In Theaters: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a well-made film that you won't give a second of thought to after you leave the theater. It is an average movie with an Oscar-season cast. I'm not sorry I saw it, but I probably wouldn't have bothered if I had been the one paying for the ticket. (I started out wanting to see "Margin Call," which looks fantastic, but then realized that it's only playing in New York and LA.)

As a person from Cincinnati, if anyone should have been biased in favor of this movie, it's me. "The Ides of March" was shot there and it was big news in the area when Clooney & Co. came. I constantly heard about sightings of cast members and people were always guessing where they would film next. Like many others, I felt obligated to see it just to play "spot the Cincinnati landmark." However, I also read many reviews beforehand so my hopes weren't sent ridiculously high.

"The Ides of March" has all the hallmarks of an Oscar movie, except the release date. The cast is A-list all the way, the plot is about heavy drama, and the tone is cynical. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, working on a political campaign for candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Morris is competing against another Democrat in Ohio for the party's presidential nomination. Meyers is experienced yet idealistic as he gets wrapped up in the dirty inner-workings of a major campaign.

I was disappointed in how sorely underused most of the cast was. Gosling and Evan Rachel Wood figure prominently, while Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei are used sparingly and each hardly get one big scene to shine. Even Clooney gets little to do aside from canned speeches until the final act. He gets some more material in a scene that is supposed to be revealing and striking, but it's actually underwhelming and predictable. All this being said, everyone does a good job. It's not surprising considering how little their roles ask of them, though. You wouldn't expect any less from these people, but you don't get any more.

What struck me most was the length of the movie - it comes in at 101 minutes, but feels much shorter. As I felt the movie wrapping up, I couldn't help but think "that was it?" It's not insulting or stupid, but the script isn't saying anything new and it is certainly not as poignant as it thinks it is. It's hard to sympathize with a disillusioned protagonist when he was very naive to begin with. Back-room deals and scandalous cover-ups are nothing new to the audience, so why does Stephen Meyers take it so hard? How could a man so experienced in political campaigns be encountering these things for the first time? Gosling has a natural intensity and grounded performance that proves he's more than a pretty face, but the script just doesn't give him enough to work with. The covered-up scandalous act, while ripped from the headlines, was tired and predictable. (If men can't keep it in their pants, they should hire uglier interns.)

This is a perfectly adequate movie. Like I said, I'm not sorry I saw it, but I certainly didn't take anything away from it. The idea of Oscar talk around it seems absolutely ridiculous to me - it's smooth, efficient filmmaking but certainly not Oscar material in any way. Perhaps it's just difficult to make a compelling story about great, big scandals that don't happen. But "The Ides of March" was never about media-rocking scandals anyway - it was about one man's path to accepting that politics is not where people play nice. This could have been an engrossing film, even without saying anything new, but it just wasn't. Instead it plays more like an after-school special as told by the Academy.

My grade: C

"The Dark Knight Rises" is basically "Inception." And I'm okay with that.

Okay, it's not REALLY. But the cast of the third Christopher Nolan Batman movie is largely the same as the cast of "Inception." Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt signed on earlier, and today the news came out that Marion Cotillard is also onboard. I'm thrilled to see her cast. I think she didn't get enough credit for her role in "Inception." Try to imagine anyone else in her role, and see if they could pull it off - her haunting beauty alone made that role unique, but she was also sympathetic despite being the buzzkill in every dream. I can only hope they give her a meaty role in "The Dark Knight Rises." If she didn't impress you in "Inception," go watch her Academy Award winning performance in "La Vie En Rose" and see if you're still unimpressed.

Now we have two strong female leads. I've been unsure about Anne Hathaway being cast in a lead role, but after the dullsville that was Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal in the previous two films, I'm just relieved to see some quality actresses cast. Not that Gyllenhaal isn't talented, but she was not right for the role and, to be entirely shallow for a moment, she's not pretty. Hathaway is a coin toss. She absolutely can act, but she's more well known for lighter roles. Or maybe I'm ambiguous because I can't seem to get rid of the taste of the Academy Awards this year.

I'm very happy the backlash against Nolan hasn't started yet for hiring the same team of actors. I'm sure one will come eventually, and all the "Inception 2" jokes will get passed around, but directors reusing actors is nothing new. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Just look at the frequent collaborators section on Wikipedia for Martin Scorsese - if you get the chance to work with a brilliant director once, why not do it again?

I praised "Inception" before it came out because the cast was amazing and it felt like Nolan had read my mind and cast people I love. Well, once again, I'll get to see all these great actors together onscreen. Now if only we could bring Cillian Murphy back somehow!

Movie Night: "Jennifer's Body"

The hottest girl in high school gets possessed by a demon and goes on an all-male killing spree. This idea could have been turned into B-movie gold or, in the right hands, a seriously scary statement on feminism in some way. Instead, it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
It's kind of sad when you think about how good this movie could have been. But the movie it was turned into didn't take advantage of the promising concept in any way for even a second. At an hour and 42 minutes, it somehow felt 30 minutes long. I guess that says something remotely positive, considering it's incredibly boring as well as bad. They bring on the demonic nastiness really early on and not a whole lot happens. You know the short plot synopsis, you know exactly what's going to happen. Hell, any ambiguity about the ending is spoiled by the opening scene.

