The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a bit of a curious film to me; I saw the original Swedish film during 2010's summer and found it to be a completely engrossing thriller, with a mystery that got more perverted the deeper you looked into it. Audiences, whether they like to admit it or not, are obviously fascinated by anti-heroes, extreme rebels, social outcasts, which can only begin to explain why the late Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy (as it has been dubbed) is such a huge hit over here in the states.

Certainly this tale is tailor made for its director, David Fincher, who revels in tales of social misfits and anti-system messages. His Fight Club is one of the ultimate "stick it to the man" films, ending in the destruction of America's financial sector. And I'm sure he was drawn to the material, if only so he could bring the character of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to life. She is the ultimate Fincher heroine, with piercings, tattoos, and wacky hairdo, not to mention an independent streak that sets her apart from almost any other heroine in film.

Daniel Craig also stars as the film's other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, editor of Millennium magazine (where the trilogy no doubt draws its name), who has fallen under a scandal and lost his life savings because of an unfounded allegation he made against a fellow magazine mogul. Labeled with libel, he is whisked to northern Sweden where, on a remote island populated by a wealthy but estranged family, he is asked to investigate the murder of one of their members some forty years ago.

Lisbeth and Mikael stay separated for over an hour of the film as he begins uncovering a string of possibly related women murders, and she has an unfortunate run-in with a piggish social worker who will release Lisbeth's money to her in exchange for favors. Eventually they collide and the film focuses fully on the murders, though one wonders how much this will connect with Harriet.

The original title of the book and Swedish film is Män som hatar kvinnor which translates to Men who hate women. It's an apt title, considering all the content, though a film with that heading would never get recognition in the states (or a book for that matter) and the retitling is a bit more intriguing (though we never do learn the significance of that dragon tattoo). The film has an incredibly brutal rape scene and sex scenes that would have earned an independent feature an NC-17, but such is the Hollywood system that of course this skated by. Maybe its a sign of maturity on the MPAA's half that we can handle more extreme content, but then I remember Shame has an NC-17 rating.

But here's the thing: the film is almost identical to the 2009 Swedish one. Oh sure, it has a bigger budget, a more assured director, and a fantastic cast, not to mention a dynamite opening credits scene with a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song that was quite the hit back when the trailer first dropped. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who won Oscars for their unique and haunting score for The Social Network (2010) return as composers, but it feels like more of the same. Their style of music certainly lends itself well to the unease that surrounds this film, but at the same time I couldn't help but think back to The Social Network and its score.

There is also a structural problem with the film. It opens with Mikael's problems at Millennium, then introduces with the missing girl Harriet, then introduces with the string of women murders. Then each one of these threads is resolved from the murders on back, but the film suffers in the resolution between Mikael and his foes at the rival magazine. It's a protracted denouement that drags on and on after Harriet's plot is resolved, when we have little interest in what's going on.

The film just feels pointless. The Swedish version was thrilling and engrossed me, and this version felt like the same thing but in English. It's a sign of how lazy we are that we won't see the foreign language version because we don't like reading our movies (though anyone who got through the book should have no problem with subtitles). I feel even Fincher reflects this notion: he doesn't feel like he's trying here, like he simply watched the Swedish one and said, "Well, they did a good enough job, so I'll just make the same version in English, make millions, and call it day." Which I don't fault him for.

The performances are great, especially Rooney Mara as Lisbeth, but I also feel like they aren't too different from their Swedish counterparts. If I had to pick who was better, Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara, I would have to go with Rapace because Mara's performance is clearly modeled on hers.

Anyone who doesn't know the material will surely be entertained, but anyone coming back to see if anything new was done will be disappointed. It's as pointless as watching Let Me In, the remake of Let the Right One In. At least when Seven Samurai was remade in America, they changed the story to cowboys so it felt fresh (though American samurais are something that wouldn't work anyway). I don't mind a remake if it does something new with the material, or approaches the subject from a different angle. True Grit was hailed as superior to the John Wayne version, though that also may be because forty years means something new can be done with the material.

I'm just tired of these pointless remakes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Which reminds me of Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. He was asked to remake it, so he did. There was very little wrong with that film, and it never felt dated, so Van Sant figured it would be the easiest thing to do. He had the right idea.

The Muppets (2011)

I've never really been into the Muppets. Sure, I saw their films as a child, and I loved them for it, but I still have never seen an episode of the show (blasphemous) and as a result, they are not a huge part of my childhood, as they are for others. That being said, this movie still provides people less in love with the Muppets with plenty of reason to enjoy the flick, as we get a round-up of all the classic characters, plus a new one.

The plot revolves around Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (voice of Peter Linz), a man and Muppet who grew up together. Problem for Walter is he never really "grew" and as such feels like a bit of an outcast, until he discovers the Muppet Show and falls in love. Gary, Walter, and Gary's 10-year long girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) go from Smalltown to Tinsel town to visit the Muppet studios, which they discover is in ruins. Walter further uncovers a plot by a rich Texas oil man Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to demolish the studios to drill for oil that supposedly lies underneath. So Gary, Mary, and Walter enlist Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire filling in for the late Jim Henson) to roundup the old gang and put on a show to save the studio!

The film is very self aware, to the point that would make Mel Brooks proud, and gets a lot of mileage out of characters referencing the dance numbers they just performed, or other gags such as "travelling by map" because, well, its faster. Despite the original Mupeteers being all but absent, somehow Segel and co-writer Nicholas Stoller (who directed Forgetting Sarah Marshall) manager to make the dynamic between all the old Muppet characters work. Chris Cooper even gets some good scenes, including one random rap complete with sing-a-long text.

But where the film doesn't work is in the addition of the three "straight" characters, Gary, Mary, and Walter. Mary feels neglected by Gary, who always puts Walter first, and Walter is invited to participate in the Muppet Show and struggles with figuring out what his real talent is. The problem is, these stories are not very compelling, and I almost wish Segel and Stoller had written a script that did not include these characters. They are fine for the first 15 minutes, but once Kermit begins rounding up the gang, they are relegated to the background and you forget their stories because, well, they were boring, until it is suddenly brought back to the forefront to remind that, hey, these guys matter too.

Walter is also probably the worst Muppet...ever. He has no personality to speak of, versus every other Muppet who has something that characterizes them. And I won't give away what his "talent" is, but I felt cheated that the film didn't foreshadow this in some way. Walter just produces this ability out of his ass.

Top all that off with Animal's anger management problems, the tension between Kermit and Miss Piggy, and the pressure to put on the show and beat Tex, and you have a lot of plots spinning around. I would have much preferred the film if it had focused on the Muppets and left Gary, Mary and Walter out of it completely. But as it is, there is just too much going on, and though it produces some funny musical numbers (Man or Muppet and Me Party) it doesn't gel as easily as it should.

But I do want to reiterate that despite the plotting problems, the film is still a ton of fun. Cooper, Segel, and Adams are all clearly having a good time, and the vast menagerie of guest stars that show up is also entertaining. If a second film is made, I hope Walter is merely a secondary cast member, and that Gary and Mary stay put in Smalltown, USA.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Tintin (2011)

Tintin, in America, is almost a niche thing. You have to have accidentally been introduced to it in order to know what it is. In 3rd grade, my classmates began reading the comics in class, and I became so intrigued that I acquired the comics for myself from the library. Out of the 21 official volumes, I have read 19 (somehow never made it to two of them), but Tintin has been something that I have long since forgotten about.

Now here comes Spielberg, making a movie I would have desired 12 years ago, and one that I was skeptical about. Tintin came to Spielberg's attention in the 80s, when his Indiana Jones was compared to the intrepid reporter from Brussels. I'm thankful he didn't make the film then, even though he received Hergé's (Tintin's author) blessing to adapt it. But he didn't need to do another Indiana Jones then.

