True Grit, or, Jeff Bridges is Awesome

True Grit is a movie made up of pieces, which never quite come together to form a coherent whole. While each of its stars, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and the charming Hailee Steinfeld, are great in their own roles, the roles themselves almost feel like they’re from three very different films – like the Coen Brothers couldn’t decide what kind of movie they were making.

Jeff Bridges, as the whiskey-soaked, gravelly Rooster Cogburn, hasn’t been this entertaining to watch since his turn as the Dude in another Coen Brothers piece. His performance is so gritty (if you’ll forgive my using the phrase) it almost leaves sand in your mouth – he’s rough, tough, and way past his prime. Watching him is like remembering the golden era of Western film, reminiscent of the gun-toting outlaws and town defending sheriffs. But he’s old, too, and more heart-breaking in his way than the tale of Mattie’s vengeance for her wrongfully slain father.

Let’s talk about Mattie: I don’t know where the Coens found Steinfeld, but she’s a treasure in this movie and I look forward to seeing her in future projects. Her Mattie Ross is self-possessed and righteous, quoting the law at anyone she perceives as standing wrongfully in her way. Her “good lawyer” back home does not feature bodily in the film, but pops up in almost all of her conversation. Steinfeld successfully brings to life Mattie’s precociousness and also her own illusions; that is, that wrongs will always be brought to right, and that the law will always triumph. Mattie has to learn some hard lessons about preconceived notions and, more importantly, about the way that people really work, but Steinfeld makes her believable.

Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger, Mr. LaBoeuf, is the wrong note in the film. I’ve never seen the original True Grit, so I don’t know how he played out in that version, but here LaBoeuf is played (wrongfully, I think) for laughs. He is too tight, too formal, too absurd. Damon is excellent in the role, but the role is wrong for the film.

That is the weak point of True Grit: it can’t decide if it wants to be serious, or if it wants to be absurd. And rather than becoming a serious film with moments of humor, it ends up as an emotionally weak film with moments of awkwardness. I never really felt the immediacy of Mattie’s problem; I was never invested in seeing her father’s killer brought to justice. The dialogue, which is mostly very smart, does distance the audience by occasionally becoming comically flat or tremendously melodramatic - no one uses contractions ("This scheme did not unfold like I had planned;" after cutting down a hanged man, "I do not know this man."). For a film all about family and justice and revenge, True Grit itself fell a little comically flat.

The Last Airbender, and why I didn't totally hate it

I didn't totally hate The Last Airbender.

I expected to. As my boyfriend can tell you, I'm occasionally too receptive to outside influence when it comes to movies, especially ones that garner strong reactions either positively or negatively. That's why I don't read reviews of movies I'm REALLY interested in - I want to make sure that when I see it, how I feel isn't influenced by other people's opinions.

In the case of The Last Airbender, it was impossible NOT to hear about what other people thought. Usually it involved visiting mortal harm on M. Night Shyamalan. And I don't disagree with them - he did some things with a franchise I'm extremely fond of that he should be ashamed of - but I also thought the film had some really beautiful moments. When our heroes enter the Southern Water Tribe city, for instance: it's impossible to watch that great, majestic glacier and not think of the White City of Gondor. And the choreography for the benders was lovely to watch, a combination of dance, tai chi, and martial arts.

The effects for the bending itself were interesting, but revealed one of three incredibly major problems I had with the film: the color palette is so muted and dark. Even when the fire benders are fighting, the flames aren't as bright or fearsome as they should be. The television show is so vibrant, and color is SO thematically important, that Shyamalan really did the property a disservice by making it so dim. There's an overabundance of blues and muted grays and whites that's just depressing, which leads me to my next problem...

It's so JOYLESS. The show had such a sense of humor, more so than just Sokka's comedic relief - Aang was a clown, and Momo and Appa where jokesters, and one of the show's real strengths was its ability to handle really serious situations and balance them with light-hearted moments. The film is so, unrelentingly somber, although Jackson Rathbone gets a couple of good moments (plus his line delivery is pretty excellent). Actually, that's a good segue for the BIGGEST problem I had with the movie...

Nicola Peltz is a TERRIBLE actress.

No, really. I know a lot of people had big problems with Noah Ringer as Aang, but he's not so bad. Humorless, like I was talking about earlier, but that's Shyamalan's shoddy directing and not the kid. He was fine. The problem was that Peltz ruined every single scene she was in, even when she didn't say anything: flat line delivery, bizarre and over-enthusiastic facial expressions when she was in the background (she reminded me of a kid doing a school play, actually), and some kind of energy-sucking awfulness that made all her scenes a chore. Ringer is actually quite likable in the scenes without Peltz, especially when he has a real actor like Dev Patel to bounce off of.

Let's talk about Patel; and Shaun Toub, and Cliff Curtis, and how the ENTIRE Fire Nation was awesomely badass and clearly the single best part of this film. Patel smolders with rage at the father who betrayed him and the family that despises him, while Toub protects him with a paternal fierceness that's incredible to watch. Say what you want about Shyamalan's casting, but I will go to my grave defending these people and the complexity they brought to a mostly flat landscape.

I would like to watch The Last Airbender again on a non-airplane screen, mainly to see what a real screen does for the color and also the sound quality. I can't really comment on the sound because of how AWFUL the speakers on the plane were, but I don't think there was anything obviously wrong with it. I honestly do hope the other two films planned for this franchise get made, because I think there's good stuff there - Shyamalan just needs to get over himself and let someone with talent direct it.

