Oz the Great and Powerful:

Even when I was a little boy, I always knew what sort of children's movies my parents would or wouldn't like. It had to be intelligent, witty and have the balls enough to send some rather dirty jokes right over the heads of kids to the parents to reward them for the hefty price tag that comes when you take your whole family to a multiplex. After I saw Oz the Great and Powerful, I was very confused indeed. I wasn't quite sure what type of kid's movie I had seen and the following is a list of reasons why.

The Acting : Oz  is an origin tale of the "wonderful wizard" we encounter in the classic Wizard of Oz.  Oz starts out as a scheming womanizer known as Oscar Diggs, with no real magical talent who dreams of greatness but doesn't seem willing to do the work to get it. At the same time, our hero is constantly needled by a desire to do the right thing, which of course doesn't happen until the end of the movie. Poor James Franco is probably more confused than we are the whole time. Every once in a while he gets a look on his face that tells us he really is uncomfortable in such a clean children's movie. At times I could almost hear the "that's what she said" jokes going off in his head to counter all of the ridiculously over-saccharine elements of the script. Acknowledging the ridiculousness of the film, Franco gives us some good chuckles every once in a while but ultimately cannot give this movie any real help. While I am happy Johnny Depp passed up on this one (do we really want a repeat of his Michael Jackson-like Wonka?), I can't help but think that Robert Downey Jr. would have been the perfect man for this role had he not turned it down himself. I would have thought that a Zach Braff and James Franco pairing would be an extremely funny pairing, but in the end Braff just isn't given anything to work with. Some briefly funny moments at the beginning of the film are great, but they stop there, and somehow the makers of this movie didn't see comedic potential in Braff voicing a flying monkey? Just scandalous. Mila Kunis seems to do relatively well at the start of the movie, but in the end her turn as Theodora, the eventual Wicked Witch, just doesn't seem to make much sense. When her character is a good witch , she's also somewhat of a jealous crazy girl, so when she turns evil the character development never happens. Word on the street is that this lack of making sense has her in the running for a razzie . The only people that seem to commit well to the movie  are Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, and even they are turning coals of dialogue into diamonds. 

Special Effects: In the original classic Wizard of Oz, the change to colour upon arrival in Oz is one of the most iconic moments in the history of film-making  Thus I expected Oz to pull out all the visual stops when they opted to do the same thing and start out the movie in black and white. Unfortunately, after a year of seeing movies like Life of Pi, Oz's decent special effects and created world did not inspire any awe at all. It almost seemed like a mockery of the classic colour change to show the land of Oz so half-heartedly and no child born on this side of the millennium will bat an eyelid at the computer generated characters. 

 Dialogue: Don't misunderstand me, Oz is a children's film- I understand. Nearly all of my childhood  favourites (still my favourites) have some incredibly cheesy themes and lines. Lines like "I do, I do, I do believe in fairies" are just part of the gig. But at least most of them had the decency to tell me all about their hopes and dreams in a song instead of delivering it unconvincingly in the middle of an otherwise serious conversation. Part of what makes the original Wizard of Oz cool is that there are those ridiculous songs in it, and apart from one weird "munchkin song", which brought back politically incorrect echoes of the oompa-loompa songs in the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, there was no effort in Oz to harden the mushy message. Some may claim that the age of sing-along children's movies are over, but as Tangled shows, movies that focus in only on the kiddy- viewers can still do very well with those sing-along elements. 

Maybe fifteen years ago I would have enjoyed this movie. But I like to think that kids around the world are smarter than this muddled attempt at a promising premise.Despite a final third that is actually quite enjoyable, Oz will never be iconic in any shape or form, tossed aside a day after mummy buys it along with such movies as The Ant Bully, and The Land Before Time 6 (or 7,8,9 etc.). To make matters worse, box-office reports have been stellar and they're making a sequel! At least franchises like Ice Age started out somewhat seriously before dumbing down its content value and robbing families blind. 

Side Effects: Questionably bad title. Great movie.

A couple weeks ago, a friend expressed his desire to watch a movie with me because he thought it would be a very different experience. I think he was expecting to see me show up to a cinema with notebook and pen in hand to jot down notes for my reviews, but I very rarely write down anything at all when preparing to write one. I do however, do some brainstorming in my head- working out different approaches to each film.  Normally I'm spot on in the first hour of the movie in what I expect I'll say, that was until a couple weeks ago when I saw Steven Soderbergh's latest work entitled Side Effects.

