film accolades from many critics associations for being a truly memorable piece of work, more recently this has turned into a battle between the (again, self-proclaimed) King of the World and his ex-wife. One made the most expensive and most successful film of all time, and the other made Jeremy Renner an Academy Award nominee while accruing only $12m at the US box office. Unless 'Inglourious Basterds' makes a late surge on the back of it's success at the SAGs, it will more than likely be between 'Avatar' and 'The Hurt Locker'. And if 'Avatar' wins Best Motion Picture of the Year, I will quit writing about films. No way, no how. It can't happen. It's not even the best sci-fi film of the year! Let him have the record books, but leave the proper awards for intelligent films that have something a bit more interesting to say.*

*For the record, I quite liked 'Avatar' the first few times I saw it. It's hugely entertaining. It's just not in the same league as 'The Hurt Locker', 'Inglourious Basterds', 'Up in the Air' or 'District 9' when it's comes down to brass tax.

PREDICTION: 'The Hurt Locker'

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

Nick Park has a tendancy to be brilliant. Let's back our British hope!

PREDICTION: 'A Matter of Loaf and Death'

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

We'll cross this bridge when we come to it.

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 editing revolves around creating synthetic sound and the selection of organic sound to represent something that it's not necessarily. This is the kind of technical award where 'Avatar' should be recognised. Again, 60% of the film was CGI remember, so every sound during those scenes had to be crafted in such a way that the audience would accept it as reality. It's about subtlety, and your movie-watching consciousness not feeling the need to question how genuine something is. Saying that, those Thanators had the voice of a T-Rex. And those Direhorses? I can't help thinking about Velociraptors in kitchens. Anyone? Beuller? This award could just as easily go to 'Star Trek' or 'Up', but alas, we've got to recognise Cameron's vision at some point.

PREDICTION: 'Avatar'

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
“Star Trek” Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Sound mixing is a whole other ballgame. I personally thought that the mix for 'Avatar' was pretty poor. It was way too bass driven and generally a bit too Hollywood to be recognised, in my opinion. The same applies to 'Transformers 2'. The sound of Optimus Prime turning into a lorry is all very cool, but it's hardly an Oscar-worthy accomplishment. 'Star Trek' may well sneak this one, although there would be uproar if any other sci-fi film beat 'Avatar' in any category. I'm going to go with one of our Best Picture nominees though.

PREDICTION: 'Inglourious Basterds'

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

A month ago I would have written off any film challenging 'Avatar' for this award. Now, I'm not so sure. The mo-cap was as impressive, if not more so, in 'District 9'. And the fact that it was superimposed over real-life footage rather than a CGI-environment makes it all the more a threat to upset the almighty 'Avatar'. Don't get me wrong, I still think 'Avatar' will win. The film is based around visual effects more than it is around a story for Pandora's sake! All I'm saying is, even when 'Avatar' wins, just think hard about how much better 'District 9' is overall!

PREDICTION: 'Avatar'

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

On to my favourite categories. I love the screenplay awards. Good writing is so crucial to a film's caliber and I always enjoy finding out which films are shortlisted for their achievements in screenwriting. This year has been particularly strong in both the original and adapted categories, but even still, there are clear cut frontrunners.

Anyone who knows anything about well-written films would agree with me when I say, 'Hell yeah! In The Loop!' There was an underground buzz for months over whether or not Armando Iannucci would sneak in for his razor-sharp satire, and he's only gone and done it! Of course, he won't win (he's British), but I'll be damned if there's not a tear in my eye when I see Partridge's creator walking down that red carpet.

The way I see it though, there's only one winner here. Although I thoroughly enjoyed what Nick Hornby had to offer in 'An Education', Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner really struck a nerve with the beautifully worked 'Up in the Air'. If it wins, it will be the ultimate consolation for not winning Best Picture (*tear*), as at least its wonderful script will have been recognised. Somehow, Reitman is able to blend comedy and drama with heartfelt emotion and matchless wit in everything he writes. This is no exception. Final answer.

PREDICTION: 'Up in the Air'

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

This screenplay category is far more interesting, especially with the suprise inclusions of 'The Messenger' (in my Top 3 films of 2009 for writing and acting alone) and the deserved but not necessarily expected 'Up'. There are the obvious heavyweights too. Tarantino could very well walk away a winner for his finest screenplay since 'Pulp Fiction', hell, he could win for writing Colonel Landa's character alone. The Coen Brothers make their annual appearance in a Tarantino-esque return to form, 'A Serious Man' being their strongest written work since 'O Brother, Where Art Thou' (cue controversy). Yeah, I loved 'No Country for Old Men' too, it rocked. And yeah, 'Burn After Reading' was seven shades of funny. 'A Serious Man' is a more personal film though. You get to really dive in to the Coen universe in this one, where as I didn't really feel that way about their last two outings, impressive as they were. In spite of all of this, Mark Boal has got to be a front runner too! Again, gaping. I have no clue which way this is going to go! Hopefully I get lucky.

PREDICTION: Quentin Tarantino for 'Inglourious Basterds'

Okay, your turn!

FINAL Oscar Predictions (ahead of Nomination Tuesday)

2010-01-29T18:12:00.004Z

Blogs aplenty to come. I'm happy to announce that I will be writing for NME columnist Owen Nicholls' website for the forseeable future, as well as this blog. His site goes live this week! For now, here are my final Academy Award predictions ahead of Tuesday's announcement. New insertions are highlighted in BOLD. Feel free to share yours!

Best Picture

The Hurt Locker

Star Trek

Inglourious Basterds

Avatar

Up in the Air

An Education

Invictus

District 9

Precious

OUT: Where The Wild Things Are, The Messenger

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

James Cameron - Avatar

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Lee Daniels - Precious

OUT: Clint Eastwood - Invictus

Best Actress

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Meryl Streep - Julie and Julia

Gabby Sidibe - Precious

Helen Mirren - The Last Station

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

OUT: Marion Cotillard - Nine

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Colin Firth - A Single Man

Morgan Freeman - Invictus

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actress

Mo'Nique - Precious

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Diane Kruger - Inglourious Basterds

Julianne Moore - A Single Man

OUT: Samantha Morton - The Messenger, Penelope Cruz - Nine

Best Supporting Actor

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

Stanley Tucci -The Lovely Bones

Matt Damon - Invictus

Christopher Plummer - The Last Station

Best Original Screenplay

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Joel and Ethan Coen - A Serious Man

Mark Boal - The Hurt Locker

Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber - (500) Days of Summer

Bob Petersen, Pete Docter - Up

Best Adapted Screenplay

Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner - Up in the Air

Nick Hornby - An Education

Geoffrey Fletcher - Precious

Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell - District 9

Armando Iannuci - In The Loop

OUT: Spike Jonze, Dave Eggars - Where The Wild Things Are/Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach - Fantastic Mr Fox

Best Editing

The Hurt Locker

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

District 9

(500) Days of Summer

OUT: Nine

Best Cinematography

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

The White Ribbon

Nine

Avatar

OUT: The Lovely Bones

Best Art Direction

Avatar

District 9

A Single Man

Inglourious Basterds

Julie and Julia

OUT: The Lovely Bones

Best Sound Mixing

Avatar

The Hurt Locker

Star Trek

District 9

Nine

Best Sound Editing

Avatar

Star Trek

District 9

The Hurt Locker

Best Costume Design

Bright Star

Inglourious Basterds

Coco Avant Chanel

Nine

The Young Victoria

OUT: Where The Wild Things Are

Best Original Score

Michael Giacchino - Up

Carter Burwell and Karen O - Where The Wild Things Are

Marvin Hamlisch - The Informant!

James Horner - Avatar

Abel Korzeniowski - A Single Man

OUT: Hans Zimmer - Sherlock Holmes

Best Song

'I See You' - Avatar

'All Is Love' - Where The Wild Things Are

'Cinema Italiano' - Nine

'The Weary Kind' - Crazy Heart

'Almost There' - The Princess and the Frog

Best Animated Feature

Fantastic Mr Fox

The Princess and the Frog

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs

Coraline

Best Visual Effects

Avatar

2012

Star Trek

District 9

Best Makeup

The Road

Star Trek

Nine

Best Foreign Language Film

A Prophet (France)

The White Ribbon (Germany)

Broken Embraces (Spain)

Winter in Wartime (The Netherlands)

Samson and Delilah (Australia)

OUT: Letters From Father Jacob (Finland), White Wedding (South Africa)

BIG blog tomorrow once the nominations are announced. 'Avatar' and 'Up In The Air' blogs up by the weekend...FINALLY!

Britain can still pack a punch, even if the director is Danish.