Fanboys (and why Roger Ebert is so, so wrong)

Today I want to talk about the criminally underrated, nearly-ignored, and almost uniformly poorly-reviewed Fanboys. Directed by Kyle Newman and starring Sam Huntington, Jay Baruchel, Kristen Bell, and Dan Fogler, this film has been called “…a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle,” (Roger Ebert), and “mildly cute, mildly drooly, [and] majorly too-late spoof/homage” (Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly). They’re both wrong.

Ebert’s biggest error comes from the fact that, apparently, he has never been a fan of anything in his life. Right at the outset of his review, he makes it clear that he simply doesn’t get it: “A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them. They have mastered the "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" universes or whatever, but their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.” If this was true, then the subject matter itself wouldn’t matter. Of course it does, it’s the only thing that matters. Ebert never stops to ask why people are fans of Star Wars, he assumes that that’s beside the point. And as the heroes of Fanboys can tell you, there are scores of reasons why Star Wars has captured the hearts and imaginations of movie-goers for over 30 years, and not just for the sake of fandom itself.

Fanboys is about a group of geeks that head across the country to break into George Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch, the goal of which is to see the rough cut of Episode I before anyone else. It’s a fairly typical road trip movie that’s also about knowing when to grow up and what’s important to take with you when you do. It is also about the unifying power of a cultural phenomenon that Windows, Hutch, Linus and Botts (our titular fanboys) have celebrated together since they were children – something made more poignant by the fact that Linus is dying of cancer (in a subplot which was the topic of a flaming internet debate, and which I’m glad ultimately stayed in the film. It keeps our boys from being parodies.), and won’t be around to share in their joy when Episode I is released in theaters.

At its heart, Fanboys is about that shared cultural experience. What Ebert so cynically calls “a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills,” is actually a celebration of a universal connection: when a bully shows up at the premier of Episode I and gives our heroes a good-natured high-five, they are justifiably confused…until he smiles jovially and says simply, “It’s the Wars, bro.” The angry pimp that terrorizes Windows and Hutch in Las Vegas has half-sleeve tattoos on both his arms (right side for Light Side, natch), and they are saved when he gets distracted defending the honor of Han Solo. It shows us, unapologetically, that we're all fans of something; the topic of the movie is Star Wars, but the devotion is a relate-able experience that everyone feels for something. Devotion for Star Wars (or anything else) is not an isolated phenomenon, and it’s certainly not reserved for the most hardcore – Fanboys shows us that, underneath, every one of us is a fanboy.

Except Roger Ebert.

(As a side note, Ebert has also apparently never heard of girl nerds. About Kristen Bell, thoroughly charming as Zoe, the estrogen antidote to all the testosterone on this trip, he sarcastically says “She’s almost better than the date who turns into a pizza and a six-pack when the deed is done.” This is, of course, in reference to the fact that she’s not only totally hot, but also a Star Wars geek. Hello, Mr. Ebert. My name is Martha, I’m totally cute, and I’m a complete nerd. And what’s more? I’m not the only one. Girl nerds are NOT A MYTH.

Did I just blow your mind?)

Vanessa Hudgens: Unexpected Acting Star

Sucker Punch is the best move Vanessa Hudgens could have made for her career. What’s more, I think it’s going to make her much more successful in the long run than her beau Zac Efron.

Ex-Disney princess, former face of High School Musical, and temporary scandale, Hudgens has never registered in my mind as more than, say, Selena Gomez. She’s generically pretty, of average talent, and almost entirely forgettable. I have never found her offensive, but I also don’t go out of my way to watch her in things. In short, up to this film she has been one of a thousand fresh faced Disney starlets, vaguely entertaining and entirely disposable. Her acting resume up until now has included High School Musicals 1-3, something called Bandslam, and a surprising blip early on (Thirteen). Oh, and a bunch of random Disney show guest spots.

Enter Sucker Punch. I know it’s early to be speculating on this film – the trailer has only recently been publicized, and deciphering the plot line is a sticky tangled mess, but you only have to look at the (heavily photoshopped) posters to know that this is so far outside of Hudgens’ established acting zone it’s practically on another planet. She appears in a leather-and-nylon heist-style body suit, with lots of buckles, an awesome pair of goggles, and a gun that’s bigger than I am. She looks dirty. She looks a little scary. And she looks like a badass. (The Ultimate Badass title goes to Jena Malone, who not only looks like she can kill you with her brain in her shot, but can now deadlift 300 pounds as a result from the physical training she did for the film.)

Suffice to say, it’s a long way from Disney. It’s also connected to a director known for his gritty, action-filled noir influenced violence films (300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead). AND, to top off that already intriguing cake, she’s surrounded by established and capable actors, including Jon Hamm and Carla Gugino. The true test will be to see how she does in the film, but all in all, it looks like a remarkable set-up and could be her vehicle to a more diverse acting career. And if she proves her chops as an action girl star, we’ve got one more kick-ass chick in Hollywood, and that’s never a bad thing.

In contrast, here’s what Zac Efron has been doing (keep in mind, he’s supposed to be the more talented and more successful star than Hudgens): 17 Again and Charlie St. Cloud. Fluffy, romantic one-notes. He did do a pretty good turn in Hairspray, but since that’s SO closely related to High School Musical, I have a hard time thinking about it in terms of advancing his career.

