Midnight In Paris (***)

It would be very easy to rank Woody Allen as one of the most innovative and clever filmmakers. With films like Annie Hall, Bullets Over Broadway, and the genius Hannah and Her Sisters under his belt, it is safe to consider Allen close to genius. However, Midnight In Paris simply pales in comparison to Allen's more rich, detailed scripts with characters that are just shadows of some of his best work. Perhaps with age, Allen is losing much of his gusto, and unfortunately I found the film rather flat.

The plot (if there is one) follows a man named Gil played by Owen Wilson. Visiting Paris with his absurdly-negative fiance and her parents, he finds pleasure in walking the city at night - stumbling into a sort of vortex that leads him to the city in the 1920's where he meets a whole gang of famous artists. And.... that's it. Scene after scene follows this man as he journeys back in time to point out to the audience that 'wow you're the REAL Gauguin?' or 'He looks like Cole Porter.' A basic love story emerges with the ever-radiant Marion Cotillard, but for the most part the film is merely a series of actors portraying historical figures.

What more can be said? The costumes are accurate and the cinematography is surprisingly lush. It is obvious that Mr Wilson is trying extremely hard to fill the stuttering manic shoes of Woody Allen in the lead role, but overall I couldn't help but be taken out of the story. The basic lack of clever writing that Allen is known for is surely missed, and while Midnight In Paris isn't a horrible film, it's not one I would expect to win a slew of awards either.

(Awards potential: Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography)

Moneyball (*****)

Following in the traditions of some of the greatest sports movies, Moneyball at times seems to top them all, becoming a film that is both an enormous crowd pleaser as well as a tightly-crafted human drama. The film has slowly begun to reap awards regardless of its early Fall release date, and there is no question that it deserves every accolade it receives.

Based on a true story, the film follows Billy Beane, the General Manager for the Oakland Athletics. Upon meeting Peter Brand (played remarkably well by Jonah Hill) who is a Yale graduate with a scientific mindset towards the game of baseball, the two begin a never before tried experiment of how to win games, ultimately resulting in their record-setting 20 win streak in 2002.

Bennett Miller, the director who made Capote, perhaps the finest film of 2005, brings his unique touch in creating moments of somber darkness and character contemplation. Many have noted the film has a definite slower pace for a sports film, but nothing feels more right. The loud atmosphere of sports arenas contrasts with the quiet and dark spaces behind the scenes.

Of course, this film revolves around Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, and it is perhaps the most remarkable performance of his career. Having amazed us consistently with films from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Babel, The Assasination of Jesse James, and even Se7en, it could be argued that Pitt is at his career-best. It is not as showy of a performance as his disciplinarian father in this year's The Tree of Life but he captures the pure spark of a man who will not give up. His performance, coupled with Jonah Hill's more subdued character, make up some of the best acting of the year and should easily garner Oscar nominations for both men.

Moneyball is a true success. There is not a flaw to be found in the screenplay (co-written by last year's Oscar winner for The Social Network Aaron Sorkin) nor in the performances or the pacing. This is truly a great film, and one that I can't wait to watch one more time.

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

The Tree of Life (*****)

At last I have finally found time to watch one of the most talked-about and controversial movies of the year, and to my great satisfaction and amazement, the film both surpassed my expectations and challenged my conceptions of what films can be. Terrence Malik has made only a handful of films in the past 30 or 40 years, but with each one he pushes his limits. With The Tree of Life he has perhaps changed filmmaking forever.

Everyone has heard how 'weird' the film is, with extended montages of the creation of the universe, the end of the world, various characters walking through the desert, heck, we even see some dinosaurs. This is not a movie intended to be viewed with anything but an open mind. Those coming into it hoping to see a great story with the traditional story arc with be unbelievably disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if many people walked out of this movie within the first minutes - and I couldn't blame them.

The film, simply put, seems to be about life. From conception to birth to death. The birth of the universe and all that has happened since is seemingly juxtaposed with that of a typical family living in the 50's. The lives of such an insignificant family is proven to be one of enormous consequences, and as the opening narration tells us, life is one of either two things: grace or nature.

Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain play the parents. One represents grace, one is nature. The strict disciplinarian nature of Pitt makes his children resent him and cherish the moments he is gone. Chastain indulges the spirit of her children and encourages such 'grace' to grow. These two actors have never been better. Brad Pitt dominates every second he is in, while Chastain matches every emotion. I don't think I've seen two more dynamic or fully-complete performances all year. Oscars would be assured were it not for the controversy surrounding the film.

There are things that people seem born to do, and it seems that Emmanuel Lubezki, the film's cinematographer, was destined to photograph this film. Quite simply put, I don't think I've ever seen more stunning or shocking images than those captured by Lubezki, and there is no doubt in my mind that he will at last win his long-deserved Oscar. The definition of cinematography is soon to be changed to this film alone.

Alexandre Desplat, world-famous composer, crowns the film with a perfect tone. Yes, nearly all the memorable music from the film are works from other composers from history past, but let's not put it past the Academy. Babel won Best Original Score when the majority of the composer's work was simple guitar plucking. The bulk of the soundtrack was source material. This is not to discredit Desplat, who is one of the greatest living composers today, nor to diminish his contributions to the film, which are stunning.