2010-01-11T11:53:00.010Z

If you were to read my first blog, you would read that I rate Peter Sarsgaard very highly. The Kiefer Sutherland lookalike has been one of my favourite character actors since 'Boys Don't Cry', and I even forgave him for 'Orphan' which although there is no official list, was one of the five worst films of 2009. Not just in my opinion, but in most people's. Strange to think that the two leads would go on to receive masses of critical acclaim for further performances in 2009. Vera Farmiga will most likely receive an Oscar nomination for her role in 'Up in the Air', while Sarsgaard achieved rave reviews for his role in a lovely little Nick Hornby-penned picture called 'An Education'.

And it is a lovely little picture, not only of Britain on the cusp of the 'swinging sixties' but of teenage naivety in its very purest form. Lone Scherfig's first film in English in seven years, 'An Education' is the story of Jenny (Carey Mulligan), a sixteen year-old A-level student with her sights set on Oxford (or rather, her father's sights) until she meets mysterious playboy David (Sarsgaard) and discovers a plentiful world outside the exam hall.

What is instantly striking about this film is the almost overwhelming amount of near perfect performances. Carey Mulligan is a beautiful revelation as our lead, but the strong support from Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina, Olivia Williams, Rosamund Pike, Dominic Cooper, Cara Seymour and the always enchanting Emma Thompson really make 'An Education' feel like an iconic British film that will stand the test of time. Even more impressively, Mulligan stands her ground against a who's who of British talent and provides the audience with a character that will more than likely earn her a Best Actress nomination come February. On top of that, I think she'll win!

The character of Jenny is as progressive as the film's themes, almost evolutionary. When we meet her she is a few Latin tutorials away from Oxford, head buried in textbooks although it is evident from the get go that hidden behind her well-disciplined, intellectual front is a penchant for the arts, namely French culture. She is practically forbidden this outlet, until a chance meeting with the suave and sophisticated David changes everything. It is only once David is part of her life that we are able to realise that beneath her mature-beyond-her-years, cultured and ambitious exterior, Jenny is as naive and as vulnerable as any sixteen year-old girl. Easily frustrated and quick to rebel, even quicker to consider trading an Oxford future for her first love, Jenny's sparks of maturity are quickly quashed by David's staggering immaturity and reckless abandon. While their feelings for each other are no doubt genuine, his influence was always going to be innocently negative, and I found myself praying at the halfway mark that he didn't hurt her as it became increasingly evident that his relentless charm would have to at some point wear thin. As his charm increases in monetary value, so does her naivety to the point where she overlooks the fact that he is essentially a thief. From that moment on, it is only a matter of time before Jenny reaches into the glovebox for a French cigarette only to find an empty box.

Watching this relationship develop from a modern perspective is difficult, as the more they fall for each other, the more you can't help but feel that whatever he is hiding is going to crush her. Nowadays, the amount of thirty-somethings chasing impressionable students is hardly suprising, with MySpace and Facebook paving the way for textual grooming. To fully understand this particular relationship however, you have to identify with the era. The period in which the film is set makes it all the more feasable. For example, Jack (Jenny's father played by the often overlooked but always endearing Alfred Molina) is quick to accept David into his daughter's life regardless of his age and Jewish background. Why? Because he has something to offer her. Traditional values (apparently) coupled with obvious financial stability. In short, all a father could ever want for his daughter. How quickly his attitude towards her education changes as soon as the prospect of financial relief reveals itself.

Jenny puts it best when she questions why she has been encouraged to push for an Oxford education when she could have been selling herself in nightclubs, if all her father cared about was fiscal stability in later life. Lest we forget that 'An Education' is set in a time where women were not particularly empowered and were often simply passed from father to husband without much concern for personal development. A prime example of this is Rosamund Pike's Helena, a character you can't help but feel Jenny would grow to resemble should she continue along the path that involves borrowing her clothes.

In 2009, there wasn't a better written film (I'm of course referring to Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's 'Up in the Air' as a 2010 release) in terms of an identification with its time and with its characters. A true coming of age picture though set in the sixties, this should clear up at the BAFTAs and make a strong statement as a Best Picture contender in March. It will lose out on a screenplay gong to 'Up in the Air' for sure, but will launch Nick Hornby's career as an internationally recognised screenwriter. Anyway, awards don't make a film any better when it's already making straight As in a class of its own.

Top 20 of 2009 + 2010 Academy Award Predictions!

2010-01-01T19:25:00.013Z

1= The Hurt Locker

1= The Messenger

3. Moon

4. Inglourious Basterds

5. (500) Days of Summer

6. Avatar

7. A Serious Man

8. Fantastic Mr Fox

9. Star Trek

10. Where The Wild Things Are

11. District 9

12. Up

13. An Education

14. The Hangover

15. Broken Embraces

16. Synecdoche, New York

17. Observe and Report

18. Sunshine Cleaning

19. Zombieland

(-). Up in the Air

Best Picture

The Hurt Locker

The Messenger

Inglourious Basterds

Avatar

Up in the Air

Up

An Education

Invictus

Where The Wild Things Are

Precious

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

James Cameron - Avatar

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Clint Eastwood - Invictus

Best Actress

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Meryl Streep - Julie and Julia

Gabby Sidibe - Precious

Helen Mirren - The Last Station

Marion Cotillard - Nine

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Colin Firth - A Single Man

Morgan Freeman - Invictus

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actress

Mo'Nique - Precious

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Penelope Cruz - Nine

Samantha Morton - The Messenger

Julianne Moore - A Single Man

Best Supporting Actor

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

Stanley Tucci -The Lovely Bones

Matt Damon - Invictus

Christopher Plummer - The Last Station

OR

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Best Original Screenplay

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Joel and Ethan Coen - A Serious Man

Mark Boal - The Hurt Locker

Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber - (500) Days of Summer

Bob Petersen, Pete Docter - Up

Best Adapted Screenplay

Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner - Up in the Air

Nick Hornby - An Education

Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach - Fantastic Mr Fox

Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell - District 9

Spike Jonze, Dave Eggars - Where The Wild Things Are

Best Editing

The Hurt Locker

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

Nine

(500) Days of Summer

Best Cinematography

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

The White Ribbon

Nine

The Lovely Bones

Best Art Direction

Avatar

District 9

A Single Man

Inglourious Basterds

The Lovely Bones

Best Sound Mixing

Avatar

The Hurt Locker

Star Trek

District 9

Nine

Best Sound Editing

Avatar

Up

Star Trek

District 9

Best Costume Design

Bright Star

Inglourious Basterds

Where The Wild Things Are

Nine

The Young Victoria

Best Original Score

Michael Giacchino - Up

Carter Burwell and Karen O - Where The Wild Things Are

Marvin Hamlisch - The Informant!

James Horner - Avatar

Hans Zimmer - Sherlock Holmes

Best Song

'I See You' - Avatar

'All Is Love' - Where The Wild Things Are

'Cinema Italiano' - Nine

'The Weary Kind' - Crazy Heart

'Almost There' - The Princess and the Frog

Best Animated Feature

Up

Fantastic Mr Fox

The Princess and the Frog

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs

Coraline

Best Visual Effects

Avatar

2012

Star Trek

District 9

Best Makeup

The Road

Star Trek

Nine

Best Foreign Language Film

A Prophet (France)

The White Ribbon (Germany)

Broken Embraces (Spain)

Letters From Father Jacob (Finland)

White Wedding (South Africa)

So, there you have it! Mark my words, these will be pretty much dead on (hopefully). The only real difference I can foresee is the lack of love for 'Where The Wild Things Are', but we'll have to see.

Apologies for the lack of blog reviews recently. Yes, I have been lazy with Christmas/New Years/The Band/illness getting in the way but there will be blogs this month, I promise. I'm going out on tour from Monday so I will have a lot of downtime to write for you.

Happy New Year to all my loyal readers ;) Blogs to come before Valentine's Day (it is awards season after all):

Avatar
Where The Wild Things Are
An Education
The Messenger
The Hurt Locker
Up in the Air
The Lovely Bones
It's Complicated

The Road

Daybreakers

Laters haters!

-M

3 days...

2009-12-13T23:55:00.002Z

I'm excited about Wednesday. I really am. This was an early concept promo back when the release day was in May. Best one I've seen.

Me and Christian McKay

2009-12-09T12:09:00.006Z

Working at a cinema, it's the films that only get a week's run that I tend to rush out and see. 'Taking Woodstock' a good example. A big name director was involved, with an unknown lead, but what looked like a charming story. 'Me and Orson Welles' is much the same, but rather than an unknown lead, it was always going to be about the unknown support. Had Christian McKay's portrayal of Orson Welles not been hailed by critics left and right, I probably would have stayed clear of this, the latest offering from Richard Linklater ('Dazed and Confused', 'School of Rock' and more impressively 'A Scanner Darkly'). I'm still not quite buying Zac Efron post-Disney, and Claire Danes hasn't made a decent movie since 'Romeo and Juliet'. So when all of the reviews pointed me in the direction of the unknown British actor, Christian McKay, there was a slight generation of interest. If nothing else, I would enjoy watching two American 'stars' being upstaged by someone in their first major role.

