Should, Will, and Snubbed: Predictions for the 2012 Academy Awards

Here are my predictions for the 2012 Academy Awards, which take place this Sunday. Should Win is my pick for the best among the nominees. Will Win is who I think the Academy will pick. Snubbed is the best potential nominee that the Academy passed over. I excluded categories where I had not seen enough of the nominees.

Best Picture
"The Artist"
"The Descendants"
"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close"
"Hugo"
"Midnight in Paris"
"The Help"
"Moneyball"
"War Horse"
"The Tree of Life"

Should Win: In a rather underwhelming year for Best Picture nominees, I'd only consider two of them to be great, with a slight preference for fascinating character study and skillfully conceived silent film The Artist, but I'd have no problem with a win for The Descendants.

Will Win: The Artist has won all the major Oscar precursors except for the SAG awards, but that was an ensemble acting win for The Help, which (thankfully) does not have a chance at Best Picture.

Snubbed: Drive was a terrific modern crime thriller with a brilliant artistic vision and iconic performances, but was probably too violent for Academy voters that seemed to be trying to pick the safest group of nominees ever.

Best Actor
Demian Bichir, "A Better Life"
George Clooney, "The Descendants"
Jean Dujardin, "The Artist"
Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
Brad Pitt, "Moneyball"

Should Win: Probably the best category of the year as all five nominees were terrific, but George Clooney gave one of the best performances of his great career as a decent man trying to make sense of a turbulent family situation.

Will Win: Clooney seemed to be the frontrunner here until he was upended at the SAG awards by Jean Dujardin, who later followed that up with a BAFTA victory. Clooney still might win, but it's bad to bet against the SAG.

Snubbed: Ryan Gosling (Drive) says very little, but his quietly mesmerizing presence makes for one of the most memorable film characters in a long time.

Best Actress
Glenn Close, "Albert Nobbs"
Viola Davis, "The Help"
Rooney Mara, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady"
Michelle Williams, "My Week With Marilyn"

Should Win: For the second year in a row, Michelle Williams has given the best performance among the nominated actresses with her wonderful depiction of screen legend Marilyn Monroe.

Will Win: This is a two person race between Streep and Davis. Streep won the Golden Globe and Davis took home the SAG victory. When in doubt go with the SAG, so Viola Davis it is.

Snubbed: Her co-star Melissa McCarthy received far more attention throughout the awards season, but Kristen Wiig gave a performance with much more depth, while managing to be every bit as funny.

Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh, "My Week With Marilyn"
Jonah Hill, "Moneyball"
Nick Nolte, "Warrior"
Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"
Max Von Sydow, "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close"

Should Win: One of the weakest categories here, with two nominees (Nolte, Sydow) that have no business being nominated. Of the rest, Christopher Plummer gives the best performance as a man who didn't start living his life as he wanted until it was nearly over.

Will Win: One of the easiest predictions of the night. Christopher Plummer has won every single major pre-Oscars award.

Snubbed: Albert Brooks (Drive) took a big risk playing against type as a levelheaded gangster with the capability to be ruthless when it is warranted and it paid off as he gave the best performance of his career.

Best Supporting Actress
Berenice Bejo, "The Artist"
Jessica Chastain, "The Help"
Melissa McCarthy, "Bridesmaids"
Janet McTeer, "Albert Nobbs"
Octavia Spencer, "The Help"

Should Win: I thought The Help was a poorly directed film that played up Hollywood's fascination with white people saving minorities, but that's no reflection on the beautiful performances from Octavia Spencer and the rest of the cast.

Will Win: Like Plummer, Octavia Spencer has won every major pre-Oscars award and it would be a major upset if the didn't take home the trophy.

Snubbed: Shailene Woodley (The Descendants) was the year's biggest revelation with a multifaceted performance that matched her legendary co-star every step of the way.

Best Director
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"
Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"

Should Win: Michel Hazanavicus did a brilliant job of capturing the spirit of the silent era, while also crafting a fascinating story about a man's fall from the top of Hollywood to utter despair.

Will Win: DGA winner Michel Hazanavicus is a pretty sure thing as the DGA champ has won the last 8 Best Director Oscars and 57 out of 63 overall.

Snubbed: Every artistic decision made by Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) was perfect, employing a slick visual style that never overshadowed his fascinating characters.

Best Original Screenplay
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
JC Chandor, "Margin Call"
Asghar Farhadi, "A Separation"
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, "Bridesmaids"

Should Win: Bridesmaids was not only completely hilarious, but found surprising depth about human relationships amidst all the outrageous humor.

Will Win: Midnight in Paris was Woody Allen's most lauded film in a long time and he's certain to take home a 4th Oscar for his creative and romantic screenplay.

Snubbed: Sean Durkin's Martha Marcy May Marlene was completely ignored by the Oscars, but it was a stunningly original depiction of a woman haunted by her past.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxton, Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
John Logan, "Hugo"
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon, "The Ides of March"
Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian, "Moneyball"
Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughn, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

Should Win: Aaron Sorkin took Moneyball, a book about intricate baseball statistics and somehow structured it into a compelling underdog story. The Ricardo Rincon trade is one of the year's best individual scenes.

Will Win: Sorkin could very well take home his second consecutive Oscar, but the WGA went with The Descendants and so will I.

Snubbed: Cameron Crowe's wildly underrated We Bought a Zoo once again showcased the writer-director's unique ability to combine humor, sentiment, and wholly original individual moments into a richly rewarding film experience.

Original Score
"The Adventures of Tintin," John Williams
"The Artist," Ludovic Bource
"Hugo," Howard Shore
"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," Alberto Iglesias
"War Horse," John Williams

Should Win:  The Artist
Will Win: The Artist
Snubbed: We Bought a Zoo

Best Original Song
"Man or Muppet," The Muppets; Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
"Real in Rio," Rio; Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown, Lyric by Siedah Garrett

Will Win: "Man or Muppet", The Muppets
Should Win: "Man or Muppet", The Muppets
 Snubbed: "Pictures in My Head", The Muppets

Best Achievement in Art Direction
"The Artist"
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
"Hugo"
"Midnight in Paris"
"War Horse"

Should Win: Hugo
Will Win: Hugo
Snubbed: The Muppets

Best Achievement in Cinematography
"The Artist"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"The Tree of Life"
"War Horse"

Should Win: The Tree of Life
Will Win: The Tree of Life
Snubbed: Drive

Best Achievement in Film Editing
"The Artist"
"The Descendants"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"Moneyball"

Should Win: The Artist
Will Win: The Artist
Snubbed: Drive

Best Achievement in Makeup
"Albert Nobbs"
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
"The Iron Lady"

Should Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Will Win: The Iron Lady
Snubbed: X-Men: First Class

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
"Drive"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"
"War Horse"

Should Win: Drive
Will Win: Hugo
Snubbed: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"Moneyball"
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"
"War Horse"

Should Win: Hugo
Will Win: Hugo
Snubbed: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"
"Hugo"
"Real Steel"
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes"
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

Should Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Will Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Snubbed: X-Men: First Class

Tuesday Top 10: The 10 Worst Oscar Decisions

This is a new feature for my blog. Every Tuesday, I'll post a top 10 list about some random movie topic (Best Romantic Comedies, Worst Sequels, etc.). Inspired by the upcoming Oscars, the first entry in this series will be the 10 Worst Oscar decisions ever.

I came up with some criteria for what I would include here. I'm only counting decisions where I saw both the winner and the film that was snubbed as it wouldn't be fair to assume something shouldn't have won just because it beat something great. I'm also not talking about nomination snubs. This is simply the worst decision among films or performers that were actually nominated. Having said that, here is the list...

