Daily Film Thoughts: When Things Go Bang… ‘010.
Because I know ‘10 sounds rather boring and we just got off the sweet aesthetic of ‘09, I’m going to go with Colbert’s ‘010. Anyways, I’ve seen three (of the four) shoot ‘em up films released so far in 2010 and I may as well toss together some thoughts.
THE BOOK OF ELI (The Hughes Brothers, 2010)

Since the hot trend in Hollywood has jumped from zombies to apocalypse (which makes you wonder why the Weinstein’s didn’t open The Road wide because that would’ve made at least some money), to expect two or three a year for the next few isn’t absurd. Fortunately the Hughes brothers noticed this trend before it boomed and they’ve gotten their still original licks in on the genre before it’s watered down with the mundanities to come.
Starring Denzel Washington as Eli in his nth leading role in a blockbuster to date, the always interesting A-lister reestablishes why he is who he is after the awfully poor use of his power in last year’s The Taking of Pelham 123. He plays the titular character with as much fervor and isolation as Will Smith in I Am Legend, one of the first “end of the world” films found within this recent trend. However, unlike Smith’s masculinity with layers of confusion and innocence — much like his only companion in the film, his dog — Washington’s performance lacks the intricate writing that made Smith’s feature both a compelling sci-fi thriller as well as an interesting character study. Here the writers skimp on the complexions of being (practically) alone in the world and fancy themselves more crowd pleasing and atmosphere immersed artists. It still works.
The story is about a man named Eli who is essentially on God’s quest. He has a Holy Bible and was told by God himself to preserve it until he understands where it will be found most valuable. This is where the film is finding most of its detractors — in its theme. It isn’t as if The Book of Eli is Saved for the action buff, but is rather competent in weighing both sides of the religion argument. Of course by the main character merely uttering “God told me so” the film would find some controversy with some audience because it’s saying there is a God, but I digress. In this film, there is a God — no one says there is only one God or that God is good, but that God wants to preserve the Holy Bible to help restore humility in humanity. Of course, there has to be some tension in the film, so we get a half-rate villain named Carnagie (Gary Oldman) who needs the Holy Bible in order to first control his populous and then the whole world.
You see, we’re set 30 years after the initial cataclysm, so most don’t/can’t read and don’t know about religion. While Eli’s goal with the Bible is virtuous and is meant to restore an understanding of life to the world, Carnegie’s only need for the book is to say “God, you know, the guy that controls the UNIVERSE, wrote this thing and this is what it says” which would allow him to control everyone with them believing him a chosen person by God. Any way you slice it: Eli = good, Carnegie = bad.
What is most interesting about the feature is how it plays on subtleties to tell its story for the most part. Of course there’s heavy handed symbolism from time to time and the use of cinematography is overbearing with its “look how gloomy the world is!” style, but the concept of cannibalism is played out brilliantly and as one of the people that enjoyed the film, I’d say how it all comes together is also eloquent. Although the final twist will throw plenty of people off, it does discern how Eli has the gun-slinging/bullet dodging abilities of a John Woo protagonist and that’s what counts; the continuity of it all.
The story itself could have used more work — the relationship that develops between Eli and Solara seems implemented only as a half-assed way of showing how ignorant society is (in this universe). This furthering of plot begins to grow more and more obvious which does take its toll on the otherwise highly compelling story at hand: the age old tale of good vs. evil. So while it doesn’t achieve greatness because the Hughes brothers were either pressured into making the story more assessable for the masses or intertwined originality with formula to sell the story, The Book of Eli as a final product is exactly what the film preaches; more good than evil.
EDGE OF DARKNESS (Martin Campbell, 2010)

Have you ever watched a film for 30 minutes only to find the only thing that you understand is that you don’t understand what’s going on? If not, good, keep it that way and skip Edge of Darkness. If so, I feel for you… and you should still skip Edge of Darkness.
As convoluted as it is typical, Mel Gibson’s return to acting after a race-based hiatus (as he would tell you, I’m sure) is not unlike any of the crime films of the ’90s that he was so prone to do. Actually it’s similar to those in a lot of ways — he’s out getting revenge for his family/to get his family, he’s a cop, the story doesn’t come together so well but then it just happens to come together at the end — except this one is far less fun and that’s really the only point of merit that a Ransom had.
Here Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a man out for revenge after his daughter is murdered right in front of him by a masked assailant. If the goal of the film was to confuse its audience more than the protagonist, well this film succeeds like no other film has at anything. There’s nothing cohesive driving the film apart from bullets zipping across the screen and a rather random, brooding Brit tossed into the equation in an attempt to help the audience “understand” the plot. Didn’t work.
In addition, the story itself is composed with plentiful stupor. We hardly know the backstories of the men Craven is shooting. But I mean, if he’s shooting them they must be bad guys, right? It’s not like there could be any error in the judgment of a man who is drunk on power and sports erratic behavior out of revenge… right?
On top of this, everyone dies in a hilarious way. Which is good if you’re Monty Python, but if you’re striving for some moral dilemma masked by a generic shoot ‘em up, I’m certain the way you depict death isn’t meant to have the audience laughing hard to themselves like the latest knock-knock jokes… those are still funny, right? Or do people that get shot in the neck look completely stupid when they bleed out and ‘die’ four times? I don’t believe so.
This film was rather bad. The only person (director included) that seemed to have any idea what to do with the script was Mel Gibson and even then his performance feels like the man behind it was hamming it up for the sake of it. On top of that, the lengths the protagonist goes through to preserve his daughter’s memory is a nice sentiment. If this placed at the forefront of the film and not felt like some haphazardly composed characteristic, this could have been an interesting drama — like In the Bedroom with more violence. However it isn’t and thus sustains a level of bad generally reserved for Paris Hilton’s attempts at art. Skipping this is healthier for you than doing so with rope — a worse use of time, too.
FROM PARIS WITH LOVE (Pierre Morel, 2010)

Hey Morel, John Woo called: he wants his infinite gun clip back. Yes, if you’re a fan of John Woo and can tolerate the generic drama that drives most action films nowadays, this film is for you. Bad guys that never hit; good guys that never miss; a plot that osculates between both, hitting one moment and missing the next — this is one of the more unbalanced attempts at cinema since Transformers 2 tried to turn a possible end of the world scenario into a comedy. Fortunately this is better than that hackjob of a sequel; unfortunately the ending of this insinuates that there may be a sequel for this yet to come. Odds are if they decide on a sequel the filmmakers will do more damage to cinema than Charlie Wax did to Parisians as this feature was just barely passable.
Picture this, if you will. Luc Besson is sitting in his apartment and suddenly there’s a ring at his doorbell. Adi Hasak, the man who wrote the entire screenplay, walks in. Immediately, and with his tongue in his cheek, Besson pitchs a concept to Hasak. Not being able to decipher Besson’s humor, Mr. Hasak went home and played it safe by writing one half of the film with self-deprecating humor and the other half with seriousness. This, in turn, sparked doubt in director Pierre Moral who shot half of it like a serious action film and the other half like an over-the-top, “get to da choppa” type action-comedy… which in turns affected the actors in the same way. So you’re subject to a feature that zips by as quickly as any bullet, but only half of it makes sense. Well, more than half because Besson’s general outline and plotting is tops in the action genre bar none. So it’s mostly entertaining and well thought out, but feels a lot like a gigantic practice in miscommunication.
Like an often displayed Halloween decoration, the skeleton of this feature has been made so obvious throughout the years that to find yourself being elicited into surprise is to, well, not have seen an action movie before. Passive go-getter James Reece (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers sporting a poor American accent. In France… while most around him are British. Get it? No? Alright) is assigned to drive around one of the best assassins in the world in Charlie Wax (John Travolta with a mouth full of scenery). Here we’re subject to the first of many commonalities; “the unlikely duo”. As aforementioned this works for as long as the feature mocks it. So about 60% of their relationship is as enjoyable as it is identifiable. The two work well together and when Travolta finds the perfect balance between humor and coolness, the feature is wonderful. This isn’t the case for a large part of the film, so the dynamic that drives the feature becomes cumbersome. On the flip side, these moments come in small doses so not too much damage is done to the overall entertainment of the film.