That pretty much sums up my feelings now that I've seen the film, too. Although I thoroughly enjoyed it overall (the production/costume design was most impressive, as was the screenplay), from the moment McKay appeared onscreen, the focus was on him and no one else. While fellow Brit Ben Chaplin contributes positively to a few scenes, it is all about McKay's interactions with Efron from start to finish. I really couldn't care less about any of Danes' involvement with our two charming leads as she was absolutely useless as the shared love interest.

Before settling in to watch 'Me and Orson Welles', I had already come to the conclusion that I would only be watching for McKay's performance and had almost resigned to the idea that his performance was all that I would enjoy. That's not strictly true, looking back. Although watching the film with that mentality certainly made it easier to look past Efron's Richard and Danes' ever-fickle Sonja, there were definitely some additional winning elements. Technically, it is superb. Linklater has again captured the sheen of the time with a perfect Hollywood gloss, and the relatively simple sets and beautifuly designed costumes (along with McKay) really bring this movie to life. Noticeably, while sparkling throughout, the sets are not as expansive as one would expect, nor do they need to be. Over half the film takes place in Welles' Mercury theatre, and the result is an ensemble cast that feels genuinely close knit. It almost feels as if Linklater has drawn on the directing styles of Welles himself, and transferred them into his own cast, his own film. He enables the viewer to immerse themselves in the theatre to personally endure the tireless preparation that goes into a Welles-directed Broadway show. By the time 'Caesar' opens, you feel like you have been there, rehearsing alongside Welles since day one. You are already familiar with the scenes and the characters, so to watch them deliver with such grace and fluidity makes the climax to 'Me and Orson Welles' all the more gratifying.

Will McKay be nominated for an Academy Award? Absolutely. He came out of nowhere and lit up the screen. From his tone to his mannerisms, Christian McKay is Orson Welles. He manages to capture the charm, the determination, the passion and the arrogance of Welles in his first scene and gives a truly breathtaking performance that will leave a smile on your face long afterwards. Whether or not he can compete against the likes of Christoph Waltz, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson (?) is debatable, but I'm sure a first-time actor like McKay would be over the moon just to be mentioned in the same breath.

A movie that overuses the term 'swell' in the first half, yes, but a wonderful little picture overall. A nice change of pace from the blockbusting 'Avatars' and 'Sherlock Holmes's' the holiday season has graced us with, I would absolutely recommend this to anyone who has ever acted on stage.

Rare Poster O' The Day PT 2, although I don't know how many days I can keep it up for.

2009-12-08T23:31:00.004Z

Thanks to Emmy-Lou who writes about TV over HERE.

I love rare movie posters thanks to my friend Bert and my housemate Mikki...

2009-12-07T23:31:00.003Z

Unearthed this badboy earlier this evening. Incredibly cool.

OSCARWATCH PT 1.

2009-12-04T16:24:00.005Z

Right, so, as of today I've seen exactly 100 films that have been released in 2009. Do you really want a list? I think not. Anyway, 100 is enough to, I think, start to put together some relatively educated predictions. I was trying to hold off until I'd seen 'Avatar' and 'Where The Wild Things Are', but seeing as the National Board of Review (NBR) recently honoured the best in film this year, I figured that it is at this point that we can start to approach awards season a little more seriously. I'm a serious man, even if my predictions are up in the air at the moment. Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just trying to give you a bit of an education.

Yeah, you read that right. Banter.

Without further ado, the NBR major category winners:

Best Film: Up In The Air

The more I read about this film, the more I look forward to it. Content-wise, it's current and you just know it's going to be well written. Apparently the ending's a real belter too. I don't know if it's the best film of the year, but I will reserve judgement until I see it. Unfortunately, it will be one of the last BP nominees I see before the winners are announced!

Top Eleven Films (In alphabetical order):

An Education

(500) Days Of Summer

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Invictus

The Messenger

A Serious Man

Star Trek

Up In The Air

Where The Wild Things Are

What an awesome list! Just goes to show what a strong year in film it's been. By the end of the month, I will have seen seven of these. Seven of which I would agree wholeheartedly with being on any 'Best Of 2009' list. I'm especially ecstatic that '(500) Days of Summer' is getting the credit it rightfully deserves, and would be over the moon if it managed to wangle a BP nod, but would settle for a Best Orignal Screenplay nomination. I don't really need to see the other four to know that they're brilliant so will respect this list as it is. I'm still hoping 'Avatar' ends up being criminally good and hops on the awards train late in the day.

Best Director: Clint Eastwood, Invictus

Yeah, I buy this. Mr. Eastwood is one of the best directors alive and I can't imagine a Mandela biopic starring Morgan Freeman being anything less than stunning. My personal preference would probably be either Kathryn Bigelow ('The Hurt Locker'), Spike Jonze ('Where The Wild Things Are'), or maybe even James Cameron (who knows!), but again I'll hold back until I've seen everything. After all, this is only Part One of what is sure to be a barrage of Oscar related posts. Part of the fun of making predictions is updating them!

Best Actor: Morgan Freeman, Invictus and George Clooney, Up In The Air (tie)

I have no trouble believing that Morgan Freeman gives the performance he was born to give in 'Invictus', and apparently The Clooney rocks it like he's never rocked it in 'Up In The Air', but I have a feeling that come February, I'm going to end up siding with Jeff Bridges ('Crazy Heart') and Viggo Mortensen ('The Road'). It's just such a wide open category this year, I'd be happy to see any of these guys win.

Best Actress: Carey Mulligan, An Education

Yes, yes, yes. I was blown away by her performance in the trailer. While 'Julie and Julia' was great on the acting front, Meryl's been nominated like 47 times so she won't win for a movie that would have been average had it not been for the Streep/Adams double punch (She'd want Carey to win anyway), and as good as I'm sure 'Precious' is, it can't be that hard for an obese, black girl to play an obese, black girl (just like it's not terribly difficult for Michael Stuhlbarg to play a Jew). Sorry, Gabby Sidibe, but I'm pretty sure a strong screenplay strengthened your performance somewhat, just like it strengthened performances from Mo'Nique (spare me) and Mariah Carey. So, Carey for the win. Mulligan that is, obviously.

Best Supporting Actor: Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

I love Woody. Please, do not get me wrong. However, there is nothing Woody Harrelson could ever do to outact Christoph Waltz. I'm stoked for 'The Messenger', I really am. Apparently Ben Foster is brilliant too, I really can't wait. Never the less, Christoph Waltz's performance in 'Inglourious Basterds' is probably the best performance by anyone in anything this year. He played a quad-lingual, Jew-murdering Nazi colonel that you couldn't help but love. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an audience we are not meant to gleefully chuckle everytime a character like that comes onscreen. Simply put, it's got to be Waltz over Woody every single time. There's talk of late surges from Stanley Tucci ('Julia and Julia' and/or 'The Lovely Bones) and Christian McKay ('Me and Orson Welles'), but as it stands I'm not backing anyone other than Waltz.

Best Supporting Actress: Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air

I'm going to go ahead and buy this too. As much as I despise the Twilight series, there's no denying Anna Kendrick is quite the talent. Early reviews declare that she upstages Clooney and blows Farmiga away, so I'm going to go ahead and believe the hype and pencil in Kendrick as a frontrunner. Mo'Nique can't stand a chance against this type of talent, surely.

Best Foreign Film: A Prophet

Well, yeah. It was either going to be this or 'The White Ribbon'. Will definitely try and see both before March.

Best Documentary: The Cove

Easy. I'm still bummed about 'Anvil: The Story of Anvil' though.

Best Animated Feature: Up

No brainer.

Best Ensemble Cast: It’s Complicated

Not so sure about this, even though it's not an Oscar category. Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin and Meryl are all fantastic, especially in lighthearted comedies, but are you seriously trying to tell me that they outclassed the casts of 'Nine' and 'An Education'? I think not.

Breakthrough Performance by an Actor: Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

If it was by a leading actor, then I totally agree. Overall though, I think that once again, it's gotta be Christoph Waltz. Tarantino plucked him out of the depths of German cinema and made him a star overnight, literally. He won 'Best Actor' at Cannes for a supporting role for crying out loud! Maybe I'm biased.

