The Ghost Writer (****1/2)

I vaguely recall when The Ghost Writer was released in theaters very early in the year, and i'm sure I just passed it off as a less-than-satisfactory winter thriller. After all, how many decent movies are released in the first months of any year? How shocked was I to discover that The Ghost Writer is definitely one of the best movies of the year!

Roman Polanski is a director I am not too familiar with, aside from The Pianist and his 60's horror flick Rosemary's Baby. While he is an exceptionally visual and emotional director, I think his work with The Ghost Writer could easily qualify as some of his best work.

The film is a great homage to the work of Hitchcock. It is in the silent moments that suspense is created - what we don't see as opposed to on-screen action. The story follows Ewan McGregor, a ghost writer assigned to complete the memoirs of a former Prime Minister, played with surprising depth and quality by Pierce Brosnan. As the past is resurfaced, current dramas and scandals arise, and the film takes an intensely thrilling turn. I can't think of any other way to appropriately describe it, other than a brilliant political thriller and sharply-tuned drama. All technical aspects are brilliant, with noteable praise going to the original score, easily some of the best work by one of the greatest living composers: Alexandre Desplat.

Unfortunately for the film, its early release date will most likely hamper its chances at any nominations - although they would be richly deserved. This movie will be proof that in order to win Oscars, you need not be the best of the year, rather a film released in the latter half of the year. This is a fabulous, amazing film.

(Awards potential (Based on what I believe the film deserves, not necesarily what it will receive nominations for): Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Brosnan), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score)

True Grit (Mo***1/2 Jo****)

John says:
Having one of the best trailers of the year, I was entering into the showing of True Grit with mildly-high expectations. On the whole, the film is technically brilliant. The Western genre is perfectly recreated with beautiful sets, costumes, and camera work. After the movie was over, though, I realized that while the movie had few flaws, it simply did not live up to the expectations one expects when going to see a Coen brother's movie. As absurd as it sounds, True Grit was just too 'by the book.'

Right away it must be said, Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld carry the movie with ease. Each one's character is stubborn, determined, and completely believable. While it may not be a career-best piece for Bridges, it is nonetheless a solid performance, especially knowing it stands on equal footing with John Wayne's Oscar-winning turn in the same role 40 years ago. Hailee Steinfeld's performance easily steals the show. Her whip-smart performance and delivery of some of the most clever dialogue of the year equally matches Bridges and Damon and establish her as one of the finest young actors.

Having seen the original, I was surprised both at the similarities and differences. I am aware this film is based on a novel, but it is interesting seeing the different interpretations of the story. On the whole I still believe that the original may be a more enjoyable film, but the ending of the Coen's film, like all their others, is perfect and definitely left me wanting more, even though a majority of the film I found myself approaching bored with scene after scene of extensive dialogue.

My consensus? A finely-made Western with sharp performances and beautiful sets. The cinematography is exquisite (thanks to the immaculate Roger Deakins (though I am not sure if this should be the film he finally wins an Oscar for. It was beautiful, but nowhere near his best work..)) I suspect fans of the Coen brothers may find themselves more disappointed with this movie than others, which is interesting. It may help bring them a larger fan base and get people more interested in their other films, too.

Maureen says: 
Being a Coen brothers fan and having somewhat of a soft spot for old-looking movies and westerns, I had high hopes going into True Grit. Although certain aspects of my expectations were realized and then some, the bulk of the film did not quite live up to the promise of its predecessor. Although technically nearing perfection, this film simply does not have the "wow" factor to win at the awards this year.

The film began relatively slowly... although wonderful acting by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld steals the show from the get-go, the audience cannot help but wonder, "when is something finally going to happen?" This is uncharacteristic of the Coen brothers' usual style, which is perhaps why the film ends in an ultimately unsatisfying fashion. Truly, the acting by Steinfeld and Bridges carries the film; without them, it would hardly be interesting to the average viewer at all. To the actors' credit, however, the characters are developed fully and intricately, and both Steinfeld and Bridges should receive well-deserved nominations in the coming awards season. Steinfeld, in particular, holds her own against the well-established Bridges and Damon, and is the center of attention in nearly every scene.

Aside from the acting, the film is equipped with a variety of beautiful ornaments, including score, cinematography, art direction, and costumes. It seems hard to imagine that it will not be recognized for these categories at the upcoming Awards. Even with the beautiful sets and camerawork, however, the overall effect of the script was dull and monotonous. Often, scripts filled with dialogue can be as riveting as the most action-packed film; here, the talking falls flat and the audience finds itself looking at its collective watch.

Coen brothers fans will find this film different from nearly everything else they have ever done, and unfortunately, not always in a positive way. Though True Grit exhibits impeccable filmmaking and will undoubtedly be recognized with multiple nominations for this in the awards season, the film does not quite realize what should be the ultimate goal of any movie: entertaining the audience.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfeld), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

*The Academy recently announced the film's Original Score was deemed ineligible for one reason or another. This is especially upsetting considering the score is one of the best aspects of the movie and is easily one of the best original scores of the year

The King's Speech (Mo***** Jo*****)

John says:
Having finally seen The King's Speech, I think I can finally say that yes, it has lived up to all my expectations, and yes, it is easily one of the best movies of the year. The cast is flawless, the filming is immaculate, and the story is memorable and powerfully moving.

Colin Firth stars as King George VI, a man lacking in self-confidence who is suddenly thrust into the role of King when his father dies and brother refuses the crown. He is supported by his wife, playes by Helena Bonham Carter, and his newly-found speech therapist, the lively Geoffrey Rush.