Character development? Forget about it. No one was going to this movie for the characters anyway. Maybe some came to hear the words of "Juno" writer Diablo Cody, but the only ones I can imagine liking it in any way are the ones who came to look at Megan Fox for two hours. She looks hot, but she doesn't get much help from the script that thinks sexiness is walking in slow-mo down the hall of a high school in tight clothing. Not that the movie would have been much better with a good script - Megan Fox absolutely cannot act. The whole time she has a 'James Franco-at-the-Oscars' kind of expressionless boredom. Amanda Seyfried, while an actual actress, can't do much to salvage the crappy material she's given. Her character's name is Needy, which should tell you just how subtle this movie is. We know she's the ugly girl because she's wearing glasses and has frizzy hair. Adam Brody, as the indie rocker who sacrifices the titular body to Satan, is the only one who can manage to put some life into things. He's the only one who looks like he's having fun, but unfortunately he isn't in much of the film.

I'm a person who really enjoyed "Juno," in spite of its hipster identity. But Diablo Cody might have peaked there, because "Jennifer's Body" sounds like it was written by a teenage shut-in trying to imitate her style. Forget about the way the characters talk, no one acts like a normal human would. There was hardly a moment while watching that I didn't have multiple questions running through my head wondering "why did she do that?" and "who would react like that?" The dialogue isn't as slang heavy as "Juno" but rather quirky and synthetically hip. Slang heavy or no, the synthetic hip worked in "Juno" - it does not work here. What's hilarious is the hipster identity is countered with a very commercial setting as every bedroom is covered in poster's of actual, famous modern alternative bands. The soundtrack, while largely indie in style, is completely out of tone with the rest of the movie. But then, the movie never quite makes up its mind what it wants to be. A horror-comedy? A cheesy indulgence? A girl-on-girl guilty pleasure? A tongue-in-cheek comment on high school sexuality? At its core it seems to want to be a horror movie before anything else, but I've seen scarier movies on Lifetime around Halloween. It can't even handle horror, as I found out at its utterly ridiculous ending. It's like they realized they spoiled the real ending of the movie and decided to tack on a bizarre plot twist that would make any horror fan recoil with stunned laughter.

I watch so many movies it would be exhausting to write reviews of all of them, but I haven't seen a movie that elicited such a completely negative reaction from me since "Crash." Not that I completely loathed that one; I mainly took issue with the critics fawning over it like it actually said something new and smart about race relations. But as for "Jennifer's Body," I truly did hate it. It was two hours poorly spent and I would not recommend it to a soul, even if your intentions are shallow. If all you want from this movie is Megan Fox, I feel I should point out that the R rating is definitely not for nudity.

My grade: F

Last minute Pre-Oscar thoughts

It's been a little over a month now since I posted my views on the Academy Award nominations, and not much has changed. Now I'm looking forward to watching a show with some fresh hosts and worthy contenders. I have to say it's the first year in a while where I feel like almost every single nomination is deserved. There's no outrageous "Crash" nomination, there's no "Avatar" or Sandra Bullock nomination for a Lifetime movie. This year, about 8/10 movies in the running for Best Picture deserve their nomination. And the front runners at this point - "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" - completely deserve it. Looking back on my views on the nominations, the Best Picture category is the only one where my prediction has changed. "The King's Speech" has picked up a lot of awards lately in critics circles as well as the BAFTAs. "The Social Network"'s hype looks to have petered out and left the excellent Brit movie to take the lead. "The King's Speech" is the safe, Oscar-friendly choice, and I'll be rather surprised if they go back to "The Social Network" now. The Brit drama will probably take Best Picture and Best Actor for Colin Firth while the Facebook movie takes Best Director for David Fincher and Best Adapted Screenplay for Aaron Sorkin.

Every other win seems decently predictable, although even if there is an upset, it's not going to be a case where a much hyped but mediocre performance wins over a deserving but less flashy one. Unless the Academy goes nutso and "The Kids Are All Right" wins for Best Picture, we're not going to encounter another heinous "Crash"-beating-"Brokeback Mountain" scenario.

As for the show itself, I actually kind of enjoy the In Memoriam and I hope it's a straight-forward memorial to those who passed. I'm still bitter about times when the In Memoriam played, but a celeb was singing the background music so the camera was on them more than the memorial video. No fancy camera work swooping in and out, please. Just pay respects to the dead in a tasteful way.