The formula of Tintin is almost Hitchcockian as he accidentally stumbles across trouble and then it gets worse from there (although unlike Hithcock's ombudsmen, he is a very resourceful and intelligent reporter). Tintin (Jamie Bell) himself is a one-dimensional character with no flaws, in both comic book and celluloid form. This is a bit unfortunate, but I guess I'm happy the screenwriters didn't try and saddle him with some made up backstory. Fans of the series will forgive this, but I'm not so sure newcomers will be as quick to accept the character.

Of course, this is why Tintin has a fairly strong array of supporting members, most notably the drunk, alliterative curser (though his vocabulary doesn't include anything that would make the film PG-13) Captain Archibald Haddock (Andy Serkis). Captain Haddock is a nice, dark contrast to the always optimistic, never-do-wrong Tintin, and his incompetence can be a bit predictable, but he shines at the right moment. There are also Interpol cops Thompson and Thomson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) and Tintin's dog Snowy.

I guess I should back up and give a brief summary of the story. Tintin purchases a beautiful ship model in a market, and is immediately harassed for it by two interested buyers (one is the villain, Sakharine (Daniel Craig)). He soon discovers a scroll hidden within the ship which contains a riddle, and sets out on a globe trotting quest to solve the Mystery of the Unicorn (the name of the ship the model is based on).

Probably one of the largest concerns with the film comes down to the use of Motion Capture, rather then just letting animators freely create the movements. It's a controversial format that has only been successful in James Cameron's Avatar (2009), and even that blended the Mo-Cap with live actors (and the mo-cap aliens had big eyes, so it was easy to erase the dead eye effect). Tintin is so far the best use of Mo-Cap I've seen (full use), and actually seems to address a lot of the dead eye effect issues. I still think the format needs some tweaking, and I still believe letting animators create the movements is the best way, but it still works really well in this film. Andy Serkis gives the best performance, and is a master of the art form, having portrayed Gollum, King Kong, and most recently Caesar in the last Planet of the Apes movie. His performance adds a lot.

But what it comes down to, besides story, besides character, is how much fun the film is, and I haven't been this exhilarated by a film in a long time. It takes its time getting going as Tintin gets a lot of scenes where he just speaks out loud to no one in particular (except his faithful dog Snowy) about the mysteries he is pondering, but once Haddock is introduced, the film takes off. From a thrilling sea plane ride through a thunderstorm, to an unbelievable 5 minute unbroken shot detailing a chase through Morocco, to a final battle involving shipping cranes. Spielberg takes the form of animation and uses it freely, and the result is pure...awesome.

At that's really the best justification for it: Spielberg does things in this film that could not have been achieved in Live Action without a significant amount of CGI, which would have made it look like a cartoon. The Moroccan sequence is particularly spectacular, but throughout the whole film Spielberg's camera moves freely, as if he's a child delighted by a new toy he's discovered. Granted all this movement might become a little sickening in 3D, but in 2D it is perfectly amazing (though I would like to see this on IMAX).

The film opens with a sweet scene where a man modeled after Hergé's visage (the creator of Tintin), sketches a portrait of the young lad that is exactly like the comic book drawings. We are then introduced to the "real" Tintin, and this is a memorable introduction for longtime fans of the books. But how this film will do in America is beyond me. It received an end-of-October release date across Europe and won't hit our cinemas until Christmas (in case you're wondering, I was in Europe when it came out, so I saw it then). The producers are hoping that it will do well enough in Europe that it will generate some interest in America, and if the film does well enough Peter Jackson will helm the sequel (once he's done with The Hobbit).

I highly recommend you all see it. It's a good family film as well, though some families may take the lampooning of Haddock's alcoholism as something that isn't appropriate for children (though I think they can handle it). It may not be perfect, but it's a damn good time at the cinemas. It's what Indiana Jones IV should have been.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

In my travels through the U.K. I have noticed one amusing thing: many films that we got in America during the summer are only just now starting to surface here. I've seen posters and advertisments everywhere for films like The Change-Up, Friends With Benefits, and Jane Eyre. However, Europe also gets films before we do, as in the case of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (no release until Dec. 9th in the US) and Tintin (which comes out at the end of October here and not until Christmas in America). The opportunity to see a film several weeks before it comes out is something that entices me, so I jumped on the opportunity.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is based on a 1970s novel by John le Carre, adapted into a BBC miniseries staring Alec Guiness at the end of that decade. Why they decided to now make a movie is beyond me, but it certainly is an interesting piece to behold. I have not read the novel, nor seen the miniseries, so my exposure to this material was limited and I came to this with a fresh perspective.

The film concerns a hunt through MI6 for a mole, lead by George Smiley (Gary Oldman). The suspects include, but are not limited too, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ciaran Hinds, and David Denick (the cast also includes John Hurt and Mark Strong). The film is a confusing labyrith of spies and secrets, and to say I didn't understand the film is putting it mildly.

Eventually I stopped trying to piece together the film and just let the colds tones of Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography wash over me (this is, after all, a cold war espionage tale). The performances were all fine, especially Gary Oldman in the leading role as a the passive investigator.

But I couldn't help but feel there were pieces of the film missing. Part of my confusion is due, I think, to the film's lack of a set-up. We are barely introduced to our key players before they all start intermingling in various exchanges, until I couldn't tell whether what they were doing was for their government or for another.

The plot, I feel, is probably not complicated and screenwriters Bridget O'Conner and Peter Straughan mixed up events in the film to further confuse and mislead the audience, which is not clever but lazy. It seems like the fault of the film lies with the screenwriters and the director, Tomas Alfredson, whose most notable credit is Let the Right One In. This film definitely reflects that one's tone.

It is then left to the actors to try and help the audience understand what is going on, and excellent as they all are, I feel they more or less fall short in this pursuit. I'm not necessarily miffed because I didn't understand the film: I enjoy confusing thrillers that you need to revisit to fully grasp what is going on. I'm more pissed that I didn't care for any of the characters. Oldman, Firth, Hurt, Strong, Hinds, and so on, all seem at a distance, which may very well reflect the nature of the spy but leaves me feeling very excluded.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

We've moved well past the era of the known, popular superheroes and are now delving into new ones that the public may not be so familiar with. This summer we got Thor and Green Lantern, two comic heroes that are not as well known to the general public. Now Captain America, who everyone knows by name, but many don't know the story. You can count me as part of that group, as I had no knowledge of the mythology surrounding Captain America, the first junkie.

I'm being cruel. Captain America establishes the character of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as a 90-pound weakling, a kid who keeps getting beat-up despite his courage, and who keeps enlisting in the army despite his multiple rejections. His plucky attitude catches the eye of eccentric mad-scientist Stanly Tucci, affecting a wonderfully overdone German accent, who convinces him to undergo a (dangerous) new test that will make him a super soldier. Tommy Lee Jones provides a gruff colonel character, and Hayley Atwell puts her clothed assets and wonderfully red lips on display.

The experimental test goes well, and we receive Captain America, the idealized American hero who will not bat an eye in the face of evil and has the courage and resolve to sacrifice himself for his country (an early scene with a grenade is the filmmaker's way of practically punching you in the face with what the Captain will do later). But on the flip side is the villain, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving, returning to the evildoer's chair after 8 years), who finds a cosmic blue cube thingy and then harnesses its energy into crazy super weapons that vaporize its targets. His scenes with Dr. Zola (Toby Jones) are Grade A pulp fun, as he develops his own breed of soldiers to usurp even Hitler. You know he's a bad guy when the SS's commanders come investigating, and he murders them.