The movie succeeds mainly because of the stellar cast. When Colin Firth wins the Oscar in February (not if, WHEN), it will not be a sympathy vote for last year's A Single Man, it will be because his performance here is one of the strongest in recent memory, a man so pained by his past yet so focused on his commitments to his wife and country. Geoffrey Rush, playing the Australian doctor, is equally moving. He brings a certain sense of humor to the movie yet manages to portray one of the most sympathetic and loving fathers and friends. Helena Bonham Carter, fresh off her turn as Bellatrix Lestrange, also delivers a solidly warm performance. The three of them work amazingly on their own, but it's the time when they act off each other where the 'magic' really happens.

I don't think I have a single word of criticism for the film. I was completely engrossed in the story, amazed by the art direction and visuals, and completely absorbed by the story, one that I hadn't even been aware of before until seeing the film (yet now want to find out even more!). Easily a film that could and should win multiple Oscars, not because it's a historical drama or it 'fits the profile,' but simply because it's a damn good movie.

Maureen says:
Not only one of the best pictures of the year, but easily one of the most flawless historical dramas ever made. After watching it, comparisons to films such as La Vie En Rose come to mind (and if you know the extent of how much I love that film, that is quite something indeed). The King's Speech is emotional, completely engrossing, and impeccably filmed.

I cannot say enough about Colin Firth's performance in this film, and at the same time, I am utterly speechless. He gives a heart-wrenching performance, painting a perfect picture of the multi-faceted King. Firth's work with the King's stutter is outstanding, but it is only the icing on the cake to the portrayal of his character. I found myself completely and personally involved with the King, and Firth develops him in the best way possible. He manages to convey heartbreak, anger, insecurity, embarrassment, confidence, sadness, and joy; separately to perfection, but somehow combining them throughout the film in the King's overall demeanor. His performance fills out a movie that would stand well on its own and makes it all the more outstanding. Firth's work in last year's A Single Man, though excellent, looks like child's play compared to his acting here. I have seen few performances rivaling this one; among them, Cristoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds (sure to go down in filmmaking history) and Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose. Both of these performances swept awards during awards season, and Firth is almost sure to do the same. In fact, I think it is safe to say that Firth's performance would be a strong contender in any Oscar race from any other year, with any other opponent. Especially considering Firth's lack of strong competition, I am officially predicting his win, and probably with a near-sweep of the Academy's votes.

Helena Bonham Carter (playing the King's wife) and Geoffrey Rush (as the King's speech therapist) are also impeccable in their roles, providing remarkable performances while still allowing Firth to shine. They embody the meaning of "supporting" actors. Each develop distinct characters that play off of each other, creating real theatrical magic. Though not as certain of wins in their respective categories as Firth is this year, both Carter and Rush deserve - and should receive - nominations and recognition.

The King's Speech is really all about Firth and his performance, but it does not succeed solely because of it. Technically, the film is perfect also. Wonderful lighting and cinematography throughout, beautiful costumes, smart editing, and a lovely, fitting score. The screenplay, which is (a little surprisingly) an original work, will be strong competition in the race this year also. The dialogue is perfectly constructed, giving the actors a solid foundation upon which to perform. The film is deserving of multiple nominations, and it will receive them.

Though the race for Best Picture seems it will be tight with The Social Network, my preferred film this year has become The King's Speech. Perhaps it won't win, but it won't be because it does not deserve to. A historical drama that is not really a history, or even a story about a king, but a tale of a man, his struggles, and how he overcomes them. This film receives my very highest recommendation.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Firth), Best Supporting Actor (Rush), Best Supporting Actress (Carter), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score)

The Fighter (Mo**** Jo***1/2)

John says:
The Fighter could have been a masterpiece - a movie dealing with issues ranging from poverty, drug addiction, lost chances, redemption, and family. Instead, we are left with a rather clunky piece of filmmaking with some of the best acting of the entire year.

The story follows Micky Ward, a boxer set on making it big like his older brother, played by Christian Bale. Bale, now addicted to crack, has the support of his mother (Melissa Leo) and sisters, but few others. An HBO camera crew follows the family around claiming to be making a documentary about Ward's comeback. Instead, they are documenting the reality of drug use in America.

Wahlberg's character meets and falls in love with Amy Adams, in one of her most fiery roles, and his opportunity for greatness is divided between taking the support of his family or the support of everyone else.

For whatever reason or another, the film just doesn't flow as a boxing movie in the way that Raging Bull or Million Dollar Baby do. Although the title suggests the story is focused on Micky Ward, the bulk of the plot deals with Christian Bale's character - his determinations and his addictions. By the time the final fight comes, we really don't even care.

In terms of acting, the 3 standout performances come from Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo. Each performance is flawlessly portrayed and endlessly layered. Expect all three to garner Oscar nominations, and each of them would richly deserve a win. The cast is not without its flaws - unfortunately the one flaw is in the title role played by Mark Wahlberg. Although the character requires little to no character depth or development, Wahlberg still lacks a heart and his performance falls far short of his costars.

Again, we are faced with a year for 10 Best Picture nominees. As much as I would disagree with its nomination, I'm sure it will still receive one simply based on subject matter and critical approval. Although I wouldn't highly recommend this movie, do see it for the stunning acting - easily the best of the year. (From most of the cast, at least...)

Maureen says:
Though certainly not the best picture of the year, notable and watchable if for nothing else, the terrific acting. The screenplay is unfocused and a bit choppy, making the film not quite realize its full potential, but it is entertaining nonetheless.

