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.

82nd Annual Academy Awards: Morning After Thoughts

Man, that ceremony seems like one bad dream.

Part of the reason is that I got drunk last night watching the show, but it also has to do with just how bad the show was put on. Opening with a strange parade of the 10 lead actors up for an award and displaying them for all the world to see was one of the most miscalculated decisions I've seen in awhile. This was followed by a totally misfired musical number starring Neil Patrick Harris, who is a funny guy. Go to YouTube and find some of his Tony Awards antics, they are hysterical. But here, his number introducing Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, as well as making fun of some of the nominees, was unmemorable and just plain awful.

Then down came our hosts, lowered from the rafters of the stage, and as they came out and began their rapport, I realized what a miscalculated decision this co-hosting job was. Martin lead most of the jokes, with Baldwin following suit. Baldwin looked uncomfortable up there, and it was more obvious then ever that the lines were scripted. The problem with two co-hosts is it makes improvisation harder, especially when they don't have a good chemistry. That is what the two lacked as well; a Colbert/Stewart pairing would fire up some great chemistry, or any number of, but these two are obviously funnier when there's an editor in the chair choosing their best lines.

Christoph Waltz's win was expected, as was Pete Doctor's for Up and T-Bone Burnett for Crazy Heart. Screenplay went with the WGA, so I guess Tarantino isn't as liked by his peers as we thought he was. Mark Boal still gave a rousing speech.

Then there was an unexpected but very sweet tribute to John Hughes, who died this past year. Matthew Broderick, Molly Ringwald, Macauly Culkin, and many others came out onstage and a very touching montage was shown of all his films. I've never been the biggest Hughes fan myself (Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is my favorite of his), but I recognize what makes him so loved, and he deserved these minutes. It came in place of the usual Honorary Award, which they didn't hand out this year, so I'm guessing this is who they meant it for.

In the short films I keep learning different lessons; Logorama won, which I thought was the best, and I guess I should have gone with my favorite from the Live-Action, The New Tenants. I thought for sure the Academy would take the bait Chernobyl, but I guess like Six Shooter, you should always go for the film that ends in bloodshed. And fuck Documentary Short; if there's anything I learned this year, it is to not even listen to what other people are picking and select a random title. I did it two years ago and got it right, and it is what I will continue doing.

Ben Stiller in Na'Vi makeup was a highlight of the night. Much better then his miscalculated Joaquin Phoenix impersonation, he fully embodied the character of the Na'Vi. Ironically, he pointed out, Avatar was not up for Makeup, and maybe he should have worn Spock ears. And the makeup was so good that I kind of wish Avatar had combined more of that. Stiller proved that actors have the most intense eyes, and are more alive then any computer will be able to imitate. Then Star Trek won, which is no surprise.

Then the biggest upset of the night, won that I don't think any official prognosticator saw coming: Precious upset Up in the Air for Best Adapted Screenplay, and a very emotionally overwhelmed Geoffrey Fletcher and gave probably the most passionate speech of the night. His upset was very unexpected, and I'm still trying to figure out how it happened. Up in the Air was so certain! But hey, that's why we watch, because there is always one big upset.

Avatar and The Young Victoria won Art Direction and Costume Design, respectively, and then Zac Efron and Anna Kendrick came out to distribute the Sound awards. We got a very funny clip narrated by Morgan Freeman about the Sound work in The Dark Knight, and clarifying for us what exactly the difference is. I've done Sound work and I even have a had time telling. The Hurt Locker surprisingly won both awards (I was sure Avatar was going to win one of them, so I put it down for both). That guy was strange.

Martin and Baldwin showed an amusing Paranormal Activity spoof of them to introduce the Horror montage. Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner came and made the introduction proper, though I noticed Stewart seemed either really nervous, or strung out on drugs. Or both, she is Joan Jett in the new movie The Runaways. The Horror montage was great, though one of them said Horror has been little recognized since The Exorcist more then 30 years ago. Excuse me, but what about The Silence of the Lambs winning Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay a mere 19 years ago? Horror isn't under-recognized, it's just done bad most of the time.

Mauro Fiore became another famous alum of my college Columbia College Chicago to win an Academy Award for Cinematography (for Avatar) though I still feel you shouldn't win for a movie that was created mostly in a computer. Following this was as a very odd interpretive dance to all the Original Score nominees, followed by Michael Giacchino winning for Up. Well deserved, well deserved.

Avatar wins visual effects, easily the most locked category of the night. The Cove wins best Documentary, and Ric O'Berra comes onstage and holds up a sign that says "Text Dolphin to 41....something something". I couldn't tell because the cameras quickly cut away to a shot of the audience, which made me mad. Let Mr. O'Berra, who is fighting for something he believes in, to have his moment in the spotlight.

Tyler Perry handed out Film Editing, and made fun of himself for probably never being able to hear his name again at the Oscars (I guess I can appreciate someone who knows their work isn't great). The Hurt Locker won, of course. Pedro Almodovar and Quentin Tarantino handed out the Best Foreign Language Oscar to El Secreto de Sus Ojos, which I haven't seen and merely predicted on the hunch that you can't go with anything that's already out. Finally, the final four, and the Oscars hit the 210 minute mark, already over-running their length.

They continued having people talk about the Actors, which I liked, and this time they made it old friends of the Nominees, rather then famous movie stars who might have nothing to do with the person they are taking about. Michelle Pfeiffer introduced Jeff Bridges, Vera Farmiga talked about George Clooney, Julianne Moore about Colin Firth, Tim Robbins about Morgan Freeman, and Colin Farrell about Jeremy Renner. Jeff Bridges won.

For Actress, Forest Whitaker introduces Sandra Bullock, Michael Sheen about Helen Mirren, Peter Skarsgaard about Carey Mulligan, Stanley Tucci about Meryl Streep, and Oprah about Gabourey Sidibe. Sandra Bullock, as expected, won. She said she wasn't going to cry (they all do), but she broke down a bit at the end. I've grown to like her as this Awards Season pressed on, but I still don't think she deserved it.

Then Oscar officially made history with Barbra Streisand walking to welcome the first female director ever into the white boys club. I think it would have been hilarious if Lee Daniels or Jim Cameron had won instead. Barbra makes the moment fairly epic; as she opened the card she paused and then said, "Well, the time has come, Kathryn Bigelow." She was great, and I was very happy she won.

Now the Oscars were 30 minutes into overtime, so Tom Hanks simply came out and opened the envelope. No recap of the ten nominees at all, he just came out, ripped open that envelope, and announced The Hurt Locker for Best Picture. Kathryn Bigelow was too stunned to give a speech, so Mark Boal spoke for her. It was proud moment that exemplifies the Academy honors what really is a great movie, not merely a great spectacle.

But overall this show as a step-back from last year. My advice: bring back Stewart, cut out all musical numbers. That would help. These shows can seem long and it doesn't help that the co-stars weren't funny.

UNTIL NEXT YEAR!

82nd Annual Academy Awards: My Predictions

And another year comes to an end. This will be the third official post I've made about the Oscars and what film I believe is going to win. This year was a pretty good year, with a lot of great little films peppered in. Will Avatar win tonight? Probably, but I'm staying true to The Hurt Locker, and Basterds could pull through if the Actors theory holds up. Most categories are locked, with the two toss-ups being Original Screenplay an Picture. So, what are my predictions?

Leading Actor

Last year I coin-flipped and guessed Sean Penn would win, and hurrah, I was right! This year, Jeff Bridges is the clear favorite, and there is no reason he is going to lose. He has tons of love from his acting friends, who gave him a standing ovation at the SAG awards, and he's been cleaning house with every other show. Colin Firth is better, in a complex, layered, and emotional turn in A Single Man. Morgan Freeman embodied Nelson Mandela, and it was a fitting role because Mandela himself told Freeman he would like him to play him in a biopic. George Clooney was once the frontrunner, and has now fallen back to least likely with Jeremy Renner, who was the "surprise" nomination (not really, we all knew it was going to happen). Jeff Bridges, this is yours to lose.

Prediction: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart

Supporting Actor

The Academy has a had a fond fascination with serial killers these past couple years, Javier Bardem and Heath Ledger being the last two to win for psychotic characters. This year will be no different, with Christoph Waltz being the clear favorite (and, like Ledger, he has been since the summer), for playing the ruthlessly smart, selfish, and evil Hans Landa. Matt Damon sported a satisfactory South African accent, Woody Harrelson cried, Christopher Plummer was gruff I guess (didn't see this one), and Stanley Tucci was also an evil serial killer. But none of them have had as much heat behind them as Mr. Waltz, who will dance away with this award. If my presumption is correct, this will be the first award presented too, so the lack of suspense will be over with quickly.