I'm cautiously optimistic about James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosting. I'm happy to see some fresh, younger faces in there (without sacrificing quality, that is. They didn't go with Kristin Stewart and Michael Cera or something crazy like that). Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin last year were fine, but they definitely aren't the way to intrigue younger viewers. I always hate forced awards show banter, but it's something you have to live with and if the host is capable, they can pull it off without too many cringeworthy moments. I'm just glad we don't have to deal with a Ricky Gervais scenario again, where the host is one-note and not particularly funny with his one note. Personally, I rather see a Neil Patrick Harris or Ellen DeGeneres hosting. They are seasoned hosts, they appeal to young and old, and they can be funny in a safe way in that they aren't pissing off the people in the room or boring the people at home by being too tame. I even enjoyed Hugh Jackman two years ago or Jon Stewart the year before that. Whoever they go with, I'm realizing that the Oscars has a much better track record for hosts than the Emmys or the Golden Globes.

It's differed over the years and over awards shows, but I hope the Oscars show clips from movies. The Golden Globes did this a little by basically saluting each film with a movie trailer. Rather than focusing on the actor as their name is announced, I prefer a short clip of them from their respective movie that shows why they deserve the Oscar. It would be a great reminder of movies that came out a while ago and it would be a refresher in why their nomination is deserved. But that's just me. And you would have to choose wisely so the clip is strong and short so the show doesn't run past midnight. (Maybe we could remove those documentary categories? Or at least speed those up a bit more?)

To conclude a post that ended up longer than I intended, I'd like to end with some humor. Both from the same website, the first is a Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever while the other is "6 Awards That Would Actually Make the Oscars Worth Watching." I think this article makes some great points about certain areas of filmmaking that go unrecognized by awards shows.

Thoughts on the Academy Award nominations

This morning the Academy Award nominations were announced. While most of the nominees were expected, there were some surprises and snubs that the web is abuzz over. As always, the Golden Globes were a decent predictor of the Oscar noms, except for the sudden recognition of "True Grit," which was by-and-large snubbed by the Globes. I'm going to go through the nominations, giving my two cents worth. I don't normally like to do this, but I'll go ahead and predict who will win using bold type. In the editorial, I'll elaborate on who I think should win.(Sorry, but I'm skipping over documentaries and short films, foreign language film, Art Direction, Costumes, and Best Makeup. My knowledge of these categories is slim at best, so any comment on them would be fruitless on my part.)

Best Picture
127 Hours*(tie)
Black Swan*
The Fighter* (tie)
Inception
The Kids are All Right
The King's Speech*
The Social Network*
Toy Story 3*
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Nothing out of the ordinary here. Some are still quibbling over the ten nominee system for Best Picture, but this year I think it works well. There aren't a whole lot of fluff nominations that got in simply because there was more room. But if I had to pick just five, I would pick the ones I starred. I love "Inception," but it should be well served in other categories and if it really came down to it, I wouldn't include it in the top five. "127 Hours" and "The Fighter" are hard to choose between because, while I trust that they are both excellent movies, they are the only two on this list I haven't seen yet. I was considering leaving off "Toy Story 3," since it will win the Best Animated Film award, but in this case it should be in the running for the big one.

Best Actor
Javier Bardem, "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges, "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"
Colin Firth, "The King's Speech"
James Franco, "127 Hours"

The race here is between Franco and Firth, but the Academy just loves Colin Firth. There's still some goodwill probably floating about after Firth didn't win for his superb performance in "A Single Man," which will most likely work in his favor.

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale, "The Fighter
John Hawkes, "Winter's Bone"
Jeremy Renner, "The Town"
Mark Ruffalo, "The Kids Are All Right"
Geoffrey Rush, "The King's Speech"

I was surprised to see Hawkes get in there, although he was good in "Winter's Bone." I was also pleasantly surprised to see Renner score a nom, although I wish "The Town" had gotten more recognition overall. I am absolutely livid about Ruffalo getting in there over Andrew Garfield, who delivered one of the best performances of the year in "The Social Network." The scene towards the end where his character realizes just how much he got screwed over should have earned him a nomination. Ruffalo was fine, but what about his role screamed "best performance of the year?"

Best Actress
Annette Bening, "The Kids Are All Right"
Nicole Kidman, "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence, "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams, "Blue Valentine"

If all the hype doesn't carry her, this is a category where we could possibly see an upset. I think that's highly unlikely though, seeing as how Portman's performance speaks for itself, hype or not. This is a tough one though, since Williams and Lawrence have some good buzz behind them for their great performances. But if the Oscars are going to recognize a great juvenile performance this year, it's going to be Hailee Steinfeld's for "True Grit."

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams, "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter, "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld, "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver, "Animal Kingdom"

I don't understand how they can call Steinfeld a Supporting Actress, as she was the star of that movie, but she might not have gotten the nom otherwise. While she deserves the nom, I don't think she's going to get the win. I'm not super upset over Mila Kunis being left out for "Black Swan." I enjoyed that movie, but her role wasn't very meaty and she didn't actually have that much to do. Her performance has been a little overhyped, so while I'm surprised they didn't nominate her, I'm not disappointed.