#10. 1994, Lead Actor - Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump) over Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption)

I actually often find myself as a defender of both Forrest Gump and Tom Hanks performance in it. I think it's a funny and often moving story punctuated by the genius visual creativity of Robert Zemeckis. Hanks performance is more nuanced and multidimensional than people give it credit for. So the reason I chose this entry at #10 has less to do with Hanks being undeserving and more to do with how incredibly amazing Freeman was in Shawshank. Freeman, who had yet to win an Oscar, gave one of the most moving and complex performances of the decade, yet would have to wait 10 years before finally winning his first Oscar for Million Dollar Baby.

#9. 1931, Lead Actress - Helen Hayes (The Sin of Madelon Claudet) over Marie Dressler (Emma)

One of the earliest examples of the Academy rewarding shameless overacting, and it certainly won't be the last to make this list. Helen Hayes was the most beloved stage performer of her time, known as the "First Lady of the American Theater". However, her film performances leave alot to be desired. This was actually her film debut and she played a single mother going to desperate lengths (such as prostitution) to provide for her son. What may have worked wonderfully in the theater comes across as incredibly hammy and ridiculous on screen. Marie Dressler's (who had won the previous year) performance in Emma wasn't her best, but it was still a nice bit of character acting and far more deserving of the win.

#8. 1998, Best Picture - Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan

Despite making my top 10, this is often considered a bigger injustice than it really deserves. Shakespeare in Love is a very good period comedy whose only flaw is a weak leading performance from Joseph Fiennes. What really hurts the film's perception in the eyes of many is the manner in which it won. Miramax poured tons of money in a marketing campaign aimed at Oscar voters, hoping to tip the scales in their favor and it worked. Having said that, this is a very bad choice by the Academy even ignoring the marketing campaign. Saving Private Ryan was a masterful examination of bravery, cowardice and sacrifice in war. As good a movie as Shakespeare in Love is, it doesn't hold a candle to Spielberg's masterpiece.

#7. 2000, Lead Actor - Russell Crowe (Gladiator) over Tom Hanks (Cast Away)

In a reversal from my #10 choice, it is Hanks who was robbed this time. Russell Crowe is a terrific actor and there is nothing wrong with his performance in Gladiator. However, there's nothing especially great about it either. He gives a gives a good, strong physical performance, but it pales in comparison the dynamic portrayals he gave in films like LA Confidential and The Insider. His win here would be like giving Liam Neeson the Oscar for Taken. Meanwhile, Hanks gave the best performance of his career in Cast Away. It was an incredible accomplishment, completely carrying the film by himself for almost the entire running time and making you believe he cared deeply for a volleyball.

#6. 1971, Best Picture - The French Connection over A Clockwork Orange and The Last Picture Show

This is probably a case of a film not aging well at all. The French Connection is a mostly dull (except for the memorable chase scene at the end) cop drama with decent performances. Not sure what the Academy saw in this film, but they really missed the ball by passing over two classics in Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show and Kubrick's A clockwork Orange, wildly different films that are both extremely memorable in their own ways. The French Connection can't even compare to a fellow cop drama from the same year - Dirty Harry, which has aged better and had much more influence over the years.

#5. 2009, Original Screenplay - Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker) over Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)

The Hurt Locker was a good film and I have no problem with Kathryn Bigelow's Best Director victory, as she created some stunning and viscerally compelling suspense sequences. However, voters also rewarded the screenplay, which is the very worst part of the film. It severely undermined a great premise about a bomb squad in Iraq by making its main character a crazy cowboy who violates protocol constantly and rushes into dangerous situations without thinking. It undermines the entire anti-war concept of the film, as the tense situations they find themselves in are the result of the main character's stupidity instead of the natural craziness of war. Meanwhile, Tarantino crafted another brilliantly original film with his mixture of pulp storytelling, broad humor, and fascinating dialogue.

#4. 1981, Best Picture - Chariots of Fire over Atlantic City, On Golden Pond, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Reds

Yep, this is a case where the film that won was worse than all four films that it beat. And the sad thing is it's not even close. When people think Chariots of Fire, they remember the memorable musical score by Vangelis and not much else. That's because there isn't much else to it. It's a dreadfully dry and dull film with awful pacing and no engaging characters. The better choice would've been Spielberg's classic adventure tale Raiders of the Lost Ark, with Louis Malle's fascinating character study Atlantic City close behind. Any of them would've been better than the dreadful and unimaginative Chariots of Fire.

#3. 1927-28, Best Picture - Wings over Sunrise and 7th Heaven

The very first Academy Awards makes an appearance on this list with silent war drama Wings not only being a terrible choice that year, but also one of the worst Best Pictures of all time. When I reviewed it a couple years back, I stated it was what you'd expect if Michael Bay had made movies in 1927. I stand by that today, as the somewhat exciting action scenes are not even close to being enough to overcome the horrible love story. The love story takes up the entire second section of the film in an exceedingly long sequence where Clara Bow tries to sober up the drunk main character so he won't be AWOL. Sunrise was split up into a bizarre Best Picture of Artistic Merit category, which it won. If you exclude Sunrise because of this bizarre decision, then Frank Borzage's beautiful melodrama 7th Heaven still would've been a much better choice. 

#2. 1992, Lead Actor - Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman) over Denzel Washington (Malcolm X)

After being nominated 7 times and losing each and every time, the Academy finally gave an Oscar to Al Pacino for his performance as a blind veteran in Scent of a Woman. Even if we were to exclude his brilliant competitor in the same category, it would've been a ridiculous choice to award Pacino for his repetitive overacting in Scent of a Woman instead of his legendary performances in films like The Godfather, The Godfather 2, and Dog Day Afternoon. And it's especially bad when you consider that he beat Denzel Washington for what truly is one of the most impressive film performances of all time. Denzel literally transformed himself into Malcolm X and gave an intense, multidimensional portrait of the revolutionary civil rights leader.

#1. 2005, Best Picture - Crash over Brokeback Mountain

In some ways, Crash has faced the same problem of Shakespeare in Love and has been unfairly maligned merely for winning when it shouldn't have. I admit to liking (not loving) it when I first saw it in theaters. Some of the individual stories worked really well (especially the Terrence Howard segment), while others are dreadfully simplistic (Sandra Bullock's simplistic and unconvincing transformation). The problem is less that Crash won and more what it beat. Brokeback Mountain was yet another terrific film from the amazing Ang Lee, a beautifully shot and timeless love story with incredible performances (RIP Heath). It has sometimes been dismissed as getting attention only because it was a gay film, but this is a universal love story that is just as compelling as any film about societal pressures keeping a couple apart, such as Remains of the Day or The Age of Innocence. It was the best film of the year and the Academy's decision to pass it over for Crash is the worst Oscar decision ever.

The Woman in Black (James Watkins) **1/2

The haunted house genre has been one of the oldest and most reliable horror conventions. Classics of the genre include Paul Leni's The Cat and the Canary and James Whale's The Old Dark House. The idea lends itself well to creating a spooky atmosphere and lots of opportunities for surprise scares lurking behind any door, painting, or hallway corner. James Watkins' The Woman in Black is certainly not a bad example of the genre and indeed has some pretty good scares, but ultimately does not completely work due to some repetitiveness and a weak third act.

The Woman in Black follows recently widowed young lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe). The death of his wife has seriously affected his life both personally and professionally. His bosses give him one last chance to shape up by traveling to a small village and help settle the estate of a recently deceased woman. He soon finds that nobody in town wants anything to do with that house as they believe it has something to do with a mysterious string of child suicides. Arthur shrugs this off at first, but begins to change his mind after a frightening visit to the house leads to dire consequences.

The film starts off pretty strong, with a creepy opening that sets up a eerie backstory. Director James Watkins does a good job setting up a spooky atmosphere, using fog and dim lighting to great effect. when the film focuses on this, it is a pretty enjoyable ride. The middle section of the film in particular has some great jump-out-of-your-seat moments. Daniel Radcliffe steps out from the Harry Potter series and gives a capable lead performance. His wide eyed everyman appeal is perfect for the lead role.