The movie has a beautiful look to it, harkening back to that city of the future model we saw in a prior super hero film (wink wink, guess which one), and the production design's retro 40s outfitting is warm and welcoming. The goofy sets are great fun, and though they are primarily CGI, they are still wonderful to behold. It kind of fits this alternate take on our past anyways.

Roger's development as a character and hero is well done in this film, and is something we haven't seen in superhero films in awhile (though I can't speak for other offerings this summer, as I have yet to see them). His can do attitude and resolve in the face of adversity is admirable, and we spend a great deal of the first hour with Evans in his 90-pound CGI body. (I have to give the artists big kudos here, I thought they simply grafted Evans' face onto a skinny person. Instead, they actually reconstructed Evans' body, a truly remarkable feat).

But once Rogers becomes Captain America, and Schmidt pulls of his face to reveal he is the Red Skull, the movie lost me. No, I wasn't confused, I just suddenly wasn't emotionally invested anymore. The film establishes both the hero and villain quite well, and then suddenly begins rushing events as the Captain begins tracking down Red Skull, in a rather boring, though explosive, montage. It felt like the filmmakers realized they had to keep the film within a two-hour running time, and began condensing later events. The result is choppy and detached.

And there's no real relationship between Captain America and Red Skull. Oh sure, Skull has someone executed who matters to Captain America I guess (I shan't reveal who, but the character is gone before you know it). But they don't share a connection like Peter Parker and Norman Osborne, or a contest like the Joker and Batman. Besides threatening to blow-up America, Red Skull doesn't quite strike you as truly evil beyond his blasé plan to conquer the world, and he's hard to take serious in that silly red make-up. Hugo Weaving is way more terrifying as himself then spaghetti sauce face.

Ultimately its an enjoyable flick, but as far as the comic book film canon goes, it is below other superhero fare. This has all, of course, been building to Marvel's tentpole event of next summer, The Avenger, where we will see the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America unite. I will of course see Thor to better prepare myself for this coming film. I do look forward to that film.

Final note: The biggest crossover in the Marvel films occurs here, with Dominic Cooper playing Howard Stark, father to Tony Stark/Iron Man. He plays a large role in the film, and is one of the pleasures of Marvel's big giant crossover fest.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

It's odd to finally say goodbye to something that has been apart of my life for so long. The series of Harry Potter truly ended four years ago with the release of the seventh and final book, something we all anticipated with baited breath. That came out when I was making my transition from High School into College.

Now I have graduated College, and so it seems like fitting timing for the final of the Harry Potter films to be released, and for me to finally lay to rest and bid adieu the series that will define my generation. Truly, there have been few things in pop culture to rival the popularity of Harry Potter. We may never again have a book series so exciting that it causes all ages, kids to adults, to line up at midnight to purchase the new entry in the series.

And the films themselves are a remarkable achievement. True, they don't come close to rivaling the books, but the fact that the same core stuck with the film for so long, and that the only recasting came from Richard Harris' death is remarkable. The films have been magnificently successful, and the fact that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have grown to embody these three iconic characters is owed in large part to the casting. Ginny Weasley is one of the few characters who was ill cast (Bonnie Wright has never been particularly compelling).

And how does the final film hold up? It opens right where the last one left off, with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) stealing the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's grave. Then we pick up with Harry, Ron, and Hermione staying with Ron's brother and plotting their next move, a break-in at the great Wizarding Bank Gringotts to infiltrate Bellatrix Lestrange's vault, in the hopes they will locate another Horcrux.

After the first five minutes, the remaining two hours take place over a single 24-hour period, as the trio infiltrates the bank in a wonderful sequence that finally, FINALLY gives us the scope of the caverns that lie beneath Gringotts, something that many criticized film one for leaving out. There is also a dragon, that owns its screen time and becomes quite a sympathetic character, yearning for sunlight and savoring its freedom once obtained. It's moment that could easily have been overlooked, but the CG wizards make it an emotional instant that works.

Harry then returns to Hogwarts to locate another Horcrux, and inadvertently begins the final standoff with Voldemort. It's a rather well executed final battle, and my only nitpick is that we don't get to see more of the resistance against Voldemort's onslaught (his army indeed outnumbers the forces at Hogwarts by 10-1). But there's also so many loose ends and back story to tie up that this can be forgiven.

Rather then continue summarizing, I will instead break off and mention what worked and what didn't. Probably the most important element that they nailed was Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), who is above all the most complex character in the Potterverse. The emotional impact his story has, the final revelation of his true colors, nearly brought a tear to my eye and definitely choked me up. It drives home the central theme of the entire series, that love conquers all. To see Snape's undying love for Harry's mother, and his allegiance to Dumbledore to protect her and her son, is a touching yet heartbreaking moment.

And Fiennes is finally given a lot of screen time (after being absent in Half-Blood Prince), finally making Voldemort the terrifying, fantastic villain he was meant to be. Not only does he strut about, sure of his immortality, but he is also allowed to express vulnerability as he realizes Harry is slowly wearing him down. The villain is always more fun to play, and Fiennes makes Voldemort a truly frightening presence.

There are also other great British actors, though Jim Broadbent (Slughorn) and Emma Thompson (Trelawney) are decidedly wasted and do nothing significant. But others including Maggie Smith, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, John Hurt, Warwick Davis, and Michael Gambon are put to good use and round out this terrific, powerhouse cast.

But the real pleasure has been seeing all the kids in the cast, including Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom, grow up into capable adults. Their lives have been presented to us in a sort of shortened Up Series, progressing from 11 to 21 (all the actors are around the same age as me). Years from now, they have the rare ability to look back upon these films, a time capsule of their youth (and ours).

Now, what the film did wrong: The whole final ten minutes, including Voldemort's death, is slightly underwhelming and doesn't quite pack the epic, satisfying punch that I was hoping for. Sure the movie delivers several cheer worthy moments, including the destruction of Voldemort's snake, but Voldemort's demise is more of a fizzle then a bang, though Harry and Voldemort's final duel is decidedly more action-packed then the novel (Harry talked down Voldemort for a solid ten minutes and explained a lot of things). But Voldemort simply dissolves into the wind and the next scene is simply all the characters sitting around drinking tea and recuperating, instead of joyously celebrating the fact that Voldemort has died. It's a moment that should have the audience on their feet, crazy with applause, and instead Voldemort just disappears. Disappointing.

And a moment that didn't work in the book or the movie is the 19-years-later epilogue, which while it provides the necessary wrap-up, feels like something out of an SNL sketch showing these characters nearing middle age (especially Radcliffe's make-up). It does provide a sweet moment between Harry and his son, and brings the series full circle, but I've always felt it make everything too perfect. Harry and Ginny stayed together, Ron and Hermione stayed together, and all was well. For a series with such a dark view of the world, the ending is decidedly optimistic.

These quibbles aside however, one must applaud David Yates, the man bequeathed the task of taking Harry into the final run by directing four of the eight films in the series. If he hasn't come out as a stylist, he has successfully created a continuity between the universes of the films, and ended the series as satisfyingly as he could. Alfonso Cuaron, director of part 3, still made the most stylistic Potter, and the most filmic. His hand has never been rivaled and everyone wished he would have helmed more, but hey, you can't always get what you want.

The films may have never achieved what the books did, but you have to admire Warner Bros. for sticking it out, through and through (how could they resist 7 or 8 easily marketable and definitely profitable films). Plenty of other popular children books have failed to translate (including the wonderful The Golden Compass), and the fact that this series made it is a feat in and of itself.