Breakthrough Performance by an Actress: Gabourey Sidibe, Precious

Okay, I'll give her this one. She'd better follow up with something else amazing, though!

Spotlight Award for Best Directorial Debut: Duncan Jones, Moon, Oren Moverman,The Messenger and Marc Webb, (500) Days of Summer (tie)

Yes, yes and yes again! Nice to see Duncan Jones winning something for 'Moon', and equally nice to see Marc Webb picking up some sort of gong for what was (personally) my favourite movie of the year (notice I didn't say 'best film').

Best Original Screenplay: Joel & Ethan Coen, A Serious Man

Twas all a bit Jew-y, but another excellent bit of writing from the Coens. Blew 'Burn After Reading' out of the water, that's for sure. I still think '(500) Days of Summer' should pip it to the post though, it was neither 'Fargo' or 'The Big Lebowski'.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, Up In The Air

Yep.

Special Filmmaking Achievement Award: Wes Anderson, The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Oh, sweet! There I was thinking 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' would get completely overlooked and here we have Wes Anderson picking up a special achievement award! There is some justice. Now, if we could only get the Academy voters to be bold and give it an adapted screenplay nod.

Top Ten Independent Films (In alphabetical order):

Amreeka

District 9

Goodbye Solo

Humpday

In The Loop

Julia

Me And Orson Welles

Moon

Sugar

Two Lovers

Another interesting list. More justified love for 'Moon', which is encouraging. It would really be something if it managed a few nominations for some major awards. 'District 9' and 'In The Loop' were both excellent as well, and I have a sneaky suspicion that the latter may end up getting a few more major nominations than you would expect for a expletive-filled Brit flick. 'District 9' will continue to be underrated, even though it was one of the more impressive and thought-provoking films to be released this year.

I will be seeing 'Me and Orson Welles' this week, if only for what I'm sure will be a knockout performance from Christian McKay, so will report back on that one in the near future. And, I have still not seen 'Two Lovers'! I missed it in the spring so will have to catch it on DVD, but from what I've seen and read, it to is deserved of making onto more than a few Top 10s.

Food for thought, I hope. In the next week I'll be watching and reviewing a few more heavyweights, so bear with me. 'Where The Wild Things Are' will be blogged on Friday, with 'Avatar' the following Thursday (or even Wednesday night if I can't hide my giddiness).

Stay tuned for 'The Box', and thanks for reading! It's nice to write a more informal blog for once.

I must apologise in advance to my friends and family that are female and under 30...

2009-11-26T14:40:00.005Z

Seeing as New Moon-ania is sweeping the planet this week, I thought I'd go ahead and pitch in my five cents worth now rather than later. I'll be honest, I did want to see this film as I quite liked the first one. I thought 'Twilight' was well-directed, and it's message to a younger generation approaching 'that relationship age' was nothing short of respectable. While a large percentage of viewers will have been watching for reasons I don't need to go into, they will have found it hard to avoid the story itself which in the form of a novel has sold over 17 million copies to date. The strength of the relationships formed is something rarely found in modern storytelling, and I found myself identifying with the main characters instantly.

'New Moon' follows on where 'Twilight' left off, apparently. You wouldn't have guessed it from the opening few minutes. How long after the conclusion of 'Twilight' this takes place is never made clear. It is Bella's 18th birthday, yes, but what has taken place in the weeks/months leading up to this point is not known. You assume Bella and Edward have been playing Happy Couples, but for all we know they could have been fighting every day over petty, vampire-related stuff. The first film had made me genuinely interested in the bond between the two leads. Not knowing the status of their relationship, it's length, it's strength, when watching the first 20 minutes of 'New Moon' unfold, as a non-reader of the books is completely frustrating as I knew that early in the film Edward would leave Bella. I needed to know why, and what built up to Edward giving up on (and I quote directly) 'the only thing that makes me want to stay alive', or some such poorly delivered tosh. Alas, I am lead to understand that an isolated event involving Bella's 18th birthday party and fellow Cullen, Jasper, was the cause of Edward's over-dramatic angst. And that Bella is a total head case.

We all know those girls. The girls that will emotionally drain the blood (pun) from every situation they finds themselves in. The girls who selfishly abandon their social lives, negatively affecting everyone around them as if their high school heartbreak is the only thing wrong with the world. Girls who would be lucky to have a friend like Jacob Black, if only to throw all a boy's good intentions back in their face in favour of someone who is a) not right for them at all, and b) tells them that they love them (on their birthday), promises not to ever leave them and then prompty (you guessed it) leaves them. Woe is Bella as she sits by a window for three months, screaming bloody murder in her sleep. In the words of Vince Vaughn, 'Come on!'

I couldn't care less about Bella. She is the definition of naive, but then, look at the Twilight Saga's target audience (burn!). The way she arrogantly meanders around playing with guys' minds, lapping up their good graces and then acting ultimately out of naivety rather than rationalism is almost unrealistic in a film about vampires and werewolves. The remaining two leads however, are marginally more interesting, and end up feeling less like sex-symbols and more like stacked, exaggerated personalities of a post-modern, adolescent male.

Pattinson is okay as the controlling Edward, who has more sap than a Birch tree coursing through his veins, his pale-white veins. 17-year old Taylor Lautner provides the stronger performance as werewolf, native-american nice guy, Jacob in this second installment, but then, who are we kidding? We all know it's really Academy Award-winner Matt Damon wearing a crap ton of fake tan. Nice try with the pseudonym, Damon! Seriously, Lautner is the closest thing to genuine over all 131 minutes of 'New Moon'. Although it's hard to see past the worst screenplay of the year, I'm pretty sure that Lautner's character is the one to side with (Go Team Jacob!) and he will quick become the new R-Patz with the Twihards. Let's face it, he cut his hair and grew muscles while the beloved Edward settles for some slow-mo, hairy nips style screen time. Good luck in Harry Potter 7!

Wait, there's more. Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning are in this picture! I know! BAFTA-nominated star of 'The Queen', 'Frost/Nixon' and this year's 'The Damned United', Michael Sheen, who comes over as some sort of coked-up, bloodthirsty sex pervert in all of his scenes. Can he not act when he's not playing a figure of history? I was going to throw him in the mix as an Oscar/BAFTA tip after I saw 'The Damned United', but you can be damned sure that isn't happening now. You know those football players who are regarded as great but then on the odd week will have an 'absolute shocker'? Translate that into acting terms and that's Michael Sheen for you in 'New Moon'.

Dakota Fanning on the other hand was a nice treat. She's been off screen a bit lately, and after a promising start culminating in 'The Secret Life of Bees' and 'Coraline', she released DVD-fodder 'Push' and bombs again with 'New Moon' (with the critics, not at the box-office). Her performance is the best in the film, don't get me wrong. I just find myself wondering why such a talent is force-fed a tiny role in a critically poor film. Then I remember that for all she's accomplished, she's still only a 15-year old girl, and she probably loves the books as much as the thousands of maniacal, squeaky tweens that shuffled in and out of my cinema over the last week or so. Fair play, Dakota. Do what makes you happy.

My next beef is a beef I know has upset even the Twihardiest of Twihards. What's with the contact lenses? Hell, Michael Sheen looks like freaking Darth Maul, and the Cullens have returned with a distinctively more French-mustard tinge to them. Why? I'm sure it has something to do with marketing opportunities somewhere down the line (Halloween 2010, anyone?). I just found the unexplained and drastic change from the first film another niggly frustration as the the sequel wore on.

And boy, does it wear on. For a film aimed at 10-20 year old girls, this one sure is lengthy. Anyone who goes to the cinema on a regular basis knows that keeping the attention of girls in that age range is a near impossible task, and I challenge any girl who elects to see 'New Moon' multiple times to come forward and honestly admit there weren't points where they were either bored out of their Edward-loving minds or hanging their heads at the ever cringeworthy one liners ('I just can't imagine living in a world where you don't exist,' or 'I don't think I know how to live without you.' Take your pick. If a guy said that to you, you would laugh in his face).

Some of the werewolf bits were cool, but then Jacob was at least an alphamale which is more than we can say for Mr. Cullen. The birthday party scene was well shot, and the fight scenes in Italy looked pretty decent. Basically, all the selling points in the trailers looked good on the big screen. Regardless of that, the script was so excrable that it makes me fearful of how distressfully tween the book must be.

In closing, I would like to share someone else's view of how the message in the second chapter of 'The Twilight Saga' differs from the 'save yourself for true love' message of the first.

"All this movie does is makes teenage girls think that abusive relationships with older men are normal, healthy, and 'romantic.' The man is literally a parasite. He drinks blood for heaven's sake! Like a big, glittery mosquito."

Silence speaks volumes. How long until 'Where The Wild Things Are'?