Mark Wahlberg stars in the title role as Micky Ward, "the fighter," an up-and-coming boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts. Christian Bale plays his older brother Dicky, a washed-up fighter and crack addict, and Melissa Leo is Micky's controlling mother and manager. Amy Adams, in a very new and different role for her, plays Micky's feisty and defensive girlfriend Charlene. Despite playing the title character, Wahlberg's performance is shockingly poor, despite having opportunities to develop emotions such as conflict, despair, embarrassment, and anger. He gives Micky almost no depth or emotion whatsoever, negatively coloring the feel of the entire movie. Thankfully, Bale, Adams, and Leo come to the rescue with outstanding supporting roles, more than making up for Wahlberg's lack of character. Bale is particularly outstanding and gives his best performance to date as the drug-dependent Dicky Ward. He conveys a range of emotions and mannerisms to perfection from beginning to end. One almost begins to wonder if he has a separate life as a crack addict! Nominations and likely wins are in store for Bale this awards season, as are nominations for Adams and Leo.

The actors - particularly Bale - make this film worth watching, which is good, as the script would not stand very well on its own. The potential for the story is there: drug addiction, family conflict, failure, overcoming obstacles... but instead of focusing on one plotline or integrating multiple issues into a single, moving story (i.e. American Beauty), the script seems confused as to which story to focus on. Is this a film about Dicky's drug addiction? Is it about Micky's career? Or is it about family conflict and internal issues within the Ward family in the small town of Lowell? The screenwriters touch on all of these issues, but do not develop any of them to their fullest extent, and instead we are left with a slightly unsatisfying film that tells you a little about a lot.

Aside from the acting, there is not much else of note except for the editing. The boxing scenes, especially, are exciting and well-filmed, and the movie may receive a nomination for this work. In another ten-Best Picture-nomination year, The Fighter will likely be a contender, but almost certainly not for the win.

Overall, I was entertained by The Fighter and would absolutely see it again - which is really the ultimate goal of any film, right? Even though its success is largely because of the superb acting, it still makes for a pretty good watch.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Editing, Best Supporting Actor (Bale), Best Supporting Actress (Adams & Leo)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 (Mo ***1/2 Jo ***1/2)

John says:
Finally we near the end of the entire story - we've seen these characters develop from adorable, innocent kids through to the darkest, most mature moments. Overall I would like to say this first part of the last chapter was a success, but on the whole I can't help but voice concerns that overall, the film is much too dependent on its upcoming finale to function as a film of its own.

David Yates, the director of films 5 through to the end, is an amazing visual storyteller, and part 7 may very well be the most stunning - possibly out of all the Potter films. The technical wizardry behind the camera is astounding - with notable praise going to cinematography and visual effects - many of which were practically seamless, almost invisible. Similar praise can go to the score. Alexandre Desplat, one of the best composers working today, is the best thing to happen to the series since John Williams left. His music is moody, layered, effective, and totally in-tuned to the world of Harry Potter.

Each of the films seems to have a stand-out star, and this film is dominated by Emma Watson as Hermione. In previous films, her performances have been satisfactory to say the least, but finally we see her mature into a real actress, and there is never a moment you don't trust everything she is saying or believe every emotion she is portraying. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint likewise have become fine actors - not to mention the rest of the all-star cast.

On the whole it was a very faithful adaption of the book - maybe the closest to the source material any Potter film has yet come, yet certain omissions were surprisingly missed. Yes, they split the book into 2 parts in order to fit as much in as possible, but - for instance, they still managed to almost completely cut the Dursley's out of the picture. Could they really not afford to spend maybe 2 minutes wrapping their minute story up? What was that mysterious mirror Harry is constantly looking at? Are we supposed to believe Harry is really in love with Ginny when she is seen for one second and his focus is more on Hermione? (at least in the film) Clearly I know the answers, but like other Potter films, I am concerned with how much the average audience will understand and interpret from the plot based on the film alone.

By the end of the film, though, I couldn't help but feel a bit unsatisfied. Yes, the ending is a 'cliff-hanger' to those who haven't read the books, but ultimately, the episodic nature of the first half of the book doesn't easily lend itself to a complete story, let alone a fulfilling plot for a feature movie. I have a feeling that Part 2 will tie up many loose ends and have more of a grandiose feel, but until then, I can't help but think that Part 1 had so much going for it, yet mysteriously managed to avoid greatness.

Maureen says:
The long-awaited final installments of the Harry Potter series have arrived. For better or for worse, the decision was made to present the final installment of the series in two parts. After seeing this film, though well-made and exciting to watch, I can't help feeling as though this is a weak preview part 2 - the REAL finale.

David Yates once again does an outstanding job with the making of this film - arguably, his finest Harry Potter work to date. The visuals were stunning and had me on the edge of my seat the entire movie. The 2 1/2 hours flew by. It was engaging, exciting, and spectacular to watch, with almost undetectable effects. Acting was also particularly outstanding, most notably from Emma Watson (Hermione) and Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix LeStrange), who as usual stole the screen whenever present. The score, as well, was mysterious, exciting, unique, and complemented the outstanding cinematography perfectly. There was enough humor to keep the script entertaining but also enough serious moments to keep it interesting. A large part of the book itself involves silent traveling, which could have made for a boring film, but Yates and the actors managed to make the silent moments emotional and intriguing.

Although the cinematography and editing were excellent and the film was generally very faithful to the book, certain artistic liberties were questionable at best. For example: not to give anything away, there was a provocative fantasy sequence that - it is safe to say - does not fit in with J.K. Rowling's intentions for the book. This tainted the entire scene and even, to a certain extent, the rest of the movie. I also must agree with some other critics in saying that the film seemed rather "jumbled" at times, which was not helped by the presence of shaky, Bourne Identity-style camera work. Had I not read the book, I likely would have been confused by the editing and plot twists. And although I went into the film expecting the ending to be anti-climactic, I was still left feeling like something was missing.