The problem with the film is it relies too heavily on shock scares set up by something surprising coming from off camera. These big surprises are punctuated with a loud sound effect to make sure the audience knows they're supposed to be scared, like a laugh track on a sitcom. Admittedly, some of the most effective scares in the film come from this device, but the filmmakers go to this well too many times, and it begins to feel repetitive and tedious. The film would have been more effective staying focused on the psychological exploration of the main character. Also problematic is a mostly weak third act featuring a solution that plays out like a less suspenseful episode of Supernatural.

Having said that, the film is competently made and will certainly have strong appeal to fans of the genre. The supporting cast is very strong, showcasing notable vets Janet McTeer, Tom Hardy, and Ciarin Hinds. It's not the film that will completely separate Radcliffe from his famous boy wizard role, but it's a good start. If only Watkins had made up his mind on which movie to make: a psychological ghost story or a B-level shocker. Ultimately, he tries for both and merely ends up with an above average film when it could've been so much more.

Chronicle (Josh Trank) **1/2

It has been 13 years since The Blair Witch Project debuted at Sundance to great fanfare and the "found footage" genre was born. Since then, there have been a number of films utilizing the same format, with notable examples being Cloverfield and the Paranormal Activity series. This genre is not one of my favorites as it generally lends itself to ridiculous explanations for the camera being there and amateurish writing as the writers try to come up with realistic dialogue (a Tarantino found footage film would probably be great), but there are appropriate uses for the format. However, I cannot think of a film that has used this device worse than Chronicle.

Chronicle follows a lonely teenager named Andrew (Dane DeHaan), who has an abusive father and a dying mother. The only friend he has is his cousin Matt (Alex Russell). Andrew decides to start recording everything with a video camera he bought. He takes the camera everywhere he goes, including a party that leads to the discovery of a strange hole in the ground. Andrew, Matt, and popular class president candidate Steve (Michael B. Jordan) explore that hole and come into contact with a strange object, which eventually gives them superpowers.

There is some really good material in here. The main cast all do really strong work and the overall story arc has a pretty compelling appeal to it. The film takes some refreshing twists to the superhero genre. There is no villain and in fact they don't fight crime at all. The story is more about how the powers affect the social status and friendships among the main characters. Andrew's character development is particularly powerful, as he struggles with reining his powers in amidst personal trauma.

This makes it all the more distressing that they trotted out the tired found footage format. This is a story that did not fit that genre at all. The format worked for The Blair Witch Project, because the filmmakers used the limitations to their advantage, correctly realizing that what you can't see is often scarier than what you can see. However, in Chronicle it feels like the filmmakers are laboring to find an excuse for there to be a camera in nearly every single scene. It's a very distracting conceit, even when they finally come up with the idea of having Andrew able to levitate it.

The filmmakers come up with a few ideas to get around this problem. They introduce a romantic interest for Matt, who also just happens to love carrying a camera everywhere she goes. They never really develop her, making it clear that her only purpose was so there could be footage of Matt when Andrew wasn't around. But this should've been a clue that this format would not work for the film. If you have to include footage from multiple cameras (they also use security camera footage) to tell the story, then why not just ditch the found footage idea and tell the story naturally?

Part of the problem, as is usually the case with a gimmick idea in a film, is a lack of confidence in the story. Maybe director Josh Trank and screenwriter Max Landis didn't realize they already had strong material and didn't need to throw in any tricks to make it seem better. If so, they were dead wrong and made a disastrous choice. Not only was the basic story strong with good performances, powerful character development, and exciting action sequences (especially the ending), but all of this would've been so much better without a device that forced the filmmakers to cut corners and strain credibility.

The Grey (Joe Carnahan) ***

The TV ads for The Grey promise an action thriller where Liam Neeson puts on his macho act and faces off against wolves. It was undoubtedly a good marketing campaign as The Grey rocketed out to #1 this past weekend with a $19 million haul. However, those that were going to see a mindless man vs. action film were likely to be disappointed. While The Grey does feature some visceral action moments, the heart of the film is about a guy meditating on life and survival, with wolves just one of several impediments. The end result is a movie far better than the trailers suggest, but perhaps confounding to certain audiences who were expecting something different.

The Grey follows a group of oil drillers who work in a remote region of Alaska. On a trip back home, a plane crash leaves most of them dead, stranding the few survivors in the middle of nowhere during a pretty brutal storm. Surviving the elements is bad enough, but they've also found themselves encroaching on the territory of a pack of wolves. A series of wolf attacks makes them realize they cannot stay in the same location waiting to be rescued. Amidst chaos, confusion, and controversy, a man named Ottway (Neeson) takes leadership of the group as they attempt to make a run for safety.

Wolf attacks aren't as frequent as the trailer might suggest. Much of the film is made up of the group pondering their existence, thinking about those they've left behind for such a dangerous job. Neeson in particular has a pretty powerful arc as a man who at one point was dealing with thoughts of suicide, but now wants nothing more than to survive. In this sense, The Grey actually has as much in common with Cast Away as it does your standard wilderness suspense thriller. It's certainly not as good as that near masterpiece, but the thoughtful way they explore the existence of the characters is unexpected and very refreshing.

This isn't to say that The Grey reneges on delivering the action goods. The plane crash sequence is expertly done, with director Joe Carnahan not showing any exterior shots of the plane (also reminiscent of Cast Away), thus creating a "you are there" effect for the audience. There is a terrifying scene where the group attempts to cross over a massive valley via a rope precariously attached to the tree. Sure, that type of scene is a cliche in wilderness stories, but the execution is spot on here. And the nighttime attacks by the wolves (where you can only see their eyes) are suitably frightening.

One major drawback are the all too frequent flashback moments that give us glimpses of Ottway's wife. So much of the film does a good job of building up a palpable sense of dread based on the hopeless predicament the survivors find themselves in, but it really loses all of that whenever they cut away from the immediate scene. It would've been more effective to confine all of these moments to normal dialogue and indeed that is where the best character moments come from.

Liam Neeson is the star attraction and he's perfectly cast here. He has the charisma to emerge as the leader, plus the range and skill to show the emotional turmoil his character is experiencing. If anything, the film focuses a bit too heavily on him as the other characters don't really get developed enough for us to care about them as much as we do Ottway. Despite that, Carnahan has done an admirable job with the material, providing the audience with good thrill sequences, but never sacrificing the strong development of the main character's psychological state.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (Stephen Daldry) **1/2

Making a film that mentions or utilizes the September 11th attacks is a very tricky prospect. There have been only a handful of films that have managed to find a way to use 9/11 in their plot without seeming contrived or exploitive. United 93 and World Trade Center both told appropriate tales of heroism on that fateful day. 25th Hour was a movie about the heart and soul of New York, so ignoring 9/11 would have been awkward. Unfortunately, Stephen Daldry's latest film uses 9/11 in a calculated and unnecessary attempt to give the story more importance than it really deserves.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is adapted from a novel by Jonathan Safran Foer about a curious nine year old boy named Oskar (Thomas Horn) that may have Asperger syndrome. He had a really close bond with his father (Tom Hanks), who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. One day Oskar discovers a key hidden in a vase in his father's closet. The key is in an envelope that has the name "Black" on it. Believing this to be a clue to some sort of puzzle that his father left for him to figure out, Oskar sets about visiting everyone with the name Black in New York City, while his mother (Sandra Bullock) struggles to reach out to him.

The inclusion of 9/11 in the story is incredibly problematic. As written and played on the screen, the only purpose of having Oskar's father die on 9/11 appears to be giving the story some sort of dramatic heft. The same exact story about a dead father, a boy looking for answers, and a mother trying to reconnect with her son could've been told without this added element, but I fear the filmmakers (or really the book's author) felt it needed something else to signal to people that this story was serious. It seems to come from a place of laziness and lack of confidence in the basic story.