I do believe this film may be a masterpiece, on the same level of genius as 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of sheer thought and concept. Many will fail to grasp the ideas this film presents, but I don't think it can be debated that The Tree of Life will be remembered as one of the defining moments in the history of cinema. Yes, it's non-linear and abstract, but at least there is a filmmaker out there today who is brave enough to challenge audience members, not just spoon-feed them.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (or Supporting: Pitt), Best Supporting Actress (Chastain), Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects)

Hugo (*****)

At last, Martin Scorsese has made a film that is both perfect and accessible to every age group. This is Scorsese's first PG movie in almost 20 years, though there is no doubt that with Hugo he is at the top of his game. Yes, he defined the 'gangster' genre and has notoriety in blood and violence, but with Hugo he has possibly made one of the best films of his career.

The premise is simple enough. Based on an intriguing book, Hugo Cabret is a boy who's father died, leaving behind an automaton in a state of repair. Hugo now works in a train station, living in the walls and maintaining the clocks. No one knows he lives there, in fact he is almost like a phantom. The automaton, a human-like robot with an extreme amount of intricacy and the ability to write messages, is the main goal for Hugo. If he could fix this robot, perhaps he would find a message from his late father that could give him some sort of comfort.

The train station is also home to George Melies, an older, mysterious man who runs a toy shop. His granddaughter, Isabelle, befriends Hugo and ultimately helps form a relationship that reveals Melies to be a man tormented by his past. Once a great director of movies, his collection of almost 500 films is believed to have been lost. Through Hugo, Melies is able to rediscover his past and step out of the gloom of his current state.

Scorsese is known to have an eye for discovering new talent (Robert DeNiro, Leonardo Dicaprio), and with Asa Butterfield playing Hugo, he has discovered a star. His performance is equally on-par with any other performer in the film, even Ben Kingsley as Melies, whose performance is beautifully-nuanced and heartbreaking. These two single-handedly carry the film.

Aside from being one of the most regarded directors in history, Scorsese is also widely known to be a well-versed film historian. Here he manages to use his passions to only made Hugo that much more special of a film. Through extended sequences the audience sees actual Melies films, as well as the behind-the-scenes work that went into them. He also references other films from the beginning of this era of cinema. We learn about one of the first movies ever, one that simply shows a train coming towards the screen. Audiences were said to have screamed and ducked out of the way for fear of being hit. Comical by today's standards, but to understand that Scorsese does the same thing with his use of 3D as a train plummets through a busy train station. Briliance. Or to see Harold Lloyd famously hanging from the arms of a clock, only to see Hugo in the same position later in the film. It is this level of craft, layering, and thought that went into Hugo that truly helps it to become a masterpiece.

Yes, I said it. Hugo is a masterpiece. The best film of the year so far and undeniably Martin Scorsese's most personal film to date. The talent and craft presented are all at the top of their game. This is one of those unique movie-going experiences where you leave not only entertained, but invigorated to learn and see more.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Butterfield), Best Supporting Actor (Kingsley), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (****)

After 11 years, the Harry Potter saga has come to an end. Through ups and downs, we have witnessed the maturing of three actors before our very eyes, and finally we must say goodbye. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II may not be the best movie of the series (in my opinion) but it makes up for most flaws with great acting and a sharp narrative which zips forward at lightning speed.

Picking up immediately from the last moments of Part I, Harry, Ron, & Hermione leave the cottage at the beach on a whim to find another horocrux, this time in Bellatrix Lestrange's bank vault. The book records weeks of planning to break in, while the film presents it as though it all happened in an afternoon. While the performance of Helena Bonham Carter is humorous as Hermione, I felt as though enough time was not spent developing the scene for it to reach its full effect. The Gringotts scene, likewise, rolls through and is soon gone, with barely enough time for audiences to ask when the goblins had transformed from the first film into more deformed Hobbits now.

Soon they arrive in Hogwarts, and rightly so, as the bulk of the film is spent on the long-awaited battle, which is deservedly praised and well-filmed. Seeing nearly all the characters from past films, no matter how fleeting, was an incredible treat if only to realize the impressive lineup of accomplished actors these films have had. Among them is Maggie Smith, who steals every scene she is in and delivers applause-worthy one liners.

Severus Snape, as played by Alan Rickman, is perhaps the most talked-about performance of the film. Although it appears Rickman has put on weight and a bit more eyeshadow, his final moments in the film are beautifully-acted and powerful pieces of acting. Any other year, Rickman could potentially be a dark horse for an Oscar nomination, but I believe the early release date and genre will prevent any such upset.

Of course the films are not without their flaws, I for one constantly noting how diluted the original writings of JK Rowling are from book to screen. Of course they can't fit everything in, but to loyal readers, some of the choices of inclusion and exclusion more often than not detract from the final film. For one who has not read a single Harry Potter book, this could potentially be a flawless film, who knows. I personally found Part I to be a more rewarding and better-made film, but that's just me. I know people who think differently. There's no right answer.

Technically the film is great, with the destruction of Hogwarts representing some of the best sets of the year. Alexandre Desplat, film composer, finishes his work with the films, having scored both Part I & II. I believe his score for the first film could have easily been an Oscar contender, but don't expect this score to win. Too much of John William's original score from Sorcerer's Stone is interspersed for it to truly be considered 'original,' though that should not be interpreted as derogatory; Desplat ends the series on a high note

At long last, the film has come and gone, and we can finally look back on one impressive film series - in fact THE most successful film series in history, grossing over $7 billion worldwide. Yes, these figures are impressive, but to readers, the simple joy of seeing the beloved books come to life is amazing enough. While Harry Potter has not fared too well at the Oscars thus far (a combined 9 nominations with no wins so far). I doubt the film has enough credibility to produce an actual win (perhaps in Visual Effects or Art Direction) though there have definitely been times in Oscar's past where Harry Potter was ominously overlooked for gold. Overall a wonderful film and a great conclusion to a truly magical series.

(Awards potential: Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)