Harry Potter's end serves, I guess, as my final closure to the world that I have embraced for 12 years since I first discovered the books. I have left college now, and must look on to a terrifying yet exciting future, without any more Harry Potter films to look forward too. I have grown with these movies; I was 11 when the first movie came out, and am now in my early twenties, ready to bid adieu to the series. There will be no other film series like Harry Potter, that takes us through such a long, emotional journey that spans ten years and actually ends on a mostly fantastic note. This type of thing is once in a lifetime, and though I hate to do it, it is finally time to say a heartfelt farewell to the characters, the actors, the books, the movies, the entire world of Harry Potter. Thank you for providing escape to a magical, far off world, something that I will share with my children in years to come.

Super 8 (2011)

*This review contains spoilers*

J.J. Abrams, the writer and director of the new summer blockbuster Super 8, should be praised for putting what is likely to be the only original movie this summer (meaning there is no prior existing source material or it is not a sequel). How disappointing, then, that this movie lacks the inspiration that audiences need in this day and age to remind them that good, original filmmaking is worth fighting for. That there can be a heart to a film, not just loud explosions throughout.

Abrams more or less succeeds at this noble goal in the first hour of the film, in which the only major action set pieces are a ridiculously huge train crash, and a scary gas station attack. It is in this first hour that we are introduced to the child cast, lead by Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and auteur Charles (Riley Griffith). There are other various stereotypes that make up the group, including a pyromaniac and two anxious nerds. A love interest is introduced in the form of Alice (Elle Fanning), who agrees to act in the super 8 film these kids are making, and tender scenes between her and Joe abound. They really are well done.

But then the monster is introduced, and it is here that the movie unravels. The scenes where the monster attacks are well done and thrilling, but the film takes a complete 180 at the end as it is discovered this beast really just wants to go home. You can tell Abrams wants you to feel sorry for this creature, but after watching an hour of this thing viciously kill dozens of innocent people, the moment Joe and the beast have at the end borders on the ludicrous and as the movie imitates E.T.'s ending, you are filled with tears of disappointment for what this movie could have been.

Abrams effectively establishes his characters but seems to have no idea how to make their character arcs more organic. Both Joe and Alice have daddy issues which are neatly resolved inexplicably by the end. Things come to happy yet unsatisfying conclusion.

And the real problem is that damn monster, a stranded alien from outer space. Spielberg made aliens lovable and friendly with Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. (1982), and Abrams clearly is modeling his film after both of these. Yet in Close Encounters people are abducted, but no one is harmed and everyone is returned safely at the end. And E.T. is as harmless as can be. I don't mind Abrams wanting to have the alien monster be a savage killer, but the creature needs to be introduced to us as more sympathetic then this movie's lousy excuse. King Kong shepherds Anne around the whole movie, never intending on harming her, and we see his gentle side and feel sympathy when the nasty humans take him. This monster doesn't even have a memorable design.

Abrams is a skilled director, but he's more a craftsman then an artist. Star Trek is essentially a lot of action scenes, and its a well done film, but it lacks heart. Super 8 sows the seeds of Abrams injecting real emotion into a story, but in the end, he's just a kid with a big budget looking to make his monster movie.

End note: stay for the end credits, the Super 8 film shown is better then the movie you just saw.

The Office

Thursday night saw the airing of the episode Goodbye, Michael, Steve Carrell's final episode of the show as his iconic character, Michael Scott. After one final interview at the airport, Michael finally removes his lavalier mic, and gives one silent, final "That's what she said," before departing. As I see it, that is the perfect ending moment for the entire show as a whole.

It was always Michael that drove the show. He was the emotional center of it all, and he's always been the most interesting character, for all his faults. Jim (John Krasinski) and Pam (Jenna Fischer) got pretty boring three seasons ago, and now that they are settled down with a baby, they pretty much have nowhere to go. Will Pam's dreams as an artist be realized? Or will she be stuck with her husband at the failing paper company?

Dwight (Rainn Wilson) has always been a comic relief character, and he pretty much went as absurd as possible with season 4 Super Bowl episode where he stages a real-fake fire that is definitely one of the show's funniest bits. But Dwight as a character has never been particularly compelling beyond his random flings with Angela (Angela Kingsley).

Andy (Ed Helms), Erin (Ellie Kemper), and Gabe (Zach Woods) have been involved in a love triangle, but I felt this was properly resolved in Michael's final episode, as Erin asks Michael who she should choose. He wisely replies neither, and that she should wait and will know when the right man comes along.

Even Andy himself is given a victory as he resigns one of Michael's old clients for another year, after the "new" boss Deangelo (Will Ferrell) flubs the sale with horrible tactics. Even this guy is fine, if you ignore the ending bit where he freaks out over eating cake (which of course builds the final string of episodes for the season, which will rotate many guest stars vying for Carrell's old position). They lose one incompetent manager and are given another, and life goes on.

And Ryan (B.J. Novak), the temp who rose to power in the company and then screwed everything up, improbably ended up back with Dunder Mifflin, except now he works in a closet. I'm not even sure what his function is, other then to be there because, well, Ryan has always been there.

My point is, there is no where else for this show to go, and it felt like it was dragging its feet with Michael. Imagine what it will be like without him? I don't really care for the rest of these people enough to see them go on, and I am highly satisfied with the way the characters were resolved (or unresolved) in this episode. Life is not neat and tidy, and the uncertainty of a Dunder Mifflin without Michael is something I don't care to experience.

So I consider Goodbye, Michael the final episode of the whole show. The Office is running on fumes as it is, and I hate American TV because they have to squeeze every last ounce of life out of it before it will end. I wish they had taken the opportunity of Steve Carrell's departure to end the show once and for all, but instead it will go on. And don't get me wrong, the entire supporting cast is wonderful. But without Carrell at the helm, it will never feel the same, and I am satisfied leaving these people and this universe exactly as it is.

83rd Annual Academy Awards

Well, I did one worse then last year. If only I had changed one prediction to be right, I would have tied my record. Still, 16/24 is respectable enough I suppose. Here is the last of what I got wrong (because I don't feel like retyping everything).

Supporting Actress

Prediction: Hailee Steinfeld for "True Grit"

Winner: Melissa Leo for "The Fighter"

Art Direction

Prediction: Inception

Winner: Alice in Wonderland

Lesson Learned: Never bet against Tim Burton for Art Direction. Sweeney Todd upset three years ago.

Cinematography

Prediction: True Grit

Winner: Inception

Thoughts: It did look pretty sweet on IMAX.

Directing

Prediction: The Social Network

Winner: The King's Speech

Lesson Learned: Go with DGA

Documentary Feature

Prediction: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Winner: Inside Job

Original Score

Prediction: The King's Speech

Winner: The Social Network

Animated Short Film

Prediction: The Gruffalo

Winner: The Lost Thing

Live Action Short Film

Prediction: Na Wewe

Winner: God of Love

83rd Annual Academy Awards: My Predictions

So here we are, once again, another Academy Awards ceremony. Every year we go and make our picks for who is going to win what. This year is a particularly exciting race because we have The Social Network, the critics darling (and my favorite film of the year) against the more audience-pleasing The King's Speech. Its fun to not have a sure thing for the Best Picture (last year's Hurt Locker v. Avatar was a fun duel), but King's Speech is pretty much guaranteed to win. That said, there are only 10 categories that I'm certain of, and 14 I'm hesitant of. After last year's Up in the Air upset for Adapted Screenplay (Precious being the winner), I am now sizing up all the sure things (Toy Story 3 for animated, Christian Bale for Supporting Actor) and debating which one won't happen. It's a lot of speculation, so here it goes, my picks for the winners at this year's 83rd Annual Academy Awards:

Leading Actor

This one is a sure thing. If there is any category you should not bet against, it is this one. Colin Firth has locked this prize since, well, whenever the King's Speech debuted (I think it was at Toronto). Javier Bardem is the surprise nom for Alejandro Gonzales-Inarritu's Biutiful, and Jeff Bridges, Jesse Eisenberg, and James Franco all did terrific work. But its the one J-name that will win this award, and though he should have won last year for A Single Man, Colin Firth still deserves the prize.