Go you, Vanessa. Show us how a Disney girl can grow up and be awesome.

Inception, and the Problem With Trailers

I saw Inception last night, but that's not what I want to talk about right now. I think the major media outlets and the rest of the world are doing a really good job of promoting how awesome and well-conceived and visually stunning Inception is, so it's really enough to say that I agree with them and think you should all go see the movie right now. What I WOULD like to talk about is the distressing habit of trailers to ruin movies.

Before Inception I watched three trailers: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, The Social Network, and The Town. Wall Street is a sequel, so it's a pretty good guess that the film will be about Shia LaBeouf following Michael Douglas into nefarious money-making schemes and Carey Mulligan saving them all by being adorable. The Social Network is about all those privacy and copyright issues we've all grown to know and love because we use Facebook every day. These movies are being marketed on their familiarity to us - the trailers can tell us anything because we already know everything. And that's ok.

But The Town has potential to be surprising and exhilarating. Ben Affleck is a bank robber trying to make good in a small New England town, girlfriend and everything. Except that his girlfriend was the hostage in an earlier bank robbery, and it turns out that Affleck was one of the robbers in that incident. Instant drama. But how thrilling would it have been to be watching that movie, and to not know that that connection existed? What a reveal that could have been! Except that it's in the trailer, and now the film pretty much has no surprises for us.

Somewhere, at some point, movie producers decided that audiences didn't want surprises. The biggest evidence of this is the staggering number of sequels and remakes being pumped out of Hollywood; they're practically no-risk, because the litmus test has already happened. And now trailers are performing the same function, by using what should be key plot points as artificial hooks. It makes me feel like studios don't trust me as an audience member, which is ludicrously condescending.

And what's more, we know have PROOF that this doesn't need to happen. What did you know about Inception from the trailers and ad campaigns? Practically nothing - in fact, Christopher Nolan banked the whole profit of the film on not telling us anything. And it worked. Inception made $64 million in its opening weekend, and continues to profit by that endangered species, word-of-mouth publicity. Nolan trusted us an audience to choose to see his film even though (and more importantly, because) we'd be surprised by it. Not only did this make me want to Inception pretty desperately, but it also makes me more inclined to see films Christopher Nolan makes, because he has made me feel like he respects me as an audience member more than other directors or studios. And I appreciate that immensely more than I appreciate being spoon-fed an idea because someone doesn't trust me to "get it."

You know who else makes trailers like this? Trailers that give you a taste of a concept, without telling you much of the story and certainly without giving any plot keys away? Pixar. Remember the first teaser for Wall-E? Some starscapes and that adorable robotic voice. Later, we got to see the little dude gazing soulfully up at the sky, and finally we learned that he'd developed imagination and a personality. That was all. Wall-E made $63 million on its opening weekend. I could also quote you stats on UP and Toy Story 3, because they're similar stories. This isn't quite the same animal, since at this point Pixar has basically proved that they can't actually make BAD movies, but the point is the same: Pixar gives us a taste and a striking visual and trusts us to come to the theater on those legs alone. And it WORKS.

I hope it's a lesson other studios can learn.

The Human Centi-WHUT

I'd like to address an issue that is facing modern cinema, and that deeply concerns me. It has to do with a genre of film that I don't have a lot to do with, because I have a serious problem with horror. Any horror movie you watched that made you say, "Hey, that wasn't so scary," I guarantee it terrified me. There are TRAILERS I can't watch because they scare me so deeply. I once saw a trailer for the movie Slither and repressed it so deeply that when I had a nightmare about it, I had no idea where the images came to me from.

But I'm fascinated by horror: I can't watch it, but I read all about it. I beg people to know the ends to the movies I'm too chicken to see. I can spend hours on Wikipedia reading about these movies that I'll never see. You can imagine my fascination when I stumbled across a film called The Human Centipede, accompanied by a poster of a silhouetted person with two extra sets of arms. "Oh," I thought. "It's a monster movie. About a mutant person. With extra hands, and maybe extra legs."

Oh, how little did I know...

The trailer didn't work on my computer and now I know this is a blessing. The Human Centipede is a nightmare film the likes of which I hope never to see again. The plot is grotesquely simple: a mad doctor kidnaps three people and stitches them together into a "human centipede," connected by their digestive systems. Mouth to ass. And this is where I died a little inside.

Is this really what the horror film genre has sunk to? What happened to subtlety? What happened to letting our own minds provide the scare? Hitchcock knew how to scare without blood. Stephen King and his movie adapters understood that a a skillfully placed noise could make you shudder better than a medical freak show. When did filmgoers decide they'd rather experience vomit-inducing imagery than eerie cinematography?

How To Train Your Dragon

Dreamworks doesn't have a very good reputation with moviegoers right now, and I only understand part of that. I skipped Monsters Vs. Aliens, with good reason I think, but the first two Shrek movies where a romping good time and Kung Fu Panda was fun seasoned with the right amounts of comedy, sweetness, and old-fashioned ass kicking. So I wasn't as skeptical going in to How To Train Your Dragon as some people may have been, and I feel like my open-mindedness was justly rewarded.