It’s tough to form some sort of review on such a feature. From the moment the story begins to the final frame, it’s all pretty predictable stuff. Of course, Reece has a love in his life that keeps him from being the brute that Charlie is and there’s a whole “if you’re in love, you cannot destroy” type theme that is halfheartedly divulged into that is later destructed for the sake of furthering the feature. Essentially, it’s one lazy film. The only person who tries to do anything creative is Morel who can film an action scene like nobody’s business, but even the slow-motion kinetics he enforces grow tiresome.
A lot could’ve been done to shake this feature up in maintaining some real significance, but it isn’t. Alright, take for example everyone in the film — everyone is fleshed out poorly. It feels as if a Frenchman wrote it because they’re the only people in the film that aren’t idiotic or evil. Charlie Wax, American, is as erratic and quick to destroy things as Godzilla; a delegate at the end, American, is snooty and self important; all the men Charlie kills are either Asians that hang out in shady gangs or terrorists of some middle-eastern ethnicity and so on and so forth. There is literally no characterization for anybody apart from James Reece and he feels so fake that if I took a bite out of him I’d wind up with a mouthful of plastic.
But somehow, despite all of these flaws, there is a lot of adrenaline distributed throughout the feature and like I said, Morel knows action better than most directors today. For 95 minutes, the feature sits at a perfect running time considering the plot — or lack thereof — and existing merely as a visual stimulant, it succeeds. Hopefully Morel tackles more eloquently composed scripts soon because he’s got potential and it’d be a shame to see him waste it on these dime a dozen hunt’n'kill flicks.
What’s On: February
Regular = No thanks
Italic = If I’m bored
Bold italic = I’ll probably check it out
Bold = I will see (might in the cinema)
Bold Red = I will see in the cinema (100%)
FEBRUARY 5TH
Ajami
Dear John
District 13: Ultimatum (5/10)
From Paris With Love
Frozen
The Shinjuku Incident
Terribly Happy
FEBRUARY 12TH
My Name is Khan
Percy Jackson and the Olympians
Valentine’s Day
Videocracy
The Wolfman
FEBRUARY 19TH
The Ghost Writer
The Good Guy
Lourdes
Shutter Island
FEBRUARY 26TH
A Prophet (7/10)
The Art of Steal
Cop Out
The Crazies
The Yellow Handkerchief
And The Nominees Are…
Hurray!
BEST PICTURE
“A Serious Man“
“An Education“
“Avatar“
“The Blind Side“
“District 9“
“The Hurt Locker“
“Inglourious Basterds“
“Precious“
“Up“
“Up in the Air“
BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart
George Clooney – Up in the Air
Colin Firth – A Single Man
Morgan Freeman – Invictus
Jeremy Renner – The Hurt Locker
BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Sandra Bullock – The Blind Side
Helen Mirren – The Last Station
Carey Mulligan – An Education
Gabourey Sidibe – Precious
Meryl Streep – Julie and Julia
BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Matt Damon – Invictus
Woody Harrelson – The Messenger
Christopher Plummer – The Last Station
Stanley Tucci – The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds
BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Penelope Cruz – Nine
Vera Farmiga – Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal – Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick – Up in the Air
Mo’Nique – Precious
BEST DIRECTOR
Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker
James Cameron – Avatar
Lee Daniels – Precious
Jason Reitman – Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
A Serious Man
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The Messenger
Up
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
An Education
District 9
In the Loop
Precious
Up in the Air
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The White Ribbon
BEST FILM EDITING
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Bright Star
Coco Avant Chanel
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Nine
The Young Victoria
BEST ART DIRECTION
Avatar
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
The Young Victoria
BEST MAKEUP
Il Divo
Star Trek
The Young Victoria
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Avatar
District 9
Star Trek
BEST SOUND MIXING
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
BEST SOUND EDITING
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Up
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Avatar
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes
Up
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
“The Weary Kind” – Crazy Heart
“Loin de Paname” – Faubourg 36
“Take It All” – Nine
“Almost There” – The Princess and the Frog
“Down in New Orleans” – The Princess and the Frog
BEST FOREIGN FEATURE
A Prophet (France)
Ajami (Israel)
The Milk of Sorrow (Peru)
The Secret In Their Eyes (Argentina)
The White Ribbon (Germany)
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Up
BEST DOCUMENTARY
Burma VJ
The Cove
Food, Inc.
The Most Dangerous Man in America
Which Way Home
MY PREDICTIONS:
Best Picture (7/10)
Best Actor (5/5)
Best Actress (4/5, but if I wasn’t hoping so greatly on Cornish it would’ve been an easy 5/5)
Best Supporting Actor (4/5)
Best Supporting Actress (3/5)
Best Director (4/5)
Best Original Screenplay (4/5)
Best Adapted Screenplay (5/5)
Best Cinematography (4/5)
Best Film Editing (4/5)
Best Costume Design (3/5)
Best Art Direction (3/5)
Best Makeup (1/3)
Best Visual Effects (3/3)
Best Sound Mixing (3/5 — predicted Up’s nomination here)
Best Sound Editing (2/5)
Best Original Score (2/5)
Best Original Song (2/5 — how did I forget The Weary Kind?!)
Best Foreign Feature (5/5)
Best Animated Feature (4/5)
Best Documentary (4/5)
MY THOUGHTS:
Best Picture: It was good… until, you know, The Blind Side got announced. I like the popular nominations with District 9 and Up, but The Blind Side? Rather mediocre reviews driven by big revenue? Oscar is really reaching for an audience here…
Best Actor: Obvious. Was hoping someone like Robert Downey Jr. could pop up and steal the overrated Renner’s spot. Oh well.
Best Actress: Again, obvious. Don’t really like the crop of performers — Mirren is just inside my top 30 while Bullock is just outside — so they could’ve done far better. I would’ve even preferred the OK Emily Blunt here.
Best Supporting Actor: Poor, poor McKay. And they nominated Damon without Invictus in Best Picture? Crazy…
Best Supporting Actress: Cruz over Cotillard is shocking, but she probably suffered from category confusion. Same with Laurent. And Maggie Gyllenhaal? Get outta here, that’s crazy. Well she might be good, who knows? Makes up for her Sherrybaby “snub” in ‘06.
Best Director: I was hoping Daniels wouldn’t get nominated. Everyone else expelled great vision with their films. Even if I’m not too fond of Avatar, I can respect Cameron’s grandeur in creating another world… IN 3-D! But really it was good work.
Best Original Screenplay: I thought (500) Days of Summer was in… oh well. Glad Avatar didn’t get in. Figures, but I’m glad. Go Coens and Tarantino!
Best Adapted Screenplay: Predicted this uneasy one 5 for 5! Love the nominees. Like Cameron’s direction of Avatar, I really liked Fletcher’s script for Precious… even if I wasn’t too fond of the overall package.
I’ll leave it there. Time for more sleep… then downtown to see Crazy Heart, Tropical Malady and Blissfully Yours. Huzzah!
Daily Film Thoughts: Classics, Castles and Communism
So I went almost two weeks without any consistent outlet… that sucked.

First up is the classic: Ernst Lubitsch’s The Shop Around the Corner, perhaps the first film in history to incorporate humor, depression and romantics without feeding too heavily into either. A balanced romantic-comedy which is very much unlike some of my favourites in The Awful Truth or even His Girl Friday.
Set during Hungary’s depression, a long time employee at a well-to-do accessory business, Matuschek’s, finds himself trapped. Having worked underneath Hugo Matuschek for all of his adult life, the once aspiring mind of Alfred Kralik (Jimmy Stewart) is in a rut. Because the economy hinders his desires, Alfred finds the only escape from his banal existence is writing to a woman he does not know. They share wonderful letters to one and other that discuss literature, longevity and above all, love. Having been a bachelor all his life and sustained plain friendships, Alfred dwells upon his escape. He ponders leaving the ordinary establishment to in hopes of a better occupation, in turn building his confidence up enough for him to ask the woman he exchanges letters with to marry him.
When Klara, a young woman who has nowhere else to go stumbles into Matuschek’s looking for a job, Alfred’s life is flipped upside down. Even though the establishment can’t take on new employees, a high-on-life Hugo (Frank Morgan) decides to hire the woman after she demonstrates her minimal use. There’s immediate tension between Klara and Alfred — when it boils down to it, the two hate each other. She mocks his pomp and anal retentive behavior and he mocks her stupor; a generic slapstick setup.