In fact, such was the complex nature of this drama, complete with plot twists bold enough to shock even the most jaded of moviegoers, that it is actually hard to even describe what this film is about without giving away parts of the film that are extremely important.  I guess the most inoffensive summary I can give you is that Side Effects is a drama about a troubled young woman named  Emily (Rooney Mara) who experiences some ridiculously disturbing results after she takes a drug prescribed by her new psychiatrist (Jude Law) to combat her depression. Such a summary actually well describes my initial attitudes towards the film about a quarter of the way through its viewing. Here, I thought, was a rather stark social commentary about our medical system and the cronyism involved between doctors and the drug industry. It was perfect fodder for a great review; I would talk about the quality of the movie and then segue into some meaningful paragraph about the commercialization of medicinal products. Hell, one of Side Effects' leads Catherine Zeta-Jones even suffers from bipolar disorder. A great film about a pertinent issue inspiring a great review. But it was not to be, and the film's sharp turn in direction is something that I could have only expected from someone like Soderbergh, whose CV includes some of my all-time favourites.

Side Effects may soon be added to that list of Soderbergh gems, with literally every aspect of the film working extremely well. I've never been much for the whole maniacally crazy routine, but Rooney Mara was probably as good in this film as I've ever seen her. There is a classic Hitchcock-femme-fatale quality about her facial expressions that makes it all the more effective when she zips from emotion to emotion throughout the film. Mara can be angry, vulnerable, sincere, then snide all at different times during a two-minute conversation without it ever seeming forced or over-dramatic. Jude Law also puts in a great performance, which coincidentally is the first leading role he's had in a while that actually lets him use his natural English accent. As an Englishman myself, I may be biased, but I'm pretty sure the droves of women who worship these actors won't mind if they use their real accents. How much more badass would Idris Elba's character in Prometheus have been if he had been allowed to let that East London slang come through? Fortunately, with Side Effects that is not a question we have to ponder, and besides his usual amount of charm, Law adds a dose of his dramatic flair as as the psychiatrist. 

They originally wanted to hire Blake Lively as the lead...madness

The real cornerstones of this film are the direction and screenplay, which seem like such a breath of fresh air. The plot twists never seem mechanical, the suspense never dulls and more importantly Soderbergh never feels the need to spoon feed everything to you. There are clues along the away that can tip-off the most observant of viewers, but the resolutions to so many of the film's questions don't get answered until they absolutely have to be. This makes Side Effects a great movie to watch with a bunch of friends because everyone will react in different ways based on how many of those clues they have picked up. Any of us that have watched The Walking Dead this season (slight spoiler alert ahead) know that balancing plot twists with unstable characters is no easy task, and I think I appreciate Soderbergh's subtleties even more as a result. 

We all know that 2012 was one of the best years for movies ever, but now it almost seems like Hollywood is hungover from all the past year's revelries and successes. There are plenty of movies to get excited about in 2013, but these past couple months have been rather event-less apart from Warm Bodies. Personally, I left the Christmas season feeling rather drained from having seen and reviewed so many awesome movies, but Side Effects is just the dose of aspirin I needed and the best film of 2013 I've seen so far.

Guncotton's Oscar Predictions 2013

So I've put off my Oscar predictions as long as humanly possible, but since they are today I feel like I might as well do them now. The reasons for my delay are numerous, but probably the biggest reason why I wanted to hold off was simply that I hadn't seen enough of the contenders. Every year I find I have seen most of the contenders, only for one frustratingly-independent-and-thus-hard-to-find movie in every category to screw me. This year, after having watched more movies than ever before because of this blog, I still wasn't completely ready, but thanks to the internet, Netflix and their posting of Five Broken Cameras (a nominee for Best Documentary), this is the first time I will have seen everything.

Best Visual Effects: I figured I would start with something pretty easy and largely not controversial, and if you were one of the two main groups that flocked to go see Ang Lee's Life of Pi (Asians and fans of the book), then you will completely understand what I am about to say. I hate 3D. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when I went to go see a movie and was extremely excited to go through almost two hours with some strange plastic object annoying my nose, watching something that was just as enjoyable without the lovely wallet-dent of fifteen bucks. However, Life of Pi is the only movie I have seen in 3D that  has ever fully justified its use to me. Ang Lee produces moments gasp-inducing beauty and wonder that were fantastic to behold not once but all of the three occasions I saw it. Looking at the other nominees on the list: Prometheus, The Hobbit, The Avengers and Snow White and the Huntsman-it's a shoo in.