Not only is the inclusion of 9/11 slightly offensive due to its obvious manipulation, but it negatively alters how Daldry tells this story. There are scenes that are just wildly overplayed, many of them involving Oskar yelling while Daldry spins the camera as much as possible to let you know he's there. The problem is that the film would've worked much better as a slightly quirky, low-key drama. The few moments where they do take this approach, the film builds up some real dramatic momentum.

The most affecting moments in the film are the mother-son relationship. Oskar's mother knows that he preferred his dad to her and there's a memorably agonizing scene where they both discuss this. The way this scene is played is in stark contrast to the pseudo importance that inhabits most of the film. Bullock is very good here, much better than in her wildly overrated Oscar winning role in The Blindside. There are other moments here and there that are tremendously moving, including a moment where Oskar plays his father's voice messages for a mysterious older man (Max von Sydow).

So despite the 9/11 issues, the film still could've been at least decent. However, the film wraps up with a ridiculously sappy final 15 minutes that includes a montage where the first shot made me want to throw something at the screen. There are a couple surprises thrown at the audience, one that is not surprising at all and another that is ridiculous and not credible for one second. I'm not sure how this played in book format, but these storytelling choices just don't work in the film. Much has been made of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close's surprise Oscar nomination and that it is the lowest rated Oscar nominee at Rotten Tomatoes. It's neither as bad as the detractors claim or good enough to be nominated for Best Picture. It's just a mediocre disappointment.

Albert Nobbs (Rodrigo Garcia) **

Albert Nobbs arrives as an Oscar bait picture featuring Glenn Close in a gender reversing role that was sure to get her nominated. Close is a terrific actress, one of the most reliable over the last couple decades. That she has failed to win an Oscar out of five previous nominations is certainly unfortunate, but this dull period drama comes across more as a calculated attempt to finally end that streak than a serious attempt to make a film with a compelling story. Also getting in the way is a supporting performance in the same film that completely upstages her every step of the way.

Albert Nobbs (Close) is a woman who has been passing as a man for 30 years. She's done this in order to make a living as a waiter, which has successfully led to her current employment at a quaint English hotel. One day she runs into another woman (Janet McTeer) successfully posing as a man, one who has actually managed to find a wife and live a relatively happy life. This inspires Albert to try and do the same so she sets her sights on Helen (Mia Wasikowska), a maid that works for the same hotel.

There's an interesting story within the world of Albert Nobbs, but it's not one the filmmakers chose to tell. As a main character, Albert is not very compelling. It's a low key performance from Close, but it's almost too low key. All of her emotions are kept so tightly within that it becomes really hard for the audience to have a strong emotional bond with the character. However, the movie comes to life whenever Janet McTeer's character hits the screen. She is complex, dynamic, and completely enthralling. It is one of the best performances of the year. A movie focused on her would've been much, much better.

Thus the problem with the film is that apart from the central conceit, Albert is a very dull character. She is so incredibly introverted that the screenplay often has to resort to a lazy and awkward device of having Albert talk to herself so we know what she's thinking. A voice over technique would've been a much better choice here. Also problematic is that Helen is such a thoroughly unpleasant character, there's little reason for us to want Albert to succeed in her quest, especially since Albert's goals (in stark contrast to the McTeer character) seem to be more about convenience of having a wife than any compelling romantic interest.

One of the mysteries in the film that Albert wants to solve is how and when the McTeer character told her wife. Albert constantly tries to find this out, but is often interrupted. I shared Albert's frustration, because the answer to this question is far more compelling than anything involving Albert's life. There is one time later in the film where Albert explains the reason she chose to dress as a man. It's the best scene Close has in the film and a truly heartbreaking scene, but it comes way too late and nothing surrounding this lives up to that one moment. At some point during the making of this movie, I wonder if anyone stopped and thought that maybe they were making the movie about the wrong person.

Haywire (Steven Soderbergh) ***

It's hard not to like Steven Soderbergh. This is a guy that can make an experimental drama, follow it up with a pure genre film, and back again. What's especially cool is that he brings the same thought and artistry to both. He essentially took a tv-movie idea in Erin Brockovich and made it feel like an offbeat independent film. He made a bank heist film with one of the most star-studded casts in recent memory and it never felt like a big budget Hollywood production. He did a sequel to that film that was even more strange than the original. Now here he is at it again with an exciting action film starring an MMA fighter that contains the same signature touch as his other films.

Haywire exists in an intriguing world of secret operatives. Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) is one of the best, able to take down just about anyone in a fight. She's often called upon to handle unseemly tasks that exist beyond the realm of legality. One particular operation goes really bad, leading to the death of someone she was supposed to protect. The blame is immediately placed on her and she now must go on the run, trying to clear her name and find out who double-crossed her.

Like in many of Soderbergh's films, Haywire a features lots of time shifting between present and past. We first meet Mallory after she's been double-crossed and she quickly learns that even her closest allies are against her. After being attacked at a diner, she runs off with a bystander who tried to help her. We then flashback to earlier operations, leading up to the one where she was framed. There's not much point to this bystander character as his presence never amounts to anything, so he's a pretty odd inclusion to the story.

The real treat here is in the flashback sequences, particularly during an operation where Mallory ends up facing off against fellow operative Paul (Michael Fassbender). The long, extended fight scene between these two is incredibly exciting. This leads to a really fun chase sequence over building rooftops. Soderbergh takes a minimalist approach during these action scenes. He doesn't rely on a blaring score or rapid cuts to try and make things seem exciting, instead counting on his MMA star to deliver the goods.

Carano acquits herself nicely in the lead role. It's not the most deep or complicated performance, but she's never wooden and displays a quietly menacing confidence that suits the character well. The supporting cast is quite good as well, including appearances from the always great Michael Fassbender,  Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, and Channing Tatum. Haywire is a very entertaining film that proves once again that Soderbergh can take pretty much any idea and apply his own unique style with great success.

Top 10 Movie Project: 1933 Year in Review, Top 10, and Awards

For those unfamiliar with my Top 10 Movie Project, the idea came about a couple years ago as a means to catch up on classic cinema on a year by year basis. Each year I pick 20-30 films, including the major ones that are available and other films that pique my interest. At the end of the year, I do an annual wrapup, with reviews of each of the films I watched, come up with a top 10 list and my own version of the Oscars. Then I move on to the next year. I started with 1927, so this will be the 7th year I've completed.

Reviews of each of the films I saw for 1933 can be found here.

1933 proved to be an interesting year because the Hays Code had yet to be enforced, meaning there were some daring roles for women where they completely upended traditional sexual dynamics, such as Design for Living, Baby Face, She Done Him Wrong, and Female (until the ending). The Hays Code would come along the next year and heavily censor films over the next decade based on both sexual and political content. It was in effect until 1968, but stopped being heavily enforced in the late 1940s.

A year earlier, the Quigley Publishing company began compiling lists of the top 10 box office stars in Hollywood based on the polling of theater owners. This sets the stage for one of my favorite old Hollywood stories. Marie Dressler, a popular actress in the silent era, was so close to committing suicide that she was in a diner one night planning how she would do it. By a wonderful twist of fate, director Allan Dwan happened to be in that same diner and recognized her. He immediately cast her in his next film. That was in 1928 and after several years of great success, Dressler had become the biggest box office star in Hollywood, winning the Quigley poll in its first two years of existence. It's a fantastic comeback story and Dressler deserved it as she was a wonderful actress.

The return of John Gilbert is another interesting story from the year. Gilbert was a silent film star and his films with Greta Garbo made them the most popular romantic screen duo of their era. His career floundered with the onset of talkes and the reasons are controversial. Conventional wisdom for a while stipulated that his voice was too high pitched for the sound era, especially for someone who was supposed to be a romantic lead. That theory is strongly contradicted by many film buffs, including a passionate Leonard Maltin, who argue Gilbert's decline had more to do with studio politics. Having seen his reunion with Garbo in this year's Queen Christina, the latter opinion seems most definitely correct as his voice sounds perfect for a male romantic lead.