Prediction: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds

Leading Actress

There are a lot of interesting performances in this category, but overall leading roles for men and women were weak this year. Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe should be the two duking it out for Best Actress, but Sandra Bullock somehow blasted in front of the competition and is now the clear frontrunner for this award. Admittedly, she gave a pretty good performance and was the only level-headed character in that entire film, but she certainly does not deserve an Oscar for it, not even a nomination (and how The Blind Side is even nominated is beyond me). Meryl Streep is the only one for a potential upset, but I don't see how Bullock can lose at this rate. The Academy loves a biopic performance, of which there are three in this case, so you gotta go with the most popular one (lesson learned from Marion Cotillard two years ago).

Prediction: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side

Supporting Actress

The last two years this category has alluded me, but this year it is not doing it. Penelope Cruz is up again for Nine, but she is NOT winning this time; Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are both nominated for their roles in Up in the Air, and they were both very good and should be happy to be there; and Maggie Gyllenhaal was the surprise nomination for Crazy Heart, but that film won't sweep. So, it's down to Mo'Nique, who has had buzz surround her since this film was mentioned way back when last year. Her performance was powerful and one of the best things about that movie, and it'll be a pleasure to see her win. Any other winner would be a huge upset.

Prediction: Mo'Nique in Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

Animated Feature

Pixar is in it again, and is going to win for sure, but it should be noted that this is the first year there are five nominees. Coraline is overrated if you ask me, but still decent; Fantastic Mr. Fox is a delightful film and a possible upset; The Princess and the Frog is only here because it brings back traditional animation; and The Secret of Kells is the little-wtf film that nobody has heard of, but I hear is quite good. If voters were required to see all the films I would put money on Kells, but since it is one of the popularity contest categories, the clear winner will be the best of the lot, Up, though I feel the Academy is tiring of handing this one to Pixar all the time. Missing from this category: Ponyo.

Prediction: Up

Art Direction

I've only seen one of the nominees in this category, and it is also the one that will likely win. Avatar's design is massive and impressive, realizing lush forests and a futuristic space world. Sherlock Holmes could be upset, but I think this is a locked category.

Prediction: Avatar

Cinematography

This category is a toss-up: Avatar, Hurt Locker, and The White Ribbon all could win this award. Avatar I disqualify because 60% of the movie is created by the computer, so a lot of that wasn't lighting by the DP anyways. White Ribbon has sumptuous black and white photography that is visually arresting and could very well pull in a sneak attack win. But, I think this is Hurt Locker's category, with it's beautiful imagery of slo-mo bomb explosions. Harry Potter stands no chance.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Costume Design

The hard lesson I have learned over the past two years is never defy the Costume Drama (Elizabeth and The Duchess won the prior two years), so I will go with The Young Victoria as my pick for the Costume award. Though watch, now Nine or Doctor Parnassus will win this award and throw off my lesson to myself. Bright Star, the other costume movie, could very will win as well, but it's not about royalty, so its costumes are more plain and less extravagant.

Prediction: The Young Victoria

Directing

This one should be a shoe-in lock for Bigelow. If Cameron wins, fuck the Academy. Bigelow made a better, more courageous film anyways. And it's time to end the 81-year history of white men winning this award. It's an historical moment for the Academy, and I don't see them voting the other way. Bigelow.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Documentary Feature

I don't pretend to know anything about this category since voters have to view all five films to cast a choice. I have seen two of them, and of the two the better made film is The Cove: it is exciting, dangerous, and conveys an important message. I don't see any other film in that category beating it; it's simply too damn entertaining. But, again, I haven't seen three of the nominees, so what do I know?

Prediction: The Cove

Documentary Short

I actually have seen one of the films nominated in this category, China's Unnatural Disaster, and that was a powerfully made film about a terrible disaster and the government's unwillingness to flinch on the matter. But another film, The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant (unseen by me) is the clear frontrunner because it deals with an issue that directly effects us as Americans. I can't judge the quality of the film, but it probably connected the most with Academy voters and will most likely win. But again, I haven't seen four of these films.

Prediction: The Last Truck: Closing of GM Plant

Film Editing

I feel this category is locked. What District 9 is doing here I'm not certain, but if The Hurt Locker wins, it should indicate a Best Pic victory (though who knows). If Avatar wins, then it will take Best Picture. Or not. Editing doesn't necessarily correlate, but one assumes it should. Still, Hurt Locker relies a lot on precise editing to build tension and heighten those explosion scenes, and it worked very well, so there's no reason it shouldn't win.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Foreign Language Film

Another category I'm not going to pretend to know anything about, since I have only seen The White Ribbon. A Prophet is supposed to be excellent, but I'm going to pick El Secreto De Sus Ojos to win. Why? No reason, but I'm not confident in any of the films so it seems like a good option. Remember The Lives of Others and Departures upsetting? Well, Kris Tapley predicted those upsets and is predicting Ojos, so I'm just going with him.

Prediction: El Secreto de Sus Ojos

Makeup

With only three nominees, the winner should be clear. Il Divo and The Young Victoria are nothing fantastic, but Star Trek had that all green lady. So it wins.

Prediction: Star Trek

Original Score

Michael Giacchino will finally get his due with his beautiful score for Up, though Fantastic Mr. Fox deserves recognition for its fun score as well. The Hurt Locker and Avatar were unmemorable, and Sherlock Holmes...I don't know it. But Up deserves it, and will get it.

Prediction: Up

Original Song

No strong showings this year, unlike the past two years when we got Jai Ho and Falling Slowly. The Wear Kind from Crazy Heart will undoubtedly win, since the others are all unmemorable (especially Princess and the Frog). Go T Bone!

Prediction: "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart) from Crazy Heart"

Short Film, Animated

I saw all the films this year, and wrote a review of all them already. I'm going with Logorama, although you should know that A Matter of Loaf and Death, the new Wallace & Gromit short, is the favorite and probably will win. But Logorama was something unique and very, very different. And I lot of people liked it, so I'm predicting an upset on Nick Park this year. Logorama all the way!

Prediction: Logorama

Short Film, Live Action

Again, I've seen all the films and already written a review on them. None of them were particularly strong, but you can probably go with The Door, since it is about Chernobyl and tugs at the heart strings. The others ranged from OK to good, but none stand out as Oscar bait more then The Door.

Prediction: The Door

Sound Editing & Mixing

They are different categories, but I'm lumping them together because my prediction for them both stands the same. Yes, they are very different arts, but I think Avatar is the clear winner for both. Of course, Hurt Locker could upset in the Mixing section, but otherwise this is Avatar's to lose.

Prediction for both: Avatar

Visual Effects

Locked. Avatar. Go home.

Prediction: Avatar

Screenplay, Adapted

This one is a lock for Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner. Up in the Air perfectly balances a multitude of themes and plots, and it wouldn't have been possible without a great script. I would love an In the Loop upset, but Up in the Air deserves it.

Prediction: Up in the Air

Screenplay, Original

This category is one of the biggest toss-ups, between the Guild-favorite Hurt Locker and Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. Basterds didn't make a show at the WGA because Tarantino himself is not a member, which is fair. It just makes it harder for us prognosticators to decide who will win since we don't know which way the writers themselves lean. But the actors really like Basterds, and Tarantino has a gift for building long dialogue scenes, so I don't see this one losing. Hurt Locker works more on a visual level then a script level, and I'm sure Basterds is a more entertaining read.

Prediction: Inglourious Basterds

Best Picture

This year, we have ten films nominated for Best Picture, and a new preferential system that could really fuck with the results. Three movies stand-out as the possible winners. First, Avatar, which has made more then $2.6 billion worldwide, which makes it obviously a favorite with the public, but it lacks support from both the Writers and the Actors (it has no nominations in either of those categories). Cameron himself has said give Bigelow director, but give us Picture. However, I feel Picture should mean that best overall elements, and Avatar is purely a technical achievement. Now, Hurt Locker, which has been cleaning house at the major guild awards; the only thing it has going against it is that it only made $13 million domestic during its run in theaters. However, it is a very popular rental item, and has been listed for the last month on Netflix as "Long wait" for availability. People are watching it. Finally, Inglourious Basterds, the dark horse that took the SAG ensemble award. It definitely has strong acting, strong writing, and strong directing. It's a terrific film, and one that I bet could upset and actually take the award. However, it is also a fanboy film, and most of the members probably vote by what is most popular. However, if people try and fuck Avatar and Hurt Locker over by putting them at 10, then Basterds could win. At the end of the day, though, I'm going with Hurt Locker; it will probably lose, but it is the best film of all the nominees and one of the best of the decade.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

And there you have it. I believe the show starts at 8:30/5:30 ET/PT, live all across the nation (and I guess in Australia). I'll come back after the show and tell how well I did. The worse I do, the drunker I'll be though.