This film is certainly not the best Potter film nor my favorite, and in fact, finds itself toward the bottom of my Potter list... but it was absolutely 2.5 well-spent hours and does well in its ultimate job of raising plenty of anticipation for Part 2.

(Awards potential: Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound, Best Cinematography)

127 Hours (*****)

Slumdog Millionaire move over, Danny Boyle's latest work also may be his greatest. What began as a skeptical night of going to the movies transformed into an experience I don't think I will ever forget. The story of a man who gets his arm trapped behind a rock somehow manages to become a profound reflection on each and every person's life and the individual paths we all take.

The movie is in many ways similar to Boyle's previous film - Slumdog Millionaire - a colorful, fast-paced, dramatic yet inspiring story of life's worst situations transforming the characters into better people.

Of course, the story mainly focuses on Aron Ralston, an adventurous, albeit naive mountain climber who - of course - find himself in the worst situation: trapped in the middle of no where with no means of help. Any other director (I literally mean ANY other director) would have ruined the film and lost the true meaning of the story. Boyle makes it seem easy, oftentimes with unusual means - split screen, superimpositions, dreams, etc. It's highly stylized to say the least - but it works so well.

I could go on for hours praising each individual aspect - the score (our lovely AR Rahman), the cinematography, the editing, the sound design (!) but it all rides on James Franco's shoulders, and his is a towering performance. It's not necessarily a showy role, but he makes the most out of every little moment and pause - it's the silence that he manages that really holds our attention.

Although the running time is around an hour and a half, the intensity of each moment leaves you pinned - and time seems to stop. You might ask yourself, how could a movie set in a narrow canyon possibly hold our attention for 10 minutes, let alone over an hour? Well - it just does. In many ways it's a story about survival. Our tensions build as we see his water supply get lower and lower and the littlest changes in weather remind us how dangerous it is. At the same time it also manages to be a moving drama, a story about a man reflecting on his past relationships, love affairs, and family ties. If you were about to die, how would you feel about the life you had led thus far?

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best movie I've seen all year. No other movie in recent memory has had such a huge impact on me - physically and emotionally. All the pieces are here, and they all work brilliantly together. In fact, stupendous is probably the best word I can think to use to describe it.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Franco), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Makeup)

Waiting For Superman (*****)

Waiting For Superman is as good of a documentary I have ever seen. The story focuses on the American public school system - its flaws, its champions, teachers, parents, students. Like any great piece of non-fiction film making, its powerful because it somehow manages to connect the audience with it's subjects, in this case, middle school students just hoping for a proper education.

I was surprised at two things when watching the film. First, how easily the information was presented. Walking in I was somewhat intimidated and possibly even put off by the subject matter. How interesting could learning about schools really be? In all honesty it was engrossing. Ideas are presented clearly and concisely with animation used to help drive in certain points. It was in that regard a very visual story. Second, the decision to focus the story on a handful of students was perfect in regards to the topic. As we learn about the flaws and problems children face in school, we are presented with actual children - kids and their parents trying their hardest to rise up and become successful by any means possible.

As fascinating as the documentary was to watch, ultimately its focus was on our country as a whole. We are raised to believe that America is 'the land of opportunity,' but after watching this I began having second thoughts. Not to spoil anything, but when a little girl who wants to grow up to become a doctor can't simply because her name wasn't pulled out of a hat, then something is wrong. How is it that years and years of political focus on reforming our educational system has had practically no effect at all?

I haven't seen any other documentary made this year yet, but I am almost positive this will remain the best I will see. Go see it immediately!

(Awards potential: Best Documentary, Best Original Song ('Shine'))

Black Swan (Mo****1/2 Jo****1/2)

John says:
Black Swan is like no other movie I have seen this year. It is difficult (if not impossible) to classify into any one genre, and the story remains cryptic and open, from the very first shot to the last. Despite all the mystery I felt after the screening, I can't get it out of my mind - trying to unravel everything that happened, make connections, sort through the plot - and in that regard I would consider the film a huge success.

The movie follows Nina (played by Natalie Portman), who seemingly has worked as a dancer for years but finally gets her break - the coveted lead role in 'Swan Lake.' Lily, a new dancer (played by Mila Kunis) appears, and slowly Nina's world of perfection and repetition is completely jolted off course. The movie could have taken the course of a typical drama, but by graphically illustrating Nina's inner (and outer) transformations, moments become surprisingly horrific. It's a balancing act that the director, Darren Aronofsky, manages to pull off with great ease and an unflinching sense of truth.

In terms of acting, Natalie Portman is brilliant. This could have been a role in which a lesser actor would just act scared and fake tears. Portman manages to bring great depth, playing a part that essentially mirrors the White Swan she portrays on stage. She manages to be both powerful and completely humbled, often times simultaneously. Definitely one of the strongest and most thorough performances of the year. Mila Kunis also deserves praise - one wouldn't expect a star of 'That 70's Show' to provide such a solid performance, but she keeps us guessing from start to finish. Winona Ryder (yes, she's in this movie), playing the part of an aged dancer reaching retirement is completely riveting. Her total screen time can't sum to more than 5 minutes, but her every moment is perfect. Barbara Hershey wraps up the lead cast playing Portman's harsh, oftentimes psychotic mother. In a 'Carrie-esque' fashion, her character hovers over every aspect of Nina's life, There's sympathy to be found in her, yet there is always a sense of unease, too.

There's little resolution to many of the characters, very few moments of revelation, and there's never a sense of a solid basis in reality. How much of what we see is real? How much is imagined? I don't want to provide any spoilers (if that's possible) but I feel like this movie may be a bit more abstract than the average movie-goer may suspect. It's gorgeously photographed and meticulously pieced together, and in many ways it's beautifully effortless like the dancing we see on screen. You have never seen dancing (or anything for that matter) filmed in this way. It's immersive, stunning, completely engrossing.