Some of my favorite directors that have been a staple of this project since the very beginning return this year with more great entries. The great Ernst Lubitsch makes his 6th appearance on my top 10 lists with Design for Living, while Fritz Lang makes his 4th appearance (and 2nd #1) with the wonderful Testament of Dr. Mabuse. The master of romantic melodrama Frank Borzage and future legend Frank Capra (still one year removed from his first notable classic) also make their 4th appearances. It was a pretty good year for films overall, but Hollywood still has not caught up to the quality of the late silent era.

Below is my top 10 list, in reverse order. Instead of including stills like I did in previous years, I've included Youtube links to the trailers of these films. When a trailer wasn't available, I included individual scenes.

10. King Kong (Merian C. Cooper, Ernest P. Shoedsack)

The original hasn't aged well, but still remains a compelling story.

9. Lady For a Day (Frank Capra)

May Robson's Apple Annie is an incredibly endearing character.

8. Counsellor at Law (William Wyler)

John Barrymore in another great character performance.

7. Queen Cristina (Rouben Mamoulian)

Garbo lights up the screen as the legendary Swedish queen.

6. A Man's Castle (Frank Borzage)

Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young in a compelling romance.

5. Little Women (George Cukor)

Katharine Hepburn leads a great ensemble cast in this exquisite adaptation.

 

4. The Private Life of Henry VIII (Alexander Korda)

Charles Laughton in an unforgettable performance as the famous king.

3. Design For Living (Ernst Lubitsch)

Miriam Hopkins, Fredric March, and Gary Cooper in a complicated relationship.

2. Duck Soup (Leo McCarey)

Political satire brings out the best in the Marx Bros.

1. The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (Fritz Lang)

Mabuse's rein of terror continues in this brilliantly suspenseful thriller.

Awards (winners noted with an *)

Director

Frank Borzage, A Man's Castle
George Cukor, Little Women

Alexander Korda, The Private Life of Henry VIII

*Fritz Lang, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Ernst Lubitsch, Design for Living

Lead Actor

John Barrymore, Counsellor at Law

*Charles Laughton, The Private Life of Henry VIII

Fredric March, Design for Living

Spencer Tracy, A Man's Castle

Otto Wernicke, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Lead Actress

Greta Garbo, Queen Christina

Katharine Hepburn, Morning Glory

Miriam Hopkins, Design for Living

May Robson, Lady for a Day

*Mae West, She Done Him Wrong

Supporting Actor

Wallace Beery, Dinner at Eight

Oscar Beregi, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Gustav Diessl, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

*Edward Everett Horton, Design for Living

Rudolf Klein-Rogge, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Supporting Actress

Binnie Barnes, The Private Life of Henry VIII

*Marie Dressler, Dinner at Eight

Glenda Farrell, Lady for a Day

Jean Harlow, Dinner at Eight

Elsa Lanchester, The Private Life of Henry VIII

Original Screenplay

*Duck Soup (Bert Kalmar, Harry Ruby)

King Kong (James Ashmore Creelman, Ruth Rose)

Lady for a Day (Robert Riskin, Damon Runyan)

The Private Life of Henry VIII (Lajos Biro, Arthur Wimperis)

Queen Christina (H.M. Harwood, Salka Viertel)

Adapted Screenplay

Counsellor at Law (Elmer Rice)

*Design for Living (Ben Hecht)

Little Women (Sarah Y. Mason, Victor Heerman)

A Man's Castle (Jo Swerling)

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (Fritz Lang, Thea Von Harbou)

Editing

Counsellor at Law

Design for Living

The Private Life of Henry VIII

*The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Queen Christina

Cinematography

The Bitter Tea of General Yen

King Kong

A Man's Castle

The Private Life of Henry VIII

*The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Art Direction

King Kong

A Man's Castle

The Private Life of Henry VIII

Queen Christina

*The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Costume

Cavalcade

Footlight Parade

Little Women

*The Private Life of Henry VIII

Queen Christina

Visual Effects

The Invisible Man

*King Kong

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

2012 Oscar Nominee Predictions

The Oscar nominees will be announced tomorrow morning. Thus I am continuing my annual ritual of trying to predict the nominees. I did not do so good last year, missing at least one nominee in each category, although I did get 9 of 10 Best Picture nominees correct. This year will be more difficult as the number of Best Picture nominees is not known beforehand. The new rules stipulate a minimum of 5 nominees and a maximum of 10 nominees, depending on how many reach a certain threshold of votes. Alternates are films/people I think have the best chance outside of my top picks. Wish lists are films/people I feel deserve a nomination that probably won't get one.


Best Picture

The Artist
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
War Horse

Alternates: Moneyball, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Tree of Life

Wish List: Bridesmaids, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

These six are pretty much locks for a nomination, so the question here is how many nominees will make the threshold. Most people are predicting 7 nominees, but I'm just not sold on Moneyball hitting the threshold, nor am I convinced of Fincher's DGA nomination carrying over to the Oscars. The Tree of Life might sneak in, but Malick's lack of a DGA nomination is problematic since that's a group where he would tend to have the most support. So I'm playing it safe and sticking to only six nominees here. I wish Bridesmaids could sneak in, and it probably would've under the previous rules, but I don't see it having much chance of getting enough 1st place votes.


Best Director

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Michel Hazanavicus, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Steven Spielberg, War Horse

Alternates: David Fincher, The  Girl With the Dragon Tattoo; Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

Wish List: Brad Bird, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Allen, Hazanavicus, Payne, and Scorsese all were nominated at both the DGA and Golden Globes, so they are pretty certain guarantees. The big surprise at the DGA's was Fincher's nomination for Dragon Tattoo. However, I think this will mirror Nolan's DGA nom from last year and get passed over at the Oscars. Spielberg is the safer choice and I think that's where the Oscars will go. Malick has an outside shot, but it would be pretty odd for him to miss out at the DGA's, but then get nominated for an Oscar.


Best Lead Actor

George Clooney, The Descendants
Leonardo Dicaprio, J. Edgar
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Michael Fassbender, Shame
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Alternates: Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Demian Bichir, A Better Life

Wish List: Matt Damon, We Bought a Zoo; Owen Wilson, Midight in Paris

Clooney, Pitt, and Dujardin are definitely in. The question then comes to Fassbender, who missed out on a SAG nomination, and Dicaprio, whose film was not well received overall. Oldman seems to have some momentum in the race and the well regarded actor has amazingly never been nominated before. There's a very, very good chance he will get in, but I'm just not sure who he will replace. Bichir was excellent and received a surprise SAG nomination, but very little support elsewhere.


Best Lead Actress

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

Alternates: Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo; Charlize Theron, Young Adult

Wish List: Keira Knightley, A Dangerous Method; Kristen Wiig, Bridesmaids

I'm pretty confident about this group of five, which is pretty much the same group since the awards season began. Theron received some initial attention, but it has fizzled out. Mara could sneak in if Fincher's DGA nomination actually is a sign that Dragon Tattoo has more support than previously thought. If she does, then it will probably be at Close or Swinton's expense. I'm surprised and disappointed Knightley couldn't get more traction during awards season for her dynamic performance.


Best Supporting Actress

Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Shailene Woodley, The Descendants

Alternates: Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids; Vanessa Redgrave, Coriolanus

Wish List: Marion Cotillard, Midnight in Paris; Elle Fanning, Super 8

There are fewer locks in this category than the others. It may only be a 6 woman race (Redgrave is a longshot), but the only nominees I consider to be certainties are Spencer and Chastain.  Bejo is probably good, but there is a small chance that category confusion (is she lead or supporting) could doom her. McTeer is probably in with both SAG and Globe nods (although Mila Kunis) missed last year. Among the remaining two, I picked Woodley over McCarthy because she has a chance to get some trickle down support from Clooney.


Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks, Drive
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Viggo Mortensen, A Dangerous Method
Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Alternates: Nick Nolte, Warrior; Ben Kingsley, Hugo

wish List: Patton Oswalt, Young Adult; Alan Rickman, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Now this is a bizarre category this year. The SAG nominations completely upended the race. They omitted early frontrunner Brooks and included Armie Hammer (for J.  Edgar) and Nolte. The Globes put Brooks back in and added Viggo Mortensen. It's not always the best idea to bet against the SAGs as a predictor, but I just don't see Nolte or especially Hammer getting in at the Oscars. Kingsley could sneak in riding on a Hugo wave.


Best Original Screenplay

The Artist
Beginners
Bridesmaids
Midnight in Paris
A Separation

Alternates: Young Adult, 50/50

Wish List: Margin Call

Young Adult and 50/50 (along with Win Win)  received attention from the WGA, but The Artist, A Separation, and Beginners were not eligible there and I'm petty confident they'll swallow up those spots. If there's a surprise, previous winner Diablo Cody could get in for Young Adult.


Best Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Alternates: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Ides of March

Wish List: We Bought a Zoo, A Dangerous Method

Another test of how much support Dragon Tattoo has. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in, but I think (and hope) that it won't make it. These five seem like really strong certainties, although I wish something could get in ahead of the incredibly overrated script for The Help.


And that's it for this year. As usual I'll be skipping predictions for all the tech  categories. All I'd be doing is copying the guild nominees anyways. We'll see how I did tomorrow morning.

Red Tails (Anthony Hemingway) **

Here we have a movie that purports to tell an important story. It's about the Tuskegee Airmen, the first squadron of all black pilots, who overcame racism to find great success in World War 2. That's a worthy subject for a motion picture, but it's not really one that producer George Lucas and director Anthony Hemingway seem interested in telling. Instead, they've used the premise of the Tuskegee Airmen to fashion a standard Hollywood action film with fictionalized characters that are most are mostly one-dimensional cliche's. The result is a movie that mostly succeeds when the characters are in the air, but completely falters when on the ground.

The movie skips past the original training of the pilots in Tuskegee and puts us right in the middle of World War 2, where the Tuskegee squadron is doing routine missions where they bomb cargo trucks and trains. Colonel AJ Bullard (Terrence Howard) heads to Washington DC to try and convince leaders to give his squadron more dangerous missions and finds success after working his way through plenty of racism and doubt. The pressure is now on as defeat would almost certainly let the racists claim they were right all along, while success could lead to even more opportunities for black soldiers.

The really curious thing about this movie is the decision to come up with fictional characters to tell the story. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the fictional characters were at all interesting. For example, the great 1986 underdog basketball film Hoosiers did the same thing, but the fictional characters like Norman Dale and Jimmy Chitwood were memorable, fascinating people. Most of the people invented for Red Tails are not memorable whatsoever, certainly not as interesting as Benjamin Davis who was one of the first Tuskegee Airmen and eventually commanded the first all black flying squadron, later becoming the first African-American General in the Air force. The characters in Red Tails are caricatures that fit into specific types - drunk, jokester, hot dog, etc

It doesn't help that the dialogue in this film is atrocious, making it seem like they just patched the screenplay together from old war movies. The characters speak in generic and stilted dialogue, often forcing the actors to sound wooden or awkward, although the game cast does as good as can be expected with the material. I find it interesting that Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder is credited as a screenwriter on this. Boondocks was a very controversial and dynamic comic strip (and later animated series) that made some challenging satiric points about racial relations. Aside from one memorable line about the use of the word "colored", none of that insight or wit is evident here and I wonder if McGruder realizes this is a film that Huey Freeman would be ridiculing.

At least the dogfight sequences are suitably exciting. They really do a good job capturing the visceral thrill of combat flying, while making it easy to follow what's happening at all times. On those terms, I suspect many people will flock to this film and be very satisfied with it. But by attaching the significance of the Tuskegee Airmen, I think the film deserved more than the hackneyed writing delivered. It's not as if a more intelligent script would've turned audiences off, so there's no excuse other than general laziness. George Lucas talked about having trouble getting studios to back this project because it had a mostly black cast, so he took it upon himself to finance the film. If his goal was to show that you can make an action movie with black actors that's just as bad as most of the action movies with white actors, then I guess Red Tails is a tremendous success.

The Iron Lady (Phyllida Lloyd) **

There aren't many politicians in modern history that are further from my ideology than Margaret Thatcher. As Prime Minister of Great Britain, she took a hard line against labor unions, slashed government spending on social programs and education, introduced a flat tax policy to pay for local services, and forged a strong working relationship with Ronald Reagan. Yet my problem with Phyllida Lloyd's film The Iron Lady, which is a biopic about Thatcher's life, is that it focuses too little on her politics. This is a woman who completely changed the political course of an entire nation and the filmmakers have taken the most safe, generic approach in doing a movie about her life. It's a frustrating decision that wastes the terrific casting coup of having Meryl Streep play Thatcher.

The Iron Lady tells Thatcher's story through a framing device. We first see her later in life, after her political career has ended and her body is weakening. She still sees images of her late husband talking to her. Her political career is seen through flashbacks as she remembers important points in her life. We see her initial failed attempt to win a seat in Parliament, followed by her later successes, while fighting sexism all along the way. The film also shows her courtship and eventual marriage to Denis Thatcher, who liked her specifically because she was an ambitious woman that wanted more for her life being a housewife.

The framing device is a pretty terrible idea. Margaret Thatcher is one of the most successful politicians in history, yet most of the movie focuses on her later years where she begins to lose her grip on reality. It's a disservice to a woman who accomplished so much. The dramatization of her political career is reduced to a timeline. We see bullet points - she's MP, then she's Education Secretary, then she's Prime Minister, Falklands War, IRA bombing, etc. In between each of these moments we go back to the framing device and more nonsense where she talks to her dead husband. This editing strategy robs the story of gaining any dramatic momentum. It also robs Streep, whose astonishing and fiery performance in the flashback sequences is far more impressive than in the present day scenes where she's buried under mountains of old age makeup.

It really feels like the problem is that the film was made by people who were uncomfortable with Thatcher's politics. Therefore, the story was designed to feature them as little as possible. Sure, we see her every now and then blasting unions and talking about how everyone should pay equal taxes, but these are mere soundbites and any scene where there is a political discussion is kept very short. There's very little about her close ties with Reagan and in fact, the US is dismissed as a nuisance during the Falkands War sequence. Her arguments in defense of her policies essentially amount to her refusal to compromise. There's nothing wrong with doing a movie about someone you disagree with, but at least show that or even provide a balanced perspective of the individual. Simply glossing over the positions of such an important political figure is a dramatically inept way to tell a story.

Another problem is that the casting of Streep seems to have influenced how they told the story. I really liked the few scenes with Alexandra Roach, who plays a young Margaret Thatcher at he beginning of her career. Some of the things that happened during this period are very important, but barely given any time in the story. She meets Denis Thatcher once, then the next scene with him he proposes to her. She decides to run for parliament, the next scene she loses her election (we see nothing of whether her gender, her politics, or anything had to do with her loss), and then the next scene she finally wins. There's barely enough time to show her first term, because we flash forward immediately years later where she is now the Education Secretary and Streep is in the role.

I admire Meryl Streep as one of the best actresses of the last three decades. I admire Margaret Thatcher for her accomplishments, if not for her ideology. The combination of the two should've been a slam dunk for a terrific movie. However, director Phyllida Lloyd and writer Abi Morgan ruined this dream combo by playing it safe and taking the most boring route through Margaret Thatcher's life. "The Iron Lady" was a very controversial politician, but there's nothing controversial about this bland Hollywood biopic.