My Prediction: Colin Firth for "The King's Speech"

Supporting Actor

The last couple of years this category has been dominated by sadistic serial killers, from Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh through Heath Ledger's Joker and Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa. Jeremy Renner is the closest thing we get to a bad guy this year, and he's not all that bad anyways. Christian Bale was the emotional center of The Fighter, and provided the film with its best moments. He has cleaned house at every awards show, and rightly deserves to charge on to the Oscar. But many people have speculated Geoffrey Rush could upset in this category for his terrific turn as King George VI's speech therapist, Lionel Logue. It is difficult to imagine the film without Rush. That being said, I think the Academy will go with Bale, who gives the showier performance.

My Prediction: Christian Bale for "The Fighter"

Leading Actress

There are no sure things. But it would be foolish to bet against Natalie Portman's performance in Black Swan. It may not be the best of the year, but its the role that has the most acting in it, and thats all you need for the Academy. Michelle Williams, Jennifer Lawrence, and Annette Bening all give terrific performances in their respective roles, and some are even calling for a Bening upset (Nicole Kidman's performance remains unseen by me). But I don't see anyone else winning besides Portman.

My Prediction: Natalie Portman for "Black Swan"

Supporting Actress

Now HERE is where I am predicting an upset. Melissa Leo has been sweeping all the awards up, from guild to globe, and is the frontrunner and favorite to win the award. However, there is another nominee, one Hailee Steinfeld, who gives the best performance in True Grit (in fact, she is a lead character), and yet finds herself relegated to this category because she is young and doesn't stand a chance against the titans of the lead actresses (for my money I'd love to see her nominated in the leading category just because she would give Portman a run for her money). If the Academy goes for a King's Speech sweep, then Helena Bonham Carter could take this one, but I highly doubt it. I'm going with Steinfeld, a newcomer to be sure, but one who is nominated in the wrong category and deserves to be recognized for it.

My Prediction: Hailee Steinfeld for "True Grit"

Animated Feature

Now this category is a sure thing right? Right? How to Train Your Dragon beat Toy Story 3 at the Annie Awards (awards for animation), but Kung Fu Panda topped Wall•E two years ago and failed to win. Plus, TS3 is nominated for Best Picture, so it is pretty much designated the favorite. You never know, though. Still, I'm going for the sure thing.

My Prediction: Toy Story 3

Art Direction

A lot of prognosticators are predicting the King's Speech for this one, which I don't understand. Inception and Alice in Wonderland are two very visual movies that required a lot more imagination then the King's Speech, which hardly excels in any technical categories. While I like the Alice in Wonderland design, I felt it was too muddy and dark. Inception creates dream spaces, houses that exist on water, crumbling buildings, rotating hallways, and much more. It's a perfect marriage of visual and practical effects, and creates a fantastic city scape. The King's Speech, alternatively, was shot on a location previously used by a Gay Porn Film, so you decide.

My Prediction: Inception

Cinematography

Roger Deakins has been nominated 9 times now, for The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, Kundun, O Brother, The Man Who Wasn't There, No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, The Reader, and now True Grit. He's never won. It's time.

My Prediction: True Grit

Costume Design

So I have learned to never bet against the costume drama. The Young Victoria, Elizabeth, and The Duchess have all won. The King's Speech in the common sense choice, but are the costumes really that impressive? Especially when you have a nomination like Alice in Wonderland, which excelled at the costumes designed for the Mad Hatter, the Red Queen, and various other characters. The King's Speech is far and above the favorite, but I'm going to have to go against conventional wisdom. Alice in Wonderland is a close second, plus I don't feel the King's Speech to be a Costume Drama.

My Prediction: Alice in Wonderland

Directing

Now this is a big category. Tom Hooper is the obvious favorite to win, especially since he won the DGA award and The King's Speech seems to have everyone else's vote. But a lot of people are predicting a David Fincher upset here. The Coens have won before, and everyone else is new to this race. The only reason I can predicate a Fincher win is because he won at the BAFTAs, the British Oscars. Back in 2002, Rob Marshall won the DGA and yet somehow Polanski upset him for Director. Polanski had previously won the BAFTA for best directing. It's a long shot, and of course logically Fincher's win should indicate a Social Network win...but Fincher is a fantastic, interesting director, a complex man who knows exactly what he wants and knows how to get it. I truly think this is his award.

My Prediction: The Social Network

Documentary Feature

I'm probably going out on more limbs this year then others, but the voters DO have to see all the nominees in this category (and foreign language and all the shorts) if they want to cast a ballot. The clear favorite is Inside Job, a well made look at the financial collapse of 2008, what caused it, what was the result, and what greedy fat bastards people who run banks are. But there's another, much better documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop, which details the street art movement and the man who documented it. Co-directed by the elusive Banksy (who is nominated), this is my favorite and one that clearly should win. I'm predicting with my heart instead of my head, so we'll see if it pays off.

My Prediction: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Documentary Short

I have no idea. Honestly. The most predicted is Strangers No More. I'll go with that.

My Prediction: Strangers No More

Film Editing

Now here is a category that I'm sure of. The Social Network has pitch-perfect editing, seamlessly moving us between two depositions explaining the current story, and the current story itself. Built out of thousands of hours of footage (Fincher likes to overshoot), they have constructed a perfect example of great editing. How can I tell? The best editing happens when you don't even notice there is editing. Its invisible. And the editing hear works seamlessly to build the performances, the music, and the plot. The only reason King's Speech will win is if it is going to sweep tonight.

My Prediction: The Social Network

Foreign Language Film

I have only seen Dogtooth, which is a highly disturbing film about homeschooled kids who never leave their property. I highly doubt the Academy will make this film the winner, and it probably doesn't deserve it anyways. The favorite is a Danish film called In a Better World, which I have not seen. I'll go with that.

My Prediction: In a Better World

Makeup

An uninspired round-up of nominees this year. The Wolfman is probably the most likely to win, since it has creature makeup and whatnot. Though I guess Barney's Version could win, since Paul Giamatti is aged significantly in it.

My Prediction: The Wolfman

Original Score

As much as I want Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross to win, this is one category that I know King's Speech will take. Alexandre Desplat is a terrific composer (his Fantastic Mr. Fox score was a nice touch to the film), and I see him winning this one. Reznor and Ross have composed a score unlike anything we've heard before, and the Academy usually shies away from that stuff. A shame.

My Prediction: The King's Speech

Original Song

Nothing memorable here. I don't even know the songs. Randy Newman and A.R. Rahman are both veterans of the award. How about Newman? I don't know. I'll go with him. I hope Country Strong doesn't win, because it is essentially Crazy Heart with Gwyenth Paltrow.

My Prediction: "We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3

Animated Short Film

I deeply regret having not seen any of the short films this year. I've seen Day & Night, which preceded Toy Story 3 in theaters. But I hear The Gruffalo is a favorite. This one's a crapshoot.

My Prediction: The Gruffalo

Live Action Short Film

Another crapshoot.