Darren Aronofsky has created a vast assortment of films, from Requiem For A Dream and The Wrestler. You can feel his presence with Black Swan - the harsh grittiness of the editing, the manic camera work, the focus on characters going through a change, etc.

This is a fascinating, harsh, disturbing, brilliant movie. As dangerous a movie as it is, this movie seems locked for a Best Picture nomination. Aronofsky, too, makes risky movies that don't always sit well with audiences - but his meticulous and startling work here definitely could and should garner him a directing nomination as well. Unlike any other movie this year: a unique, mind-boggling masterpiece.

Maureen says:
Darren Aronofsky creates a new and completely different genre with this film: the psycho-"drorror" thriller... or something. Black Swan is dark, mysterious, and shocking... but in all of the best possible ways. 

The film is centered around ballerina Nina, played by the stunning Natalie Portman. She is perfect in the role; I've almost never seen a role so well-cast, and she does an impeccable job with a difficult and layered part. This slight actress will be a force to be reckoned with at the 2010 Academy Awards. Mila Kunis perfectly complements the innocent Portman and embodies the very definition of a dark temptress. She is at her finest, and it will not be surprising to see her recognized with multiple nominations. Nina's mother - played by Barbara Hershey - is also outstanding. Although secondary to the overall plot, Hershey manages to make Nina's mother the center of attention in each scene, and makes the audience's collective skin crawl progressively more with each appearance.

Filmmaking-wise, this is up there with the year's finest. Dark cinematography, spooky lighting, and edge-of-your-seat editing make this film a thrill ride from beginning to end. I actually found myself physically exhausted by the end of it, having been enthralled and tense the entire way through. The sets and particularly the costumes are beautifully designed and make each scene mesmerizing to watch.

The story itself is a completely unique one, not only filled with symbolism but based almost entirely on it. Completely abstract, surreal, and cryptic... but despite the very nature of the film, it has the audience desperately waiting to see what happens next, regardless of whether it will make sense or not, regardless of whether it will be "real" or not. That being said, some of the artistic liberties may be a bit too liberal... where does one draw the line between symbolism and gratuitous horror? The "shock" factor here, though nearly perfectly executed in nearly every instance, was not always a positive addition to the story. When certain visuals remind you of The Ring, that's where you begin to wonder about the film's overall intent: is it to shock and amaze? Or simply to terrify?

A risky, gritty, disturbing piece... but a story that will stick with you for hours, even days afterward. Certainly not for the faint of heart; but for those looking for a true cinematic "experience," you have come to the right place.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (Portman), Best Supporting Actress (Barbara Hershey, Mila Kunis) Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design)

The Social Network (Mo***** Jo*****)

John Says:
The Social Network has become a very anticipated film for one reason or another, and early reviews from critics have been absolute raves. Clearly I would not pass on the opportunity to see an advanced screening (and Q&A session with screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and stars Jesse Eisenberg and Armie Hammer!).

My first viewing of the film in the front row of my theater was fascinating, albeit slightly underwhelming. I found the dialogue witty, beautiful photography, but on the whole I thought the concept of a Facebook movie was a bit short-sighted. My second viewing, seen on a smaller screen with no distractions (let's ignore the legalities for a moment) was awe-inspiring. The third - flawless. Here is a great movie with layer upon layer of depth and story. How I didn't recognize the genius during the first viewing remains a mystery, but now I am fully convinced this is one of the strongest films of the year.

The film follows a handful of testimonies and accounts of the various college students responsible for (and allegedly robbed of) the idea of Facebook. The story flows by incredibly quickly in a non-linear fashion as the story descends deeper and deeper into betrayal and greed. Jesse Eisenberg (who strikes me as the poor man's Michael Cera) is utterly shallow and completely riveting in his role. Likewise with Andrew Garfield (our future Spider-man) who gives possibly the strongest (and most sympathetic) performance in the film. Armie Hammer serves a dual role as the Winklevoss twins (through flawless CGI), those who claim to be the victim of intellectual property theft: Facebook. Were they robbed? Or was Zuckerberg's idea truly an original one? It's difficult to tell, especially as the story is told from such a multi-faceted angle. Justin Timberlake wraps up the leading cast with a surprisingly dramatic and believable role.

In terms of the film's story, was surprised at how timeless some of the central themes of betrayal, friendship, and personal gain were. I fully respect the screenwriter, who could have made a cliche, boring, forgettable movie - but managed to make a layered, resonant, albeit fictionalized account of this website and the people who were behind it.

I also give praise to the cinematography and original score. Both are very unconventional for the story at hand, but help so much in creating a unique tone throughout the movie. David Fincher is undoubtedly known for the technicality behind his films, and this one is no exception.

I highly, HIGHLY recommend this film! It's surprisingly deep and is completely fascinating. The story points towards a deeper understanding of today's culture - that as we seemingly get closer and closer to people via the internet, we really are isolating ourselves more and more... Yes, it took me 3 viewings to more fully grasp the genius at work behind this film, and I cannot wait to see it again. One of the year's strongest films by far.

Maureen says:
Going in to see The Social Network, I had low expectations. A movie about Facebook, of all things?! But soon after the film began, I realized this was not a film about Facebook, but a rags-to-riches story of conflict, friendship, success, failure, betrayal, and strength of character. David Fincher, as usual, is hitting on all cylinders, and as such, creates a film that will be a strong contender in the upcoming awards season.