The Artist (Michael Hazanavicus) ****

Probably one of the best periods in all of cinema was mid to late 20s just before talkies were about to be introduced. By then filmmakers had mastered the medium of silent cinema and were telling some of the most creative and fascinating stories in film history. Films like Metropolis, Sunrise, Pandora's Box, The Crowd, Napoleon, and many others showed the incredible capabilities of storytelling that directors had acquired. This was before talkies were introduced and clunky sound equipment proved too limiting. The Artist is a masterful film because it uses the advantages of that late silent era to tell a great story.

The Artist is set in 1920s Hollywood and follows George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), who is one of the biggest movie stars of the time. He becomes smitten with a bit player named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), and eventually turns her into a star. George and Peppy's careers go in opposite directions as the era of talkies is ushered in. Peppy becomes an even bigger star in the sound era, while George's refusal to do talkies dooms his career and sends his life into complete turmoil.

Of course, the most talked about aspect of The Artist is that it was shot as a silent film. There are so many ways this could have gone wrong. The main conceit could've just been used as a gimmick and played it too cutesy. But this is a straightforward and serious attempt at making a silent film. One of the most impressive things director Michael Hazanavicus does is tell the story with a sparing use of title cards, much like the great FW Murnau did in his best work. He has clearly studied the classics of the era and understands what made the best ones work.

Apart from the central conceit, the story is a pretty compelling one of a very successful man whose career takes a nosedive and eventually hits rock bottom. In many ways, the story of George Valentin reminded me of Jack Horner in Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights. Both men protested a new technology that completely changed everything they had ever done before. Horner eventually made the transition, while Valentin is more resistant and pays the price for it. His descent takes the film into some pretty dark melodrama, but Hazanavicus manages the tonal shift beautifully by using the Peppy Miller story arc as an upbeat contrast.

The story does a good job of showing why George Valentin was a great star. The films within the film are very entertaining and Dujardin perfectly captures the spirit of the dashing, swashbuckling presence that Douglas Fairbanks brought to the screen. Bejo is a revelation as the plucky ingenue, making for a credible Mary Pickford-Clara Bow cutesy, "aw-shucks" comic style. Also memorable is James Cromwell in a deadpan role as Valentin's butler. Cromwell, so good in sound films, is such a great silent actor here that it almost feels like he came to Hollywood in the wrong era.

The Artist also contains one of my favorite film moments of the year. It comes near the end and is a wonderful use of a title card that pulls the rug out from underneath the audience, but does so in a hilarious way that completely cuts the tension. Hazanavicus edits this sequence together beautifully, intercutting moments of despair with bits of silly comedy. It's one of many treasures in this wonderful film. Hazanavicus has come up with a great premise and a great understanding of how to make it work and in turn has made one of the very best films of 2011.

War Horse (Steven Spielberg) **1/2

There are few directors that have managed the combination of beautiful visual imagery and heartbreaking human emotion as well as Steven Spielberg. Films like ET, The Color Purple, AI, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan are great examples of this. Spielberg's latest film War Horse once again demonstrates this skill with many memorable moments. The problem is that the moments in between are bland and generic, and the poorly structured story prevents War Horse from the greatness it so desperately seeks to achieve.

The film is based on a novel by Michael Mopurgo, which was later adapted into a theater production that won the Tony award for Best Play.. It tells the story of a remarkable horse named Joey who is bought at a auction by a struggling farm family. Teenage son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) works hard to train the horse and it begins to turn the family's fortunes around. With World War 1 looming, the family is forced to sell Joey to the military and he goes on a long journey, encountering both sides of the war and leaving a lasting impression on everyone he meets.

The most stunning relationship in the film is between two horses. While training for the military, Joey meets another horse named Topthorn. Without any dialogue, Spielberg develops a complete and thoroughly memorable relationship between the two horses.  One of the greatest moments in the film is when Joey volunteers to take a heavy load up a hill, knowing Topthorn probably will fall just like the previous horse did. This relationship is more well drawn and memorable than anything involving any of the human characters.

Everything in between these scenes between the two horses, especially scenes that don't involve Joey at all, fails to work up any dramatic momentum whatsoever. A major problem is episodic structure of the film that fails to give us enough time with the human characters Joey comes across. This is the 2nd film this year (Ides of March) adapted from a play that clearly suffers from such structure. The soldier that rides Joey in the war, a father and daughter that encounter him, and even Joey's owner who predictably ends up going to war himself are just not given enough screen time develop in a way to really care about them.

In a way, the film is both too long and too short. It's too long in the sense that the human scenes really begin to drag.  But it's also too short in the sense that with a longer running time Spielberg could've developed the human characters more. He's never been one to reinvent the wheel when it comes to storytelling as most of his films are formulaic and borrow from other sources. What makes Spielberg's best stories stand out are the fascinating characters he delivers to us. Other than Joey and Topthorn, there are no such characters in this film and thus these human segments just fall flat.

Spielberg is at least still in top notch technical form. Period details are convincing. Many of the battlefield set pieces are suitably exciting. He brings along John Williams once again for another majestic score. The cinematography is astonishing. The film's final shot is especially unforgettable, and perhaps one of the best of Spielberg's career. It's just too bad that so much of the film fails to deliver. I'll remember the horses and not much else.

My Week With Marilyn (Simon Curtis) ***1/2

One of the most difficult things about doing a film about someone as iconic as Marilyn Monroe is finding someone who can appropriately fit the role. That doesn't mean, as we've seen with many other attempts, just finding someone who can look the part. In fact, Michelle Williams looks less the part than many others who have done it, but there's never been a better attempt at matching the magnetism that Marilyn Monroe brought to the screen.

As the title suggests, My Week With Marilyn focuses on a small period of time in Marilyn Monroe's (Michelle Williams) life. It is based on a pair of published diary accounts written by Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne). Clark had the opportunity to work with Marilyn Monroe on the film The Prince and the Showgirl, which Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) directed and starred in. The film follows how Clark's relationship with Monroe developed throughout the course of the film's production.

It's a challenging part for Williams. The film would absolutely not work without her giving a great performance. There are many scenes where characters talk about how great Marilyn looks on camera, while watching in awe at the scenes they filmed the previous day. That's a lot to live up to, but Michelle Williams is up to the task. Probably no one can ever match the screen presence that Marilyn Monroe had, but Williams comes amazingly close and completely commands attention every scene she's in.

I liked the idea that the film only shows glimpses into Monroe's life. We've seen so many biopics that all seem to have a standard formula, so this one is a pretty refreshing take on the genre. We see her vulnerability, how much trouble she causes on set for Olivier and other cast members, and bits of her troubled marriage to Arthur Miller. The film doesn't attempt to come up with a grand psychological explanation for her behavior, but just gives us a few suggestions here and there.

If there's a drawback here, it is the lead character. Colin Clark is not very interesting himself, especially when set against these other iconic characters. That's to be expected somewhat, but it still is a bit problematic since he's in nearly every scene and we're meant to care about his fate. There's a cute romantic subplot between him and a costume designer (Emma Watson), but it is underdeveloped and merely seems to serve as a screenplay contrivance to create some conflict.

Director Simon Curtis does a really good job of maintaining a consistent tone. There are some very dramatic moments to be sure, but the film has a whimsical feel to it and nicely avoids descending into depressing melodrama. The supporting cast is pretty solid, with Branagh especially good as the proud, great theatrical actor equally frustrated with Monroe's difficulties on the set and for his inability to match her presence on the screen. It's a fun, often fascinating glimpse into the life of a screen legend and Michelle Williams' marvelous performance carries the film.

Films Seen - 2012

Here are all the films I've seen that were officially released in 2012. If I've written a review of the film, a link has been provided.