However, this is no slapstick comedy. Infidelity is hinted early on when Hugo begins to distrust his employees. A once jolly man becomes a cynic — his destruction is a miserable sight to behold. If not for this character and the trials he faces throughout the first two acts, this story might have fallen into the slapstick pack.
It is for this that I both admire and am annoyed by this film. On one hand it adds emotional depth; a depressive resonance that keeps it memorable above most other fluff. On the other hand, the script chops in these moments in a less-than-ideal way. There may be a moment of Alfred tearing Klara a new one for her remissness, but this humorous momentum isn’t utilized to its full potential as it is then cut down by a man and his marital woes. It makes for a slightly frustrating viewing, but nothing an old fashioned Stewart smile can’t fix, if only temporarily.
The film also plays heavily on ironies. The story is about two people that hate each other, but are communicating their most intimate feelings to one and other through letters, unbeknown to both parties. There’s also Hugo’s tragic subplot where he hates one man for having an affair with his wife, but it isn’t the right man. It because pretty predictable, but the way the actors work their roles makes all this obviousness work. Frank Morgan is bound to break your heart with his work. In turn, your heart will be mended by the humorous/hateful/loving chemistry conjured by Stewart and Sullivan. So while The Shop Around The Corner has its undeniable flaws, it’s supplementing excessive humor to reflect the heartbreak love can cause makes it worth its 99 minutes of running time.

Although I’ve given the two Robert Bresson films I’d seen prior 10’s (A Man Escaped + Diary of a Country Priest), I couldn’t find the motivation to watch another film by him until recently. I’ve no idea why it’s taken so long since the last, but I know it won’t happen again. Consider Robbie B. 3 for 3.
Widely acclaimed and held in disdain for its minimalist approach to this medieval classic, Robert Bresson’s Lancelot du Lac is as complicated as the tale of Lancelot is obscure. Immediately we’re displayed Bresson’s interpretation of the times: raw and anticlimactic. Raw because watching an unknown man being decapitated in battle shows both a lack of remorse that these men had and the death that always followed. Anticlimactic because life is never certain when in battle.
The story follows Lancelot (Luc Simon) and his men around villages as they search for the Holy Grail. Of course, when there’s a man in charge of men, there will always be those beneath him that want him gone. Jealous that his uncle Arthur chose Lancelot to lead the group in the scavenge, Mordred (Patrick Bernhard) plots with his men to murder Lancelot. It’s from here where most of the tension in the film builds, and yes, it’s too simple to be taken entirely seriously.
The rest of the tension is found between Lancelot and The Queen. During his search of the Holy Grail, Lancelot had God tell him to end his relationship with the Queen and devote himself entirely to the hunt. When Lancelot tells her this, she crumbles to pieces and begins to threaten everything in her power whether it be logical or impossible. Lancelot veils his misery with a stoic expression. Here you’re doused in plain characterization that may have blossomed into something more tragic if Bresson didn’t hire non-actors all of the time. Normally when a director picks up fresh talent, it’s either because they want to use these performers to paint upon; as if their canvas or because they impressed the director during casting. Here you’re subject to neither. Because of this, you understand Bresson is a big time nihilist. He doesn’t like men as they’re always preserving some sense of righteousness that is unfounded and entirely egotistical, he doesn’t like war because it leads to death, he doesn’t like love because it never lasts… hell, if Laura Duke Condominas wasn’t given the opportunity to cry once in the film you’d assume he also hated women. And this isn’t because he’s misogynistic — he just hates everything. Fortunately, I’m keener to the idea of hating everything than loving everything, so I’m right with him here.
Performances? Ordinary. Theme? Demonstrated plainly. Action? Subtle. Conclusion? Resolved only in prosecuting man as war has no resolve. It all depends on what your personality is. If you’re quite optimistic, look at how the Monty Python crew took to the film. They parodied the film and it’s clear that this was inspiration for their anticlimactic use of swordplay and their contemptible and menial dialogues. That’s how much these men disliked the film. If you’re overly pessimistic, well expect this to become one of your favourites. I’m more of a sad guy than happy one, so I give this a favorable rating. This is reflective art — you’ve just got to be miserable to admire it.

Last and least is Leo McCarey’s too-American-for-TV My Son John, a film that fell deep into obscurity after those against the blacklist revolted, dismissing anything reminding them of those dark, speculative times. With My Son John being at the forefront of pro-nationalism, anti-communism McCarey’s ode to Sam was bound to be buried. It’s only now that it’s being recovered from cinematic vaults and only because of TCM that I got to check this out.
And it’s not that bad. Actually it’s great in depicting paranoia overcoming man, the helplessness in those wishing to lead a life with purpose and the family dynamic during strenuous times. It is only until the final act comes marching to the tune of Star-Spangled Banner that this film becomes diminutive in what it preaches, which is sad because I was liking the film very much until the obvious patriotism shot it down.
The film is about John (Robert Walker)… a son… who comes home from a trip across seas. He’s sporting an anti-American swagger to him that disrupts his family, or more precisely his father Dan (Dean Jagger). His mother Lucille (Helen Hayes) doesn’t believe the drunken ramblings of her husband and won’t allow the thought of her son being villainous cross her mind. Despite his political difference to that of the white Christian neighborhood he resides, his mother protects him from being labeled a Commie. Here it’s the bond between mother and child that finds most poignant. Hayes’ performance is so habitually warm that none of the nonsense proceeding can shake the soul her work here provides the film with. This includes John having a Bible thrown at him by his father — this should indicate how valuable Hayes is here. Even though she is warm and her work far from the mummery displayed around her, it’s this emulsion, this contrast that keeps the film afloat when it should be drowning in McCarey’s political preaching.
Here, the characterization is as simple as Communists are evil, Americans are saintly. Communists are scheming people with dense vocabularies, who are easily frightened and confused; Americans are simple folk with virtuous souls and always keep the faith. It becomes so painfully clear that McCarey hates reds that you’ll begin to see red. As a thriller that meanders in doubt for two thirds, there is no way this film could have ended worse. It’d be like watching The Usual Suspects only to learn that Keyser Soze was an Egyptian Prince who left Earth on a spaceship after the murders took place. It’s that’s ridiculous. Goddamn, I love Leo McCarey and he showed that this concept had brilliant potential, but he fucked this up exponentially worse than Alex Garland did Sunshine. Thank God for the performances and 70 minutes of competence, right?
Script Review: Untitled, by P.T. Anderson
Heyo, I’m back. Computer is fixed and I’ve quite a few things to review (The Last Station and some classics I caught over the past week+). I’ve also gotten into the habit of reading scripts and fortunately for me, I have connections and was able to read the Untitled Scientology script by Paul Thomas Anderson. One of the few in the world, I believe, so I’m quite content with myself.
SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD: It isn’t the type of film you can really spoil, but because I have to ‘prove’ myself now it divulges into the plot and themes far more.
PLOT SYNOPSIS: Freddie, a young man in his mid-20s, has his appendix burst. Not a man too concerned for family, he abandoned his routes after a falling out with his 16 year old girlfriend (he was an adult at the time) and found his calling with the Navy. However because of this medical problem, he can no longer handle the rigorous tasks the Navy calls upon their men. Isolated and looking for a new reason to continue living, Freddie becomes an alcoholic at the snap of finger; so much so that he brews his own ale — an ale so strong that, when in southern US, a poor immigrant worker drinks ‘an unbalanced quantity’, goes into convulsions and is assumed to have died while Freddie scampers away from the site.
Afraid of being caught, Freddie hops aboard the first vessel he spots. Half drunk out of his mind, half worried for his life and half looking for work, this type of calculation indicates the mess that is Freddie. Aboard the ship, a man that goes by Master (the role Philip Seymour Hoffman is set to portray and who is an allegorical L. Ron Hubbard) begins to guide Freddie. He asks him odd questions in an attempt to rid him of his dependencies. This is where they begin to bond which snowballs into a far more friendly affair.
Master has a family — a wife and four children (three daughters, one about to get married, and a son) — and a group of followers that adhere to everything he says. He’s also skeptical of strangers, which allows for this generally composed character to have moments of frantic uncertainty. It will be vastly interesting to see what Philip Seymour Hoffman does with the role because it’s undeniably his most diverse to date.