Best Animated Film
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

I have to keep reminding myself that some foreign animated movie came out last year and they're not just nominating that Edward Norton magician movie years later. I'm curious how wide of a release "The Illusionist" received because I hadn't even heard of it until the Golden Globes. I'm surprised "Tangled" didn't get a nom. It's not like this category was overstuffed, they only nominated three movies! But this is the category will "Toy Story 3" will get its much-deserved award.

Best Cinematography
Black Swan
Inception
The King's Speech
The Social Network
True Grit

"True Grit," while not a great movie in my estimation, did look amazing. But I would love to see this one go to "Black Swan" and I think it will. Even if you hated that movie, you can't deny that the cinematography was fascinating. You could turn off the sound and just look at the movie and still enjoy it.

Best Director
Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"
Joel & Ethan Coen, "True Grit"
David Fincher, "The Social Network"
Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"
David O. Russell, "The Fighter"

In my opinion, this was the most difficult category this year. You have hyped directors, talented directors, hyped and talented directors, and everything in between vying for a spot. I'm pretty peeved that Christopher Nolan got bumped from the category. So, "Inception" was one of the best movies, it was one of the most visually skilled, its screenplay was one of the best, but apparently the director had nothing to do with any of that? I really think the reason he got bumped was because his movie was the most popular, "popcorn," blockbuster movie to get nominated. When it comes down to it, the Academy will go for the "serious" or more "artsy" films every single time and Nolan fell prey to that. I agree with what I read on another site, that the Coen brothers could have made "True Grit" in their sleep. It was a solid movie, but nothing special. This is Fincher's to lose. It's the year of "The Social Network," a movie that performed well but also maintains its "serious" cred, and the Fincher/Sorkin team is a force to be reckoned with. Their combined buzz will lead them both to major wins on Oscar night.

Best Editing
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King's Speech
The Social Network

How "Inception" was not nominated here, I will never know. I can understand it losing out in the bigger categories, but it should win every technical award it can. That movie would have been crap if not for the brilliant editing, and how can anyone watch the cross-cutting between the dream-levels and not think to nominate it? "The Social Network" could possibly take this one as its hype will probably bleed over into other categories, but "Black Swan" should take it.

Best Score
"127 Hours," A.R. Rahman
"How to Train Your Dragon," John Powell
"Inception," Hans Zimmer
"The King's Speech," Alexandre Desplat
"The Social Network," Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

I'd love to see Hans Zimmer win, but I'd put money down that it's going to go to "The Social Network." And I won't be that heartbroken. "Inception" had a great soundtrack, but so did "The Social Network." Its win would absolutely not be undeserved. "Inception" has received some harsh criticism from the Internet after random viral sensations lampooned its main theme, but the score was more than just that small snippet pounding during the fight scenes that people remember the most.

Best Song
"Coming Home," Country Strong
"I See the Light," Tangled
"If I Rise," 127 Hours
"We Belong Together," Toy Story 3

"Toy Story 3" will win over the other animated nom here. The only possible competition could be from the song from "127 Hours," but once again, leftover goodwill from years past when Randy Newman didn't win for "You've Got a Friend in Me" will help him out.

Best Sound Editing
Inception
Toy Story 3
TRON: Legacy
True Grit
Unstoppable

Best Sound Mixing
Inception
The King's Speech
Salt
The Social Network
True Grit

Best Visual Effects
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1
Hereafter
Inception
Iron Man 2

I've already stated my opinions on "Inception" regarding the technical categories above, so I won't elaborate on these three categories. These will be the "Avatar" categories - where the Academy acknowledges the popular movie, but this is all it will get.

Best Original Screenplay
Another Year
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech

I'm torn here. The Globes really liked "The Kids Are All Right," but I just have a feeling that it's not going to have as much luck at the Oscars since it's sharing categories with Dramas, not just Comedies and Musicals. "The King's Speech" is tailor-made to be an Oscar darling, and you know what? It completely deserves it.

Best Adapted Screenplay
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Funny how sequels are considered Adapted Screenplays, huh? But this is another one where I would put down money (hell, I'd probably bet my life on this one) that Aaron Sorkin is going to go home with this award. He did a fantastic job, he deserves it, and he's going to win. No doubts here.

In Theaters: "Black Swan"

The trailers: (see "True Grit" review)

The film: I've wanted to see this one for a while now and, to my surprise and delight, it got a wide release. "Black Swan" is not for sensitive or squeamish people. It's a very visceral film and contains more disturbing, gross-out images than Darren Aronofsky's previous ick flick "Requiem for a Dream." I loved that this movie actually leaves a mark on you when you watch it. The climactic final act completely had me (figuratively) on the edge of my seat. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the film never spells out for you what was part of main character Nina's madness and what was real. You're left at the end still questioning if her alternate Lily really was scheming for her position or was just an innocent fellow dancer caught up in Nina's spiral.