To start, the acting: spot on, to say the least. Jesse Eisenberg has a break-out role as Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook. He makes you simultaneously hate Zuckerberg while cheering for him the whole way through. Strong supporting roles by Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer, and the up-and-coming (and VERY easy-on-the-eyes) Andrew Garfield. The character development is riveting (credit to screenwriter Aaron Sorkin) and truly makes the film what it is.


In addition to the screenplay and the acting, the film is well-made, with excellent cinematography, unique (but perfect!) scoring, and beautiful sets. I'm not sure if Harvard actually looks they way it's portrayed, but they show it exactly the way 95% of America imagines it looks.


Overall, this is a difficult movie to NOT enjoy. There is drama, comedy, and the perfect amount of intrigue... a unique, compelling, and smart coming-of-age story. Consequently, in thinking about its rating, it is also difficult NOT to give it a perfect score, as it is nearly perfect in every regard. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor - get off of Facebook - and go.


(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Eisenberg), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Supporting Actor (Garfield), Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

4 Months Left! Movies To Keep In Your Radar...

Can you believe it? The year is already two-thirds of the way done! So far, we haven't seen too many 'Oscar-caliber' movies - but hopefully the upcoming fall/ winter season will finally give 2010 a solid lineup of great films! Here are some movies I think we should keep our eyes on:



THE KING'S SPEECH



What seems to be the current front-runner for the majority of Oscar nominations this year. Colin Firth seems poised for his second consecutive nomination and ideally his first win after his flawless performance last year in 'A Single Man.' The cast looks stellar and the story is both unique and historical. So far critics and audiences have been absolutely raving about the early screenings. Keep your eyes open for this - it's going to be one to watch.


BLACK SWAN



Darren Aronofsky's lack of ANY Oscar nominations for films like Requiem For A Dream and The Wrestler is almost unbelievable. This film looks like it could be a strong contender in multiple categories - possibly previous Oscar-nominee Natalie Portman? The film looks like it has a strong visual style, but will the dark, seemingly fantasy-like premise go over well with Oscar voters? We will have to see...


127 HOURS



Danny Boyle's return to movies after his mammoth achievement with Slumdog Millionaire. Like his previous films, 127 Hours looks like it will be both a visual wonder with a fast-paced plot. It has a lot going for it - true story, Oscar-winning director, James Franco... This movie could be one to beat.


CONVICTION



I honestly don't know what to think of this movie. The cast is amazing - Hilary Swank, Sam Rockwell, Melissa Leo, Mini Driver... The story - allegedly a true one - seems to be both gripping and inspirational. I could see this being either a dud or a complete winner. Interestingly, Annette Bening seems to be a front-runner for Best Actress this year, yet both of her past 2 nominations in the category were lost to Hilary Swank. Could these 2 possibly come head to head yet again? This is an interesting one to watch.


THE SOCIAL NETWORK



Yes, a movie about Facebook doesn't seem like it has much to offer, but early reviews have been complete raves. David Fincher directs, fresh off his Oscar-nomination for Benjamin Button. The cast leaves much to be desired (Justin Timberlake and Jesse Eisenberg don't exactly make the most prestigious movies), but it still has lots of potential, so for now lets just wait.


TRUE GRIT




The trailer is finally out and can we just say... this may or may not be a VERY strong contender this season. The film is made by the Coen brothers and stars Oscar-winner Jeff Bridges in the same leading role that won John Wayne an Oscar in 1969. Could Bridges become only the third actor to win back-to-back Oscars? The Coens' last western was a little film called No Country For Old Men. We think it's safe to say they understand how the genre works. With the Coens, you come to expect quality, and we can't imagine a situation where this will not be the case.


THE FIGHTER

A boxing movie starring Mark Wahlberg. History shows that boxing movies tend to do well, both critically and in terms of accolades (Million Dollar Baby, Raging Bull...) Could this movie follow in those footsteps?


THE TEMPEST

This movie may not end up being the right type of movie, but it has all the right ingredients. The cast includes Helen Mirren, David Strathairn, Djimon Hounsou, Alfred Molina, and Chris Cooper. The source material is the Shakespeare play.

Inception (Mo***** Jo*****)

John Says:
Christopher Nolan has achieved immortal status as both a visionary director and master storyteller, first with his unparalleled success with The Dark Knight, and now with his latest (and greatest) film, Inception. No matter how much you may hear about this film before seeing it, there is so much depth in the plot and character decvelopment, that it is virtually immune to spoilers.

The story follows a man named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), an extractor who is trained to steal information from the minds of dreamers. DiCaprio, who is only refining his talent as an actor, possibly gives one of his most complete performances- a man driven by the future but haunted by his past. It is not a 'showy' performance in any sense, but DiCaprio still proves that he is one of the greatest actors working today.

On the surface, Inception may seem like an action movie. It is. It is also a top-notch mystery and a mind-bending drama. Repeat viewings only enrich the story and add to both the mystery and understanding. The cast is one of the best I have ever seen, with Marion Cotillard (stunning), Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe, and Ellen Page all delivering what is required of them and more.

And then comes the ending - open-ended to say the least, and one that will likely spark conversations and debates for years to come. Nolan is smart, not necessarily giving the audience what it wants, but what the story needs. There is debate over whether or not the entire movie is what it seems, we may never know. All I know it that Inception is a movie that does not compromise story in order to reach a wider audience. It manages to deliver both a solid story with solid acting, and as the box-office is showing, the audience appreciates it!