LET'S DO THIS!

The 2009 Oscar-Nominated Short Films: Live-Action

It's that time of year again! It's OSCAR SUNDAY! The most religious for me and people who are like-minded, I guess. Anyways, part of my tradition is to seek out the short films, and today I have ventured out to view the Live-Action short films nominated this year.

Overall I'd say the quality of the films was lower then last year, but like the Animated category there is one clear audience favorite that should win, and one that will win, as it always goes with the Academy. However, I can respect them in these categories because, well, they actually have to see the movies. Alright, on to the films.

First up, Kavi (India, 19 min), a story of modern-day slavery and a little boy who undergoes considerable abuse at the hands of a slave-master that the boy's (Kavi is his name) father owes a debt to. It looks like a really pretty student film, and indeed at the end we are told that the film was made in part for a master thesis film at USC (or one of those California schools). Overall, the technical aspects are amazing, and the kid is really good to, and it has a hopeful open-ended ending. Still, it is the weakest of the bunch because the story is kind of hokey and you can tell its a student film.

Second, The New Tenants (Denmark, 20 min), a hilarious story that recalls Six Shooter, the Martin McDonaugh short that won the Award five or so years ago. The premise involves two friends who have just moved into a new apartment, and are greeted by a landlady, a drug dealer, and a grieving husband with a vendetta. The movie goes into wacky comedic directions and is probably my favorite of the bunch, but it has a really stupid ending. It has a great script, and a great cast (including Gomer Pyle) but overall it kind of trails off at the end. This was the only film that got applause, I might add, so it was an audience favorite.

Third, Miracle Fish (Australia, 17 min), a film that is the prime example of why a director should never be their own editor (though the Coens are the standing exception), as it drags its feet in the beginning and doesn't really pick up the pace or get interesting until the last five minutes. It is Joe's 8th birthday, and he is the outcast at school, poor, and socially unliked. He hides in the sick bay and takes a nap, and when he awakes, the school is completely deserted. At first, I assumed this was just his imagination and it would all be a happy dream land (he finds solace in the solitude), but after a good eight minutes of Joe wandering aimlessly you begin to realize that its real, and something fucked up is going to happen. The movie's ending is really good, but the pacing sucks, and the kid actor is only ok (you are always asking for trouble when your cast is primarily kids).

Fourth, The Door (Ireland, 17 min), is the most likely to win because it deals with the radiation leak at Chernobyl in the 80s, a truly horrible event. It concerns a family whose daughter falls victim to the radiation, and the sadness and anger that comes with it. It sets the mood well, and is deliberately paced and executed, but it feels like nothing more then Oscar-bait (like last year's winner, Toyland). Overall well made, but nothing special.

And finally, Istället för abrakadabra (Instead of Abracadabra, Sweden, 22 min), a dark comedy about a 25-year-old loser who wishes to be a magician and lives at home with his parents. He performs a magic show and ends up impaling his own mother with a sword. At the hospital he meets a cute nurse, who happens to be his neighbor, and becomes determined to be a better magician to impress her. The movie is sweet and funny, but again it is nothing special and really doesn't stand heads above the others.

So my final prediction is The Door, simply for its message and somber tone. The Academy loves that stuff, although they do like the black humor too, as evidenced by Six Shooter's win. However, The Door is the one to beat, even if it ain't the best.

The 2009 Oscar-Nominated Short Films: Animated

It's that time again! Oscar weekend! And with Oscar weekend comes my viewing of all the short films. I saw the animated category this past Wednesday, and tomorrow morning I plan to venture out and see the Live Action shorts. So, what did this year hold?

The presentation was fixed this time, no stupid quotes from people about short films. Instead, a title card indicated whether the film was nominated or "Highly Acclaimed" (the running time was just over 60 minutes for all the films, so three were added to bring it to 90). How did this batch hold up?

Overall I'd say the quality overall was higher, though there were none that are as good as Le Maison en Petits Cubes, which to my delight won last year. Still, with a new Wallace & Gromit and a bitingly hilarious satire of our culture, there were a few stand-outs.

First up, French Roast (France, 8 minutes), a clever little film that is essentially one shot spanning an entire day at a café where a gentlemen has forgotten his money and tries different methods to get out of the situation. Recurring characters include a bum, a waiter, and a little old nun who I guess is masquerading as a serial killer. It's funny, but it ain't much of a film otherwise.

Second, La dama y la muerte (The Lady and Death, Spain, 8 min.), a zany movie about a widow who longs to join her deceased husband. Death comes to collect her, but is defied by a hunky doctor with several nurses on his bulging arms, and a battle between death and life ensues that goes way over the top. It's funny, and conveys an interesting message about when its time to die, but that also gets lost in the over-the-top humor that permeates the film. Antonio Banderas was a producer, as a side note.

Third, the new Wallace & Gromit movie "A Matter of Loaf and Death" (U.K., 30 min). The longest of the bunch, this is another classic Wallace & Gromit tale that puts the two as bakers, with a baker serial killer on the loose. It's kind of obvious right away that the woman Wallace falls for is the serial killer in question, but that doesn't stop the film from being zany fun with plenty of cheeky humor. However, it also doesn't live up to the standards of the original Wallace & Gromit shorts, A Grand Day Out, Close Shave, and The Wrong Trousers. You kind of know what to expect at this point, and while its always enjoyable to see the duo at it again, the film's climax goes way over the top and I kind of wished for something a little more original with the two. Still, funny as hell, and the likely winner since Wallace & Gromit is an Academy favorite.

Fourth, Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty (Ireland, 6 min), a very funny story of a Granny who tells her grandchild the story of Sleeping Beauty...with a few twists of her own. The movie is really funny and has a lot of laughs, but two major technical issues bothered me. First, the sound wasn't mixed properly so the old lady shrieked to high heaven and nearly made me deaf. But even more bothersome was the animation itself, which looked cheap, and out of sync with the audio. I love a good story, but if there is no polish or glaring errors, I get pulled out, which makes Granny O'Grimm my least favorite of the lot.

Then the program went to Highly Acclaimed films, which confused me because I had only counted four so far and wondered where the fifth one was (maybe they didn't get rights?). Of the Highly Acclaimed section, we got Partly Cloudy (U.S., 6 min), the cloud movie that showed up before Up; Runaway (Canada, 12 min), a very strange, yet strikingly funny tale of train ride that goes horribly, horribly wrong when the conductor goes to sleep with one of the passengers; and The Kinematograph (Poland, 10 - 12 ish min), a tale of a fictional inventor in the 19th century perfecting motion pictures. This one should have been spectacular, but it has an annoying subplot where is wife or daughter or whoever has consumption and dies. A film like this could have been much better, but is drawn down by hokey dialogue and a hokey message.

A message then appeared on the screen, saying that the final film contained violence and strong language, warning obviously the stupid parents in the theater who brought their kids thinking all animation was for children (which there were none of on a Wednesday afternoon) would leave.

Finally, we got the final nomination, Logorama (France, 16 min), by far the best film of the bunch, and one that you need to see to really understand. It takes place in an alternate Los Angeles where literally everything is some sort of corporate logo. MSN butterflies fly around, the Michelin men are the cops, Big Boy picks his nose, Pringles wolf-whistles at Esso girl, and the Pilsbury doughboy works in a diner. Literally it goes on from there, endlessly continuing on and featuring around 2,500 corporations (or so I read somewhere). Basically, you could say this is how the world sees us, and they wouldn't be far off. Ronald McDonald himself is a the villain of the piece, taking hostages and transporting arms and nuclear materials. Will this win? Probably not, I think it is too polarizing for the Academy voters, but hey, they gave it to Le Maison last year so I could be (rightfully) wrong.

Tomorrow, the Live Action films, then my predictions. Only 30 hours left until the show!

Top 10 of 2009

Here we are again. At the end of another long year in film. The year may have ended in January, but I give myself an extra month to see the films that don't get released near me until January. This year was pretty good for the movie world, and there are a few on my list that I might love even more later on. I can say, though, that this list has 10 movies I would have no problem sitting down and watching again. The quality wasn't as high, but the entertainment value was still there.

10. Inglourious Basterds

Dir. Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino finally released his much-delayed sixth film (if you count Kill Bill as one) and proved, once again, why he's so damn talented. It's a film that runs 150 minutes and is largely free of violence, relying on words to be the driving force. Brad Pitt stars as Lt. Aldo Raine, who leads a group of jews through Nazi land killing Nazis Apache-style. The violence is gruesome but brief, and Tarantino builds the suspense the old fashioned way: with characters, situation, and an abundance of dialogue. Melanie Laurent stars as Shosanna, the jewish girl who escapes execution to own a movie theater that hosts the premiere of the latest Nazi propaganda drivel. The film deserved the SAG award it won for Best Ensemble, because it really is an ensemble piece and no one character is the star. Brad Pitt is in maybe a third of the film. And it gives us one of the best villains of all time, Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who makes milk and strudel terrifying.