Who should win: Life of Pi

Who will win: Life of Pi




Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay): And of all of a sudden things get very difficult indeed. 2012 was the best movie year ever and possessed a unique balance of both adapted screenplays and new original work. The problem for me is that the Adapted Screenplay division of the Best Writing award is probably as stacked as it has ever been. Argo, Lincoln, Life of Pi, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Silver Linings Playbook are all up for this one, and coincidentally are all up for best picture, making this a potential indicator of the night's biggest prize.For me, the award is a close decision between Argo, Life of Pi and Lincoln. When I first saw Argo, its writing was probably what impressed me the most- the steady flow of smart, crisp and quick dialogue pushing the drama along in a way that I never would have imagined from a Ben Affleck film. But the actual task of the adaptation of Argo's story is not quite as impressive for me, as the real-life story of a CIA agent rescuing foreign service officers from Iran by posing as a movie crew, is something that cries out to be made into a movie- the material is all there.  One film that had the hardest task was definitely Life of Pi, with writer David Magee bringing to life a format of storytelling that can at times be confusing even in the book the movie is based on. Such was the nature of the book, that people claimed it to be "unfilmable", but such is the nature of the Oscars that it will probably lose out to Spielberg's Lincoln. In many ways, Lincoln is everything the Oscars want for a sweep of the night's awards. A movie about one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen, dealing with one of the greatest conflicts this nation has ever seen. But Lincoln, is also one of Spielberg's smartest ever films, zipping along in a snappiness that reminds you of an Aaron Sorkin work. It'll be a close one, but even if Lincoln loses on the night's biggest prizes, it will pull this one out.

Who should win: Life of Pi

Who will probably win: Lincoln


Best Writing (Original Screenplay): This one is slightly less difficult in that less of the movies in this category are up for Best Picture awards. Amour, Django, Moonrise Kingdom, Flight and Zero Dark Thirty are the nominees, and they represent a wide selection of genres and sorts of movies. Django, while being one of my favourite movies of the year definitely won't win and probably shouldn't. It is a great movie for sure, but nothing really about it's writing was anything out of the ordinary for a Quentin Tarantino film (other than the fact the story is actually shot sequentially), and since the Oscars have been less than nice to his films in the past, there is no reason to suspect they will now. Moonrise Kingdom, represents a summer love affair with the critical community that has now been largely forgotten after so many other fine girls walked into our lives. While being a quirky, refreshingly bizarre film, it's more likely to become a cult classic than an Oscar win for Original Screenplay. Amour and Flight represent fantastic dramas of the melancholy kind, but are better defined for the ability of their stars (Emmanuelle Riva and Denzel Washington respectively) to bring the writing to life than the writing itself. Zero Dark Thirty's Oscar appeal has taken a hit because of qualms about the torture scenes shown in it, but American squeamishness about tactics that eventually resulted in wild celebrations around the country aside, it is both a deserving and predictable winner, with writing and dialogue that checks all the boxes of a political drama based on the greatest manhunt of our time.

Who should win: Zero Dark Thirty

Who will win: Zero Dark Thirty

Sound Mixing/ Sound Editing: I thought I would lump these two awards together and keep it short because quite frankly, nobody cares. Sound editing refers to the actual process of recording sound effects and creating other random and music elements that exist in the background. Sound Mixing is when all those things are (wait for it) mixed together along with dialogue, and levels are adjusted to create the right balances for the final cut. I would expect Zero Dark Thirty to win Sound Editing just because of its torture scenes alone (sounds that stayed with me), not to mentioned the careful application of different sound elements before and after the film's climax. Sound mixing is a harder one, but I think it may be one of the few Oscars Les Mis actually will win, with the combination of so many more elements (singing to name one) that will tip the scales in its favour.




Sound Editing nominees: Argo, Life of Pi, Django, Skyfall, Zero Dark Thirty

Who will win : Zero Dark Thirty

Sound Mixing nominees:  Argo, Les Mis, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Skyfall

Who will win : Les Mis.