Maureen says:
At the time of this review, I have seen this film twice, and I've finally regained enough speech to write something about it. And still, all I can think of are words like "mesmerizing," "brilliant," "perfect," "masterpiece," "astonishing," "mind-blowing," "groundbreaking"... fill in the blank with what you like. I have never seen anything like this. My expectations were - dangerously - that this would be the best movie I've ever seen. These expectations were met halfway through and exceeded from then on. Perfectly cast, directed, shot, scored, written, performed... again, fill in the blank.

The best thing about it (if you can pick one) is the story. Chris Nolan spent around 10 years perfecting this script, and it's going to take audiences twice that long to stop talking about it and analyzing it. Rarely, if ever, have I said that the second viewing of a movie is like watching a different movie altogether. When I compare it to some of my other favorite movies and all-time classics, they either pale in comparison or I literally can't compare them because this is so unique. Do yourself a favor and see this movie. Like 5 times.

(Awards Potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actress (Cotillard), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects)

Shutter Island (Mo*** Jo***)

John says:
When Martin Scorsese won the Oscar for The Departed, he said it was the first movie he ever made with a plot. An interesting thing to say, but when you think about his plethora of gangster movies and biopics, you start to realize he may be right. Shutter Island, then, may only be his 2nd movie with a tangible plot - introduction, rising action, climax, etc - and although you can just about taste the Scorsese-ness of the film, for one reason or another it often falls flat.

That does not mean it is not a well-crafted film, on the contrary, the first 30 minutes or so are some of the most intriguing I've seen, eerily accompanied by Howard Shore's brooding score. The set pieces are all good, the plot is good, but as it progresses the constant introduction of new names and places ultimately made the story clunk along.

The cast is stellar, but it is Leonardo DiCaprio who possibly turns in his best performance yet. Scorsese seems to understand how to make stars out of his male actors (Robert DeNiro, anyone?) and DiCaprio easily joins the ranks. One scene in particular struck a chord - near the end when he discovers something floating in the water (spoiler free!), a surge of emotions pour out of him, and the result is the most genuine, disturbing, most impressive moment of Leo's acting career!

Being a Scorsese movie, you come to expect excellence - and Shutter Island is indeed well-made. Ultimately, though, it fails to live up to the incredibly high standard which makes him one of the greatest living directors. Good, but not great.

Maureen says:
Martin Scorcese usually sticks to biopics and sweeping epics... and after seeing Shutter Island, I would have to agree that would be where his strength lies. I had relatively high hopes for Shutter Island - Martin Scorcese+Leonardo DiCaprio=success (i.e., The Departed, The Aviator) - and while it is certainly watchable, it isn't by any means a great film.

The best parts of the movie are the cinematography, set design, and an especially wonderful performance by Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role, who continues to pick challenging and career-building parts. This is arguably some of DiCaprio's best work to date, filled with layers of tangible emotion.

The script and story itself ultimately fail in their ultimate goal and inner-story development, with too many needless twists along the way, but it is beautifully and artistically designed throughout. Scorcese uses color and lighting to his full advantage, and it really helps save what would otherwise be a rather flat screenplay. The ending, however (again, no spoilers), has subtleties that the careful audience will appreciate, and makes the story about twice as good as it would be without it.

Scorcese has a well-made film here, as usual, but without the epic-ness of his usual style. Not one of his best by any means, and it looks as though this one may fall short during this awards season, but definitely not a waste of time.

(Awards potential: Best Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Art Direction)

How To Train Your Dragon (Mo**** Jo****)

John says:
Dreamworks may generally seem to be a Pixar ripoff - they produce popular animated films yet always manage to focus more on box office returns than basic storytelling. Well for once, they seem to have done it!

How To Train Your Dragon (bad title, but we'll get to the con's in a bit) is easily one of the best animated movies of the year and is possibly Dreamworks' finest contribution to the movie year. The story follows Hiccup, son of a Viking dragon warrior who wants to live up to his father's image, but ultimately befriends the creatures they are trying to destroy. What follows is a great story along the lines of E.T. - a story that is both satisfying and full of heart.

The animation is some of the most impressive I've ever seen, with flying sequences that easily rival last year's Avatar. The original score by John Powell (of Shrek-fame) is beautiful, and the story effortlessly draws the audience in. By the time we reach the climax, there is such an investment in the characters that it is genuinely edge-of-your-seat situation.

That is not to say that Dragon is without flaws. Aside from the overly-long and misleading title, the story is riddled with a tad too many jokes that often fall flat. The voice talents, mainly that of the lead- Hiccup, seem miscast and do not necessarily fit with the character's appearance. I also question the ending. Not giving anything away, but the final outcome of the humans and dragons seems a bit too 'man conquering nature' versus a more appropriate 'every species is equal' approach.

Nonetheless, How To Train Your Dragon is a fast-paced, moving, charming film that puts Dreamworks on the map and provides serious competition against Toy Story 3 for Best Animated Film at the upcoming Oscars.

Maureen says:
Everyone knows that Pixar always wins Best Animated Film... and they will again this year with third-time's-the-charm Toy Story 3. But if Pixar hadn't released Toy Story, How To Train Your Dragon would be an excellent choice for the Oscar. A predictable, often-used story with a silly title - but How To Train Your Dragon is clever, entertaining, and inspirational the whole way through.

Things I especially enjoyed about the film: The animation, Gerard Butler, the witty dialogue... but surprisingly, one of the biggest wins for the movie is the score. A gem of a soundtrack that I could honestly listen to for days on end. Beautifully orchestrated and written, the score perfectly fits the film and enhances it, honestly making the film about twice as good as it would be otherwise. John Powell received a very much deserved nomination for his work this year. He likely won't win this time around, but if he continues to compose in a similar vein, Oscar gold lies in his future.