Every part of this movie is good. Dreamworks has definitely stepped up their game in terms of animation, and Dragon is visually their best work by miles. Sweeping skies and pounding waves make up the backdrop of this Viking story, with a few idyllic forest scenes and a waterfall tucked away for emphasis. One of Dreamworks' flaws in the past has been over-filling their scenes, so that you get overwhelmed by the amount of STUFF in the frame (that isn't rendered nearly as well as, oh, Pixar) but here wide spaces are used to dramatic effect. Watching the little black dragon sweep through a backdrop of mounded clouds is breath-taking.

Speaking of that little black dragon, Toothless and his lizardy friends are the absolute show stealers here. Jay Baruchel's Hiccup doesn't compete with them for the attention they command; instead, he seems to spend most of the time presenting them for appreciation. Toothless, his sleek, black adopted friend, is somewhere between a housecat, a leopard, and a really big snake - he's intelligent, and fierce, but inclined to roll in the grass to scratch an itch, or prepare a pounce from a rocky ledge. I was fascinated by the other varieties of dragon that are also in play; a two-headed beast, a long and pointy one that sets itself on fire, a stubby fat one that resembles a junebug. They're unique, and exceptional, and they're not pretty - these dragons are not romanticized, and I appreciated that.

The Vikings are, for the most part, not nearly as interesting, but they fill their story roles well. The voice cast helps enormously with that: Baruchel is funny, self-deprecating, with perfect vocal inflection for the max amount of comedic timing possible. Gerard Butler is gruff and awkward (and doesn't hide his Scottish accent, THANK GOD) and the perfect duo with Craig Ferguson, who plays a blacksmith missing several limbs. The Vikings are funny but never clownish, which went a long way to keeping the tension in necessary places; even though, intellectually, I KNEW everything would turn out ok in the end, the film kept enough gravity that I was at the edge of my seat as it neared its climax.

Even if you don't like fantasy, even if animation isn't your thing, see this one. It's touching, poignant, silly, and will cause you to gasp in excitement. (As a side note, I did not see it in 3D and I didn't feel like I was missing anything.)

Clash of the Titans

I grew up watching the glorious, campy, jerky-effects ridden Greek mythology movies. Jason and the Argonauts, the myriad Voyages of Sinbad, and especially Clash of the Titans - Ray Harryhausen productions are an indelible part of my childhood. So when I first heard a rumor of Clash of the Titans being revamped, I was absolutely thrilled. What could be better than taking the familiar story and giving its Eighties-era aesthetic a shot of adrenaline? Converting Harry Hamlin into Sam Worthington, pitting Liam Neeson against Ralph Fiennes, and gigantic scorpions; how could it go wrong?

Damn the 3D technological movement, is what I have to say about that. Damn it and throw it out the window.

The remake, which I saw on Saturday with my parents and my boyfriend, simplifies the story from the original, sticking closer to the myth itself. What we lose is basically the Calibos storyline, which is tragic only in that we also miss out on the eternally brilliant line, "Calibos! Be merciful!" Zeus and Hades are the only gods that get screen time (although there is a fabulous call-back to Athena from the original when Worthington unearths Bubo the mechanical owl from a chest of armor). The battle with Medusa has survived basically intact, and Medusa benefits hugely from the improved effects, becoming a sleek and terrifying monster that moves through her temple with sibilant ferocity. The film is fun, exciting in moments, and as fabulously violent as I'd hoped.

Where it suffers, and it does suffer greatly, is in the cinematography. The decision to add the 3D element halfway through filming was a TERRIBLE one - Neeson as Zeus is already filmed through a soft focus lens, and adding the 3D tech makes him almost completely out of focus. It doesn't add anything and it detracts quite a bit. Especially in the shaky-cam, close-up fight scenes, which bothers me in better filmed movies; I hate not knowing who's killing who, and I lost a lot of perspective on the action scenes (which take up the majority of the film).

Clash also obnoxiously hardly ever gives us wide-angled shots. We are treated to an overabundance of close-ups, which in some cases makes sequences tense and exciting. In others, well, I just want to see the damn Kracken, ok? I get that he's huge, and terrifying - show me the breadth of his size. Let me SEE him in comparison to Argos and the cliff; that will truly show me what Perseus is up against.

I'd like to see Clash again in 2D, and see whether or not the viewing quality improves like I hope it will. Otherwise, I'm glad that I saw it, and it was definitely enjoyable, but I think I'll be sticking to Hamlin and Harryhausen.

Up In The Air vs. The Blind Side

I've now seen eight of the ten nominees for Best Picture, and of the last two (Precious and A Serious Man, which I have been reading as A Single Man for a long time now, and explains why people look at me weird when I talk about "the best picture nom with Colin Firth in it) I am only vaguely interested in seeing A Serious Man. I've discussed my thoughts on Avatar pretty freely, y'all know how I feel about District 9 (it should win), and I did a pretty in-depth review of The Hurt Locker. An Education was a thoughtful coming-of-age story and Carey Mulligan was charming in it; I really, really, did not enjoy Inglorious Basterds, and Up, while wonderful and whimsical, will have a better chance in the Best Animated slot than this one.

So. To the last two nominees, both of which I had a chance to see quite recently.

Up In The Air was, quite simply, fabulous. Clooney, who is really playing himself here, bounces his wittily written dialogue off his two formidable supporting actresses with aplomb, both of whom hold their own with the leading man in a really interesting way. Anna Kendrick, fresh off the Twilight stage, is an absolute find here - her anal retentive, idealistic Natalie is both refreshingly real and irritatingly superior. She knows what her life is supposed to be like, dammit, and God help you if you get in her way.