Short Film (Live Action): The nominees for this award  this year have all been rather good with Asad, Buzkashi Boys, Curfew, Henry and Death of a Shadow all being interesting to watch. However for me, Asad, the story of a young boy dealing with some pretty tough choices in Somalia is the likely winner even though Buzkashi Boys, the story of two boys living in Afghanistan, is also rather powerful. However because of the similarity The Academy will see between it and full length features of the past such as The Kite Runner, Buzkashi Boys will most likely get screwed, just as is the case for Henry, whose similarity to this year's Amour will hurt it.

Who will win: Asad.  

Short Film (Animated): The animated short films are always some of my favourites to watch as they often have really interesting story-lines  most of the time with very little to no dialogue at all. This year's nominees are no different but there are two very clear front runners in Paperman (which has become a bit of an internet sensation) and Head over Heels. Paperman is Walt Disney's entry this year, showing the black and white story of two office workers whose getting together is aided by paper. While the premise is a little weird,  there is no one else in the category that can even touch it save Head over heels- a similarly romantic piece (albeit with more depth) about the emotional distance between an older married couple. Paperman is the clear favourite but the Oscars like surprises, especially up against mega-giants like Disney.

Who should win: Head over Heels

Who will win: Paperman



Production Design: I'm not ashamed to say I had to look up what this award even was. In a nutshell it's the overall visual design and feel of the movie, through sets, costumes- the whole enchilada. Given its attention to detail and the complexity of the time it's in Lincoln will probably outpace Les Mis on this one easily.

Who should and will win: Lincoln


Best Original Song: If there was one award that could sum up the apparent ambivalence of the critical community towards Les Mis it is probably this one. "Suddenly", a piece added to an already long (but awesome) musical just for the sake of winning an award, has been completely out-staged by the introduction song to Skyfall. There's not a person on earth that doesn't think Adele won't win, and she doesn't stuff will go down.

Winner (period): Skyfall


Musical Score: For such an epic film  John Williams score to Lincoln was extremely underwhelming. In fact. I would probably go as far to say that it sucked, but I love his other music far too much. Thus with no other real contenders in the field, Life of Pi will probably win this one, although even its score wasn't that amazing.

Who should and will win: Life of Pi


Foreign Language Film: Another one not even up for discussion. Typically when a foreign film is in the discussion for a lot of other Oscars, the one it'll probably win is this one. Amour for the win.


Winner (by a landslide): Amour


Film Editing: This one's a toughie but I'll play it safe and go with Argo. One of the better aspects of the film are the crisp transitions that add to the building drama and tension.

Who should and will win: Argo


Documentary Short: This is category is one of my favourites, mostly just because the documentaries shown are always pretty powerful. This year's presumptive favourites are no different, my favourite being Mondays at Racine- a film about women fighting cancer who meet at a beauty salon. Another big contender is Inocente, a film about a homeless immigrant that seemed to give everyone pause for thought when I saw it in the cinema.

Who should win: Inocente

Who will win: Mondays at Racine


Documentary Feature: This one is probably the reason I have waiting so long to make my predictions. It's one thing to watch all of the shorts because they're not that long and luckily for me were shown at my local cinema. It is another to try and find some of these documentaries, but luckily the internet is a wonderful place. In my mind there really is no competition and "Five Broken Cameras" really should win. Director Ernad Burnat, is a Palestinian living in a small village in the West Bank and his film chronicles the struggles his people encounter with encroaching Israeli settlements. Burnat gets his first camera to film his son's birth in 2005, but ends up using it to film the conflict over a few years. Every now and then one of Burnat's cameras get broken, most of the time because Israeli soldiers don't want him filming. Edited and put together by his friend, Israeli director Guy Davidi, Burnat's documentary is extremely powerful.

Random tidbit: Burnat and his family were actually detained at LAX this past week en-route to the Oscars because airport security didn't believe such a regular looking Palestinian guy had been nominated for an academy award.