WHAT PTA DRIVES AT: Well, the film is about finding your identity (as stated… it’s really that vague or reads that way) with Master trying to cohort dowdy people to formulate some truth they can all abide by. They’re all misfits in a way. There’s a contrast when Master’s daughter gets married that shows a perhaps more ‘competent’ way of life; rejecting his new belief.
It also shows how much one will strive to achieve a true reflection of self. Freddie gets tattoos after he’s gone through his trials to show anybody willing to peel away a single layer (of fabric) from him who he is and what he’s all about. He gets a tattoo “Too Tough To Die” to commemorate falling off a balcony at a cinema (while drunk), which takes an ironic turn when he lands next to a woman he seduced with his impertinence, heavily discussing Scientology at the time. She tells him she saved his life with that knowledge — she in turn stayed by his side at the hospital until he awoke.
As I love in cinema (and others do as well, I’m sure) there is a unique contrast of characters. Freddie has long been hindered by giving up on the love of his life because he thought he could find himself at sea, while Master has a loving family and appears to have himself figured out. Freddie is erratic, Master is wise — but the tables tend to turn with Master being a tad more flimsy with logic and Freddie being more assertive. Master’s son is also appalled by Master’s work within the ‘church’. This adds an additional element in that you may believe that Master is trying to replace the son he doesn’t care for with Freddie. This would explain why he tries so hard to mold the young man who is on the verge of killing himself with his homemade drink. Master’s song and dance at the end to Freddie evokes how much Master adores him. It borders homosexual, but I sense it’s more of a way to bond with him… like a son. This conflicts with Freddie’s interpretation of the world which leads to the final scene…
Freddie laying in bed with a new woman (named Winn). He continually asks her what he name is (reiterating ‘who are we?). At the end he says “Maybe this isn’t our only life”. This left me with the impression that Freddie’s heart still resides within the Master’s group, as he tells him his spirit has traveled for thousands of years and inhabited other bodies. And even though he is drunk while he says this — something the Master wanted him to give up completely — it implies that the conflict in finding yourself will never be resolved.
So it isn’t straightforward in any way and is thematic on a broad spectrum. It also has tidbits about how entrancing sex is — Master yelping out “Master” while his wife jerks him off in a scene; Freddie’s continual incestuous relations with his Aunt because “it felt good”; the sins of flesh assumed in the final scene. There’s a segment here where Master’s daughter attempts to seduce Freddie, but he declines her advances. Be it because he felt apart of the family or believed that a stable mind need not sex to live (which is juxtaposed to the scene where Master gets a reach around, where you start to heavily question Master)
OVERALL IMPRESSION: The script was mashed together rather haphazardly (like this review, ha… ha…) which led to some jumbled moments with Anderson’s abrasive use of caps lock and underlining. Apparently he believes half of his script is extremely important. I’m sure that all of this will find resolve when he directs the film. Same goes for the few instances where PTA places “Insert Dialogue Later” during parties or get togethers. Menial stuff and not anything that derails the cadence of the story.
I was asked if there were any memorable set pieces in the film like the derrick in There Will Be Blood or the frogs in Magnolia. There aren’t any, although a motorcycle is fairly prominent when characters wish to throw off the shackles of life and be free. I’d imagine the cinematography may treat the vehicle with an abundance of glamor if Anderson feels it important to highlight the importance of freedom. If he does this, it undoubtedly clash with the dejected theme he aims for and question why the all the character’s just don’t go out and buy motorcycles to cure their woes. Eh.
For the lead role of Freddie, I imagined a Paul Dano type. Perhaps a little bit bulkier as one would imagine a slightly bloated gut to accompany alcoholism and a burst appendix. Someone mostly scrawny and who can play off drunkenness well will do favorably in this part. Hoffman as Master is a wicked choice — expect a second Oscar win for what he puts himself through. The rest of the cast is rather plain… it’s like a The Last King of Scotland in that sense: two major characters and everyone else just, well, there.
It reads at 124 pages. If you go the traditional minute per page, you get just over two hours. Of course, I think that’s too simply a strategy, so I go by what I feel it is. The first 10-15 pages are heavily descriptive, so I imagined them slightly longer. I figure this will be about 135 minutes long without credits. So perhaps 140 minutes overall.
FINAL WORD: Poorly written, but excellently constructed, Untitled Scientology is one of the better scripts I’ve ever read (not too big a feat, but…). In addition, it has an ending that will keep you thinking — I know it has for me, and I read it two days ago. PTA’s assembling of themes is, as always, individual. With the ability to exploit Scientology (or all religion, if he’d wished), Anderson instead deflects any parody to that of a personal variety. Rather than demean a group, he quizzes each of us. It isn’t what you’d expect a film to be about when “the origins of Scientology” are in the cards, so I applaud Anderson for making this grander than the cinematic cheap shot one would anticipate.
It’s more Punch Drunk Love than anything else as he utilizes a distinct mood to drive an age old theme. There are also smaller things mentioned throughout the course of the film like communism and how Master is afraid that people (some communists, some not) are trying to get him. Trademark Anderson: a lot of ruminating to be done when the curtain comes down. Of course, it boils down to how he plans on directing this film that will make it or break it. If he goes a more refined route (a la Boogie Nights or There Will Be Blood) as opposed to his diverse ways (Punch Drunk Love) during production, I’ll like it more. If he doesn’t, I’m sure it’ll still be a good feature — just not as for me.
Oh and a reply to The Playlist people because when I click “Post a Comment” it gives me ‘Bad Request’.
If you happened to read the opening of my review, I insinuate that this is my first ever script review (one that hasn’t been leaked at that, so I’ll obscure the plot more as to not offend). I don’t like giving too much away about a film, however if people would rather have the majority of the film explained to them then fine, I’ll comply. I’ve revised it: it certainly did need the adjustment. You’re right there. Just take my reviews as the antithesis of yours: caring to preserve story and explain thought.
And what? ‘Your source’ is skeptical of me? And you also believe that I may have read a script not written by Anderson himself… and you won’t believe me until you read said script? Alright, well I’m not about to leak the thing. How about a page to quash your pessimism?
Best of the Decade: Films (Part Two)
More brief reviews. The list will become less and less obscure over the next bit so don’t expect, like, more Ramblers-esque stuff. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I’m doing this list based around first theatrical release (excluding festival releases) as opposed to my general “going by US release” fixation, if you’re curious.
To be fair, any of the films from the current trilogy (on the verge of being a quadrilogy if Greengrass is semi-successful with Green Zone or something) could have made this list — I decided to narrow it down to one per series to be fair to the competition, so here I decided on my favourite (of course) which is 2004’s The Bourne Supremacy.
Looking back on it now, this was one of the more inspired decisions this decade in giving Paul Greengrass the opportunity to helm such a large project, given his lack of experience by that time. Especially considering his only film before this was 2002’s Bloody Sunday which wasn’t an American production or too financially impressive, even though the film itself was. Here he finds himself breeding the habitual tension Liman imbued in the first installment — 02’s The Bourne Identity – with his penchant for the handheld. His decisions behind the camera revitalized (see: redefined) action sequences and now have become a near necessity for people to really take to hand-to-hand combat in film.
While its performances aren’t the best and the story captivating but not near brilliant, the entirety of this film’s (and The Bourne Ultimatum’s) success lays solely on Greengrass’ shoulders. In an industry where sequels are often of lesser quality than their predecessors, Paul Greengrass launched this into a darker atmosphere and brought everything one would hope to follow the first part into fruition. One of the best action films there has ever been.
I wrote a review for this last June, so I’ll link to it. However, I would just like to take this time to say if you haven’t seen the film yet, see it now. Especially if you’re apart of people who love to do personal awards/keep up with current cinema. A contemporary masterpiece and Souleymane Sy Savane’s warmth and genuineness is the purest I’ve bared witness to in a long, long time. Here’s the review.
I deviated greatly into Gaspar Noe’s only film of the decade — unless you count festival releases, which I don’t; which is why Enter the Void isn’t on this list — in a review that I posted pre-TIFF. Yeah, I loved this film. The combination of Noe’s unrelentingly depressive vision and a bitter, bitter story that leaves you feeling dirty, this is really something else. The second most immersing feature I’ve bared witness to — only bested by Enter the Void. Review: Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible.