Vera Farmiga is the perfect counter-point to Natalie's youth and naivete, and I felt that the weakest scene the film had was due to the writers and the director getting confused about her character. Alex is a sexy, strong, intelligent philanderer and the movie falters when it tries to steer Farmiga away from that; it is best when it lets her and Clooney do what they do naturally (or, you know, what I assume to be natural) without a lot of directorial interference.

I do wonder if the story will age well; it is SO severely topical that it is a great movie for our age, but if when the economy does get better and unemployment is no longer quite such an issue, will it seem as poignant? I hope so - I'd like to think that Clooney's odyssey of self-discovery against the backdrop of such a hopeless, bleak environment is really quite stunning.

Now. Let's all ask ourselves the important question: why the HELL The Blind Side even got nominated.

I saw this, I enjoyed it - I like Sandra Bullock, and she was quite charismatic as the Southern housewife-turned-personal activist. Goodness knows I love uplifting sports movies. The problem was that there was hardly anything TOO The Blind Side. There was no tension; I was never afraid bad things would actually happen to any of the characters, no matter how much the film wanted to make me think so. Part of that is because it's a true story, so you know how it ends, but it isn't as though this is the first time someone has turned a true story into a film. I also thought that one of the central "conflicts" was COMPLETELY ludicrous: a woman from the NCAA tries her damndest to make me think that it could possibly be a bad thing for rich, privileged people to help impoverished, troubled minorities, because SOMEHOW this makes it UNFAIR for universities because they might send talented athletes to their alma maters.

Make sense to you? Me, neither.

I've been thinking about it, and I think that The Blind Side got nominated because the Academy didn't want to double-dip in genres. Star Trek was out because Avatar and District 9 amply fulfill the science fiction quota. The Messenger is out because of The Hurt Locker. (500) Days of Summer was beat by the other indie darling, An Education. It's a place filler; a bad one, but a place filler nonetheless. I don't like it much, but since there are only three real contenders here anyway (no matter what Tarantino wants you to think) I'm not sure how much it matters.

Which in and of itself is a pretty sad thought, in the grand scheme of cinema.

The Wolfman

The Wolfman was AWESOME.

No, really, it totally was. It struck all of the right notes, from the dry-ice fog on the ground to the overwrought Gothic castle (complete with dry leaves crumbled on the floor!) and the tension-building violin music in the background. The story itself had some problems, but watching it was a joy. Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving are a triangle of fabulous acting and you can tell they were having fun: each of them owns their character, delivering a perfectly balanced triad of hunter, hunted, and orchestrator. Hopkins is perhaps the standout, portraying a loving, if distant, father figure with such subtlety you don't notice until its too late that he's been hiding dangerous insanity. Weaving and Del Toro have somewhat less complex characters to play, but they still deliver with a ferocity and believability that is engaging to watch.

Emily Blunt is completely wasted in her role as Gwen, the fiancee of dead brother Ben and later love interest of Del Toro's Lawrence, which is a criticism of the role rather than the actor. She is given hardly anything to do but simper, although she, also, takes hold of her role and acts the hell out of it. It is a testament to her skills as an actor that she is interesting to watch onscreen, even when all she is doing is running away.

There are moments of real fright in the film, moments that make your skin crawl and moments that make you jump out of your chair. The score plays a big part in this - in any other instance, I would have said it was over dramatic. Here, though, EVERYTHING is so over dramatic that it loops back around to believable. The movie picks an aesthetic and sticks to it like nothing else, and it is SO over the top that you can't help but get drawn in. Right down to the end credits, which are played over various medical sketches and diagrams attempting to illustrate some of the "science" behind lycanthropy, the film owns its vision, and it is a vision I love.

What I loved most about The Wolfman is that it, somewhat like Underworld, takes pop culture back to the roots of lycanthropy: unromanticized and violent, deformed and doomed. These are not Stephanie Meyer's "werewolves," they are not Anne Rice's, they are not the self-aware shapeshifters that run freely with the wolf pack and can change at will. They are MONSTERS. There is nothing romantic about Benicio Del Toro's plight, and Gwen KNOWS that - as she frantically searches for a way to save him, she comes to the same realization that the audience does. For Lawrence, and for anyone cursed like this, there is only one solution, and there's no getting around that. Not a happy ending, but a necessary one, and I personally don't think it could have ended any other way.

My mother's quest

My mother, like myself, is a very big fan of cinema and also of the Oscars telecast. Every year, she makes it her personal mission to see most, if not all, of the films that have been recognized by the Academy, because it makes the show more interesting to watch. I also try to do this, because I enjoy having a knowledge of the performances - this way I can agree or disagree with the Academy's choices on an informed basis.

This year is no different - my mother made up a list of all the films nominated for the major awards and planned her attack thusly. I am to be taken along for the ride, because my father is not quite so invested in the Oscars as we are. It's a bit tricky at the moment, since some of the films on her list (Invictus, The Last Station) were not wide-release to begin with and are now almost vanished from theaters. But some are actually out on DVD or available on Pay-Per-View, which was how we came to see The Hurt Locker.

Do not doubt that The Hurt Locker deserves all the praise it has been receiving. Ms. Bigelow has created something raw and gritty, that gave me insight into something I didn't know much about before. She captures the tense moments perfectly and for exactly the right amount of time - it is easy, I think, to over- or under-play those "edge of your seat" moments, and Bigelow gets them down perfectly. The opening scene had me sweating in my chair after only a few minutes; a scene in which Jeremy Renner works on a car bomb made me near forget to breathe.