As far as the accusations of camp go, this is definitely a love-it-or-hate-it film. You either totally buy into it or you don't. Personally, I wholeheartedly believe that the movie perfectly straddles the line between drama and melodrama. The film is told entirely from Nina's point of view and therefore everything must be interpreted through her mind. If everything didn't take place through her eyes, then I could probably be convinced that this movie was overly melodramatic or cheesy. But you're seeing the events through the eyes of a naive, childlike, innocent young dancer who faces immense pressure from large, threatening figures who slowly manage to change her at her very core. I don't think this movie is high-minded trash or enjoyable camp. I think it's a movie that takes an uncomfortable, sometimes awkwardly funny, subject very seriously. I can see how many people would be turned off by it.

This is Nina's movie, and therefore it is Natalie Portman's movie and she more than rises to the occasion. You get to watch this woman go from admiring her icon from afar to changing who she is to be "perfect." The scene where Nina sits at retiring dancer Beth's mirror and picks up the lipstick is a perfect insight into who she is when her transformation begins. She is like a little girl, sheltered by her mother and pure in her passion. By the end, she has sacrificed the "sweet girl" she was to be the dynamic, sinister Black Swan. Her struggle to become the Black Swan is the most important thing to her. For her, the performance is her life and she is invested in every way imaginable to reaching the primal passion that Lily exudes so easily. It's about more than just performing the piece, it's about becoming it. "Lose yourself." Lily is "imprecise, but effortless. She's not faking it." The sexuality in the film, which may strike some as excessive, crass, or nothing but male fantasy is used to show Nina's dark maturation. Seduction is a big theme here.

I have to say that "Black Swan" did for "Swan Lake" what "Shakespeare in Love" did for "Romeo and Juliet" - it made me want to go out and see the original. Who says movies are low art? Both of these movies gave me a newfound appreciation and perspective on what I previously saw as old, stuffy productions irrelevant to the modern person. Okay, maybe that's a tad strong, but it gives me a new appreciation for ballet and theater.

I enjoy psychological thrillers and while "Black Swan" isn't the most subtle of examples, it's still a remarkable, fascinating film worth seeing.

My grade: A

My Favorite Things of 2010

I've read around a thousand lists of "Best movies of the year," "Worst movies of the year," "Biggest breakout stars of the year," etc. I didn't want to do a cliche one like that, so instead I'll do a super creative list of things that made me happy this year. Enjoy, and feel free to yell at me for anything I missed. It's been a long year, after all, and I know I didn't remember everything.

"Inception" gives us a 2 for 1 gift
I thought I'd put the obvious one up front. We got a thrilling, summer popcorn movie combined with a thoughtful, mind-bending film rolled into one amazing time at the movies (or three, depending on how many times you saw it. I couldn't get enough!) "Inception" is one of my new favorite movies of all time. No other director can make blockbuster movies that are incredibly popular, incredibly smart, and incredibly original like Christopher Nolan.

The continual rise of AMC
I'm slowly falling in love with this channel. From top-notch original programming like "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" to quality movies that aren't just whatever they could get the rights to and throw on the air, they live up to their slogan of "story matters here." I don't think "The Walking Dead" lived up to its fantastic premise, but AMC deserves all due credit for making an effort to have all-around quality programming.

BBC's "Sherlock"
From "Doctor Who" writer Steven Moffat, "Sherlock" had a lot of the charm and energy of Moffat's "Doctor Who" contributions. A modern updating of the Sherlock Holmes stories could have easily been a disgrace to Sherlock's history, but it turned out to be an extremely entertaining and smartly produced TV series. It's easily one of the best things I've watched this year and I can't wait for more episodes.

"Southland" lives
NBC couldn't hold on to it, but TNT knew better and kept this great cop drama on the air, even renewing it for another season to air soon. I don't like procedurals, but I do love lawyer and cop dramas when they're more sophisticated and realistic than the hundreds of "CSI"s and "Law & Order"s out there.

"Cougar Town" keeps getting better and better
I'm really hoping I won't be saying this still next year as it pains me to admit, but "Modern Family" seems to have peaked in its first year. But "Cougar Town" worked out its kinks, ditched the off-putting premise, and became a terrific sitcom that has the same silly yet smart comedy that show creator Bill Lawrence put in "Scrubs."

"Fringe" crosses over to the Other Side
I've raved about this show all over my blog, so I won't bother to reiterate my praise, even if it does completely deserve it. After all the highly advertised 'next big things' in SciFi that sputtered and died, it's nice to have one show around that nails the big narrative scope and intimate character development that all those other ones promised but couldn't deliver on.

Andrew Garfield
I had no idea whatsoever who this guy was when they announced him as the lead actor in the "Spiderman" reboot. I wasn't excited already because I thought the first two movies were very good. But after seeing him in "The Social Network," I couldn't wait to see more of him. Jesse Eisenberg plays it cold and distanced, but Andrew Garfield brings the emotional weight of the film. It excited me to uncover another tidbit of why I thought he looked so darn familiar. He had a lead role in the two-part "Doctor Who" episode "Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks." He definitely has my attention now!