My Prediction: Na Wewe

Sound Editing & Mixing

Last year I was completely wrong here. Oops. The Hurt Locker when I predicted Avatar (I thought it would win one of the awards). Well, Inception seems like a sure thing here. It's technically a strong film, and its sound work helped to create an amazing dreamscape.

My Predictions: Inception

Visual Effects

Usually the easiest-to-call category. Inception will for sure win this one, if nothing else.

My Prediction: Inception

Adapted Screenplay

Out of all the awards of the night, this is the one The Social Network is guaranteed to win. Aaron Sorkin's terrific screenplay is the center of the film, as it is mostly about dialogue. All the characters talk at a rapid fire pace, and the opening scene is one of the finest examples of dialogue in a long time.

My Prediction: The Social Network

Original Screenplay

Here The King's Speech will win. Another Year is the best screenplay of the bunch, but The King's Speech will definitely win. No contest.

Best Picture

Here it is, the big kahuna. We have a distressed ballerina, a has-been boxer, a team that infiltrates dreams, lesbian moms dealing with normal people issues, a king who has trouble speaking, a man who gets stuck between a rock and a hard place, the invention of a social networking site, toys dealing with abandonment issues, a young girl hunting her father's killer, and a young girl looking for her father. The King's Speech seems to have been a lock for this award since the word go, and even though the Social Network posed a small threat, it has since receded into the background. The King's Speech will win this award, for sure. I know it is not a good idea to pick this for best pic when I have picked the Social Network for so many other categories, but that's the way I see it. This is how it will play out.

My Prediction: The King's Speech

The Awards start tonight, 8:30/5:30 ET/PT. I'll post my list of how well I did either during or after the show.

Ebert Presents...

The nightmare of the two Bens is a thing of the past. A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips had their brief moment in the sun. But inevitably, without Roger Ebert attached to the program, Buena Vista had no reason to continue the At the Movies show, with its decreasing popularity. Maybe if they had gone for Scott and Phillips first instead of the flash of the young Ben Lyons, but alas, no.

It has been common knowledge for those of us who care that Roger Ebert, who owns the thumbs trademark, has been shopping around the different networks to find a home for his version of the At the Movies show. Now he has finally found a home, at the old studio where he and Siskel, more then 30 years ago, began their At the Movies show.

The balcony is back, ladies and gentlemen. But of course our handicapped Ebert cannot himself be a co-host as he lacks speaking capabilities and thus could not enter into banter with his co-host. Instead, we get Christy Lemire of the Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com. Lemire is a seasoned critic who guest-hosted with Richard Roeper back when the show was cycling reviewers during Ebert's illness. Vishnevetsky is a more curious figure. Born in the Soviet Union, he moved to America when he was 8 and then eventually to Chicago because he could find more movies here. He manages the Odd Obsessions video store and was offered this position when Ebert heard him speaking at the Lake Street Screening Room and was rather impressed by his eloquence and charisma.

So how do the hosts hold up? Lemire is good, and if you saw her episodes with Roeper, then she pretty much performs as expected. Vishnevetsky is everything ABC wishes Ben Lyons would have been: he's young, charismatic, but what is especially important is that he comes to the table with a deep knowledge of film. He's a smart guy who knows how to say something meaningful about a film, good or bad, whereas Lyons would always spit out really (un)witty taglines for the ads.

But the show still lacks the key element that made Siskel and Ebert so good: the way they would argue. The co-hosts are very cordial, which is to be expected as these two people, I assume, didn't know each other before Vishnevetsky was hired for the show. They are still getting to know each other just as we the audience are getting to know them. But what really drove the old show wasn't just seeing Siskel and Ebert declare their love for a film (my favorite examples of this are Hoop Dreams, Pulp Fiction, and Fargo), it was also seeing them go at each others throat. Of course, I don't want Lemire and Vishnevetsky doing this for the sake of our amusement, and I know they won't. I trust that as they get more comfortable with each other, they will build a rapport that will keep us coming back each week.

The show's other nice touch is additional segments from outside contributors, including bloggers, other critics, and political analysts. Since this program is being broadcast on public television, there are no bigwig producers weighing down on the show to keep it flashy. Instead, there are some terrific segments that you wouldn't expect from any show today. A mock-Citizen Kane trailer introduces the principal players in the show, as well as Ebert's wife Chaz. Its a hilarious and fun segment. Kim Morgan also provides a look back to The Third Man (1949) and shoots her review as if she was apart of the film. And just this past week, political analyst Jeff Greenfield provided a look at why the president, in political movies, always gives a speech at the end that causes the entire crowd to go wild. This is something, Greenfield assures us, that never happens in real life.

And of course, there's Roger's Office, a brief segment where Ebert himself reviews a current film. Of course since he can't speak for himself we get guest voices to convey his words to us. Werner Herzog supplies Ebert's voice for his review of My Dog Tulip, and in the past two episodes Bill Curtis has been taken over the role. We only glimpse Ebert briefly, at the beginning as he types and then at the end when we get his final opinion. These brief snapshots of Ebert are a nice reminder of the old days.

It's a satisfying, if safe, new show that will allow us to get our weekly reviews again, something I have been missing since Scott and Phillips signed off back in August. Recently I was watching TV and a review for the Mechanic came on. The ad was displaying reviews, and mentioned the film received "Two Thumbs Up." I smiled and laughed, because it feels good having those thumbs back after a long four year hiatus.

Top 10 of 2010

And here we are, once again, at that annual of annual traditions where one looks back over what was offered the prior year and evaluates what will indeed live on, for them, as a fantastic film. Of course all these lists were released in December, right? Well, yes, for the critics who get to see everything well in advance and are able to publish these lists. But I am just a common moviegoer, and must wait to see that latest foreign film or simply catch-up (as is the case this year) with films I missed because I was busy with life. But now I have seen the year's offerings and I can say that this turned out to be a better year then I initially thought. But before I release my top ten, I'd like to start off by naming the worst movie of the year:

And the worst movie of 2010 is...

The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009)

It's grotesque, disgusting and pointless. Actually, I would half admire it if it lived up to its claim of depravity, but once you get past the idea of the premise, it is not a hard movie to swallow and becomes more frustrating with every dimwitted decision made by the principal females. The doctor (played by Dieter Laser) is very creepy, but the rest of the movie is unmemorable and doesn't even make the impact on you it wants too.

Sorry, I just figured it would be better to get the filth out of the way. Now, on to the top 10 of the year 2010!

10. The American

This is oddly one of the most underrated films of the year, as critics and the general public alike seemed to be taken aback by this movie. What most people were expecting, I suspect, is an exciting actioneer starring George Clooney. What we get instead is a mostly quiet film about a hitman who must live his life in solitude (the opening scene alone defies hitmen convention). Clooney acts like a samurai for most of the film, as he hides in a remote Italian village building a gun for a final job. The ensemble is quite strong, and while the movies last moments are a bit telegraphed, the preceding build-up makes the whole film worth it.

9. The King's Speech

It seems like this will surely win the Oscar for everything now, and I'm not unhappy about this prospect. The King's Speech is a terrific film with a great ensemble (Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter, along with the likes of Michael Gambon, Guy Pearce and Timothy Spall), telling the story of King George VI's rise to power and how he had to overcome his stammer to inspire his people to be strong during war. The film works because of the actors, especially Geoffrey Rush who breathes so much life into dialectical coach Lionel Logue. Its a film that inspires you and makes you happy, and we need that every now and then.