The one technique Bigelow overplayed, in my opinion, was the shaky real-cam. I developed a bit of a headache by the end because of all the bouncing around; this style of shooting does give it somewhat of a documentary type feel, but it is a conceit that the movie is strong enough to do without. I would have felt the impact more if it had been used more sparingly to highlight the peak moments of stress.

Renner is fair brilliant as the adrenaline-addicted bomb diffuser; I had to ingest the film for a while after I saw it, to reconcile the two distinct halves of the film, but I think they ultimately mesh so well because of how Renner folds the mechanics of bomb diffusion show-cased in the first hour into the deeper examination of his psyche in the second hour. (Immediately after viewing I had a problem with two deaths that I thought were unnecessary and cheap - on further thought, I still think that of one, but not the other.)

The Hurt Locker suffers by occasionally overplaying its hand. As I mentioned above, Bigelow takes two easy shots, one of which she convinces me is worth it at the end and one of which she doesn't. I already know that war is hell and that there are no winners and it's unfair and all of that, and the film does a good job of reinforcing those points; I don't need the extra, predictable, unnecessary death to prove that. I also felt the end was too obvious; I won't go into details, but a quote opens the movie and then you get slammed in the face with it at the end.

Worthy of the Best Picture nom? Absolutely. Worthy of the win? Moreso than Avatar, but District 9 is still my favorite - D9 and Hurt Locker are both movies about war and about marginalized people, but D9 tells a stronger story in a more impressionable way. And it doesn't overload you with shaky-cam.

REALLY the 50 Worst Movies? Are You Sure?

I was directed to Empire Online's list of The 50 Worst Movies Ever recently, and I have to say, if I was making this list it would have turned out a little differently. I understand that there are some occasions when I am a little more forgiving of quality because I am entertained, but I think that's the point - a Worst Movie Ever should have NO redeeming features, and entertainment is pretty much the prescribed purpose of cinema. Why SHOULDN'T I enjoy a movie that, despite a cheesy script or dubious acting, makes me want to watch it again because it's fun? And at fifty slots, I am POSITIVE I could come up with enough vacant, mindless piles of dribble to fill it.

Here are, specifically, the ones I disagree with:

41. Van Helsing (2004)

Yes, the Dracula in this film bares little to no resemblance to Stoker's creature of nightmares, but Hugh Jackman and David Wenham made a charming pair with some good banter. Jackman is a pretty awesome Action Hero, but he also has the acting chops to bring some meat to what could have been an empty-headed muscle man; his Van Helsing was intriguing and likable. Kate Beckinsale struck the right notes of over-the-top and sympathetic, in her leather corset and take-no-shit-from-these-vampire-hookers attitude. Plus the visual effect is gothic and interesting.

30. Scary Movie (2000)

Anna Faris alone makes this one worth watching (or at least, makes me pause for a scene or two whenever it's on Comedy Central). I will always defend the Scary Movie franchise because there are nuggets of actual, belly-laughing humor in there. I don't disagree that this film is bad, just that there are worse films (with no comedic value whatsoever) that should have been called out before this one. If the list went to 100, then maybe. Otherwise I'd advise you to enjoy watching Faris stretch her comedy legs.

28. The Sweetest Thing (2002)

I genuinely thought this film was sweet and enjoyable, with a solid cast and just the right ending (my dad owns it because he likes it so much). In a world where Cameron Diaz only makes something worth seeing every fifth movie or so, I thought the harmless rom-com environment of this film (you know how it ends, and frankly that's ok with me, because one watches this sort of film for the predictable ending) was good for her. She got to be awkward and unsure and I believed her. It's a feel-good movie that does its job, and I don't fault it for that.

25. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

While it did not deliver in the same grand way that its predecessor did, Fallen still made good on all that it promised: big fucking robots fighting each other and destroying large chunks of the landscape. Director Michael Bay could have used more restraint in the number of bots and the visual effects needed to be more streamlined (can I PLEASE get a slow-mo of someone transforming? It looks SO cool but I just can't SEE), and every scene with the two idiot twins could have seen them replaced with Sideswipe and Ironhide, but this film never pretends to be anything other than what it is. And what THAT is, is a two-hour roller coaster that leaves you energized and rooting for Optimus Prime as well as that (already in production) third film.

And finally, let it be said that I am not arguing Batman & Robin's place on this list, but surely it should not be #1? Bloodrayne (2006) didn't even MAKE this list, and that's arguably the worst film I've ever seen. Other notable "snubs" (in my humble opinion):

Anything Uwe Boll has ever done, ever

Manos: Hands of Fate (1966) - You know, pretty much anything that is improved by being MST3K'ed.

Dead Alive (1992) - In my opinion, this doesn't even qualify for "so-bad-it's-good" status.

Cabin Fever (2002) - Dear Eli Roth: Grow up a little. Then you can make REAL movies.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003) - SO much potential.

Aeon Flux (2005) - Although they did get Ultraviolet (2006) at #33

AVPR: Requiem (2007) - The first AVP (2004) was at least fun to watch. This one, when you could actually SEE what was going on (only about 25% of the time due to poor lighting and effects) was so boring I almost injured myself.