9. Up in the Air

Dir. Jason Reitman

Jason Reitman has only made three feature movies in his career, and so far I have featured all three on my top 10 lists of their respected years. While this isn't his funniest movie (Thank You For Smoking still holds that title), it is definitely his best, a rich blend of comedy and drama, set against the backdrop of our current economic struggle. George Clooney is Ryan Bingham, who works for a company that loans him out to other companies to handle their layoffs. And business is never better then during this economic hardship. He prefers to be alone, but must show the ropes to an up and coming Cornell grad with an idea of how to fire people most cost-effectively. Clooney's character also dreams of reaching 10,000,000 frequent flyer miles. It's a movie with a lot of ideas that successfully balances all of them, and seems to strike a true chord. In the times we live in, something like this could not be more welcome.

8. Up

Dir. Pete Doctor

For the fourth year in a row, Pixar continues to rank on my list. Up is as spectacular as Wall•E (2008) or Ratatouille (2007), and is more of a throwback to silly children's entertainment. It opens with a five-minute sequence that beautifully says so much about life, love, and loss without a single word of dialogue that will bring you near to tears, and then embarks as a safer, more conventional adventure as geezer Carl Fredricksen lifts his house into the air and sets off to South America with Junior Explorer Russell in tow. Doug, the talking dog, is definitely a winner and everyone sees their dog personified in Doug, but the rest of the talking dogs, while entertaining, are boring, and so is the villain, an old explorer who has spent his life searching for some rare bird. Few Pixar movies have true villains (A Bug's Life, Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., and The Incredibles all have villains) but at least they are interesting. Still, Up will take you away on a grand adventure for the young and the old, and is still a worthy addition to the Pixar canon.

7. Goodbye Solo

Dir. Ramin Bahrani

Ramin Bahrani is another director who supposedly has never made a bad film. I haven't seen Man Push Cart or Chop Shop, but I have seen Goodbye Solo, and this film is one of pure beauty. Solo is a cab driver somewhere in a small North Carolina town who picks up an old man who requests to be taken to certain location. Solo becomes fascinated with the old man, and soon begins driving him everywhere and trying to befriend him, suspecting the old man of wanting to commit suicide. It's a beautiful tale of two very different people and two very different points in life coming together, and Bahrani has a mastery of moving his film along at just the right pace. The performances are also fantastic, as Souleymane Sy Savane radiates as Solo and Red West grumbles as William. The film has a perfect ending, and is really one of the rare joys of the year.

6. The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans

Dir. Werner Herzog

From a film of pure beauty to one that is all kinds of wrong, Bad Lieutenant is a remake of an early 90s film of nearly the same name. But if you are going to remake something, Werner Herzog is the man to do it, putting his unique spin on culture and life. Nicolas Cage has seldom been better as Terence McDonaugh, a New Orleans cop who gets promoted to Lieutenant as he suffers a chronic back pain that leads him to become a massive druggie. Cage infuses his character with a mix of madness and strange rationality, and the movie works because you believe him for every moment of the film. Two scenes will enter the film lexicon, one involving iguanas, the other involving a dancing soul. The movie is unhinged, much like Cage's character, and keeps getting more and more outrageous. Never have I seen a film that made me root for a more obviously wrong character, but this one does it superbly.

5. Tokyo Sonata

Dir. Kiyoshi Kurosawa

Now back to a film that isn't necessarily beautiful, but definitely deserves to be seen in its own right. Tokyo Sonata tells the tale of a middle-class Japanese family that slowly begins to disintegrate, as the father loses his job and can't muster the courage to tell his family, and his youngest son begins exploring his interest in music. It's a tale of roles and where we fit in our society, which seems to be a timeless theme. The father pretends to go to work, and instead meets a fellow unemployee who teaches him the habit of looking important while really being without pay. The film's third act features a rather odd device, as all the characters hit their climax, but it is brought back by a beautifully done piano solo of Claude Debussy's "Claire de Lune," which leaves you sitting in the theater long after the credits have roled.

4. A Serious Man

Dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

A Serious Man was a movie that didn't go down easy on my initial viewing. As soon as it ended and the credits rolled, I sat there with a definite wtf expression on my face. But as the hours passed and I pondered the movie, I realized just how good it was. Essentially it is an adaptation of the Book of Job set in a Minnesota suburb in the 1960s. Michael Stuhlbarg is Larry Gopnik, a college professor who receives a bribe from a failing student, and who returns home to find his wife seeking a divorce for no apparent reason. Everything happens out of the blue, and more and more bad shit keeps happening to Larry. The film is also peppered with strange folk tales, one about a dentist who finds Hebrew on a patient's teeth and tries to investigate the meaning of it. The rabbi who is telling this story suddenly stops, and Gopnik sits there saying, "Why did you tell me that?" People will feel the same way about the movie in general, and that is more or less the point, but it still stands as one of the Coen's best works.

3. Gake no ue nonyo (Ponyo)

Dir. Hayao Miyazaki

Miyazaki is a master of animation and storytelling; his sure hand always guides a project successfully to a finish, and no one seems to have more imagination or balls then he does. Ponyo is adapted from The Little Mermaid (the Hans Christian Andersen story), but it takes that story and makes it so much more innocent and pure. Ponyo is a little fish of some kind who breaks free of her father's rule, and becomes friends with Sosuke. She transforms into a human, slowly, and her breach of the elements causes massive flooding and crazy storm weather to abound. The movie is about the pure joy of being a child, as embodied by Sosuke and Ponyo. The movie has pure exhilarating moments as Ponyo runs across fish waves, and Ponyo makes Sosuke's little toy boat large enough for them to go explore the flooded town. I saw the American voiced version, which is miscast (the kids are too old and Liam Neeson doesn't ring true), and it features the most prime example of a great, cute kid's song being taken and run through the Disney shitmill to create a bastardized Ponyo song (sung by young Cyrus and Jonas). I can't wait to really see the movie in it's original Japanese form, but even some bad voice acting can't keep this movie from being truly spectacular.

2. The Hurt Locker

Dir. Kathryn Bigelow

The Hurt Locker is the first Iraq war movie I have seen that is actually frickin' amazing. This is largely in part due to the fact that it is about the men fighting in the service, and doesn't meditate on why we are there or what we are doing there. The soldiers are there doing what they are ordered, and this film follows one particular bomb defusing nut, SFC William James (Jeremy Renner) and the various bombs he defuses. This is another prime example of tension and suspense that exists because we care about the characters, we care about the situation, and this is also Hitchcock's bomb theory fully embodied into an entire movie. Every bomb-defusion is wrought with tension, as are the various other activities. The cast is uniformly terrific, with Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty as the other two main soldiers of the unit. This movie is right now in a heated battle with Avatar for Best Picture, while Avatar is a fine film, it is nowhere near as awesome as this one. Kathryn Bigelow deserves the Oscar, and this deserves Best Picture. It's obviously not my favorite of the year, but it is number two, and that's pretty damn good.

1. Where the Wild Things Are

Dir. Spike Jonze

While Ponyo is about the joy of childhood, Where the Wild Things Are is about the pain and misunderstanding of being a child. It takes place at that time in a child's life when imagination is venturing out the door and real adult responsibilities begin to set in. It opens with my favorite moment of the year, as young Max (Max Records) barrels down the stairs in pure, unfiltered childhood energy. He escapes into his world where the Wild Things roam, played by a variety of voice actors including James Gandolfini, Chris Cooper, and Lauren Ambrose, and becomes associated with their world. Each of the Wild Things represent an aspect of Max's life, and are beautifully realized as costumes and computer generated images. Rather then creating them in Post, Spike Jonze has real fur and blood characters there the entire time, and animates their face. More so then anything, this movie reminded me of my youth, when I would enter my own worlds and shut the rest out. Many parents claimed that this movie was too scary for children, and I agree kids under 7 may not like it, but kids from 8 - 10 get it, and the rest of us can relate. It's not a movie for kids, it's a movie about kids, and they have as many emotional issues as adults, they are just personified in their imagination. Max Records is also terrific as young Max, who is a little brat at times, but we all were. But I mostly fell in love with the Wild Things, and there crazy world where danger always lurks, but if you have your friends, you'll be just fine.

I like to honor more then just ten films. Those were my ranked favorites, but there are 20 more that were also pretty good. Here they are, alphabetically:

Avatar

Crazy Heart

An Education

Fantastic Mr. Fox

(500) Days of Summer

Food, Inc.