8. Animal Kingdom

I had the pleasure of viewing this film with a fiery latin beat thumping through the floors from our neighbors. But that did not alter this film's quality in the slightest (though I have never heard Surfin' U.S.A. played at a more inappropriate time). An Australian film about a teen whose mother dies and is forced to live with his uncles and grandmother, who also just happen to be a mafia-type family. Its a taut film that spends a fair amount of time establishing itself before it really takes off. Guy Pearce shows up here as a detective, and there is one terrific scene after another, building up to a Godfather-esque ending (no, not the executing the five families scene. The other one).

7. Toy Story 3

The long-awaited sequel to the most beloved animated franchise finally arrived and didn't disappoint. While it is a bit of a step-backward from the previous entries, Toy Story 3 still delivers on all fronts, equal parts hilarious, thrilling, and heartfelt. The film deals with that inevitable point in a toy's life when their owner grows up and gets more interested in...well, the internet these days. The toy's donate themselves to a daycare center where they feel all will be better, if not for the oppressive cuddly bear that rules over the place. If anything, the film is incredibly nostalgic for me because it brought me back to being a kid again, and remembering playing with my toys and watching these movies. I do not currently know where all my old toys and dolls reside, but the film's ending is an oddly touching scene (an almost-man bids adieu to his playthings) that leaves one with a sense of fulfillment about the Toy Story universe.

6. Another Year

Mike Leigh may be one of the best directors out there no one knows about. I mean, his films are distributed, but most of the people I know have never heard of Leigh. Its a shame because he turns out such terrific films, and writes them in such a wholly unique fashion (lets just say actors work extra hard on his sets) that I'm surprised hes not more widely known. Another Year concerns a happily married couple, Gerri (Ruth Sheen) and Tom (Jim Broadbent), and, well, a year in their life that takes through select days of the four seasons. Its a fantastic study of loneliness and relationships and connections. Really, I don't want to say too much about this film because I went into knowing the bare minimum (the trailer gives nothing away) and came out confident that there are still terrific filmmakers out there.

5. True Grit

Probably the Coens most straight-forward film...ever, this is a fantastic Western, set in the dying days of the West as technology and progress move in and take over. Jeff Bridges is expectedly great as 'Rooster' Cogburn, a role that one John Wayne his Oscar, and Matt Damon as the Texas Ranger is equally impressive. But the real star of the film is newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who plays the fearless and gregarious Mattie Ross with such verve that she lights up every scene. The simple story of a girl seeking revenge for her father's death is played out through many quiet scenes, punctuated by brief spurts of violence. It's a deeply touching movie, and is bolstered by Roger Deakins stunning cinematography.

4. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

I only liked this movie initially, but like Edgar Wright's other films (Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead) repeat viewings brought this movie to the front of my attention. Its a simple boy-meets-girl story, and plays out much like a musical. Except, instead of musical numbers, fight scenes where our protagonist (Michael Cera) must defeat his sweetheart's seven previous lovers ensue. The film is a hybrid of video games and graphic novels (it is based of such a graphic novel from a lover of video games). The movie is a kaleidoscope of effects that take some time processing, as various texts fly through the scene to accentuate actions. It's absurd and a lot of fun, and though its characterizations are slight (his girlfriend is quite literally the girl of his dreams), its something I never tire of. And those films are just as important as the prestigious ones, right?

3. A Prophet

This foreign film was up for the best Foreign Language Oscar last year, but was not give a real release until February so it counts. A stark, harrowing look at life in prison, as a young Arab is sent there and soon ends up working closely with mafia kingpin stuck inside. The movie kicks off with a fantastic first thirty minutes, in which Malik (Tahar Rahim) must sneak a razor in his mouth to a meeting with a victim and then kill him. Everyone remembers the shot of him, as his mouth bleeds, pulling the razor out. The movie flows seamlessly and is one of the standout films of the year.

2. Exit Through the Gift Shop

I don't think I've every ranked a documentary this high before, but this is that good. It may be in part because the film could be fake (I don't believe Thierry, the frenchmen who is the film's subject, is made up). But one thing is for sure: it gets us close to Banksy, the director of the film, a famously elusive and anonymous street artist whose work includes the guantanamo prisoner at Disney Land and stencils on the West Bank wall. It's about street art, it's about a mad frenchmen who films everything about the movement, and its about how art can be exploited and people are so hungry to grab the hottest item that they'll pay outrageous money for something that isn't necessarily art at all, but imitation. Its definitely one of the finest documentaries, and finest films, I have ever seen.

1. The Social Network

Yes, I know, I know. I have now associated myself with the hive mind of critics out there that declared this the best film. But I have seen it four times and know that there is nothing better this year. The film is about Facebook, and part of what makes it so damn brilliant is how it takes what sounds like the most boring film of the year and makes it the most fascinating. Aaron Sorkin's brilliant dialogue is supported by an exception cast that includes Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield (our new Spider-Man), Justin Timberlake (ironically playing the man that brought down record companies), Rooney Mara (the new Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), and Armie Hammer (playing both Winklevoss twins). From the sumptuous cinematography (shot on the R3D no less), to the perfect editing, to the fantastic and utterly unique score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, there is no other film like this one. It is a film for out time, for our generation, our opportunity to turn to the world and say "Fuck you, I'm CEO, bitch!"

Golden Globes: Won vs. Predicted (2011)

Best Supporting Actress - TV

Prediction: Kelly MacDonald

Winner: Jane Lynch

Best Supporting Actor - TV

Prediction: David Strathairn

Winner: Chris Colfer

Best TV Actress - Drama

Prediction: Julianna Margulies

Winer: Katey Sagal

Best TV Actor - Drama

Prediction: Steve Buscemi

Winner: Steve Buscemi

Best TV Actress - Musical or Comedy

Prediction: Laura Linney

Winner: Laura Linney

Best TV Actor - Musical or Comedy

Prediction: Jim Parsons

Winner: Jim Parsons

Best Actress in a Mini-Series or TV Movie

Prediction: Judi Dench

Winner: Claire Danes

Best Actor in a Mini-Series or TV Movie

Prediction: Edgar Ramirez

Winner: Al Pacino

Best Mini-Series or TV Movie

Prediction: The Pacific

Winner: Carlos

Best TV Series - Musical or Comedy

Prediction: Modern Family

Winner: Glee

Best TV Series - Drama

Prediction: Mad Men

Winner: Boardwalk Empire

Best Foreign Language Film

Prediction: Biutiful

Winner: In a Better World

Best Animated Film

Prediction: Toy Story 3

Winner: Toy Story 3

Best Original Score

Prediction: Inception

Winner: The Social Network

Best Original Song

Prediction: "I See the Light" - Tangled

Winner: "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" - Burlesque

Best Screenplay

Prediction: The Social Network

Winner: The Social Network

Best Director

Prediction: David Fincher

Winner: David Fincher

Best Supporting Actress

Prediction: Melissa Leo

Winner: Melissa Leo

Best Supporting Actor

Prediction: Christian Bale

Winner: Christian Bale

Best Actress - Musical or Comedy

Prediction: Annette Bening

Winner: Annette Bening

Best Actor - Musical or Comedy

Prediction: Johnny Depp

Winner: Paul Giamatti

Best Actress - Drama

Prediction: Natalie Portman

Winner: Natalie Portman

Best Actor - Drama

Prediction: Colin Firth

Winner: Colin Firth

Best Picture - Musical or Comedy

Prediction: The Kids Are All Right

Winner: The Kids Are All Right

Best Picture - Drama

Prediction: The Social Network

Winner: The Social Network

Results: 13/25

So between this year and last year, I'm batting .360 in predictions, which is pretty good considering I dont' care about these awards. Though, I did much better in the film categories, where I got 10/14 right. Anyways, awards season has officially begun!