One of the first films I sought after in my youth to help me gain perspective on “quality” cinema was Lars von Trier’s Dogville. Not only did it shape the way I viewed film, but I’m sure in some depressing way it also helped shape the way I view the world.
In Dogville, the lead character Grace (Nicole Kidman in a, well, graceful portrayal that is head and shoulders above anything she’s ever done) is a woman getting out of dodge, so to speak. She’s not in tune with society the way her mobster family is, so she scurries off to some desolate little village filled with some of the most glib and loathsome patrons cinema has provided… ever. There are a few good spirits, but it seems to be the town’s intent to collapse this woman’s pure foundations. She’s put through hell and it’s essentially three hours of watching the most loving person being tortured. Many people are familiar with von Trier’s so-called misogyny which is basically an empty criticism of people disliking his work to perpetuate with some “factual” argument. All of his characters are miserable people and he’s stated he writes his female protagonists as himself. Yeah, he’s self-deprecating — not Neil LaBute.
While the story is harrowing, there always has to be an extra element for me to adore a feature. Here it’s von Trier’s collision of beloved styles; the Dogme 95 aesthetic set on a stage platform. Even the film’s biggest detractors admire von Trier’s visual independence here; it understandably takes this anti-American tirade to a far more artistic plateau. The cinematography, the “set design”, the editing — it’s a fascinating directorial project with heart. von Trier’s first film in his Grace trilogy, which is yet to be completed, has as much soul as it does a peculiar vision; even if both are filled with melancholy and hatred.
I wrote a review for this a few months ago. This is Nobuhiro Yamashita’s second appearance on this list and I am overly excited to get through the rest of his filmography. The review is the final one of the post located here.
I first caught this in early 2003 and between the Lord of the Rings trilogy and this, Steven Spielberg’s Catch Me If You Can, I found myself becoming a film fan fairly fast.
It’s a popular enough film, so I can avoid any preliminary plot discussion. I think what I’m most drawn by by this film is the allure of the vision. Spielberg’s got some swagger inside him and he expels it in large qualities here. Giving Tom Hanks the most honest work in his career (meaning I believed this could be a guy I bump into on the street on any given day and he’d be this way, not that it’s his best performance), Leonardo DiCaprio the most bubbly and boisterous work he’s ever turned out, Christopher Walken a lovable fatherly role that everyone loved and Amy Adams her big break in one of the most adorable turns ever. Spielberg’s vision has never been more concise. Here he shows humility in the themes he tackles, which allows for a much more natural connection between his viewer with his film; at least on this particular occasion.
There’s an essence so compelling in Frank Abagnale Jr’s life that I find myself adorning each time I sit down and re-experience a life so well lived. It doesn’t hurt that the story is told from a genuine perspective that lends a favorable view to the criminal and a bitter one to the police — a manipulative decision that I tend to hate in cinema, but love here — but the quiet projection of a young man’s rut being snowballed into something genius and rather epic touches me. That, even if all hope is lost, you can lie your way to an honest gathering of self. Spielberg’s best and I doubt he’ll ever top himself.
Back-to-back Leonardo DiCaprio? I suppose I’m showing my true colors now… Anyways, after his most disjointed directorial job coming in 2002 that had many questioning Martin Scorsese’s aging mind, he came back two years later with one of the best biopics I’ve ever been subject to in The Aviator. Be it because Howard Hughes’ life was a ride in and of itself or that the film touches on cinematic and neurological escapades, there’s enough interest to sustain this three hour feature without having to compensate for any plotting mistakes.
Taking place between the late 1920s and mid 1940s, Martin Scorsese’s second collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio in as many films resembles cinema of that era. Be it the extravagant design that feels as grandiose as any of the era’s films or the histrionic performances that are mirror to anything those years produced, this film’s long reaching themes and obtusely scaled universe is done in such a remarkable manner that you could believe that, if Howard Hughes were alive, this would be a film he would have produced.
A longstanding escapade that ne’er sports a scene that feels out of place and continually perpetuates the pros and cons of big industry. And as a large fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, I easily label his performance as Howard Hughes as his best work yet. His being cast as the millionaire was as ineluctable as the man’s disorder.
E. Elias Merhige: a director best known for his penchant for the bizarre with his first feature Begotten where no soundtrack or dialogue is heard and the visuals displayed are a far shot away from happenstance. However, I’m here to salivate over Shadow of the Vampire so lets get to that.
Although it’s only 80 minutes long — if you subtract the overly long opening and closing credits — E. Elias Merhige’s latest film packs as potent a punch as any three hour spectacle. Perhaps it’s because it’s so compact that the clout this 2000 feature delivers is found so powerful, but this punch is also attributed to a fantastic ensemble — headed by a literally unrecognizable Willem Dafoe — a macabre tale of the obsessive and a morale that will leave you gasping for air. Of course, the factual way this fictional story is presented makes it all the more harrowing and this semi-horror about the making of Nosferatu is exponentially more sorrowful, distressing and overall horrific than the film from which this concept derives itself.
Apparently what is submitted to audiences when a twisted director directs a tale about a twisted director is a masterpiece of sorts. The dialogue defines its characters intent and the performers define their souls. Each character from the daffy and obsessively portrayed F.W. Murnau (fantastically accosted by John Malkovich) to the meager actor Gustav (played with intimate trepidation by Eddie Izzard) is a fully fleshed figure and a creature to behold. Of course, the cherry on top of all of this is Willem Dafoe’s paradigm for scary figures. An asphyxiating realization based upon the hearsay of yore in a film that I wish was six hours long.
Perhaps the first really quality film I saw in the theaters, at the meager age of 10 I caught The Royal Tenenbaums with my uncle at a second run theater known as The Revue. Fitting I review it years later proclaiming it one of the best of the decade. On with the snippet, shall we?
The first Wes Anderson film to attack the myriad of problems that a family encounters because of family — as opposed to singular participants in his films like Rushmore and Bottle Rocket – the director/writer expands his horizons and thematic scope to accompany this larger interpretation of the family dynamic. With the majority of characters being lovelorn and neurotic, what this family lacks in variety is made up for in authenticity. Although these people hold peculiar beliefs regarding the purpose of life and career occupations, the parents in Royal and Etheline fortify the sentiment that their vanity is cause for their offspring’s (and one adopted child’s) ablation. Carefully constructed, Wes Anderson’s tacit revelation of suburban sadness has found its significance amongst contemporary cinema and speaks more truths than the bottoms of Snapple caps.
If this was not enough, The Royal Tenenbaums holds a rather extraordinary ensemble headlined by one of my utmost favourite performances in history with Gwyneth Paltrow’s rousing of Margot Tenenbaum. Her tessitura of an adult’s teenage angst and a marooned adornment for her brother Richie (a depressing evocation of said fleeting love by Luke Wilson) causes Paltrow’s diminutive stature to ferment amongst an already disheartening tale. With desiccated humor and acrimonious characters, it’s a wonder how warming this film tends to be.
Do you know when you watch a film and are immediately stricken by it, so you watch it again in succession? This is one of the few films that gets such an honor by me and one that I watched three times of the course of two days; I don’t believe I can say the same for any other film.
Produced by Netflix, The Duplass Brothers’ The Puffy Chair is as minimalist as they come. A feature about the fleeting romances that this generation produces and attempting to rekindle the cadence that comes with a functioning family, the story follows Josh (Mark Duplass) and Emily (Katie Aselton), a couple on the verge of a breakup. After it’s made clear Josh cares more for his hardly rewarding occupation as a band manager — blowing his girlfriend off for call after call — he pulls a Say Anything and blares a cutesy indie song through her window, asking her to come along with him in picking up a puffy chair for his father’s birthday. With Josh’s brother Rhett coming along for the ride midway through the feature – a character who gives the contrasting opinion of Josh’s clear obsession with the materialistic – the three differentiating characters will hit you on three levels. Whether you’re compassionate, salacious or are penitent (among other things), the characters will cause you at least an inkling of self-reflection. If you’re like me and see yourself in each of the characters, well the more examination cinema can cause of one’s self the better.