The Girlfriend Experience

In the Loop

The White Ribbon

World's Greatest Dad

In addition, I would like to host my own impromptu awards. Here are my picks for Best Director, Actor, and the like:

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Runner-up: Spike Jonze, Where the Wild Things Are

Best Actor: Nicolas Cage, The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans

Runner-up: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

Best Actress: Carey Mulligan, An Education

Runner-up: Gabourey Sidibe, Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Runner-up: Peter Capaldi, In the Loop

Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

Runner-up: Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air

Best Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds

Runner-up: A Serious Man

And of course, no year review would be complete without a round-up of the worst this year had to offer. In this final section, I pick the most overrated movie and reveal the 5 worst of the year.

Most Overrated Movie: District 9

5 Worst of the Year:

5. Watchmen

Dir. Zack Snyder

Suposed to be an original take on the superhero story, based off of an excellent graphic novel. It has the best opening titles sequence of the year, no doubt, but with mostly uncompelling characters, this one falls FAAAAAR short.

4. Antichrist

Dir. Lars von Trier

It's just brutal for the sake of brutalities sake. It features some gorgeous cinematography, and clearly has an interesting message, but von Trier is so full of himself that the movie becomes a crazy misogynistic tale, though the roles are reversed briefly. Still, got to give Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg kudos for being courageous enough to try something like this.

3. Terminator Salvation

Dir. McG

Pure, pure shit. The worst of the Terminator films. Shit blows up, things happen, and Christian Bale is probably in one of his worst roles as John Connor. Mr. Avatar Sam Worthington shows up here as a robot thing, but the movie is dramatically empty, and the story is pointless. I hope there won't be too many more of these.

2. Gamer

Dir. Neveldine/Taylor

Another film that takes flashy coolness of substance, Gamer tries to have a cool message about corporations in the evil future and selling your body for money and blah blah blah, but really it's brainless thrill ride, with not thrills. Michael C. Hall is pretty awesome, and Gerard Butler is terrible as always. It must be in his contract to star in shitty movies.

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Dir. Michael Bay

Really, I have wasted enough breath on this movie. Definitely one of the worst pieces of shit I have ever seen. Mindless, racist, offensive, it violates every rule of the make a good movie book. I won't be back for Transformers 3, thank you very much.

AND THAT'S IT! 2010 awaits with more interesting, exciting movies. I can't wait to see everything that is in store for us this year, and to kick off a whole new decade! LET THE MOVIES COMMENCE!

67th Golden Globes Predictions

Ah, it's officially that time of year: Awards Season. And with the Golden Globes officially slated for the Sunday after next (the 17th), I'm just giddy with making predictions. 'Tis the season to start selecting SAG, DGA, PGA, and WGA awards, until we reach the big kahuna, the Oscars.

So why I am releasing predictions 10 days before the televised event? Well, I don't really care about the Golden Globes, and I care less about who wins. I mean, c'mon, Nine, one of the worst reviewed movies of the year, is up for multiple awards, and Sandra Bullock is up for Best Actress in a Comedy for The Proposal. I hardly take the Globes very seriously (then again, I shouldn't take the Oscars so seriously, but I do). So, why not release my predictions? Here they are, along with my rationale.

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

Prediction: John Lithgow for Dexter

Why: This is honestly one of the few categories where I have a lot of interest in who wins. Anyone who saw the most recent season of Dexter will agree that Lithgow turned in one of the most chilling and deranged performances as the Trinity killer. Michael Emerson won the Emmy for Lost and is also really good, but I'm really pulling for Lithgow. Dexter has won too few awards at this point and needs some recognition.

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

Prediction: Jane Lynch - Glee

Why: No idea. But Glee is a really popular show, so I'll just pick it. Other prognosticators know better, but I don't.

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

Prediction: Brendan Gleeson - Into the Storm

Why: Again, no reason since I haven't seen any of the nominees, but Brendan Gleeson was awesome in In Bruges, Harry Potter, and Six Shooter so he should win.

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

Prediction: Jessica Lange - Grey Gardens

Why: Grey Gardens has two nominations in this category, and I'll be damned if Drew Barrymore is winning it. Though I haven't seen any noms, so what do I know?

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Prediction: Into the Storm

Why: Brendan Gleeson, woot!

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

Prediction: Alec Baldwin - 30 Rock

Why: HE ALWAYS WINS!

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

Prediction: Lea Michele - Glee

Why: Because Glee is popular. Plus, she has a great voice (starred in Spring Awakening) and did a really good rendition of Defying Gravity. Though Edie Falco is pretty good bet depending on how popular Nurse Jackie is.

Best Television Series - Comedy or Musical

Prediction: 30 Rock

Why: While I keep touting Glee as being popular enough to win other categories, I think 30 Rock is the safe bet since it always wins this award. My personal preference show wise is The Office, but 30 Rock had a better 3rd Season then The Office had of a 5th season. So I got to give it to them.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama

Prediction: Michael C. Hall - Dexter

Why: I've predicted him EVERY time and he loses EVERY time. Theoretically he should win at some point...right?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama

Prediction: January Jones - Mad Men

Why: Mad Men will actually probably win all the Drama categories, so I figure I should pencil it in for one of the three. Though watch, it will be the one category Mad Men doesn't win.

Best Television Series - Drama

Prediction: Dexter

Why: Almost as good as Season 1, and with an ending that made my Dad vow not to watch the show again, Season 4 of Dexter is truly a great run for the show, especially those last four episodes. Probably Mad Men, otherwise.

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

Prediction: "I See You" - Avatar

Why: Far less annoying and memorable then Celine Dion's tune from Titanic, I honestly don't know any of the songs and could care less which one of them wins.

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

Prediction: Karen O and Carter Burwell - Where the Wild Things Are

Why: This score has already been disqualified from the Original Score run at the Oscars, and really is the best of the nominated bunch. James Horner's score is just a retread of everything he's done in the past, though I wouldn't mind Michael Giacchino winning for Up; he is a fantastic and underrated composer. But this should go to Wild Things.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

Prediction: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner - Up in the Air

Why: As far as screenplays go, this one is pretty solid. I'll be damned if Nancy Meyers or Neill Blomkamp is going to win this award, though Tarantino is overdue for his unique style. The Hurt Locker is certainly the best movie of the 5, but Up in the Air looks better on page then The Hurt Locker; that's a movie you need to see, you simply can't read it.

Best Director - Motion Picture

Prediction: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Why: Well, A, this was the best movie of the bunch, but also B, its time a woman won the award, and Bigelow is certainly deserving of it. This wouldn't be a pity prize, and I am fully behind The Hurt Locker going all the way this year in Awards Season. But after over 100 years of movies and 82 years of Academy Awards, its finally time a woman was honored...and it can all start here.

Best Foreign Language Film

Prediction: The White Ribbon

Why: I haven't seen any of the nominees due to their lack of release currently, but The White Ribbon won the Palme D'or (certainly no indicator of awards potential) and automatically becomes my number one choice until I start seeing some of these movies. FYI, Broken Embraces and The Maid have already been released, I just haven't seen them yet.

Best Animated Feature Film

Prediction: Up

Why: I'm shocked Ponyo, easily the best animated film of the year, is missing from this bunch, and I'm going with Pixar because they are the safe bet. But I smell a Fantastic Mr. Fox upset, which I would be fine with. Pixar has won their fair share, though I still favor Up over Wes Anderson's whimsical tale. Special note should to the fact this is the first time five animated films have been nominated, due to an abundance of the style this year.

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

Prediction: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Why: Similar to Heath Ledger last year, Waltz picked up Oscar buzz during the film's summer release and has held on strong into awards season. Of course another of the nominees could win due the sheer boredom of handing out Supporting Actor to a villain every time, but Waltz's performance is so chilling that you have to surrender to its sheer awesomeness.

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

Prediction: Mo'nique - Precious

Why: The performance is great, though it is award-bait as well. But she is going to be the powerhouse to be reckoned with this season, unless one of the Up in the Air ladies pulls through.

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

Prediction: Matt Damon - The Informant!

Why: I missed this movie while it was in theaters, but none of the nominees particularly stand out as strong candidates for this award. Daniel Day-Lewis could win simply because he's Daniel Day-Lewis, and Michael Stuhlbarg of A Serious Man could pull through as well. But honestly I'm flummoxed here and will go with what looked like a strong performance.

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

Prediction: Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Why: She's nominated twice (also for It's Complicated) so she should win either for either performance, though I think her show as Julia Child will be most popular. The other three or just so unlikely (Julia Roberts, Marion Cotillard, and Sandra Bullock) that this is probably one of the only categories I'm certain of.

Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical

Prediction: (500) Days of Summer

Why: It won't win, this I am really sure of, but I have no idea which of the nominees could win, and so I am left with my favorite movie of the two I saw in this category. The Hangover would be a shocker, so I highly doubt that, and can only really see Julie & Julia being a strong contender, along with Nine. I'd be fine if Summer or J/J won, but if the other three win (It's Complicated is the last nomination) the eck.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Prediction: George Clooney - Up in the Air

Why: Jeremy Renner was shockingly not nominated here, and would be my first choice otherwise. Clooney has been gathering a small storm of praise and seems like a safe and likely choice, though Colin Firth and Jeff Bridges for A Single Man and Crazy Heart (both currently unseen by me), respectively seem to be power house performances ready to erupt into awards frenzy. Tobey Maguire is the real wtf here, and I'll just pretend that Jeremy Renner's version of military machismo is nominated.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Prediction: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Why: This category is going to be a massive battle between Carey Mulligan and Gabourey "Gabby" Sidibe. I'm not sure where the Hollywood Foreign Press' tastes lie, but Sidibe gives the more obvious "courageous" performance, though Mulligan is required to build a character more. I'm torn between the two and would be happy if either won, but I think this is going to be Gabby's year, and then we'll never hear from her again (Jennifer Hudson anyone?), whereas Mulligan will probably continue to build her charm and roles.

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Why: Having seen all the nominees and liking or loving all of them, I can rightly say this is the strongest category in the entire show. I could see any of these movies winning, honestly, for various reasons. When it comes to Oscar I pick what I think will win, but since this is the Globes and I don't care, I'll pick what I think should win. Up in the Air seems like a very good second place or alternate winner, though if Avatar is going to start rearing its head this is where it will happen. But I hope Bigelow's war epic sweeps the season, and this is the place to start.

If you live in ET/CT then tune in for a live broadcast of the Globes! Otherwise us West Coasters will just get the winners as they are posted online and then watch the Awards show ignorant of what is going to happen.

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans (2009)

Movies have a way of sneaking up and surprising you from time to time, you just never know when they are going to do it or when. Werner Herzog, the helmer of this remake of the 1992 film Martin Scorsese named as one of the ten best of the that decade, is definitely a reputable source for something unexpected.

Bad Lieutenant takes the bad cop formula and then ramps it up to the extreme. Nicolas Cage, who delivers my favorite leading actor performance this year, plays Terence McDonaugh, a good cop who suffers a back injury and is promoted to lieutenant (though based on the opening I wouldn't say he is all good). The movie chronicles his slow descent into madness, as he picks up a coke addiction, gambles endlessly, and cuts off one of his girlfriend's (Eva Mendes) most powerful clients (she is a prostitute, and he is ok with that).

There is also a plot tying everything together about the murder of a whole family, and McDonaugh's search for the killer. But this movie isn't about plot as it is about McDonaugh and his depravity. Near the opening, he lurks outside a club and pulls over an unsuspecting couple; he frisks them for drugs, then takes what he finds and rapes the guy's girlfriend right in front of him (though she goes willingly).

Such a character sounds unlikable and he really is an unlikeable person. But Cage is so electrifying in his performance of this corrupted man that you actually root for him as the bad shit piles on higher and higher. Herzog is known for his character studies (most notably the middling Strozek), and this definitely fits the bill. This performance could have easily been a caricature, but Cage instead fully embodies and believes in this role, and so do we.

The supporting actors are also really good, most notably Eva Mendes as the prostitute girlfriend. She is equal parts sexy and broken on the inside, and never once seems to be overselling her character. The same goes for rapper and Pimp My Ride host Xzibit as a drug kingpin, who has one of the most crazed car rides in recent memory.

The film will be noted for other unique elements that come into play; Herzog holds the camera on the gaze of reptiles, a crocodile and some infamous iguanas. Both shots inspire laughs, for different reasons, but both keep you magnetized to this lizards. And the iguanas will become a part of the film snob vernacular, as I fear far to few people will get to see this movie due to its limited release. But those iguanas, and a dancing soul, add to McDonaugh's crazed reality and hallucinations, whether that is due the medication, cocaine, or the mixture is irrelevant.

If you have the opportunity to see this movie, do it. I command you. It reaches a level of depravity I hadn't thought possible in a film portraying a "bad" cop; Dirty Harry would blush in this guy's presence. Let it be known to the world that Nicolas Cage's performance in this film is going to be the single unsung masterstroke of the year.

Avatar (2009)

It's nice to know that in this world there are still filmmakers who know how to make a solid action movie. Who know that an action movie isn't really about the action at all, but about the characters who carry out the actions. That Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) become completely identifiable and sympathetic in this movie is one of the only real reasons it works.

The film that took 12 years for Cameron to bring to us, Avatar, has certainly been analyzed as a Dances with Wolves, Smurfs, and Ferngully hybrid, and if you like boiling movie's plots down to essentially what they resemble, then this a fair assessment. But Cameron's picture succeeds because it takes what could have been a very silly story, and makes it believable. Sure, this movie is ridden with clichés, and every moment is predictable, but Cameron spends so much time painting the world of the Na'vi and their indigenous land that you fall for them as Jake Sully does.

The movie takes place some odd years in the future (it is never said, though keen eyed people probably picked up on the dates on video diary screens), where the natives of the planet Pandora reside upon a mineral source that is worth lots of money. So, naturally, corporate fat cats want to buy the land from the people and mine the shit out of that stuff. Problem is, the natives won't budge.

Sully is a paraplegic, and is assigned to Pandora when his brother is killed. A rather expensive avatar (Na'vi look-a-likes) was made for him, and since Sully shares the same Genome, he is the perfect money and time saving candidate for the job. Soon, he inhabits the Na'Vi's body and goes to learn about their people.

A lot of the characters in this movie are more caricature then character; Stephen Lang plays the evil Colonel, though really he is just doing his job. Giovanni Ribisi is the above mentioned fat cat, and Michelle Rodriguez plays the only soldier with enough of a conscious to decide killing innocent blue people is wrong. And on the Na'vi side there are the old, wise clan leaders and the hot head warrior that challenges the outsider.

But the movie stands above most other genre pictures because it marvels at the scenery and beauty that is surrounding them. 60% of the film is CGI, 40% live action, and you really can't tell the difference most of the time from scene to scene. The settings, the small creatures, and plants, trees and textures are so pain-stakingly detailed that they absorb you. The world of Pandora is unfolded to us as it is to Sully, and never overloads you with information.

I was skeptical of this movie, but by the time Sully tames a pterydactol thingy and flies through the air, I was sold on the movie and completely exhilarated. At that point, my brain took a backseat and I just drowned in the imagery and action at the end. I fought and fought the movie, and the movie deservedly one.

Maybe most surprising about this film is how patient it is. This is not an action heavy movie; there are few scenes at the beginning when local wildlife attack the naive Sully. But the Colonel doesn't roll out the artillery until the end, and the final action sequence is so epic it makes up for the "lack" of action and shooting earlier. Really, that is so rare for a movie these days to actually make its audience wait for the big battle at the end.

What's even more remarkable is that this movie is a blockbuster hit now, and is not based on anything concrete. Obviously it is an update of our genocide on the Native Americans way back when, but there is no comic book, novel, or anything else that this was based on. All the characters came from Cameron and his crew, and originality like that is about near impossible to find in Hollywood. Of course, the script could have been injected with a shot of originality too, but the creatures make up for that.

A note on the 3D in this picture: it is quite unlike what I have seen before. It doesn't call attention to itself and make things pop out of the screen to hit you. Instead, it just amplifies the scenery and creates more depth to what is going on. I've become less of a fan of 3D in the past year due to the insane amount of films that come out in the format, but here, the 3D doesn't drive the movie, it only serves to enhance everything. That being said, I also saw this in IMAX, and was quite confused as to why the image didn't fill the screen; I expected bars on top and bottom, but there were also pillars on the sides, so the image didn't stretch across the whole screen. Was it like that at other IMAXes? (and I mean real IMAX, not bullshit new IMAX).

This movie has set the bar pretty high in terms of photorealistic CGI; I've never seen anything so convincing, and wonder when the time will come that a whole movie will be created that is completely CGI, without actors (just voices), that is totally convincing. I honestly hope this never happens; CGI can't replace flesh, and Cameron wisely keeps the real actors in live action scenes instead of replacing them. Cameron and Peter Jackson know that CGI should only be used to enhance your movie, not drive it, and filmmakers like Michael Bay and George Lucas believe that computers can do everything.