Who should and will win: Five Broken Cameras


Directing: This one really could be a crapshoot, but there are ways to find a winner out of Lincoln, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour, Life of Pi, and Silver Linings Playbook...or not. In any case Steven Spielberg has only won Best Director when the movie has won Best Picture once- for Schindler's List. Even perhaps more interesting is that he has never won Best Director when one of his stars has won Best Actor, meaning that if Lincoln wins Best Actor and Best Picture, then it would be highly unlikely for him to win Best Director as well. Ang Lee did an extraordinary job with Life of Pi, but again is unlikely to win both Best Picture and Best Director. The dark houses, mainly David O. Russell (Silver Linings) and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts) have legitimate chances to spring a surprise, with Zeitlin leading the charge in that sense with the little movie that could. I

Who I really want to win: Benh Zeitlin (Beasts)

Who could win:  Ang Lee

Wish you were here: Ben Affleck (Argo)

Who will win: Steven Spielberg



Costume Design: I'll throw Les Mis a bone.


Cinematography: This one is a pretty foregone conclusion and accurately describes one of my rules of the night: give the visual awards to Life of Pi when Argo isn't nominated.

Who should and will win: Life of Pi


Animated Feature Film: We've been longing for an introspective look at the video game world forever, and we got it in the tale of a video game character that wants to be something more. Popular appeal may hurt it but I feel it is a much better movie than Brave, which I consider a bit of a miss for Pixar.

Who should win : Wreck it Ralph

Who will win: Wreck it Ralph


Best Supporting Actress : And to think I was beginning to roar through these. Amy Adams was pretty darn good in The Master, although because it is the one out of these that I saw most recently I could be biased. Jacki Weaver was good in Silver Linings Playbook, but I didn't walk away from the theatre thinking she had produced a better performance than anyone else in the movie, which is also a tribute to the wealth of acting in it. Sally Fields, did a fantastic job, even if Mrs. Lincoln annoyed the hell out of me. The clear winner in this one though will by Anne Hathaway, whose turn as Fantine is probably the only thing everyone in the world agrees was absolutely scintillating in Les Mis.


Who should and will win: Anne Hathaway


Best Supporting Actor: This award is probably more about who isn't being talked about to win than who will win. Alan Arkin by far was and is the best person to win this award, however his acting style isn't one that normally wins academy awards. For this reason alone, Tommy Lee Jones will probably win for Lincoln, as his role was the more dramatic- giving him tons of impassioned speeches and soundbites that ultimately trump the golden line "Arrgoo F*** yourself".

Who should win: Alan Arkin

Who will win: Tommy Lee Jones



Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence must know this is her award to lose and she represents a breed that is rare among actresses, being both a critical  and box office love-child. However we all know the Oscars have a habit of giving lifetime achievement awards to people and it is in this regard that my feminine namesake, Emmanuelle Riva could very possibly win. However, my favourite nominee has to be Quvanzhae Wallis, star of Beasts of the Southern Wild, and arguably responsible for the film's entire critical success  Unfortunately for her, a nomination probably is as much as the Academy will give her this time round, much like Jennifer Lawrence's nomination for Winters Bone a couple years ago.
I think I'll start the surprises.


Shock winner : Emmanuelle Riva


Best Actor: A really tough year to be a leading man. Any of the nominees would have won in previous years, but this one is obvious.

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis


Best Picture: So this is where I see the night's biggest upset, in perhaps one of the biggest crapshoots ever at the Oscars. I'll spare you my justifications and just give you my predictions:

Sore loser: Lincoln

Winner: Argo, followed by wild celebrations and proof once and for all that Ben Affleck actually did help Matt Damon write Good Will Hunting.

Netflix Streamer: First Position

I remember that when Billy Elliot came out I was deemed far too young to see it. At barely seven years of age, there is no way I would have understood all of the issues eschewed in the film, nevermind the fact that I would have learnt a whole new world of swear words. Even so, everyone saw the adverts and knew the story of a boy who chooses to secretly pursue ballet, right under the nose of his uber masculine father. Even though I didn't see the film until I was much older, the iconic shots of little Jamie Bell dancing his socks off in the streets of north England had a profound effect on me. As it turned out, I chose sports and music as my artistic and physical outlets. When it came to gymnastics and dance I was as stiff as a cardboard box, and although my dancing has improved (my caribbean blood finally manifested itself age 11), I still can barely touch my toes, let alone point them. Thus, as I sat down to watch Bess Kargman's 2011 documentary First Position, I did so almost reluctantly, not willing to be reminded of my former shortcomings.