A movie about a concert, without the concert.

2009-11-22T23:37:00.007Z

It's good to know that Ang Lee is one director who isn't afraid of fresh challenges. Lest we forget, he followed the abysmal 'Hulk' with the brilliant 'Brokeback Mountain' and ended up winning his first Oscar. A director's first post-Oscar film is always going to be met with great expectation, and rightly so. 'Brokeback Mountain' was near perfect film-making, so you'd expect Lee to play to his strengths with the follow-up. 'Taking Woodstock' does just that, however the new territory that Lee explores (comedy) is a touch hit and miss.

Whether 'Taking Woodstock' is a comedy or a period piece is to be debated. Established comedy writer/actor Demitri Martin plays Elliot Tiber, the central character who wrote the book in 2007 on which the film is based, but the core of the film lies with the brilliant supporting cast which includes Imelda Staunton, Liev Schreiber and Emile Hirsch (not to mention Eugene 'American Pie' Levy). While all of their characters provide sporadic laughs throughout, the film resonates as a story of motivation and self-discovery rather than a hippie-comedy as implied by the trailers. That it is based on a book which is based on one man's account of a true story provides comic limitations from the get go, and in places the comedy really does feel like an afterthought.

What I appreciated about 'Woodstock' was the wonderful use of an ensemble cast, and the intertwining relationships within. There are definite shades of 'Brokeback' in that respect. Martin is impressive in his first lead role, and it is Elliot's selfless effort to help out his debt-stricken parents coupled with his own coming-of-age that makes this film memorable. What it isn't, however, is truly memorable. Even with a cross-dressing Liev Shreiber, a stoney, 'Nam-scarred Emile Hirsch and a wonderfully Jewish Imelda Staunton, 'Taking Woodstock' still lacks something that I can't quite put my finger on. My gut tells me that it's the total absence of live music. Yeah, I know it's not a concert film, but seeing as Lee only takes Elliot as far as the top of the hill, you can't help but feel slightly underwhelmed. Wouldn't you have loved to have been able to bump into Hendrix, Joplin, maybe Joe Cocker? Even if Lee thought the inclusion of musical icons would have been parodical, surely he could have thrown Joe Cocker into the mix!

Maybe I'm being over critical. The collective performances were enough to carry the film, even if the script was somewhat weak. Ironically, Ang Lee's choice of writer (James Schamus) is tragically that of 'Hulk' (as well as most other Lee films apart from 'Brokeback'), his last film in English. Why Lee persists with Schamus is beyond me. He is a talented film-maker no doubt, but screenwriting doesn't seem to be his strong point. Although Schamus is Oscar nominated (for shared writing duties), Lee only tends to get nominated for things when Schamus is not the lead screenwriter. Call it loyalty I guess.

One person who does make Schamus' average script seem better than it is is Imelda Staunton. The Oscar-nominated, British veteran owns every scene she's in, providing the biggest laughs as well as the most character depth. Her Eastern-european/New York accent is flawless and she is almost physically unrecognisable as Elliot's stubborn mother, Sonia. In any other Oscar year, she would probably have achieved a Best Supporting Actress nod for her role, but will most likely recieve a snub with 'Up In The Air' and 'Precious' offering a possible total of four BSA nominations.

Speaking of awards, this film probably won't win any. 'Brokeback' and 'Crouching Tiger' this ain't. While being a quirky, well-acted and beautifully depicted tribute to the greatest concert of all time, it just doesn't offer enough in terms of individual caliber. The soundtrack could have been mindblowing, but it isn't. There could have been live music, but there wasn't. Ang Lee makes it easy to appreciate the effort that went into the organisation of the Woodstock festival, but the lack of actual festival scenery left me unable to feel like a part of it.

Where are Jeff Goldblum and Dennis Quaid?

2009-11-16T15:22:00.006Z

There are those autumn films that you spend the entire summer anticipating. Roland Emmerich's '2012' fell into that category for me. I have long been a fan of the way Centropolis destroy global landmarks, and after the prehistoric '1000BC' (his first film to take it's title from a year) I felt like I was owed some grand scale demolition. 'Independence Day' and 'The Day After Tomorrow' were both enjoyable, and the most obvious elements from both of those are on display for the majority of '2012's 158-minute running time. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily a good thing.

While the relationship between Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal was respectably believable in 'TDAT', the bonds that are formed and said goodbye to in Emmerich's lastest outing are 'Hollywood' at the best of times, with many of the exchanges representative of the tepid dialogue you would find in American daytime soap operas. President Danny Glover's relationship with daughter Thandie Newton is non-existent, and top White House scientist Chiwetel Ejiofor's final conversation with his cruise ship, lounge lizard daddy is verging on laughable. There is moderate chemistry between John Cusack and Amanda Peet, but in the true spirit of things there are kids and animals involved which always means pathetic Hallmark moments in the face of impending doom. In this case there are Cusack's estranged son and daughter, the family of a fat cat Russian billionaire and a little dog named Caesar. Following the literal collapse of California, I found myself willing the film on between grandiose special effects sequences.

That being what it is, the visual accomplishments are worth the price of admission to see this film. While I'm a sucker for a screenplay, I'm sure there are a lot of people who will ignore the points made above and thoroughly enjoy this film for what it is. With a movie like this, that's probably what you should be doing. I know I certainly defended '2012' before it's release, remarking that I was sure to enjoy it on the effects laden scenes alone. Admittedly, I did, but when at least 90 minutes of the film are weighed down with pithy, end-of-all-things sensitivity you tend to get a bit fidgety. Thankfully, we are blessed with a forest-dwelling, conspiracy theorist radio DJ played by Woody Harrelson (and what a 2009 it's been for him with 'The Messenger' still to be released in the UK).

Even when the film begins to climax, you can't help but laugh at the fact that the fate of a quarter of the entire remaining human race depends on John Cusack (little boy in tow, 'cause they made up, you see!) removing a tiny piece of machinery stuck in the engine cogs needed to close the back door of an 'ark' that is about five times the size of the Titanic. The logistics just don't add up. It's stupid, really. All this filmed through budget filter lenses that trick you at first into thinking you are viewing something of a higher definition, but after two and a half hours ends up feeling like a really long network premiere. Ironic, consdering that a '2012' miniseries follow up is already in the works (spare me).

Prepare to have your jaw dropped, but don't expect much else if you can help it.

Anyone who liked this film is sick in the head.

2009-11-15T15:59:00.005Z

I've seen my fair shair of 'shocking' films in the past. Hell, I even owned 'Cannibal Holocaust' on VHS at one point. Big deal. Lars Von Trier's 'Antichrist' however, I can't quite figure out. Stars Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg ('The Science of Sleep') are both established and respected performers. So, why on earth have they risked their careers on such a pompous piece of European smut?

Somehow, this garbage got nominated for the Golden Palm at Cannes in 2009, which for me is comparitive to 'Freddie Got Fingered' being shortlisted for Best Picture. I can see it now, a gang of arty farty continental film critics somehow finding good in what I can only describe as artful torture porn.

Presumably, this is a social commentary focusing on post-natal depression and confused sexuality. I guess. What happens when you are post-natally depressed, probably a lesbian and all mixed up in Paganism and witchcraft? Well, apparently it means that you let your toddler plummet to their death while you screw Willem Dafoe (graphically), and then take him to the forest to screw some more, perhaps make him ejaculate blood while he's unconscious and snip off your clitoris with rusty scissors. Of course, all of this is shown by way of extreme close-ups and unneccesary slow motion. Give me a break.

'Antichrist' is such a mess that it's near impossible to follow. Between the graphic intercourse and sexual violence, there is apparently meant to be some sort of plot. I found though that rather than a tangable story, the film's focus was on the use of infantile shock tactics. Blood and penises not enough for you? Why not throw in a rotting fox knawing away at it's own flesh, pointlessly mouthing the words 'chaos reigns' to round off the second chapter? Everybody loves dying animals with their angry sex, don't they? If you asked Lars Von Trier himself just what the fudge this film is all about, what it means, what the point is, I don't think even he would be able to tell you. The film has its moments which are both visually impacting and genuinely (psychologically) scary, but if you can't indentify with the scene or the characters in it, these qualities go to waste.

This is a self indulgent, contrived and simply disgusting film that has no right recieving praise from anyone. Sorry our pitiful little brains don't work like yours, Lars Von Trier. Watch at your own peril, seriously.

Far more than just 'that Heath Ledger one', even though it is that.

2009-11-13T11:34:00.007Z

Gilliam films are tough. They're certainly not the type of films to whack on after a long night of partying with your buddies. They're also not the type of films that appeal to a mass audience. Gilliam has long been the king of the indie-fantasy world, and reserves his most individual of storytelling styles for the intellectual and the open minded.