Chronicle (Josh Trank) **1/2

The Grey (Joe Carnahan) ***

Haywire (Steven Soderbergh) ***

Red Tails (Anthony Hemingway) **

The Secret World of Arrietty (Hiromasa Yonebayashi ) ***1/2

Wanderlust (David Wain) ***

The Woman in Black (James Watkins) **1/2

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (Brad Bird, 2011) ****

Earlier I talked about Steven Spielberg's transition from live action to computer animation in The Adventures of Tintin. Well here we have someone doing the exact opposite. Brad Bird, director of three excellent animated films (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille), tries his hand at live action with the latest entry in the Mission Impossible series. Surprisingly, he is far more successful at his transition than Spielberg. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a great achievement in solid, smart, incredibly exciting action filmmaking.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol begins with our hero Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) in prison for unspecified reasons. A breakout is initiated by two new team members, Jane (Paula Patton) and Benji (Simon Pegg). They are tasked with retreiving a stolen briefcase that contains Russian nuclear launch codes. As usual, not everything goes according to plan and the team is framed for something they didn't do. The team is sent scrambling, with analyst Peter Brandt (Jeremy Renner) eventually joining them. They must retreive the nuclear launch codes to clear their names and prevent nuclear war.

Brad Bird's The Incredibles had some of the most fun and exciting action sequences I've seen in a film, but much of that had to do with Bird taking advantage of the seemingly unlimited capabilities of computer animation. So it was a bit of a surprise to see him do such a masterful job setting up incredible live action set pieces here. The much talked about one takes place in Dubai on the tallest building in the world as Ethan attempts to enter one of the higher floors from the outside. Not only is it  one of the most viscerally exciting action scenes ever, but it also serves as a brilliant tribute to Harold Lloyd's Safety Last! Bird also shows prowess designing action sequences in confined spaces, as in the film's ending which takes place in a parking garage and has a fascinating finish.

Apart from the great design of the action sequences, what makes Bird so successful here is the complete confidence he has in everything he does in this film. Lesser action directors (Michael Bay, I'm looking at you) often fall into the trap of rapidfire cutting to make their otherwise dull action scenes seem more exciting, but there is thankflly none of that nonsense here. Bird is confident enough in the way he's set everything up that he is able to let the camera linger, and in fact often builds tension precisely because the camera doesn't move. A great example is a clever caper sequence inside the Kremlin where Hunt and his team take inspiration from Bugs Bunny in designing a fake background to fool a guard.

Tom Cruise slides comfortably back into his old role and is completely convincing in the action scenes, while providing a calm charisma elsewhere. The new members of his squad are all solid choices. Simon Pegg does a good job in not overplaying the silly action sidekick schtick. Paula Patton has the right combination of sex appeal and physical presence. And Jeremy Renner has fun playing a bit against type as an analyst that may or may not be in over his head. The cast has a strong chemistry and they all play off each other very well. This is a team that I can't wait to see work together again.

The story, such as it is, is appropriately intriguing and never relies on stupidity or laziness. It's all a big MacGuffin because we know the bomb isn't gonna go off and start a nuclear war, but the film keeps challenging the audience on this point, throwing in new wrinkles now and then that make everything seem hopeless. There's a dramatic subplot for both Ethan and Jane, whose loved ones have both been killed, but it is handled in a limited and remarkably restrained manner. Brad Bird just manages to get every single thing right in this film. His previous three films have all received my highest rating and made my top 10 list for their respective years. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol will make it 4 for 4. It is one of the best films of the year.

Young Adult (Jason Reitman, 2011) ***

Director Jason Reitman and screenwriter Diablo Cody last collaborated on Juno, the dramedy about a pregnant teen that went on to great success and won Cody an Oscar for Best Screenplay. One of the things I loved most about that film was how it challenged audience expectations of what characters would be like, such as completely flipping the script on the Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner characters. In Young Adult they're ready to challenge the audience again by presenting them with a thoroughly unpleasant main character.

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is a writer for a popular series of young adult books. With her life in a bit of a tailspin, she decides to return to the small town she abandoned years ago and win back the heart of her former high school boyfriend. The problem is, he is now married with a child on the way. That doesn't even faze her, as she's convinced herself that he's completely unhappy and will drop his small town life to head back with her to the city.

It's very difficult to do a movie about an extremely unlikable person, so it's a credit to Reitman and Cody that this movie works at all. Most impressive is that they're willing to go all the way with it, too. This isn't some moralizing parable where the hero learns her lesson by the end. In fact, one of the more remarkable things about Mavis is that she doesn't change much at all through the course of the movie. This is a terrible person and Charlize Theron has a great time playing that up as much as possible.

The only person in this film that is really sympathetic is Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt), a former classmate that Mavis didn't have much time for. He is best remembered for being the kid that got severely beat up for being gay, although he repeatedly protests that he's straight. Now she becomes his closest (only) confidant and they make for a very awkward pair of friends. Oswalt gives a terrific performance here, alternating between sadsack loser and snarky observer, essentially providing a surrogate voice for the audience.

These two characters are interesting enough to carry the story, even if it does take some turns into uncomfortable territory. Mavis' constant efforts to win back her ex are really difficult to watch. Eventhough we hate her, she's no cardboard character and it's still hard to watch her get her comeuppance. There are some good laughs provided by Oswalt's critical commentary of her behavior, but for the most part this is a pretty grim affair.

The result is a movie that is admirable and at times fascinating, but not very enjoyable. Mavis is not a character we ever root for, not even as some kind of wicked anti-hero. At the same time, it's hard to root against her, because she's not some kind of evil monster, just a sad and pathetic person. It's still a worthwhile film to watch, but if you were expecting the fun loving sarcasm of Juno, you'll be in for a rude awakening.

The Adventures of Tintin (Steven Spielberg, 2011) **1/2

One of the advantages that animation provides is the freedom with which to design completely original moments of physical movement without being confined to the trappings of live action.A recent film that demonstrated this perhaps better than any other was Pixar's The Incredibles, which was directed by Brad Bird. Bird was able to stretch his imagination with the action scenes and th result was one of the most exciting films of that year. Steven Spielberg is perhaps the best ever at creating memorable and original action set pieces in the live action medium, so it was a very exciting prospect to see him tackling the unlimited capabilities of computer animation with The Adventures of Tintin. Unfortunately, he was only half successful as the exciting action scenes were undone by a poorly structured and uninteresting story.

The Adventures of Tintin is based on a popular comic book series in Europe of the same name. It follows a young reporter named Tintin whose investigations get him mixed up in some wild adventures. He has a trusty sidekick dog named Snowy and two bumbling detectives (named Thompson and Thomson) who help him out. The film version sees him getting mixed up in a mystery involving a model ship that many people seem very eager to get. When it is stolen from his house, he goes on what turns out to be a globetrotting journey to recover it and prevent those who stole it from their nefarious deeds.

Spielberg does make good use of computer animation. The action sequences in Tintin are incredibly thrilling and exhausting. He designs very creative chase sequences that seem to never end, much in the great tradition of the Indiana Jones series. One of my favorites is Snowy's attempts to rescue Tintin after he's been kidnapped. There's also a dangerous seaplane adventure where Spielberg comes up with a long list of creative problems for our heroes to encounter. The film really comes alive during these moments.

What really hurts the film is some baffling storytelling choices. The story starts off as an interesting mystery and Tintin's efforts to solve it were engrossing. However, the film makes the bizarre decision to completely stop at the 2/3rds mark and have one character explain everything through an endless series of expository flashbacks. The movie just completely dies right here with all the momentum they'd built from the stunning action sequences just completely falling apart. And after all that, the true resolution of the mystery is a major disappointment.

Another problem is that the characters never come alive. We don't learn much about Tintin other than he's a plucky and resourceful investigator. More time could've been spent at the beginning giving us more of a glimpse who he is instead of just thrusting him right into his mystery. The bumbling detectives Thompson and Thomson have a few amusing moments, but more often than not the slapstick chemistry between these two does not work. The villains and pirates that populate the mystery plot are all tired stock retreads. It says something that the most fascinating character in the entire film is Tintin's sidekick dog Snowy. It's rare that I don't like a Steven Spielberg film, but he really misfired with this one.