First Position is a documentary that looks at the world of dance by examining the journey of a number of aspiring dancers of differing ages as they prepare and compete for a chance at their dreams in the Youth America Grand Prix. Upon reading a similar summary given to me by Netflix's info, I was anticipating some sort of extended version of the TLC show Dance Moms, complete with needless drama about choreography and the mind-numbing politics of the studio. But First Position is not that sort of beast, and shows us a world that many of us have had no exposure to, in an upbeat and yet honest way. Kargman does this through her examination of her carefully chosen participants. We are introduced to six dancers with very differing backgrounds and challenges who compete with one certainty in common: that failure could shatter their dreams.

Some of the participants have stories that we automatically latch onto without hesitation. We meet Joan, a boy from Columbia, practicing and living thousands of miles away from his family all for a shot at a scholarship to a ballet school. Yet another inspiring ballet dancer we meet is Aran, an American "navy brat" living as an ex-pat in Italy whose composure and determination is far beyond that of the typical kid his age. However, the real crowning jewel of this documentary is the now semi-famous Michaela DePrince, who grew up as an orphan in the midst of the Sierra Leonean Civil War. She talks of her earliest memories in such a horrifyingly inhumane environment so matter-of-factly that what she says throughout the documentary hits home better than anything any of the other kids do. In fact, because of the strength of Michaela and Joan's respective stories, I almost felt bad for the other kids highlighted in the documentary. Afterall, it's not their fault they have led relatively normal lives, but the camera (and Kargman) seems to love Michaela and Joan more and more as time goes on.

What's best about the whole affair is that Kargman's documentary doesn't gloss over much, and the nature of what is discussed means that it doesn't need to be over-dramatized.  It's the casual way First Position is shot that gets you in the end, whether it's Aran showing us his latest foot torture/ stretcher apparatus among his toys ("you do a ton of these and then five more when you can't do anymore"), or Michaela's adoptive mother painfully bemoaning ballet's racist perception of her daughter. There are failures and setbacks, injuries and financial burdens, but they all pale in comparison to the joy and happiness both the dancers and we feel during a performance.

Every now and then, Kargman interrupts our following of each featured dancer and provides us with quick testimonials about the key parts of a dancing lifestyle. We hear from so many judges, parents and coaches that it is impossible not to appreciate how many people's lives revolve around competitions like these. The magnitude of the time commitments alone are boggling, but First Position answers the inevitable "why?", with pirouettes and arabesques to say "why not?". Why shouldn't Aran's mother drive him to receive lessons over three hours away?  Why shouldn't Joan's mother have such faith as to pour much of the family's money into her son , even though male ballet defies Columbian cultural norms? Kargman, however is no Spielberg, and the film goes to great lengths to remind us these kids are already one in a million for making it this far and still might not make the big time.  Still, it's hard not to wonder that if these kids are doing all this and achieving so much at a young age, what are the majority of us doing with our lives?

Paige's Pages: A Teenage Girl's Thoughts of the Movies of 2012

2012 came and went like a dream, leaving only the perfume of Honey Boo Boo, Ridiculously Photogenic Guy, and Grumpy Cat, as well as a trail of movies, in its wake.

The highest grossing films of 2012 (thanks, Wikipedia <3) were, in this order:

The Avengers

Skyfall

The Dark Knight Rises

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Ice Age: Continental Drift

Breaking Dawn Part 2

The Amazing Spider-Man

Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted (aka Polka Dot Afro Circus)

The Hunger Games

Men in Black 3

            Notice something? All sequels or adaptations. But that’s not news to you or me; the trend of unoriginality has been going for years now. Out of these movies, I saw two: The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit. I actually saw about a third or so of The Hunger Games too, but I skipped around so much I don’t think I actually have anything coherent to say about it other than this: Lenny Kravitz dayumm.

            The Dark Knight Rises was solid but, in my opinion, the weakest in Nolan’s trilogy. Anne Hathaway as sexy? To me, she has this wholesome air about her that makes her beautiful and lovely, but not hot or sexy (damn the Princess Diaries for doing this to me). I loved Bane’s monologues—when I could understand his garbled voice. Joseph Gordon-Levitt? As (SPOILER ALERRRT) Robin? YES. Nothing, however, will top Batman Begins for me— a movie I watch so often in middle school, in my basement alone, that my parents actually got concerned.