'The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus' has received easily double the attention that it would have had we not lost Heath Ledger last January. Now, let me tell you something about Heath Ledger. The man represented a generation of young actors. His talent was limitless and ever so expansive. In fact, I can't remember the last time I got so upset about a celebrity passing. 'The Dark Knight' aside, Heath shone in everything. His performance in 'Brokeback Mountain' was a revelation, while powerful roles in films like 'Ned Kelly' and 'Monster's Ball' also helped to shape his reputation as one of the finest actors in the game today.

The role of 'Tony' is a conflicted one, an amnesiac charity owner who is on the run from Russian loan sharks (it gets weirder). He is discovered by Dr Parnassus (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) and his kooky gang (Andrew Garfield, Lily Cole and Verne Troyer) hanging from a noose under a bridge and taken into their care. Considering it's Ledger's curtain call, I certainly did not anticipate him being introduced to the film at the end of a rope. Talk about uncomfortable. Thankfully, he's not dead and the film presses on.

While Parnassus believes Tony to be sent by the devil himself (played by the AWESOME Tom Waits) with whom he has been bartering for the last thousand years or so, it is not the case. Tony's introduction into Parnassus' world was just a simple case of 'wrong place, wrong time'. He is a deceptive and selfish character all things considered, though charming and witty. He is certainly good at making money for Parnassus, though the latter has never needed money to feed his gambling addiction.

The particular wager that the film is built around is a simple one. First to five souls. Parnassus has no choice but to take part as should he able to attain five souls before The Devil, he would be relinquished of his commitment to handing over his daughter (Lily Cole) on her 16th birthday (as agreed with The Devil in exchange for eternal youth!). Tony signs on as a contributor, and off we go!

Through the mirror is your imagination, whether it be light or dark (kinda like good trip, bad trip. Eh Gilliam?) Once inside, your soul goes to either Parnassus or The Devil. The choice is yours. Once a choice has been made, you return to the real world enlightened and purified, but soulless. It's all very strange to say the least, but compared to previous Gilliam outings, it's suprisingly easy to follow.

Presumably, all the scenes set in London were filmed first. Ledger is in all of them, and boy is he in all of them. Not only has he raised the bar once again, but this time through the most interesting use of accents. While it's never stated, I understand Tony to be of Australian origin living in London. From the sounds of things, he's been here a while. Ledger uses three notable accents over the course of the film. When he's emotionally vulnerable or threatened, he's Australian. When he's playing the tough guy who you apparently shouldn't mess with, he's from London (east end?). And when representing Parnassus during a live performance, he's defined and well-spoken, almost poetic. I can only hope that film-goers and critics alike will recognise this as a strength when breaking down Ledger's final performance. The use of accents is most definitely intentional and should not be written off as a fault.

When Tony isn't in London being brilliant, he is in the imaginarium being portrayed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. As far as I can tell, the changing faces symbolise the many faces of a character. First, it is shown through the drunken yob passing through the imaginarium (who was 'not himself' due to being inebriated), and later through the numerous faces of Tony's character as played by the actors listed above. In short, Ledger's incomplete performance is written into the story seamlessly, and his three successors have limited screentime so as not to detract from the fact Tony is Heath Ledger's role. Naturally, Depp has the least screentime (for obvious reasons) and Jude Law's dialogue is scarce, with Colin Farrell closing the film subtly.

There was a point towards the end of the film when I realised that I wouldn't be seeing Heath Ledger again, and it was a surreal moment. To end his career with two such overpowering performances is fitting. He should always be remembered for his dedication and precision. To have an impact on Hollywood is one thing, but to truly affect the last ten years of modern cinema is something to behold.

2009-11-12T12:06:00.006Z

I'm sure we've all had mixed feelings regarding Michael Jackson over the years, and rightly so. No doubt, the man was a bit confused. Regardless of what you think, Michael Jackson has molded pop music like no one else.

Elvis, Madonna, The Beatles. No one comes close (well maybe The Beatles). What enables MJ to stand out from the rest is his constant reinvention, and I'm not talking about his face. What Michael did better than anyone was appeal to the most varied of audiences. He was able to blend dance, soul, funk, rock and even metal into what is commonly known as 'pop'. He is responsible for your Justin Timberlakes, your Daft Punks and pretty much every boyband since the Jackson 5. His title, the 'King of Pop', on reflection couldn't really be more accurate.

When I first heard about the feature film 'Michael Jackson's This Is It', I instantly dismissed it as a cruel way to recoup the money lost as a result of the London O2 shows being cancelled. It is that, don't get me wrong. Had we not lost Michael tragically in the summer, this film would not have been released. That much is true. During the opening credits in fact, director/choreographer Kenny Ortega makes the point that the footage used was for Michael's personal collection, and was not originally intended for the public. As the film progresses though, you can't help but think that this is what Michael would have wanted.

The end result really is enlightening. From the testimonials of backup dancers/vocalists to the live rehearsal footage of classics such as 'Thriller', 'Beat It', 'Billie Jean' along with cult classics like 'Jam' and 'Man In The Mirror', this is the first time that I have ever been aware of just how integral Michael Jackson is to modern music. He was a tireless professional, a perfectionist and the kindest of souls. Through a lifetime of hardship and being misunderstood, he never lost sight of what he deemed to be critically important. His dedication to making a real change through the unity of pop music is something I have come to admire, and as a musician, will carry with me for the rest of my life.

'This Is It' is the first real insight into what goes into preparing for an epic concert series. From the looks of things, the O2 shows would have been visually breathtaking and worth every penny you paid for a ticket. With it's cinematic segues and mind-blowing pyrotechnics, this show would have been one for the ages, and it's a true shame that they never came to be. Nevertheless, this film paints a picture. Not only are we able to experience the concert to a greater extent than we ever expected, but we are able to experience the painstaking process of what goes into putting a show like this together. Through it all though, the one thing that really stands out for me is the knowledge that regardless of what was happening, Michael was vigilant in ensuring that everyone involved was having the greatest time. He longed for the performers and crew to form real, lasting bonds, and that through these bonds, successful shows would be had. To see someone as grandiose as Michael Jackson set that kind of example is extremely inspiring, and that is how I left the film; deeply inspired to create and perform for all the right reasons. To want to make a difference, to touch lives with your music is one thing, but to succeed in doing so on such a huge scale is simply heroic.

Remember, remember...

2009-11-09T16:45:00.010Z

The casting of John Hurt as the totalitarian monster Adam Sutler is one of the more obvious homages on display in John McTeigue's 'V for Vendetta'. The entire film has a very '1984' feel as it is, but Hurt's appearance brought with it a smile and a tip of the cap to the Wachowski Brothers who on the back of the success of 'The Matrix' franchise have managed to bring to the screen one of the more politically challenging graphic novels of our time. Whereas Zack Snyder's 'Watchmen' focused very much on the visual aspect of a graphic novel translation, McTeigue's 'V for Vendetta' is able to capture the Orwellian fear of the future that lies deep in all of us whilst maintaining a comic book fluidity that is only achieved with the support of producers like The Wachowskis.

V's character is written impecabally. Where McTeigue succeeds with his artful directing style, The Wachowskis succeed with yet another script that once again asks the big questions. What does the future hold for the Western world if we carry on this way? How much is too much? Hell, where is the line? 'V' (portrayed by the poetic Hugo Weaving) is one of the more complex characters of the DC universe. He is Machiavellian, most definitely Orwellian, and certainly insane. Within this tortured soul though, there is hope, determination and compassion. Evey (Natalie Portman) represents all of these things. Through her innocence, he finds solace. And through her confusion, he discovers clemency. It is as his personal transformation takes place that we are able to begin to empathise with the character and his ideals. He sees creation in destruction, where we can only see chaos. He treads the finest line between terrorist and freedom fighter, and in the end it is only in his Messianic death that we are fully aware of just where his integrity lies.

V kills a lot of people in this movie. He is masterful with his impressive collection of knives as proven in his 'final fight' against the easily hated Creedy (Tim Piggot-Smith) and his Solid Snake-y henchmen. This scene specifically has Joel Silver written all over it, despite how freaking awesome it is (keep a close eye out for the Eastwood reference). On the opposite end of the spectrum, V is proven to be a swift and just taker of lives. During a stint offing the evildoers of his past, he is shown offering forgiveness to those declaring repentance. Regardless of the fact that he proceeds to kill them anyway, it is an interesting insight in the soul of a character whose emotional backround is shrouded in mystery. With all the injustice he has endured in his life (partly shown through a series of flashbacks to his time spent at a suspiciously Guantanamo-ish institution), it is difficult to comprehend how such a tortured man is able to feel anything for his former captors.