Intelligent comprised of benevolently commonplace humor and dialogue that you’ve heard or spoken at one time or another, the greatest offspring that mumblecore has provided doesn’t mind taking its story one step at a time, walking its way to a genuine conclusion that will leave you pensive. Fantastic amateur actors and without a spurious note, The Puffy Chair is scant with its comfort and as serious as banal existence can be.
THE TOP THIRTY OF THE 2000s (thus far)
30. The Paper Will Be Blue (Radu Munteau, 2006)
29. Stuff and Dough (Cristi Puiu, 2001)
28. Don’t Worry, I’m Fine (Philippe Lioret, 2006)
27. The Class (Laurent Cantet, 2008)
26. The Ape (Jesper Ganslandt, 2009)
25. Linda Linda Linda (Nobuhiro Yamashita, 2005)
24. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, 2007)
23. The Sea That Thinks (Gert de Graaff, 2000)
22. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Shane Black, 2005)
21. Sin City (Robert Rodriguez, 2005)
—
20. The Bourne Supremacy (Paul Greengrass, 2004)
19. Goodbye Solo (Ramin Bahrani, 2009)
18. Irreversible (Gaspar Noe, 2002)
17. Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)
16. Ramblers (Nobushito Yamashita, 2004)
15. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg, 2002)
14. The Aviator (Martin Scorsese, 2004)
13. Shadow of the Vampire (E. Elias Merhige, 2000)
12. The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)
11. The Puffy Chair (Mark + Jay Duplass, 2006)
—
10. Stay Tuned…
09. Stay Tuned…
08. Stay Tuned…
07. Stay Tuned…
06. Stay Tuned…
05. Stay Tuned…
04. Stay Tuned…
03. Stay Tuned…
02. Stay Tuned…
01. Stay Tuned…
Golden Globe Reactions

You may be wondering “wtf is that picture all about?” and I’ll tell you. Shutter Island was plugged more than any Scorsese feature in his tribute, so I feel it necessary to laugh at the excess that is being commercial. So blunt that Emily was offended.
So I got 11/25 right. Wow that’s terrible. Anyways: my thoughts on the winners.
BEST PICTURE [DRAMA]: Avatar
Not at all big on this one. Wasn’t fond of the film, story or performances. In fact, the only thing about this I appreciated was James Cameron’s vision. Too bad his futuristic mindset was retrofitted by a tale older than time itself. Bland and rather boring. Hope this doesn’t repeat at the Oscars.
BEST PICTURE [COMEDY/MUSICAL]: The Hangover
Another one I wasn’t too fond of. At least the competition in this category was weak so my displeasure isn’t enhanced. But seriously, not that good a film. Would’ve preferred any of the other nominees to this. Oh well.
BEST ACTOR [DRAMA]: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
No comment. I may see this downtown if I go tomorrow (to see La Donation/Protector), but anyways he seemed gracious in his win and looks pretty good in the trailer.
BEST ACTOR [COMEDY/MUSICAL]: Robert Downey Jr., Sherlock Holmes
Fantastic performance; fantastic attitude; fantastic speech; fantastic win. I prefer Stuhlberg in A Serious Man of the nominees (and not by much) so this “surprising”, albeit conventional win pleased me. Nice.
BEST ACTRESS [DRAMA]: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
As average as the film she performs in. And I give that film a 5/10, so… Anyways, tacky accent and excessive body language in her smug performance as a smarmy character. Disliked the character and performance. Considering you’re supposed to warm up to her and the morale, I submit this as a valid criticism against her. Anyways, my least favourite win of the night.
BEST ACTRESS [COMEDY/MUSICAL]: Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia
My second favourite nominee in the category behind only herself in It’s Complicated. Delightful, eccentric, actually warming – Meryl Streep’s performance as Julia Child is reminiscent of family and that does my heart good. Go butter!
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
It’s getting pretty boring seeing him win every award, but… he’s an intelligent and restrained man in person which only makes me appreciate his zany antics in the film more. I thought his speech was well organized but he lacks any energy I truly enjoy. Anyways, I loved the performance so him winning here is fine by me.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Mo’Nique, Precious
Why oh why did I swap predicting her for my Anna Kendrick last minute? I need to be pro-Anna this entire season, but my hopes for her are fleeting. Glad she appeared her; she gave a potent, if exacerbated speech that was a great way to kick off the evening. Not my personal pick, but her work here is good regardless of favoritism.
BEST DIRECTOR: James Cameron, Avatar
His work here is rather good. It’d be remiss of HFPA not to give him the win in an uneasy category for this. Though I find it a malnourished sentiment to hand him Best Picture, I cannot fathom this feature being a passable one without Cameron’s unique grandiose at the helm. Do I prefer him to the nominees? A few. He isn’t my favourite, but I’m fine with him winning best director.
BEST SCREENPLAY: Jason Reitman/Shelton Turner, Up in the Air
Jason Reitman, like myself, was surprised that Tarantino didn’t snag the win here. Well, while I would’ve preferred Tarantino winning it, I did enjoy Up in the Air quite a bit. In fact, the script is rather unremitting in itself purpose, despite the slight dithering that comes with having Jason Reitman at the helm. It’s a bittersweet theme and I love my films like I love my chocolate in that sense.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Michael Giacchino, Up
Love the music in that film. I was convinced the overblown and obvious work by James Horner for Avatar would win, but this was a nice little surprise. In fact, if you’re comparing Horner’s knack for adventure with Giacchino’s, I’d say the chosen winner by HFPA is the winner here. Some beautiful work that I hope repeats with AMPAS — really creates the large scale the feature needed.
BEST ORIGINAL SONG: T-Bone Bennett/Ryan Bingham, “The Weary Kind” – Crazy Heart
I’ve heard the song, but not seen in which context it is used. I’m certain it’s as potent as it is as a stand alone piece, but if I watch the film and Bridges pulls it out during a comedic moment (doubtful, but explaining why I can’t really divulge into my appreciation for it) then, well, I’m sure I won’t be as high on it.
BEST FOREIGN FEATURE: The White Ribbon (Germany)
I expected Baaria to take this one. Why? Well it’s by far the most palpable choice for the HFPA and Giuseppe Tornatore is a guy everyone likes on some level. Anyways, The White Ribbon is a meticulously constructed drama that siphons every ounce of zeal possible. It’s an exhausting, but education watch. It’s themes are obscured and muddled by the writing, but Haneke’s direction is as stark as it is beneficial to the film. My favourite of the nominees — haven’t seen The Maid or Baaria yet — so I’m glad it won.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Up (Pixar)
Obvious, obvious, obvious. I love the movie, but it’d be nice if an acclaimed Pixar movie lost once in awhile. Anyways, the spirit of adventure will never die as long as Pete Docter has anything to say cinematically. His vision encompasses the child like wonder we’ve all had during our childhood and makes us sentimental for years gone by. Fortunately his incarnation of our youthful ideals will live on forever.
I’ve little to say on the television front — love this season of Dexter so it’s nice to see Michael C. Hall and John Lithgow the awards they rightfully deserve; would’ve rather seen Chiwetel Ejiofor take the Actor award over Kevin Bacon; wasn’t big on the few episodes of Glee that I saw; Alec Baldwin’s performance this season was rather rehashed, so his award wasn’t quite as deserved — so that’ll be that. Spill your beans below if you want a conversation. Or you know, don’t. Cheers!
Golden Globe Predictions

Bah. I’ll get done with 20 – 11 in my top list soon. Like, before the Golden Globes soon. Anyways, here are my predictions for the evening:
FILM
BEST MOTION PICTURE, DRAMA
• Avatar
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Precious
• Up in the Air
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE, DRAMA
• Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria
• Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
• Helen Mirren, The Last Station
• Carey Mulligan, An Education
• Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE, DRAMA
• Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
• George Clooney, Up in the Air
• Colin Firth, A Single Man
• Morgan Freeman, Invictus
• Tobey Maguire, Brothers
BEST MOTION PICTURE, COMEDY OR MUSICAL
• (500) Days of Summer
• The Hangover
• It’s Complicated
• Julie & Julia
• Nine
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE, COMEDY OR MUSICAL
• Sandra Bullock, The Proposal
• Marion Cotillard, Nine
• Julia Roberts, Duplicity
• Meryl Streep, It’s Complicated
• Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE, COMEDY OR MUSICAL
• Matt Damon, The Informant!