Balls of Fury (2007) - Ping pong as a gladiatorial event. About as exciting as that sounds.

Good Luck Chuck (2007) - Oh Dane Cook. Please go back to stand-up comedy. At least there, you're actually FUNNY instead of painfully awkward.

Dragon Wars (2007) - Scratch the Bloodrayne comment. This is the worst film EVER made.

Unnecessary Sequels

It is no mystery that Hollywood is obsessed with sequels, and as much as it (sometimes) annoys me, I totally get it. Cinema is, like everything else, first and foremost a business. People who work in film, whether they are actors, producers, set people, studio monkeys, whatever, are just trying to make a buck. So I don't begrudge them the desire to make money off a sure thing. If a movie is successful there's a good chance a sequel will be coming out, because if the first one was a hit, a second one is more likely to make money than a totally new idea (see also: remakes).

But there are some things that really, shouldn't be touched. Like this.

First of all, based on my above analysis, I'm not entirely sure that making a sequel to Watchmen even makes fiscal sense. It only recovered its cost of filming after international sales, and it got pretty reamed in the reviews. I liked it, actually quite a bit (I also love the comic, before you even ask), but I know I'm in the minority. What part of that makes sense to make another one?

In the article I linked to above, Snyder AND the actors agree with me: this is a Bad Idea. DC, why do you want so hard to sabotage your film studio? As Malin Ackerman, an actress I don't even LIKE, says, "... I don’t really know how [a sequel] would ever be possible. Because ‘Watchmen’ is ‘Watchmen,’ and we covered pretty much the whole novel."

DC is hardly short of good superhero material. As long as they keep making Batman movies, I will keep seeing Batman movies (I ALSO wish that Brandon Routh would reprise his delicious turn as Superman, but unfortunately, his contract ran out and there hasn't even been a whisper of a rumor of that being renewed). So please, leave well enough alone. Let those of us who enjoyed the movie keep watching it, and rejoice that you made the comic more accessible to more people. This sequel would just cost you time, money, and credibility.

Dear Roman Polanski,

You, sir, are a criminal. It may have happened years and years ago, and the lady in question is an adult now, but the truth of the matter is that you took advantage of a minor in a sexual manner. This is a True Thing, that is not disputable.

Please do me, and my newsfeed, a favor and Suck. It. Up.

You can no longer hide out in Europe. The United States has ordered your sentencing will take place in the States and not in an impartial European nation. The jig is, as they say, up (not that it hasn't been up for a long time...how long were you in Paris, you coward?).

I understand that the woman would like the publicity to go away, but the precedent that says is too dangerous - I'm sorry, Ms. Geimer, but this isn't about you any more. It's about treating celebrities like they are real people, and just as liable for their indiscretions, lawbreaking, and other shenanigans as everyone else.

(Also, SHAME on all of you famous people who actually SUPPORT Polanski. The fact that he makes movies, and really good ones at that, does not excuse him or put him above the law. Please, prove to the world that you can GROW UP and accept responsibility for your actions.)

I understand that this is not quite timely, but I only recently saw the bit about Polanski being denied his motion to be prosecuted in absentia, and it FRIED MY BRAIN that someone could think that that would pass.

Thoughts on 10 Nominations

The Academy is reverting back to ten nominations for Best Picture this year, which will a.) make the show interminably long and b.) make my never-ending rant in defense of summer film pretty much void. And since I secretly love how long the show is, both of these have me cheering the decision.

Entertainment Weekly is pretty sure they've got seven of the ten possible Best Picture nominees nailed down:
Avatar
Up In The Air
Inglourious Basterds
An Education
Up
The Hurt Locker
Precious

I have been torn for years about the existence of the Best Animated Film category, because on the one hand, its presence means that when an animated film is released that is so good it deserves the Best Picture award (Wall-E), I know it won't get nominated because it is MORE LIKELY to win the Best Animated category. So having Up be an almost guaranteed choice for a Best Picture slot is bittersweet - I know it won't win, but I love that it's there, but did we really need ten slots to fill in order for it to get there in the first place?

(On the other hand, I haven't really decided if it would be my personal Best Animated choice, because I liked Fantastic Mr. Fox so very much, so maybe I'm on the fence for no good reason at all.)

So what fills out the rest? (500) Days of Summer, District 9, A Serious Man. (My predictions, not my choice.)

It's interesting that if there were only five slots this year as per usual, I think it's fairly obvious what they would be:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Up In The Air
Precious
Inglourious Basterds

I love that this expansion is giving other brilliant films a chance they wouldn't normally have; when I first heard about them opening up the category, I felt overwhelmingly like they'd be shoving stuff in just to fill out the noms. But could it be that the Academy, like myself, thought this was just too good a year for film? Did they realize that, even though only one can win, it would do them good to acknowledge film normally outside of their comfort zone? In a normal year, films like Up, (500) Days of Summer, and even Star Trek wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that award - now there's Oscar buzz all over them. So good on the Academy for diversifying a little, even though I know that my personal choice won't win.

Impending Oscars

The Oscars, which are coming up very soon, are quite an event in my house. Since the first year a Lord of the Rings movie was a player, myself and my family have watched the whole telecast, start to finish. (My sister and I really get into it and watch all the red carpet lead-in too, but that's because we're slaves to fashion.) I confess, I usually only actually see a handful of the nominees, because frankly summer is my movie season and the fall/winter is Oscar season. If I was in charge of the Academy, District 9 would win Best Picture, Spike Jonze would win Best Director (for Where the Wild Things Are), and Eli Roth wouldn't be allowed to come (although his turn in Inglourious Basterds was better by far than any of his directorial offers, that hack).