I hope Cameron doesn't take another 12 years to make another movie; though he knows how to utilize CGI, he also lets the script for the most part take a back seat to it. But this is a smart movie; it doesn't say anything new, but it reiterates what we know, and there is a certain poignancy in watching a line of humans being marched onto a space ship and sent back home, defeated, in the end. "They killed their mother," one spiritually in-touch character says. It's a kick-in-the-pants reminder that we can't continue winning forever, and that eventually, the human race will lose.

Dexter: Season 4 (2009)

Warning: This review spoils content on the TV show Dexter, from Season 1 through most of 4. Please stop reading if you are not caught up on this show.

Boy, what a season of Dexter this was. After the past season's admittedly lame Miguel Prado storyline, in which Dexter tried to create a partner and was usurped by the man's utter lack of control, we get a return to the formula that I surmised was going to define the show from Season One: Dexter hunts another major serial killer. The Ice Truck Killer, a.k.a Dexter's brother Brian Moser, was Season One's big one, but otherwise there hasn't been anything of interest. Season Two shook up the formula before it was established by having Dexter himself be the hunted. And the Skinner, from Season Three, stayed in the shadows most of the time, only revealing himself at the end in a kind of lame twist on what was expected.

But that brings us to Season Four, and the decision to invent the creepiest, most effective fictional serial killer on Dexter: Trinity (John Lithgow, in an amazing performance). His cold, calculated method of three kills, one bathtub murder of a young woman, one forced suicide of a mother of two, and one bludgeoning of a father of two is a great little system. But more fascinating then the method of the serial killer is the performance by Lithgow. But more on that later.

Season Four began with Dexter dealing with his new life: father of three, married man, full time job, yet still trying to satisfy that Dark Passenger we've come to know so well (and who has been embodied by Dexter's dead foster father, Harry Morgan (James Remar)). The first two episodes alone provided some nail biters, as Dexter flubs a kill and tries to retrace his steps.

Briefly back on the scene was FBI Special Agent Frank Lundy (Keith Carradine), retired, hunting the Trinity killer because the FBI for some reason thought that the best serial killer hunter was off his rockers. Right. Regardless, it provides this season with an exciting villain, and after Lundy is offed in front of Deb (Jennifer Carpenter), and Deb herself is harmed, it leads Dexter to hunt Trinity as the suspected killer.

The show, in its first half, is fairly routine for Dexter: he repeatedly juggles family and work and killing, and slowly unveils the Trinity's identity, a.k.a. Arthur Mitchell, Christian, family man. There's a particularly annoying, but thematic subplot involving Angel Bastita (David Zayas) and LaGuerta's (Lauren Vélez) office romance. And Deb's search through her father's old CI files, while paying off in the end, takes a bit of time to get going.

But the show really takes off with the character of Arthur Mitchell. Dexter's discovery that he has a happy family (much like Dexter himself), using them as a cloak. Here, the show repeats the third season in several places, with Dexter seeking knowledge from Trinity, learning to hide himself in plain sight instead of in his very awesome apartment. This is in contrast of him seeking a friend in Miguel Prado last season. Differing, but similar storylines. That, and a repeat of Dexter killing an innocent man was leading this season towards redundant hell.

But lo and behold, in the show's Thanksgiving episode "Hungry Man," Dexter witnesses Trinity's true persona in front of his family, and the constant state of terror they live in. It was with this episode that the season really took flight, and in the last four episodes, cemented the season as, in my opinion, the second best of the show's current four seasons (Season 1 being first, 2 and 3 after).

John Lithgow is terrifying, terrific, and many other "t" adjectives. He brings life and humanity, as well as a monstrous side to the character of Arthur Mitchell, and is believable for every moment of the show, down to the end. Few actors have stood out as much as Lithgow does here, and I hope he is honored in many an awards show to come. He rightly deserves it.

But what officially cements the show is its ending. Season Two and Season Three ended on happy notes: Dexter frames someone else for his crimes, Dexter gets married. What made Season One so terrific was it ended leaving you wanting more; Dexter kills his brother, Doakes begins tailing him, and his then-girlfrend finds out her jailbird ex is telling the truth about Dexter. And this season delivers in a poignant, half-expected yet still totally surprising and devastating moment that leaves you waiting for the next season. Where Dexter will go from here is hard to say, but one knows it will be completely different from the show we've come to love these past four years. It really creates overarching themes for the whole season: it is about Dexter seeking a new life, it is about how Dexter's recklessness cost him, it is about how life is unfair. I eagerly await September 2010 with baited breath.

Up in the Air (2009)

No matter how much you try, no matter how hard you push, it is almost impossible to separate yourself from people in this day and age, where cellphones, the Internet, and everything keeps us in constant communication with people in the next room to people in Australia. Most people like solitude sometimes; it is nice to break away from the crowd and spend a day alone, with your own thoughts to keep you company. And some people can't stand the idea of not being with someone 24/7.

Up in the Air's protagonist, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) seeks solitude doing the two things that most of us dread: air travel and firing people. He works for a company which loans out its employees to corporations to fire people whose boss' just don't have the balls to do it themselves. This job isolates Ryan from people because frankly, the person who fires you is the person you hate for the rest of your life. And yet, he stays detached from human emotions, from most connections that aren't personal. Everything is business.

Ryan teaches seminars that are vague but seem to focus on what you can fit in your backpack. You start with the little things and move on up until you are stuffing your house into the backpack. His point is that you can't move, you can't take all of that with you, and that these connections are just things that tie you down. Quite a pessimistic message.

Ryan's company is shaken up when a sexy young lady fresh from Cornell, Natalie (Anna Kendrick) suggests that Internet video is a far cheaper and more efficient way of firing people then flying a bunch of people all over the country. Ryan also hooks up with another woman like him (Vera Farmiga), and learns that maybe he's ready to make a connection.

This is the third movie directed by Jason Reitman, the other two being the hipster Juno (2007) and hilarious Thank You For Smoking (2005). Up in the Air is a quieter film then those two, mainly because it doesn't deal as heavily in the comedy realm as those two films did. Smokingis a satire, and while Air and Smoking share the same basic idea (men who work in positions the rest of us find unsavory), they are both completely different.

Zach Galifianakis and J.K. Simmons both show up briefly as two of the many that get fired in this movie. Galifianakis goes nuts while Simmons questions what he is supposed to tell his kids, and what he is to do next. I actually wonder how many Americans will respond to this movie: to those who have been laid off in the last year or two, Ryan will be a villain, and some may find it hard to identify with them when they are sympathizing with the people getting fired.

The movie also has a message about life in general, about how nothing is planned and we are disappointed frequently. Natalie lists to Ryan and Alex (Farmiga) her perfect man, down to the last, exact detail. Alex, 15 years Natalie's senior, responds that you are happy with what you get, and that even balding men aren't as much of a turn off. Organization isn't key to life's happiness, and you shouldn't feel like a failure if you don't achieve all your goals.

Up in the Air is both a figurative and literal title for the movie. Clooney spends much of his time flying around, but his life is also adrift, flying about with no definite place to land. The only things certain in his life is that he will fire someone, and he will continue towards the ultimate goal he has, to achieve 10,000,000 frequent flyer miles. But the title also refers to the state someone is in after they lose their job: their financial security, their job, everything that was sound is suddenly shaken loose, and they are left up in the air.

I had the pleasure of hearing Jason Reitman give a lecture and a Q&A on the movie soon after I saw it, and one of the things he talked about was how much he is like the Ryan Bingham, insofar as their thoughts on air travel. Air travel is a place where you are completely isolated from your current world and can escape into your mind, or have conversations with people you would have never had a conversation with. And while I suspect Reitman isn't feeling the pinch of the economic climate as much as other Americans, he is connected with people who are. Stay through the end credits to hear a truly sad song that either inspired the movie's title or is based on it (I doubt the former since the film is based on a 2001 novel by the same name).

The movie is smart, but I fear its appeal will not be widespread. Some may not like it because it won't be as funny as they are expecting it to be, and some won't like it because Clooney plays a man that most Americans despise. And I feel I got everything I could out of one sitting through this movie, and wonder if anything else new will be revealed upon a second viewing. Somehow I doubt it. But this is still a solid movie, in fact, it is my favorite Jason Reitman movie to date. It's not as funny as his other two films, but it smartly balances several messages and conveys them all without ever getting heavy handed or preachy.

The Road (2009)

We have always been obsessed with the idea that the world could end at any day, for any reason. But there has been a recent surge of movies all showing the apocalypse, which many feel is near at hand in the year 2012. A movie by Roland Emmerich has been made, detailing the earth's end as being a big special effects extravaganza. That is the most notable, but there are others that exist in a world where humans don't exist.