• Daniel Day-Lewis, Nine
• Robert Downey Jr., Sherlock Holmes
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days of Summer
• Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
• Penélope Cruz, Nine
• Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
• Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
• Mo’Nique, Precious
• Julianne Moore, A Single Man
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
• Matt Damon, Invictus
• Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
• Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
• Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
• Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
BEST DIRECTOR
• Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
• James Cameron, Avatar
• Clint Eastwood, Invictus
• Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
• Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
BEST SCREENPLAY
• Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, District 9
• Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
• Nancy Meyers, It’s Complicated
• Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, Up in the Air
• Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
• Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
• Coraline
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• The Princess and the Frog
• Up
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
• Baaria (Italy)
• Broken Embraces (Spain)
• The Maid (Chile)
• A Prophet (France)
• The White Ribbon (Germany)
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
• Michael Giacchino, Up
• Marvin Hamlisch, The Informant!
• James Horner, Avatar
• Abel Korzeniowski, A Single Man
• Karen O and Carter Burwell, Where the Wild Things Are
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
• “Cinema Italiano,” Music & Lyrics by Maury Yeston (Nine)
• “I Want to Come Home,” Music & Lyrics by Paul McCartney (Everybody’s Fine)
• “I Will See You,” Music by James Horner, Simon Franglen; Lyrics by James Horner, Simon Franglen and Kuk Harrell (Avatar)
• “The Weary Kind,” Music & Lyrics by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett (Crazy Heart)
• “Winter,” Music by U2; Lyrics by Bono (Brothers)
TELEVISION
BEST TELEVISION SERIES, DRAMA
• Big Love
• Dexter
• House
• Mad Men
• True Blood
BEST TELEVISION SERIES, COMEDY OR MUSICAL
• 30 Rock
• Entourage
• Glee
• Modern Family
• The Office
BEST MINISERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
• Georgia O’Keefe
• Grey Gardens
• Into the Storm
• Little Dorrit
• Taking Chance
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES, DRAMA
• Glenn Close, Damages
• January Jones, Mad Men
• Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife
• Anna Paquin, True Blood
• Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES, DRAMA
• Simon Baker, The Mentalist
• Michael C. Hall, Dexter
• Jon Hamm, Mad Men
• Hugh Laurie, House
• Bill Paxton, Big Love
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES, COMEDY OR MUSICAL
• Toni Collette, United States of Tara
• Courteney Cox, Cougar Town
• Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
• Tina Fey, 30 Rock
• Lea Michele, Glee
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES, COMEDY OR MUSICAL
• Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
• Steve Carell, The Office
• David Duchovny, Californication
• Thomas Jane, Hung
• Matthew Morrison, Glee
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MINISERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
• Joan Allen, Georgia O’Keefe
• Drew Barrymore, Grey Gardens
• Jessica Lange, Grey Gardens
• Anna Paquin, The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler
• Sigourney Weaver, Prayers for Bobby
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MINISERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
• Kevin Bacon, Taking Chance
• Kenneth Branagh, Wallander: One Step Behind
• Chiewetel Ejiofor, Endgame
• Brendan Gleeson, Into the Storm
• Jeremy Irons, Georgia O’Keefe
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINISERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
• Jane Adams, Hung
• Rose Byrne, Damages
• Jane Lynch, Glee
• Janet McTeer, Into the Storm
• Chloë Sevigny, Big Love
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINISERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
• Michael Emerson, Lost
• Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother
• William Hurt, Damages
• John Lithgow, Dexter
• Jeremy Piven, Entourage
So we’ll see how I did after the awards!
So… that Spiderman Reboot is happening.
At first I figured that whole thing would be speculation and that Raimi would return to the project a week later. Nope… so we’ve got our main directors at the moment in:
01) Marc Webb
He’s the man that helmed this year’s indie hit (500) Days of Summer. I don’t exactly know what about his direction made producers of the Spiderman reboot go “You know, he could bring this into the darker dimension we want”. He has style, I’ll give him that. Perhaps they just want him because they know they can manipulate him whichever way they want because he’s new. Who knows? I like him though. Anyways, he’s rumored to be most comfortably in the position.
02) Gary Ross
Was this merely a rumor or is there some weight to it? Anyways, he’s my definition of a secure choice. He does nothing too much with his films — Seabiscuit and Pleasantville are all by the numbers in my books — so snagging him to do a mood piece seems as logical as grabbing Michael Bay to tell an emotionally complex tale.
03) Wes Anderson
I love this. I love Wes Anderson so him doing something so out of his element would be the best thing to happen in this scenario (for me). I don’t know how it’d play out, but it’d be a pretty interesting flick — peculiar tone, absorbing narrative, unique humor (I’d hope). This is probably not going to happen, but they mentioned his name so I got excited.
So yeah, Marc Webb seems the choice. Not too bad… plus if he could bait Joseph Gordon-Levitt into it, he’d be a pretty brilliant Peter Parker. You could even entitle this installment (500) Days of Spider and snag Zooey Deschanel for Mary Jane. Pfft, I don’t care, just make this movie so my interest can dissipate already.
Best of the Decade: Films (Part One)
Because I’m doing a top 30 of the decade (and perhaps a top 50 when I’m done with my purging of the decade’s worthy titles over the course of the next few months), I decided to pop them off in 10s. So there’ll be three parts with brief reasons/reviews as to why they make this list. So today you’re getting numbers 30 to 21. Thursday or Friday 20 – 11 and Sunday (as always) the top ten with lengthier reviews. Oh and other superfluous lists like “top directors of the decade”. OK, lets begin!

After having seen this in April of 2008, I immediately understood that this was the key war film of the decade. While there are other great features that have been omitted here (one that placed 31 was Israel’s Lebanon which sports a similar thematic element), Radu Muntean’s The Paper Will Be Blue (Hirtia va fi albastra) mixes not only the feverish and exhausting components of Romanian New Wave, but is also the first of the European boom to embark on the soldier’s mentality. Not only does this work beautifully in capturing mindset of your average soldier during the Romanian Revolution in the late 80s, but it extends its reach into more topical wars such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Muntean’s collaboration with his actors — Paul Ipate in the lead as Costi to Costi’s best friend Dragos in Dragos Bucur and their fermenting lieutenant established naturally by Adi Carauleanu — mesh this into a controlled situation of fragmentation that both tiptoes amidst the animosity in frantic war and touches hearts with its implied conclusion.
Oh no you didn’t! Oh yes, I just did — back to back Romanian New Wave! Cristi Puiu’s inception into cinema, Stuff and Dough (Marfa si banii) is a typical crime story told with the utmost patience, stripping away conspiracy and speculation – a genius fabrication considering the heart of the story is a concealed box that must be driven across the country. This also marks Dragos Bucur’s second consecutive appearance on this list as best friend of the protagonist, Vali. After Ovidiu (portrayed by a half-bored, half-invested Alexandru Papadopol as the film’s prime detriment) is told by Doncea (Doru Ana in a subtly intense performance) that if he delivers an ordinary box of “stuff” from their humble village to Bucharest he’ll pay him, Ovidiu takes the opportunity in hopes of becoming a sort of crime prodigy to Doncea, though that is never as explicitly stated. Even though he’s told to travel alone, his pal Vali tags along because his girlfriend Bety (the always lovely Ioana Flora) needs a trip. So the trio — together in an unstable automobile with a peculiar box that Vali sporadically wants to open — sets off on a most peculiar of road trips. It isn’t all quiet as events occur that make you more suspicious of the box, as the activity it generates is quite worrisome. Permeated with great dialogue that speaks of little stories that defines each of these characters without any pressure to, Mr. Puiu’s debut explains why he’s one of the filmmakers to keep an eye on (even if you aren’t too fond of The Death of Mr. Lazarescu like I am).