That said, here are my Will Win/Should Win for the Big Six:

Best Supporting Actor
Will win/Should Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Why this film has become the darling of the critics, I don't really get - I finally saw it recently, and I thought it had some fun moments but was nothing to write home about. That said, Waltz is absolutely terrifying as the quadri-lingual "Jew Hunter," delivering line after line in a blood chilling, cheerful manner while he's shooting renegade Jewish families in the back. His recognition at the Globes and the love for this film has pretty much sealed the deal for his first Oscar.

Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air
Should Win: Either Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air, or Mo'Nique, Precious

Yes, Mo'Nique got the Globe, and no, I haven't seen this film, but the clips I've seen of her are pretty much one of the best dramatic performances all year. I'm torn on my should-win vote because of that; I think Kendrick is the best thing to happen to young actresses in a long time, but it's her inexperience and possibility for nomination in the future that's going to keep her out of the winner's seat. Up In The Air is an awards show breeding ground, and rightfully so, and I'm surprised that it didn't show better at the Globes - but I think Farmiga's bitterly charming turn in the film will be too much for the Academy to resist.

Best Actor
Will Win: Collin Firth, A Single Man
Should Win: Liam Neeson, Taken

God, how can you NOT have loved Neeson in Taken? He's got this calm, collected British accent that lulls you into a sense of security while he's kicking ass and taking names. He terrified me and made me want to comfort him all at the same time. Plus, I thought that A Single Man was kinda overrated to begin with, even if Firth was pretty persuasive (also I just kind of love him). But COME ON. TERRORISTS. And LIAM NEESON. The man has played a ninja, a lion who is also Jesus, a convincing step-dad, and now a counter-terrorist. Give him the credit he deserves.

(As a side note, I'm thinking more and more that the Globes are a much more accurate portrayal of current cinema - I think their split between Drama and Comedy/Musical is a little contrived, but really, The Hangover was the funniest thing I saw all year, and I think that popular film deserves more recognition than it gets. After all, people wouldn't and haven't paid to see the truly steaming piles of shit, so why can't we trust the popular vote a little more? And yes, I begrudgingly admit that Avatar gets encompassed by this, too. It simply would not have made as much money as it did if people didn't want to see it, and people do not want to see [generally] crap film.)

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

You know who should NOT win this? Or even be nominated for it? Julia Roberts. HFPA, what were you THINKING? Duplicity was a terrible movie.

Continuing: it took me about ten minutes of wavering between Bullock and Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia, because we all know how much the Academy loves biopic portrayals and c'mon, it's MERYL STREEP, but I think they're more likely to pick a serious biopic than a light-hearted family affair. I think that An Education was criminally underseen, and Mulligan's charm and believability turned what could have been an unbearably saccharine and naive character into someone you want to buy a soda and let them know it's all going to be ok, everyone makes mistakes. I hope she makes more films.

Best Director
Will Win: James Cameron, Avatar
Should Win: Spike Jonze, Where The Wild Things Are

Is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't believe Cameron's going to get another turn in the winner's chair? Whether you liked Avatar or not, what Cameron did in terms of world-building was monumentous. And, like it or not, Avatar is going to change the way that movies are made, and I don't mean that story quality will be thrown over for special effects. Film is a visual media and I applaud those who push the boundaries of that media in a significant way. Avatar is also the first non-stop motion film to utilize 3D technology in a way that struck me as integral to the visual structure of the film, rather than a gimmick (I include Up in that, because really Pixar, I couldn't tell the difference). Cameron took an archetypal story and used that pretty simple vehicle for a lavish world, and honestly, I think that if the story had been more complicated, it would have gotten muddled in the immensely complex and visually intricate scenery. So no, I don't begrudge Cameron for using a story we've heard before and telling it will.

Speaking of risk taking, though Jonze's Wild Things was emotionally raw, stunningly sparse, and utilized an untrained child actor to fabulous results. Visually, it's pretty much the polar opposite of Avatar, and as an adaptation, it is nothing short of brilliant. Jonze kept the spirit of Sendak's original twelve lines while making it a full-fledged fable, that was both childishly romantic and breathtakingly nostalgic.

Best Picture
Will Win: Avatar
Should Win: District 9

Hasn't it been a fabulous year for science fiction film? Whatever you feel about Avatar, it in combination with District 9 and Star Trek (and the little-talked about Moon) has shoved sci-fi film permanently out of the B-movie realm and into the critically acclaimed mainstream. These three films in one year did for the genre what Lord of the Rings did for fantasy film over the course of three years. At this point in the awards season, Avatar is pretty much the already announced winner for Best Picture, although The Hurt Locker could surprise us all (although I don't think it's likely).

Let me tell you about the tragedy of District 9: it was a summer release. If Peter Jackson could have held on to his producer's perogative for just a few more months, D9 would have been TOTAL Oscar bait. In any other year, Avatar could have been a summer popcorn blockbuster - but timing is everything in cinema, and there is an undeniable bias towards films released after September as far as the Academy is concerned. Which means a powerful, harrowing, meaningful film that left me shaken in my seat won't get any nominations past effect-driven ones. And that's a true tragedy.