"Toy Story 3"
So many people of my generation were terrified that our childhood memories of the first two movies would be retroactively tarnished by an awful addition to the franchise years later. Imagine our relief when the third movie was every bit as wonderful as the first two. Who knew three animated kid's movies could be so emotionally affecting and enjoyable by young and old equally. More than a success due to nostalgia alone, this third film earned all the praise it got.

"24" ends
I loved this show for a long time but the last few seasons went really downhill and it broke my heart. The character assassination of Tony Almeida was bad enough, but Katee Sackhoff's Dana Walsh storyline put the final nail in the coffin and it became crystal clear - "24"'s time had come and gone and it was time to go.

"Ugly Betty" ends on a high note
No one really noticed when "Ugly Betty" recovered from its creative slump and got back to its first season goodness. By then, the show was canceled and was wrapping things up. But unlike other shows that march slowly toward their death with dwindling writing quality, "Ugly Betty" avoided that bitter end and proved that it deserves a fond place in our memories.

"Avatar" gets shut out at the Oscars
As the Oscar season roles around again, people are disputing the validity of nominations for ten films or for blockbuster films. But if "Avatar" can be a frontrunner, then so can "Inception" and other great movies that also happened to be wildly popular. As much as I think blockbuster movies deserve recognition when they're good, movies should win Academy Awards for having the whole package. Brilliant visuals should win technical awards. Brilliant visuals plus superb writing and acting should win Best Picture.

"Breaking Bad" winning big at the Emmys
Speaking of the whole package, "Breaking Bad" definitely has it. As much as I've wanted "Dexter" to get some love for a while and as exquisite as "Mad Men" is, "Breaking Bad" is shockingly terrific. Shockingly in that it has shocking moments, not that I expected it to be bad. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul absolutely earned those Emmy awards. Their performances are fearlessly genius and unparalleled in the television world.

"Billionaire" by Travie McCoy & Bruno Mars
I'll admit, I'm not an avid listener of Top 40 like I used to be, finding most of it to be overly autotuned and unoriginal. I don't like the state of pop music right now, I think American Idol alums only add to the generic singles, and rap/hip-hop has never been my favorite genre. (I don't say this to be an old timer at heart or a smug, arrogant hipster, I just like to be honest). But I really loved this song. So much of hip-hop that turns me off has to do with the Kanye West-type arrogance in the music. Social commentary and innovation, yes please. Giant egos going on and on about how awesomely badass and rich they are, no thank you. "Billionaire" came at a good time, when the economy was in a bad place and everyone could relate to this earnest song about the natural desire to have the freedom and joy that money can bring.

"Night Work" by the Scissor Sisters
Not nearly as popular in their native US as they should be, the Scissor Sisters released another album this year. The delightful new addition brought us more quality pop, heavily influenced by the best of disco and dance music. They also released the ridiculously upbeat song "Isn't It Strange," which got a place in the new "Shrek" movie. Still filthy, still gorgeous, I hope the Scissor Sisters keep putting out great music like they have this year.

"Kick-Ass" says 'yes' to violence and swearing
Is it base of me to say that I enjoyed the hell out of this movie? Is it immature of me to admit that I loved all the graphic violence? I don't care what anyone says, I had a great time watching this one and wish it had done better so we would get a sequel. It also got Mika to release another single specifically for this movie, so all things considered, this movie made me very happy this year.

Ben Affleck keeps directing
It looks like "Gone Baby Gone" was just the beginning. I don't care if Affleck ever acts again, but I can't wait to see what he does next behind the camera.

Mark Pellegrino scores some high-profile roles
Alright, Lucifer on "Supernatural" is definitely not a high-profile role. He was probably recognized mostly for his work as the abusive Paul Bennett on "Dexter." But he also got the role as the mysterious Jacob on "Lost." I may not have liked the direction "Lost" took towards the end, but Pellegrino was game to fill in the convoluted blanks in the story.

The pervasive use of "Sunshine (Adagio in D Minor)"
And I thought I'd put the bizarrely specific one last. I love this simple yet moving piece of music by composer John Murphy. It's showing up all over the place now, from episodes of "V" and "The Walking Dead" to the climax of "Kick-Ass" (which also used Murphy's "In the House, in a Heartbeat" from "28 Days Later.") I even heard it in a trailer for some Javier Bardem movie. It's quickly becoming the new go-to piece of music, much like the oft-used "Lux Aerterna" from "Requiem for a Dream."

On DVD: "The Kids Are All Right" and "The Town"

Recently I had the opportunity to watch two movies I wasn't able to see in theaters. "The Kids Are All Right" and "The Town" just came out on DVD and both are likely to be recognized in some capacity in the coming awards season. "Inception" also came out on DVD recently and you can click here to read my review of it and "Toy Story 3." Read ahead for my reviews of the other two.