Being fortunate to catch this before Melanie Laurent’s name became a synonym for greatness, Philippe Lioret’s Don’t Worry, I’m Fine (Je vais bien, ne t’en fais pas) excels as much in projecting Melanie Laurent’s habitual talent as it does initiate one of the most questionable and morally speculative mysteries of the decade. The best of it all? It doesn’t lunge at the opportunity to exploit its viewers curiosity as a Zodiac would, but rather allows the feature to breathe as its audience does. A simple tale told delicately, Mr. Lioret’s adaptation of Olivier Adam’s first novel of the same name speaks of austere truths within the human condition. Back from a holiday, Lili (Melanie Laurent) comes home to understand that her twin brother Loic — the only member of her family that she’s ever been open with — has gone missing. Her father Paul (remarkable expose of guilt by Kad Merad) fuming that Loic had abandoned his job as a son in the family, her mother Isabelle (Isabelle Renauld) with an peculiar disposition and the world wondering where the sensitive Loic is. Lili faces personally established trials — refusing to eat, manipulating her jovial demeanor to be lethargic — in fret for her brother’s well-being. When a letter comes that inspires a new conquest, Lili takes on the mystery of her brother’s whereabouts to extremes. Like a “who-dun-it” caper without an abrasive score and roughneck tactics, Don’t Worry I’m Fine takes the finest qualities from successful mysteries; molding them together to create an a chillingly demure tale of passion that holds no boundaries. Perennially beautiful and expertly affecting — most of which stems from Ms. Laurent’s leading portrayal.
A review I wrote for this feature in early 2009 can be found here. It’s a tad weary, but it was during my initial growth as a reviewer.
Back to back films where I can just redirect you to reviews written? Nice. It’s the first review written: Jesper Gandlandt’s The Ape (Apan)
OK, this is getting a little ridiculous. Three in a row. I’ll prompt a small snippet for this one because I feel my fingers getting bored. Overly delightful, chipper than dog chasing cars and more energized than that pink bunny, contemporary Japanese genius Nobuhiro Yamashita’s tale about an all girls punk-pop band preparations before they play a track list before they disband and head off to colleges is a story so potent with its theme that it’ll be found a better experience and leave you with a larger smile than any concert can provide. Full review here.
The third Romanian New Wave on my list, Cristian Mungiu’s 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile) is one of the more exhausting features… ever. Clocking in at 113 minutes it feels more like 311 as the plot drips away, hitting deeply emotional strings on its way down before eventually finding itself at the center of a repulsive tale with one of the more morbid themes this decade has given light to. The key component of this film that keeps it from becoming a begrudged viewing for myself and most viewers alike is that it has a mellisonant protagonist. Anamaria Marinca plays Otilia, a good friend of an irritating woman seeking a back alley abortion (as they were illegal in the 80s, the era in which this is set) in Gabita. Otilia ‘assists’ — if you can call the hurdles she jumps for her friend merely assistance — her friend in finding a place for the abortion to occur and an abortionist to perform the task. His name is Bebe (Doru Ana) and he fits the part of executioner with more ease than that of a doctor. While attempting to balance her romantic promises with boyfriend Adi, keep prepared for her examinations and help her friend through a cumbersome predicament, Otilia’s foundations slowly begin to crumble thanks to the different weights of stress being applied upon her shoulders. It’s this performance by Anamaria Marinca that is indescribable (there are literally no words for me mush together to explain my adoration for her work here) that both personifies Mungiu’s morbid fixation and embeds a sense of mortality in this tale. Although 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days has its share of issues, Marinca’s performance elevates this feature into a whole new atmosphere, where to be melancholic is to breath and to behold grueling happenstance is to turn your head in a different direction.
Alright, I somewhat cheated. I threw this film on — it was the first on my “to see” list of the aughts — a few weeks ago when I was getting used to the idea of diving into films from the ’00s that I hadn’t seen. So this is formally the first film from that list to crack my decade list. A little seen gem from the Netherlands, The Sea That Thinks (De zee die denkt) is what you get when you blend the fragility of the contemporary mind with French New Wave filmmaking along the lines of Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest. Here the story — if you can call it as such it’s ne’er a narrative — is an expose on a frustrated novelist Bart Klever (Bart Klever) as he expels his rants pertaining to society through draft after draft of a novel he can’t find a soul in. Gert de Graff’s first (and so far only) feature is composed primarily of narration and peculiar symbolic gestures which cover the screen in an attempt at hitting you on duel levels. It’s a very poetic piece that ruminates heavily upon existentialism and as usual it does cross into pretension now and then, but these flaws are minimal in comparison to the abundance of truth spoken — or rather, pondered — in this film. There’s one piece amongst the ranting that boils down to: people are conditioned to inflict pain upon their existence through a vicious circle of trying to obtain what they want rather than understand who they are; that objects cannot define a person, that people are so blinded by media initiated ostentation that they lose sight of themselves. Films like these are why I keep my DVD rotation at a high level and it’s films like these that allow desolate viewers to know they’re not alone. Lucid abstraction — as paradoxical as this Dutch masterpiece.
Witty, complex, fascinating, identifiable, thrilling — each of these words represents a facet that can be easily found in Shane Black’s Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang in an archetypal formula that is entirely palpable, but the cause of ebullition if attempted to be recreated. A one and only and here’s why: First, you’ve got Robert Downey Jr. in his most eager as the protagonist Harry Locke, an inept thief who is thrown into a topsy-turvy world filled with circumstance and people further from criminal abolition than he is himself. This, mind you, all stems from his stumbling into an audition room for a role as a private eye while leading police on a footrace. After the audition, he finds himself at a party where he meets Gay Perry (a never better Val Kilmer), a private eye who suggests Harry tag along with him to get a better feel for the character he’ll be portraying. Toss in the conspicuous death of a struggling actress who Harry takes a shine to followed by 80 minutes of the most hilarious exploitation of happenstance in cinema and you’ve got one of the utmost winning formulas of the decade. Its representation of “neo-noir” puts the easily malign feature with plentiful uncertainty into perspective and hits just about every note along its path to a rather sweet conclusion. Apart from being a tad rushed at the end, Mr. Black’s directorial debut is everything a film fan could want in a film (and more).
Reaching the end of part one is Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City — a film that is as cunning with its color palette as it is cleverly edited and skillfully performed. As this is by far the most accessible film on my list thus far, I feel it less necessary to indulge in the synopsis. Essentially: The Roark Family, while sitting upon a holy throne or a political office, is controlling Basin City. There are four stories that are either directly or indirectly tied into The Roarks: Marv (one helluva performance by Mickey Rourke that singlehandledly revitalized his career) and his vendetta against everyone suspect of killing his one night stand in Goldie; Dwight (Clive Owen) and the Old Towne girls not wanting to be tread upon; Hartigan (Bruce Willis) and his attempt at securing a child he saved from being raped as a kid — now a woman — in Nancy, while fending off That Yellow Bastard, aka Senator Rourke’s son. Each story is composed with Robert Rodriguez wittily mixing both classic film-noir elements with the erratic tendencies that he founded a decade prior in From Dusk Till Dawn. There’s a security in Rodriguez’s brutes that makes such an absurd environment feel safe and nearly friendly. This allows viewers to escape into this demi-realm with more ease and a longer lasting impression. It’s one of my personal favourites to rewatch as the visual design becomes increasingly more compelling with each replay, if for nothing else. It’s not flawless, but beauty seldom is. Give me a round two already.
THE TOP THIRTY OF THE 2000s (thus far)
30. The Paper Will Be Blue (Radu Munteau, 2006)
29. Stuff and Dough (Cristi Puiu, 2001)
28. Don’t Worry, I’m Fine (Philippe Lioret, 2006)
27. The Class (Laurent Cantet, 2008)
26. The Ape (Jesper Ganslandt, 2009)
25. Linda Linda Linda (Nobuhiro Yamashita, 2006)
24. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, 2007)
23. The Sea That Thinks (Gert de Graaff, 2000)
22. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Shane Black, 2005)
21. Sin City (Robert Rodriguez, 2005)
—
20. Stay Tuned…
19. Stay Tuned…
18. Stay Tuned…
17. Stay Tuned…
16. Stay Tuned…
15. Stay Tuned…
14. Stay Tuned…
13. Stay Tuned…
12. Stay Tuned…
11. Stay Tuned…
—
10. Stay Tuned…
09. Stay Tuned…
08. Stay Tuned…
07. Stay Tuned…
06. Stay Tuned…
05. Stay Tuned…
04. Stay Tuned…
03. Stay Tuned…
02. Stay Tuned…
01. Stay Tuned…



