68th Golden Globes Predictions

I don't really care about the Golden Globes and will more likely then not end up watching them tonight. But that won't stop me from making my predictions. Call it a warm-up: I'm stretching my legs and testing the waters, seeing how well I do. Last year I think I got 5/25 right. So, I'm aiming to maybe doing better this year (though TV hangs me up because I rarely see any of the nominations in a category). So, what will be win this year? I'll list all the nominees, and put in bold my predictions

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Min-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Scott Caan - Hawaii Five-O

Chris Colfer - Glee

Chris Noth - The Good Wife

Eric Stonestreet - Modern Family

David Straithairn - Temple Grandin

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Hope Davis - The Special Relationship

Jane Lynch - Glee

Kelly MacDonald - Boardwalk Empire

Julia Stiles - Dexter

Sofia Vergara - Modern Family

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Idiris Elba - Luther

Ian McShane - Pillars of the Earth

Al Pacino - You Don't Know Jack

Dennis Quaid - The Special Relationship

Edgar Ramirez - Carlos

Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Hayley Atwell - Pillars of the Earth

Claire Danes - Temple Grandin

Judi Dench - Return to Cranford

Romola Garai - Emma

Jennifer Love Hewitt - The Client List

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Carlos

The Pacific

Pillars of the Earth

Temple Grandin

You Don't Know Jack

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Comedy or Musical

Alec Baldwin - 30 Rock

Steve Carrell - The Office

Thomas Jane - Hung

Matthew Morrison - Glee

Jim Parsons - The Big Bang Theory

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television - Comedy or Musical

Toni Collette - United States of Tara

Edie Falco - Nurse Jackie

Tina Fey - 30 Rock

Laura Linney - The Big C

Lea Michele - Glee

Best Television Series - Comedy or Musical

30 Rock

The Big Bang Theory

The Big C

Glee

Modern Family

Nurse Jackie

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama

Steve Buscemi - Boardwalk Empire

Bryan Cranston - Breaking Bad

Michael C. Hall - Dexter

Jon Hamm - Mad Men

Hugh Laurie - House

Rationale: He won't win, but he's the only new face in this category this year, so...more power to him.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama

Julianna Margulies - The Good Wife

Elisabeth Moss - Mad Men

Piper Perabo - Covert Affairs

Katey Sagal - Sons of Anarchy

Kyra Sedgwick - The Closer

Best Television Series - Drama

Boardwalk Empire

Dexter

The Good Wife

Mad Men

The Walking Dead

Best Original Song

"Bound to You" - Burlesque

"Coming Home" - Country Strong

"I See the Light" - Tangled

"There's a Place for Us" - The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

"You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" - Burlesque

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

Alexandre Desplat - The King's Speech

Danny Elfman - Alice in Wonderland

A.R. Rahman - 127 Hours

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross - The Social Network

Hans Zimmer - Incpetion

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

Simon Beaufoy, Danny Boyle - 127 Hours

Christopher Nolan - Inception

Stuart Blumberg, Lisa Cholodenko - The Kids Are All Right

David Seidler - The King's Speech

Aaron Sorkin - The Social Network

Best Director - Motion Picture

Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan

David Fincher - The Social Network

Tom Hooper - The King's Speech

Christopher Nolan - Inception

David O. Russell - The Fighter

Best Foreign Language Film

Biutiful

The Concert

he Edge

I Am Love

In a Better World

Best Animated Feature Film

Despicable Me

How to Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Tangled

Toy Story 3

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Christian Bale - The Fighter

Michael Douglas - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Andrew Garfield - The Social Network

Jeremy Renner - The Town

Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Amy Adams - The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech

Mila Kunis - Black Swan

Melissa Leo - The Fighter

Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical

Johnny Depp - Alice in Wonderland

Johnny Depp - The Tourist

Paul Giamatti - Barney's Version

Jake Gyllenhaal - Love & Other Drugs
Kevin Spacey - Casino Jack

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical

Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right

Anne Hathaway - Love & Other Drugs

Angelina Jolie - The Tourist

Julianne Moore - The Kids Are All Right

Emma Stone - Easy A

Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical

Alice in Wonderland

Burlesque

The Kids Are All Right

Red

The Tourist

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network

Colin Firth - The King's Speech

James Franco - 127 Hours

Ryan Gosling - Blue Valentine

Mark Wahlberg - The Fighter

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Halle Berry - Frankie and Alice

Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone

Natalie Portman - Black Swan

Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The King's Speech

The Social Network

At some point later tonight I'll post how I did. This is more a mixture of what I think will/should win (more should, though I gave score to Inception because I feel Social Network's is too odd for the HFPA).

The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009)

This movie came out a while ago, and while I normally don't review films that are not currently in theaters, I feel this one kind of merits a review. Maybe.

I never actually planned to watch this film: I heard so much about it through various reviews and friends that I decided there was no point. But, ultimately, curiosity won out and I sat down with a group of friends to review what is one of the most talked about films of the year.

For those of you that really don't know, The Human Centipede tells the story of two American girls (Ashley C. Williams and Ashlynn Yennie) on a eurotrip who find themselves stranded in the middle of Germany at some creepy guy's house when their car breaks down. They are drugged and awake on a make-shift hospital room in the man's basement, who happened to be Germany's most skilled surgeon (he is Dr. Heiter, played effectively creepy by Dieter Laser). They learn they are to be joined, ass-to-mouth, with another man (a Japanese guy played by Akihiro Kitamaru) to create a human centipede. Why? Who knows, but let's just say you don't want to be stuck in the middle.

When I went into this film, I was expecting to be completely grossed out, revolted, and slightly shaken by the movie. And you know what? I wasn't. True, the film displays some horrific acts against humanity, and the sheer depravity of the whole idea makes one sick, but the film achieves this through what most will agree is very little violence. That's not to say what happens isn't sick; the good doctor makes the human centipede a sort of pet, and the graphic nature of the attachment is gross. But there are no ruthless beheadings, or endless torture scenes. Once you get over the idea of the human centipede, it becomes easy to swallow.

Speaking of swallowing, the films most sickening sequence involves one member of the centipede swallowing excrement (with the good doctor yelling, "Swallow it, bitch!"). Yet this scene is achieved by the actors performance, not by actually watching someone swallow make-shift poo.

The movie frustrates, however, as characters make key idiotic decisions where, if they had made a different decision, they might have gotten out of the situation. Por example: one of the girls actually frees herself and the good doctor goes to attend to a power surge issue. But instead of running away, she rescues her unconscious friend and drags her out of the house (I should also mention she is bleeding profusely from a recent injury). Once, out the door, though, the good doctor finally shows up and tranquilizes her (and decides to make her the middle piece).

Now, on the one hand Tom Six, the writer and director, is most likely just making a commentary on most horror films, where characters make incorrect key decisions. That's all fun and good, but the Scream films have already made this pitfall of horror very well known, and so these character decisions come off as lazy writing.

Overall, I wasn't moved by the film either way. I actually forgot about it and have only just now returned to pondering it. It's technically well made, and there's no doubt the Human Centipede will become an iconic monster, at least for the midnight crowd. But I dislike these movies so much because I don't see the point in their existence. Who honestly finds this entertaining? Who will actually admit to looking forward to films like these? I don't want to know you. There are people who like the gross out stuff, and we all know this isn't real. But honestly, what's the point?

On one final note, Tom Six is making a sequel that is due out at some point this year. You'll notice the secondary title is "First Sequence." The next one is the "Full Sequence," and I guess we are going to get a 12-person centipede. There's already an amusing teaser online in which Six speculates about all the hate he's gotten from people calling it the most disgusting film ever made. Well that's giving this film too much credit.