For an American-produced film to offer so much British talent is a real treat. Stephen Rea and Stephen Fry are on offer to support Hurt, and collectively contribute to the pre-apocolyptic British feel that this movie has. Three years on since it was released in the UK, 'V for Vendetta' seems as relevent as ever. The country lives on edge as America collapses and holds it's breath, praying that we're not next. Violence and corruption rules the streets regardless of the most strictly enforced curfews. Free speech dominates the airwaves as the media makes a mockery of the government while the main channels are clogged with propaganda. Just as Skynet today seems inevitable, The Wachowskis have once again foretold the worst. It's the simple irony of it all that allows '...Vendetta' to rank highly in terms what constitutes a modern cult classic. What's even more interesting is the fact that the original story by Alan Moore (who funnily enough, also wrote 'Watchmen') was concieved between 1982 and 1989!

The choice for the role of Evey Hammond is another issue altogether. While I'm a Natalie Portman fan ('Garden State' and 'Closer' are brilliant), she does nothing for me in this. She's just a bit too fragile to be considered a heroine. And she's American! With an almost entirely regional cast, why was it necessary to cast a New Yorker as the female lead? You tell me. Thanks Joel Silver! She's okay I suppose. Her accent is cliched, but it's forgivable considering her CV. I just honestly believe that there are enough gifted actresses in this country to have been able to pip Portman to the post when it came to casting Evey.

If you know of a better Guy Fawkes film, do let me know. For now though, this film will always make the first weekend of November a thoughtful one for yours truly thanks not only to the beautiful words of Andy and Larry Wachowski, but to the smooth, silky sounds of Hugo Weaving.

Don't lie to me!

2009-11-08T11:26:00.015Z

The trailer for 'The Fourth Kind', upon first viewing looked genuinely intriguing. And the film is, in places. On reflection though, it does seem like a long, drawn out version of said trailer.

Where the film tries to be clever by using Jovovich and director Olatunde Osunsanmi as themselves in scenes deliberately shot in an attempt to heighten realism, it falls flat on it's face. For starters, we all know that what we are watching is fictional, so why waste the screen time on pointless close-ups of the star and the director attempting to drive their obviously forged point home? Not only does Osunsanmi wrap up the film with more than a few minutes of his vain scare tactics, but he also spends about a third of the film (on screen!) self indulgently 'interviewing' the 'real' Abigail Tyler (the character Milla Jovovich portrays, but you know that already seeing as she, the actress, informs the world of this fact in the theatrical trailer as well as the first scene of the film) on what is set up to look like a university sound stage. Now, the actress playing the 'real' Abigail Tyler isn't too shabby. Visually strange enough, she manages to use her voice to decent effect. She looks and sounds like someone who is genuinely disturbed. It is Osunsanmi's acting however, which not only lets down these all too frequent scenes, it is so frustratingly pitiful that it ruins the entire film and should fail to convince even the most gullible of cinema goers.

Do you ever watch films and find yourself leaning over to the person next to you, and shaking your head, saying 'This is stupid. That would never happen.'? The fact that I found myself doing just this during a film about alien abduction is worrying. At one point during the film, Tyler (Jovovich's Tyler) is Sheriff August's (a disappointing Will Patton) prime suspect regarding the recent deaths and disappearances in Nome, Alaska. He suspects her so much so that he places her under house arrest, and places a surveilling officer outside her property 24/7. Cue some strange goings on, as our 'police footage' attempts to capture. At one point we are shown the POV of the mounted dashboard camera. The officer exits the vehicle and begins to rant loudly about 'something hovering over the house' and someone from within the house being 'taken' (OMG!). The camera distorts so we don't see much, but we can tell from the dialogue that yes, there is a flying saucer hovering over the Tyler house and that yes, a tractor beam is shooting down and abducting a family member before his very eyes! This much is evident. Obviously Sheriff Will Patton is round in a flash to question a distraught Tyler, whose daughter is missing (shock!).

Being the skeptic he is, the idea that there was any sort of paranormal involvement in the sudden disappearance is dismissed immediately, and despite the fact that she is visibly terrified for her daughter's safety, he proceeds to accuse her of a) being a mentalist, and b) hiding her daughter from the police. Even when she pleads with him to question the surveilling officer who he placed outside the house and who could probably testify to at least some of what she is saying, he persists with his inquisition. Not only that, he (for some reason that is lost on me) refuses to question the officer, and instead removes her only remaining child (an extremely annoying and unreasonable little boy) from her custody!

Yeah, you read me right. In the wake of the potential abduction (alien or otherwise) of a young girl, instead of hearing out the mother and questioning the officer on the scene at the time of the alleged abduction, a senior local government official decides to go ahead and take her other child too (you know, just to even things up), leaving her writhing on the floor, completely heartbroken. It was at this point in the film that I leant over to the person next to me (it's okay, they were a friend), shook my head and commented that 'this is stupid' and that 'that would never happen'.

Between the terrible acting and subsequent plotholes, there are actually some fairly harrowing scenes. Funnily enough, they all feature the 'archive footage' used in the TV spots to sell the film, but that's hardly suprising. A family is shot up using '24'-esque four-way splitscreen, and two of the hypnosis scenes (primarily the one featuring Tyler herself) will stick with you for a few days after seeing 'The Fourth Kind' (if you make it that far). The use of distorted images leaves a lot to be imagined, so you are left with a terrifying Sumerian soundtrack which sounds like a dinosaur shitting a Michael Bay Decepticon and is far beyond eerie. These scenes are upsetting enough to make you want to tell your friends about them, but when coupled with the poorly scripted story make for a film that is ultimately forgettable. 'Paranormal Activity' couldn't seem more prospectful after watching this tragedy.

Kevin Spacey Rules OK?

2009-11-07T17:08:00.013Z

Is it just me, or did Kevin Spacey say a couple of years ago that he was ceasing to appear in feature films? I remember seeing one of his plays advertised at a theatre in Waterloo a few years ago and thinking, ‘Man, what a shame.’ Since then, he has appeared in blackjack drama ‘21’, and more recently (and certainly more memorably) in the spectacular ‘Moon’ voicing Sam Rockwell’s personal computer, GERTY. Seeing Spacey onscreen has become somewhat of a novelty, and what a novelty it is.

‘The Men Who Stared At Goats’ is political satire at it’s finest. A comedic look at the American military and it’s apparently true investment into psychic warfare (or ‘Psy-Ops’) throughout the 1980s. While it doesn’t consistently conjure up laughs, the laughs that are there really do bust a gut.

These days, I can’t watch Jeff Bridges without thinking about just how awesome he was in ‘The Big Lebowski’. The fact that his first scene in ‘Goats’ is set in ‘Nam is particularly amusing, and I couldn’t help but think of John Goodman the whole time (it’s a league game, Smokey). While there is no direct parallel between Bridges’ Bill Django and The Dude, Bridges is his usual free-spirited self to great comedic effect.

Empire hit the nail on the head when they referred to George Clooney’s performance as his ‘best comedic role since Everett McGill’, and I have to agree. While I find Clooney’s charm in all his roles somewhat humourous, if you blend that with a moustache and an 80’s mop, you get something really special. So special in fact, that combined with the strength of Spacey and Bridges, you almost forget about Ewan McGregor altogether. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got all the time in the world for one of our finest exports to Hollywood. However, when there is such American star power on offer, a talented Scot narrating in an accent foreign to him is easy to shun. No disrespect, but I just didn’t buy into McGregor’s struggling journalist, Bob Wilton. Not a poor performance by any means, it’s just that Clooney, Bridges and Spacey in particular are true heavyweights against which the likes of McGregor (whose experience on the comedy front is limited) cannot compete.

If we’re getting down to brass taxes, this is Kevin Spacey’s film. The last time an actor raised a chuckle every time he appeared on screen (for me) was Robert Downey Jr in ‘Tropic Thunder’. With extremely limited screen time, Spacey does the same in a terrific little role as Django’s opposite, Larry Hooper. A role which (if there’s justice in Hollywood) should earn Spacey at least a Golden Globe nomination if not a Best Supporting Actor nod come the end of January. Whether he’s summoning his spirit guide, Maude, or tripping balls on acid, he’s making you smile every second he’s on screen. It’s a performance that along with his voiceover in ‘Moon’, satisfies my Spacey needs for the year. The fact that he’s been a prominent character in two of the year’s finer indie flicks gives me hope. Hope that this extraordinary talent is on the verge of a fully fledged return to the feature film forefront.