The Road is a movie about what happens after the world ends. Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee play an unnamed father and son roaming a desolate America. Something wiped out humanity as we know it, and now the pair live in fear, scrounging whatever food they can find, and hiding from people who have turned into cannibals. In a way, its a clever way of illustrating real zombies, yet these people don't lumber around, they prowl.

The movie is based on a Cormac McCarthy novel, read by me, and a novel that stands above the movie. I have read McCarthy's other adapted work, No Country For Old Men and I can say the movie stands above the book. This movie is directed by John Hillcoat, who directed The Proposition (2005) a while back. He is a good director, but he is not a great one.

The movie inhabits a metallic palette, and beautifully conveys the look of this post-apocalypse America. Mt. St. Helen's is beautifully utilized, as the pair stumble across a lake full of trees (Spirit Lake) and dead, barren trees (any tree with a close radius of the mountain). Hillcoat does a good job of using actual locations, and color grading the look, rather then going into a studio and creating the backgrounds with green screen.

Charlize Theron is featured as the Man's wife, in flashbacks of vibrant color, reminding us of a life lived long ago. She leaves, leaving the man and son to fend for themselves, but whenever the man falls into a slumber he dreams of times with her. Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce make key appearances in the film, and Garret Dillahunt makes a fantastically effective villain.

And the performance by Mortensen is a strong, courageous one. Mortensen always seem to inject humanity into any character he plays, whether it be the doubtful King of Middle Earth, a small town killer, or Russian mobster. He is a fine actor. Smit-McPhee, who plays his son, is good for what is asked of him, but isn't astounding. He wears his emotions rather then embodies them, but by the end you can help but sympathize with his predicament.

However, despite all these good aspects, there is are major shortcomings: it isn't grim enough. The movie is really pretty good, but through its pacing, its editing, and its overall style, it doesn't quite get depressing enough. It moves quickly, and in a scene where the Man and Boy encounter a particularly grim cellar, there is no sense of shock, instead only of disgust. The movie doesn't resonate.

And the movie changes the novel's original end slightly, tacking on an extra bit of information that doesn't make any sense and is supposed to leave the audience with more hope then the book. Maybe this is the overall problem, the ending, but I remember feeling throughout the movie, "There needs to be more woe, more sorrow." Maybe Mortensen and his kid are too emotional and not somber enough, which is how I pictured the man's character anyway.

This movie is proof that an almost entirely faithful adaptation isn't the same thing as...adaptation. Adaptation is the process of change, but here the book is the shooting script. The source material must be respected, but does not have to be literally translated. You can never compare two different sources together, but you can contrast what makes them different. McCarthy's stark passages are very visual, but keep a third person perspective in the novel. In the movie, the man narrates, and I feel that was one of the unwise changes, though it works.

I encourage any moviegoer to seek this out over 2012 (2009) however. That movies looks like pure idiocy, spectacle, and no thought whatsoever. At least The Road has a vision, but it is the shadow of a movie that could have been great.

A Serious Man (2009)

Dark is a word you could use to describe this film; cynical is another. Comedic, maybe. They are all appropriate expressions of probably what is the Coen's most curious recent work to date. It's not fanciful like Raising Arizona (1987) or The Big Lebowski (1998), but its less cynical then No Country For Old Men (2007) and less comedic then Fargo (1996).

The movie is, at its bare bones, an adaptation of the Book of Job, and if you don't know that story, read it and find out what horrible things God will do to you to make you prove your fate. Much the same happens here, as Larry Gobnik's (Michael Stuhlbarg) life begins to spiral out of control, beginning with his wife asking for a divorce, and the incessant arrogance of everyone around him. He seeks help from three rabbis, who offer some interesting, but useless, insight.

You'll leave the movie with mixed emotions on it, I guarantee it, but this movie is meticulously and somewhat ingeniously constructed so that a single viewing, I think, may not be enough to really take in and understand all the movie has to offer and is trying to say. Most of the Coen's movies are about people who get in bad situations and things deteriorate until it ends badly for them. In Fargo, Jerry Lundegaard (a decidedly unsympathetic character) sinks deeper and deeper into a quagmire of his ransom, and in No Country For Old Men (2007), Llewelyn Moss continues playing his cat-and-mouse game with the unstoppable Anton Chigurh.

Here, however, is a man who you assume has done the best with his life and who really doesn't deserve to undergo the unraveling chaos his life is hurled into. Larry is the kind of man who doesn't stand up for himself, who lets others wash over him, as his wife begins discussing marrying an older man, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). Sy is the kind of man much akin to Peter Sarsgaard's character in An Education (2009); though not good looking, he is charming and reassuring, while being a complete slimebag underneath it all.

You almost forget there is a ten-minute opening sequence which tells the story of a Jewish man and his wife on a cold winter night encounter what she believes to be a Dybbuk, which, Wikipedia helpfully explains, is a soul that possesses someone's body, a soul that did not fulfill their life's purpose. Though the question is left unanswered: was this man really a Dybbuk?

I will not pretend to know what the opening is supposed to mean, but I have my theory: it lays out the rest of the movie to come, and the movie's eventual sudden ending. But maybe I'm completely off base on this one, and will delve into the many theories other's may have on IMDb or other message boards (sometimes IMDb message boards can be enlightening, sometimes they can be a sad example of what our country has come to).

The technical aspects of this movie are superb, from Roger Deakins' Cinematography to Roderick Jaynes' editing. The movie constructs a few terrific intercut sequences, paralleling either a doctor check-up and a Yiddish lesson, or two simultaneous car crashes, to the movie's powerful and sudden ending.

I really look forward to seeing this movie again. I think it is a fair step up from Joel & Ethan's previous venture, Burn After Reading (2008) which I feel is just an excuse for a slideshow of big stars to be in the same movie, doing ridiculous things. No, this movie is not gut-bustingly funny, but it lingers with you, and is a movie you will enjoy discussing and pondering. I really look forward to seeing it again.

Antichrist (2009)

I have only seen one other film by Lars von Trier, and that was Dancer in the Dark (2000) starring Björk. Dogville (2003) is the next movie I'm going to take on of his, but there seems to be a recurring theme or whatever of crazy women in his movies. Though Björk was a tragic figure, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is fucking insane.

The movie is divided into six sections, an Epilogue and Prologue which are beautifully shot in black and white and underscored with a Handel aria, and then four chapters, Grief, Pain, Despair, and the Three Beggars. What these segments all mean is pretty obvious, by the end anyways, and make the film more or less ambiguous, depending on who you are.

But let me rewind and tell you what the movie is about. Simply, it opens with He (Willem Dafoe) and She having graphic sex while their son decides it is pertinent to jump out a second-or-third story window, which leads to his death. She goes nuts, unable to cope with the guilt that she could have prevented this death and did nothing. He is a therapist of some kind, and decides that her fears lie in Eden, a place in woods where they go.

The film's prologue and first two chapters are actually pretty good, I guess. The film rarely dips into a lot of graphic nature in the first half, save a wolf and deer, and sex, but is an interesting avant-garde therapist movie. Her feet burn in the forest, He makes Her walk between stones, and good ol' therapy sessions abound. This stuff isn't very riveting either, though.

The second half is more riveting, and a lot worse then the first half. She goes nuts, attacks Him, and everything spirals out of control. Chaos Reigns, as the cute fox says at the conclusion of Chapter 2, and indeed it does here. The movie is needlessly graphic, and while I was cringing during certain genital mutilation scenes, it never effected my in the way I think it wanted to. Hearing all the critic's reactions from its Cannes and subsequent screenings, I was expecting something that would rock me to my core, leave me traumatized, and effect me in some way.

The movie gets kudos, overall, for its cinematography (Anthony Dod Mantle) and the courageous lead performances by Dafoe and Gainsbourg. This movie gets worse in my mind as time goes on, but I cannot deny that they gave great performances. Sadly, it was in a movie that is much more boring then it would like you to think. It wants you to think it is brave, bold, daring, and exploring deep themes, when really it can be summed up as one of the ultimate anti-feminist films of all time.

It's amazing that I have to sum this movie up as overall being very...boring. All the problems in the film come from von Trier himself, and while I commend him for going out and trying something different, I reprimand him for not having any clear ideas about what he was trying to achieve. The significance of Eden is so painfully obvious, and the way She parallels the great vixens of mythology, Eve and Pandora, is ridiculous.

The reason I saw this movie in the first place was because it divided the general opinion of it. It ended up on a film critic poll as one of the Best and Worst movies at Cannes. How do you not see that movie? I won't discourage the truly curious to not go see it; you should seek it to at least experience it for yourself and decide where you stand. But to everyone else, who has no idea what this movie is, and how no idea what they would be in for, I say, stay as far away as possible.

Not Rated, but it contains several graphic sex scenes, genital mutilation, and animal abuse. Not real animals, animatronics. But still.