"The Kids Are All Right"I have to say I was very disappointed by this movie. I really wanted it to be a clever, unique comment on family and conflict. If not for the hype, I might have liked it better, but the way professional critics are going on about it you'd think it was a much smarter, more dynamic film that it is. The basic premise is that the son and daughter of two lesbians search out their biological father and complications ensue. It's not so much a family drama like I expected as most of the focus turns away from the children and onto the adults and the odd decisions they make. I'm not talking about the odd decision of lesbians to watch gay male porn, which thoroughly confused me until Julianne Moore's character hilariously explained it. I'm not talking about the odd decision to name their son 'Laser.' I'm talking about something so integral to the plot that I can't properly discuss the movie unless I spoil it, so SPOILER ALERT if that bothers you. Julianne Moore's character starts sleeping with Mark Ruffalo's character. There's some half-assed explanation like 'she hasn't felt appreciated,' but really, it just struck me as ridiculously unrealistic. It fed into the tired belief that all lesbians are straight women led astray who just need a rugged man to snap them back to normal. She seems to really enjoy sleeping with him, physically not just emotionally, and she initiates the act herself a few times. Cheating on her wife because she doesn't feel appreciated could make sense, but why she runs into the arms of the newly arrived sperm donor father is perplexing and the movie lost me at that point. The emotional resolution, the scene where Moore gets to really shine, is considerably less powerful when the issue it's resolving never made sense to me in the first place.

The acting across the board is really good, but I didn't think that any of it was particularly Academy Award worthy. Moore and Annette Bening get to shine towards the end, but the moments are so short that I don't think it's enough for a nomination. Are we just pleased when people can actually act in movies these days? Or do we expect these two actresses to be great so we praise their solid performances as revolutionary? I would much prefer to see the two younger stars get recognition for their roles. Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson were much better than I expected and it was that much better because they weren't late 20-something actors playing young kids. I wish the movie had kept the focus on them more. For all the pains the movie goes through to show that this family has problems like everyone else, the big speech that solves everything (except Ruffalo's misery) clears away the complex family issues it tried to set up. Hutcherson's Laser is underdeveloped and issues of parenting and role models take backseat to the affair between Moore and Ruffalo.

All in all, I have to agree with the few other people who felt the same way I did - if this movie was about a heterosexual couple with adopted children who seek out their bioDad, would it really have gotten all this attention? The film felt like pure Oscar bait. It seems to fit in with the tendency of professional critics around this time to praise indie movies with high profile actors playing alternative characters. I have to be honest, aside from the nonsensical plot "twist," the movie isn't awful. It's enjoyable at times, but it's just not sheer brilliance. But I really think that critics like to praise "edgy" performances and a lot of times they get a little self-important. They like to recommend "serious" movies. Watching this movie I just felt like I was watching an attempt to say "lesbian families aren't perfect, they're just like yours! That's the point!" No, most families (of any kind) aren't perfect, but I really think a lot of the message gets lost when the motivation of characters' actions leading to the Big Conflict are unclear and make little sense.

My grade: C

"The Town"I'll admit that this one had a bias in favor of it coming in because I love crime dramas. But I've never been a big fan of Ben Affleck in starring roles so it kind of balanced things out. This was another interesting experience because I was expecting a more fast-paced, action-filled thriller than what I got. It had plenty of action, but it was smarter and quieter in an intense way that I came to enjoy. I worry that some might be disappointed because it could be too little romance for the female crowd and too little action for the male crowd. I hate to put it in black-and-white terms like that, but it does tend to skew that way and there's no way I can deny that. I do have to point out that the trailer is very misleading as it is edited to a very large degree. Dialogue is switched around and dialogue is added that I never heard in the actual movie. But it's still a movie that's worth your time.

I'm going to point out my favorite thing first - Jon Hamm. He is so great at playing a bastard that I relished his might-have-been cheesy action lines. He pulls off great badass lines like "this is the 'not fucking around crew.' Find me something that looks like a print so I can grab one of these assholes and shake their tree because this 'not fucking around thing' is about to go both ways!" Jeremy Renner as Jem is also fantastic as the explosive partner-in-crime of Ben Affleck's Doug. He's a fascinating character and I wish they had spent a little more time on the relationship between him and Affleck's character. He also has my favorite moment in the movie, where Doug walks into the room and tells him "I need your help. I can't tell you what it is, you can never ask me about it later, and we're gonna hurt some people." Jem pauses for a second, then asks "whose car we gonna take?"

I also have to point out that while Ben Affleck is not my favorite actor, he's turning into a pretty good director. I hope he continues his career behind the camera. He handles the action scenes nicely and shoots Boston beautifully. That's my only concern about his future - how will he handle films outside of his turf? But I really did enjoy the action scenes here, especially the car chase with the police through narrow streets. Often when you get car chases like these they take place in European cities down narrow lanes so it was nice to see an American take. The robberies and the action pieces aren't huge, epic sequences. They're closed in, tightly directed, and they have a nice claustrophobic intensity to them where you feel like you're right there and about to get shot. Also, the heist crew isn't made of movie thieves who are high-tech criminal masterminds either. Like it's mentioned at the beginning of the movie, robbery is treated like another trade that these men have down pat.