Aside from the score, I found myself engrossed in the story the entire way through, despite the ridiculous names and - let's be honest - premise in general. What kept me involved were clever jokes, dry humor, and really excellent character development. The climax was nail-biting and exciting, and was supplemented with a wealth of stunning animated visuals.

I found the overall story to be extremely predictable and the ending cliche, but what more can you really ask for from a children's film? Also, many of the voice actors (including Jay Baruchel in the lead as Hiccup) seemed a bit out of place in their roles. Though I didn't find it necessarily distracting, as the actors themselves did well in their roles, their voices didn't make the film any better for me. The exception was Gerard Butler, whom I found commanding and humorous in his role as Hiccup's father, Stoick.

Today, it's difficult not to compare any animated film with Pixar, and for good reason - they have set the standard, and they have set it high. How To Train Your Dragon is a not quite as clever or adult as Pixar, but who is, really? I would highly recommend this film for anyone and everyone!

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Sound Editing, Best Original Score)

Toy Story 3 (Mo ***** Jo****1/2)

John says:
Toy Story 3 continues the miraculous reign of Pixar over both box-office reapings and classic storytelling. Making a 3rd movie about Buzz and Woody may seem like banging an old drum, but the movie is surprisingly original and fresh. Pixar films seem to be getting better and better, and even when you think they have plateaued with films like Wall-E and Up, they reveal yet greater achievements and animation.

Unlike previous Pixar films, Toy Story 3 deals with much heavier themes- a central one being mortality. As Andy goes off to college, Woody and the gang are shipped off to daycare. As innocent as it may seem, the plot slowly shapes up to be that of a prison break - and a hilarious and smart one at that.

The dialogue is witty and appreciable by both adults and children, the humor is fantastic, and the addition of new characters is refreshing. Like most Pixar films, there are moments that will undoubtedly have you tearing up, yet these moments are well-deserved and you never feel cheated. It's a perfect way to conclude the franchise, leaving you both satisfied and invigorated. Easily one of the best movies of the year.

*On a side note, the short film at the head of the movie, Day and Night, is a bold departure from the typical Pixar shorts we have seen before. It explores abstract themes and combines dazzling 2D and 3D animation. Make sure you get to the theater early - it's worth checking out.

Maureen says: 
Toy Story 3 has done what few, if any, sequels - especially "3" sequels - have done. This is a stand-alone film which successfully builds off of the first two films while managing to remain extremely entertaining and original on its own, despite its challenge of being third in the series.

Pixar never ceases to amaze me. They always manage to make wildly entertaining films out of seemingly ridiculous ideas (Ratatouille, anyone?). Toy Story 3 is right up there with Pixar's best work. Smart, clever humor, thought-provoking themes, fantastic voice acting (as usual), easy to follow but never slow, and above all, a fun movie to watch for literally every age. Not surprisingly for Pixar, during a "children's" film, the adults in the audience seemed to be having more fun than the kids.

Aside from being roll-on-the-ground hilarious, this Pixar film in particular has touched a place in the heart that nearly everyone watching, children and adults alike, will be able to relate to. This is what makes the film particularly memorable and will make it watchable for years to come. I felt tears well up several times -  and it wasn't always because of the hilarity of Ken's wardrobe.

Not only is this a shoo-in for a Best Animated Feature nomination (no surprise there, for Pixar), it is - and is likely to remain - one of the best films of 2010 in general.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score, Best Original Song ('We Belong Together'), Best Adapted Screenplay)

The Kids Are All Right (Mo****1/2 Jo****1/2)

John says:
In a year marked by few cinematic marvels (Inception, Toy Story 3), The Kids Are All Right is a breath of fresh air. A story overflowing with originality and wit, the movie contains some of the the funniest and moving scenes of the year so far.

The story is basic enough: a lesbian couple (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore) raising their 2 teenagers are suddenly thrust into an unforeseeable situation - that their children have contacted and met with the man (Mark Ruffalo) who donated his sperm so many years ago.

The situation provides the basis for many hilarious and undoubtedly awkward moments, but underneath it all there is a story of a couple going through a change. Both Annette Bening and Julianne Moore give award-worthy performances. They simultaneously manage to balance witty dialogue and humorous moments with great emotion and concentration. Annette Bening manages to steal the show, though. Like her masterful performance in American Beauty, Bening takes on the difficult role of playing a sexually-frustrated and overbearing wife. Her final scenes are easily the best acting I've seen all year and both her and Moore should be considered heavyweights in the upcoming Awards season.

Overall this is a fascinating study of a 21st Century family, balancing drama with humor flawlessly. At times it may take certain liberties, but it is definitely a movie not to miss!

Maureen says:
A fresh look at an unconventional modern-day family, filled with humor and twists with every new scene. One cannot help being reminded of similar dysfunctional family dramas such as American Beauty; and although this is not quite on the same level as Beauty, it is a satisfying and thought-provoking experience nonetheless.

The filmmaking and cinematography are nothing to write home about (although, that's to be expected from an independent film), but the acting is spectacular. Annete Bening is outstanding as a disciplinarian lesbian mother - after the movie, I literally had to look up whether or not she was straight in real life! (She is, by the way, making her performance all the more impressive.) Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore are also excellent as usual. The hilarity and awkwardness of each new situation is wonderfully entertaining, and in contrast, the pain and heartbreak is tangible, particularly from Bening. She will certainly be recognized with a nomination for her work, and quite possibly a (well-deserved) win.

The story itself is wonderfully witty and watchable to say the least. Only slightly predictable, with unique twists and of course hilarity at every turn. Really, there's something for everyone. One of the best movies of the year, without question. Hopefully it will be recognized as such during awards season.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Actress (Moore & Bening), Best Supporting Actor (Ruffalo), Best Original Screenplay)