With all these class acts, I find myself asking the same question again and again since seeing the film a mere twelve hours ago. If not for the stellar cast, would this film actually be any good? Unfortunately, the answer is probably ‘not particularly’. I may still have made the effort to see it, and I may still have sniggered throughout, but it is the sheer strength of the ensemble and the damn near perfect delivery of a somewhat lacklustre script that will make this film a critical success.

Hotties with hearts.

2009-11-05T16:48:00.008Z

Let me start by saying that I'm a huge fan of Diablo Cody's work. Obviously by that, I mean that I am a fan of 'Juno'. Not only did that film paint a poignant picture of modern-day middle-America, but it said to a generation of freaks and geeks (pardon me) that tattooed or not, alternative culture has not been forgotten about! On the contrary, it's thriving, and 'Jennifer's Body' proves that (by the soundtrack alone, but we'll get to that later).

Whereas the post-Hughes teen movie has digressed into disarray, with cringe worthy films such as 'I Love You, Beth Cooper' hitting our screens this year, Diablo Cody single-handedly reinvented teen angst when she wrote 'Juno.' She won a Best Original Screenplay statuette for her efforts, and impressive lead Ellen Page was also nominated for her role as the unexpectedly pregnant Juno. Now, with Oscar success comes major studio backing. In short, while your first film is produced by Fox Searchlight, your second film is produced by 20th Century Fox. See where I'm going?

To say I'm a huge fan of Megan Fox's work would be a lie. While there was speculation that 'Jennifer's Body' would flatten her Michael Bay-ed reputation as, and I quote, 'a terrible actress', Fox's performance does nothing but reiterate the fact that Diablo Cody is a genius. Lest we forget that a mere 6 years ago, she was credited for the role of 'Stars-and-Stripes Bikini Kid Dancing Under Waterfall' in 'Bad Boys II'.

In her first outing since 'Revenge of the Fallen', Fox plays Jennifer. She's a literal man-eater. A shallow bitch (for want of a better word) who looks down on those around her, notably her best friend since childhood played by Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia). She is a hollow shell who plays off the fact that she was voted FHM's Sexiest Woman of 2008 and Empire's Hottest Woman in Hollywood. No, wait, that's Megan Fox! Sorry, I'm meant to be describing the character she's portraying.

Cody wrote this role for Fox. That much is evident. To be honest, I don't think Cody was expecting any more from Fox than she gives in 'Jennifer's Body'. Thankfully, we have Seyfried and Adam 'Thank You For Smoking' Brody (who am I kidding, we all know he rocked the hell out of The OC almost as much as Peter Gallagher) on board to contribute to this film actually being rather good.

Seyfried is impressive as our post-modern heroine, 'Needy', and she didn't have to recite a single Abba hit! Ergo, I have been a bold 23 year-old male and gone so far as to choose Amanda Seyfried as my 'Jennifer's Body Blog Image'. Yes, that's a real title. I bestow it, not you. Jokes aside, I did find myself focusing on the heroine rather than the hottie. Not to say Amanda Seyfried isn't hot, because she is.

Rather than being a scaredy cat, screaming or crying the majority of her lines (this being a pseudo-horror), Needy is a character that cares about her family, her boyfriend and her best friend more than anything in the world, regardless of the fact that the latter is a freaking demon who mutilates teenage boys and leaves them rotting in a forest only to be stumbled upon by a Jew-permed JK Simmons being snacked on by deer. Point being, she'd rather root out the problems and try to help her loved ones rectify their situations than see them straying from the path, being someone they're not, or hurting (inside or other people). Even after she learns that Jennifer is a brutal murderer, she still has Jennifer's interests at heart. She wants her best friend back. And it is in this heart, that we find what we are looking for in Diablo Cody's first major studio outing. It's there, as green as the grass, you just have to look past Fox's fit arse and All Time Fudging Low.

Nice to know the Farrelly Brothers can still be funny.

2009-11-04T15:52:00.006Z

I'll be the first to admit that after a string of flops (Stuck on You, Osmosis Jones, Me, Myself and Irene), I never thought that the Farrelly Brothers would be able to return to the classic gross-out humour of 'There's Something About Mary', 'Kingpin', and 'Dumb and Dumber' and do it well. '...Mary' was their last knockout effort, and that was 11 years ago.

When Ben Stiller isn't directing awesome films such as 'Tropic Thunder', he is at his most brilliant when being directed by the Farrelly Brothers. 'The Heartbreak Kid' is no exception. He seems to pick up right where he left off with '..Mary', and for the life of me, I can't understand why this film wasn't more of a success at the box office. Branded another Farrelly flop, I have to disagree. The cast is just too strong. Stiller can carry a film on his own, but when the supporting cast includes Danny McBride, Rob Corrdry, Malin Akerman and the one and only Jerry Stiller, the likelihood is that you're in for a treat.

This film is FUNNY! It's by no means perfect, but there are enough awkward Stiller moments, phenomenally well delivered McBride one-liners, and classic Farrelly gross-out moments (amusingly enough, mostly featuring Jerry Stiller) to restore my faith in the men that gave us the greatest film about bowling since 'The Big Lebowski'. My only gripe is that it was a tad too lengthy (pushing two hours), and you only do lengthy comedy if you're Judd Apatow.

The story is amusing enough. Stiller is pushing 40, and has always been hesitant to tie the knot. He caves, marries the always breathtaking Akerman, and the nightmare starts on the drive to Cabo. While she is recovering from a horrific bout of sunburn, he meets Michelle 'Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang' Monaghan and her spectacularly true-to-life redneck family fronted by the consistently impressive McBride. They hit it off, he figures out that Akerman has got to go and bam, instant awkward comedy.

McBride and Corrdry's scenes make the film, and Stiller is as solid as ever. While it's no '...Mary' or 'Kingpin', it certainly wets my appetite for 'The Three Stooges'. Nice to have you back, Bobby and Peter.

Oh, and Carlos Mencia is about as funny as a screendoor on a battleship. BOOM!

'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time' Trailer!

2009-11-03T18:29:00.005Z

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Trailer Park | MySpace Video

This looks very, very awesome. Jake Gyllenhaal's British accent doesn't sound that bad either! Looking forward to this one. Enjoy.

Proof that Peter Sarsgaard is one of the best actors of the decade.

2009-11-03T15:12:00.012Z

With the release of 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' looming, it seems fitting (as it can be) to have a quick look at one of the finer war films to come out since the end of the Gulf War.

This film is so fine in fact, that I tend to often overlook the fact that it is directed by a Brit. And not just any Brit, Mr Winslet himself, Sam Mendes ('American Beauty', 'Revolutionary Road', 'Away We Go'). With strong performances from Academy Award nominee Jake Gyllenhaal and deserved Oscar winner Jamie Foxx, this is a film that relies on the solidarity of it's cast and the strength of it's script rather than the blood and guts of it's predecessors.

Having grown up as the son of a USAF Tech Sergeant who served during Desert Shield, I can testify to the emotions and attitudes conveyed by the cast of Jarhead. While my father was never sent to the Middle East, the patience and frustration on display in this film still resonate with me to this day. As shown through the marines' broken relationships with family and friends back home, the time spent pitting scorpions against each other, playing American football in chemical suits and masturbating took its toll on more than just the soldiers. The time spent not firing a single shot affected every relationship in these boys' lives, as well as their relationships following the end of Desert Storm (which lasted all of five days).

This frustration, this testing of wills and of patience although painted well by Mendes, is brought to life by the remarkable Peter Sarsgaard ('Garden State', 'Rendition' and more recently the Sundance success 'An Education') who manages to own the film using nothing but the simplicity of tone. While his fellow Marines really do come across as the definition of 'jarheads' (especially Swofford, despite his emotional complexity), Sarsgaard's Troy seems a far more intellectual character, even if he isn't. Who knows? It could be experience rather than intellect. Either way, Troy's often monotonous drone leaves a lot to be interpreted in regards to how he actually feels about anything. With Gyllenhaal's Swofford, you get his heart on his sleeve. He is the central character, so it's only fair. The same applies to the straightshooting Sykes (Foxx), and loner O'Donnell (played by Brian Geraghty who appears more recently in the phenomenal 'The Hurt Locker').

Some might say that Sarsgaard is just playing a war-torn version of himself, and they would be correct, but his style and grace fit the role of Troy perfectly. His drone compliments the boredom of Desert Shield (the whole point the film is trying to make), and his penultimate scene with Gyllenhaal and 'President' Dennis Haysbert is one of the more moving pieces of cinema that Mendes has ever crafted. The culmination of 175 days of bullshit all comes crashing down in front of you, and in a split second Sarsgaard becomes a modern gem.

'What difference does it make?'

Strong men also cry.

2009-10-22T18:52:00.000+01:00

COMING OCTOBER 2009