SPOILER ALERT for the ending, because I'd like to address that as well. I was pleased with the ending, which didn't wrap everything up nicely in a bow. I was so afraid they were going to go cliche and have Claire run away with Doug where they would live off the money from the final heist in Florida. But no, Claire fights with her conscience and works with the FBI even after she realizes Doug isn't villain through-and-through but she also tries to warn him away from a trap. The ending isn't some fairy tale where she runs away with him for true love and all his criminal acts are forgiven because he has a heart of gold. The ending was melancholy but not completely depressing. I felt like these characters were actually adults. In lesser movies, especially romantic comedies, you get grown men and women acting like they're teenagers. But this movie has a more blurred sense of morality and takes a sober look at romance and I appreciated that. Especially after the bizarre romantic relationship in "The Kids Are All Right." I also enjoyed the mommy issues, which they didn't need to put in but it added some psychological depth to the characters and some insight into the blue-collar Boston lifestyle.

Overall, good movie. I would have liked a few more scenes between Renner and Affleck, but it was still well done. I enjoyed the more realistic, down-to-earth feel when I was expecting a bombastic, overblown action flick.

My grade: A

Thoughts on the Golden Globe nominations

I've never been all that interested in the Golden Globes, but they actually have some impact in the movie world. Movie nominations in the Globes gives you a decent idea of where the Oscar nominations are going. Not always, but if a critical favorite doesn't make it to the Globes, it doesn't bode well for the movie. One of my biggest problems with the Globes is that it comes so early that most movies being nominated haven't been seen by the general public. At least by Oscar time, critical faves are at least in the artsy theaters, but around this time? Many indie faves haven't even left New York and LA.

(For a complete list of the nominations, click here.)

Movies

• After the critical evisceration of "The Tourist," I was shocked to see it so represented in the nominations. With a 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, it's being called one of Johnny Depp's worst performances as well as a self-indulgent, self-important bore. I also wasn't aware that "The Tourist" was a Musical or Comedy.
  
  
• Surprised to see so little love for "The Town" or Ben Affleck. Say what you will about his acting, but as a director, I think he's pretty darn good.
  
  
• One of the other problems with the Globes when it comes to movies is their separation of films into Drama and Musical or Comedy. You might think that this gives lighter movies a fair chance, but really, it just means sub-par movies (like "Burlesque") sneak their way in. The more I think about it, the more I like the Oscars' new method of nominating ten movies for Best Picture. It allows them to recognize more than just the indie/critical favorites and acknowledge that sometimes blockbusters or comedies are just as deserving of the prize.
  
  
• I am dying to see "Black Swan." But like I said, that won't come to my hometown for a long time. And even then, it will be in the artsy theater downtown. And I don't even live out in the sticks, I'm in a relatively large city. I don't think my situation is that uncommon. A lot of people outside the biggest of the big cities struggle to find these critical favorites, and even then, how many people out there can go out with a group of friends who all want desperately to see some indie movie? It's not exactly surprising that I can't rally some friends or family to go see a movie like "127 Hours" on a Friday night. Nothing says a good time like a little amputation.
  
  
• Speaking of which, poor Danny Boyle himself gets no love for his intense new film. What a shame. From what I've seen of his previous films and what I've heard about "127 Hours," I would bet that he deserved some recognition.
  
  
• I'm thrilled to see Andrew Garfield nominated for "The Social Network," not that it's any surprise. Critics are in love with this movie and it's definitely a front-runner for the Oscars.
  
  
• Looking at the director nominations, this is going to be one thrilling Oscar race this year. As much as I love Christopher Nolan and "Inception," how could I say for one second that Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher don't deserve it? I do think Aaron Sorkin deserves the Screenplay win and I am expecting him to win the Oscar next year.
  
  
• I would love to see "Inception" at least win Best Original Score. I focus on the score of a movie more than the average person, and Hans Zimmer never fails to impress me.

Television

• I'm pretty upset that "The Walking Dead" got a Best TV Series nod for Drama over something like "Fringe." I've said plenty about both already, so I don't think I need to give my reasons here too.
  
  
• Still depressed that "Cougar Town" is snubbed, but not at all surprised. Critical love has been building slowly but steadily for that show all year and I had some hope it would sneak in there.
  
  
• Best Actor in a Drama series is the same exact thing as every year: Jon Hamm, Michael C Hall, Hugh Laurie, Bryan Cranston. The only new addition is Steve Buscemi for "Boardwalk Empire."
  
  
• I didn't realize until another site pointed it out for me, but "Lost" is nowhere to be seen. That makes me so happy. It got all the recognition it deserved when it was at the top of its game.
  
  
• I was really surprised to see Piper Perabo get a nod for "Covert Affairs." USA Network hasn't shown up a lot in awards shows, even lately. I never did pick up "Covert Affairs," but now I have to wonder - is it really that good, or is this another "Johnny Depp in 'The Tourist'" fluke? Could her spot really not have gone to Anna Torv, who stepped up her game this year on "Fringe?"