            The Hobbit was also a great movie, but without the crispness, finesse, and air of seriousness that pervaded Lord of the Rings. Perhaps this is due to the new frames-per-minute format? Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo, Richard Armitage was swoon-worthy as Thorin Oakenshield, Rivendell was as jealousy-making as ever, but nothing too much happened— whatever, I just can’t wait to see Legolas in the sequel.

            The first movie I saw in 2012 was The Devil Inside. My friend Mackenzie, lover of abnormal psych, insisted upon it. I’ll watch almost anything about exorcisms, but the film abruptly cut to black at the end and flashed a link on the screen, rendering the movie essentially an hour-and-a-half-long advertisement for a promotional tie-in website. I was not impressed. 2012 in film was not off to a great start.

            However, come February, one of my favorite movies of the year came out: The Woman in Black. A gothic ghost story set in Edwardian England, the film boasted Daniel Radcliffe in his first post-Potter appearance. The atmosphere, the story, and the freshness of the movie were deeply satisfying.

            In late spring, my friend Kate and I ditched the end-of-the-year Bacchanalian festivities to catch a flick that had caught her eye: The Cabin in the Woods. GO AND SEE THIS MOVIE. Funny, sharp, terrifying, and mind-blowing, this was the best way to end my freshman year of college: with a true piece of modern art. And, we weren’t hungover the next day.

Two other movies I loved from the second half of the year were on the expected side: Lincoln (Tommy Lee Jones!! Daniel Day-Lewis!!) and Life of Pi. May all of the Oscars go to them.

I have some pleas for the plethora of movie executives reading this blog. They are simple and not too extravagant, I think.

1)   Stop with the godforsaken Snow White movies. It was not the best move to take the most boring fairy tale in the classic canon and turn it into both a candy-coated failure and a Kristen “Grumpy Cat” Stewart vehicle. Also, trying to convince anyone that Charlize Theron is not the fairest one of all is sort of a joke.

2)   Please don’t make Channing Tatum fall in love with a woman named Paige in a movie again. I didn’t see The Vow, but seeing those trailers and imagining his wooden delivery of “Paige, I love you!” was a little too close to home.

3)   Speaking of Channing Tatum, please don’t let older women make comments in the theater during his movies. Seeing Magic Mike with my friends was rendered painful by post-menopausal women meowing and shouting un-repeatable things at the movie screen.

4)   Most importantly: DON’T take awesome concepts and make bad movies. I repeat: DO NOT DO THIS. Critics ravaged W.E., about Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII, a relationship I wanted to see made into a smart movie, not one made by the singer Madonna. The Raven was panned, but who didn’t want to see John Cusack as Poe solving crimes based on his stories?

Despite my complaints here, though, I feel lucky for the movies of the past year; they are a varied and solid bunch. There are still so many I want to see: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Anna Karenina, Skyfall, Silver Linings Playbook, Les Miserables… anyone up for a movie marathon?

2013 Oscar-Nominated Live-Action Short Films:

This weekend I nearly had an entire theater to myself when I went to see the "2013 Oscar-Nominated Live-Action Short Films." There is a surprising lack of overt comedy in the shorts--the Oscars always seem to love throwing a curveball comedy in there to try to show people how young and hip they can be. However, don't let this observation turn you off. While none of these films can be considered a true comedy, they are all approached with genuine compassion and empathy.  

 

The first short film, "Death of a Shadow," is a Belgium/France experimental dark fantasy with clear Guillermo del Toro undertones.  Taking place in the wake of World War I, a photographer with a mysterious, supernatural camera captures the shadow of a dead soldier named Nathan (brought to life by actor Matthias Schoenaerts from "Rust and Bone") and offers him a second chance at life in exchange for 10,000 shadows.  Taking advantage of this opportunity, Nathan seeks out Sarah, the woman he had loved before he was killed in battle. Unfortunately, Sarah has moved on, propelling Nathan to a darker course of action.  While the storytelling at times seems cloudy, the striking visuals are never short of stunning and the bizarre conceit is thoroughly engaging throughout the film. 

 

Next, the Afghanistan short film "Buzkashi Boys" features two young boys living amidst the war-torn ruins of Kabul.  One boy is a streetwise urchin and the other is the obedient son of stern yet loving blacksmith. Both boys dream of one day playing Buzkashi (a variant of polo but with a dead goat...don't ask).  While circumstances eventually turn heartbreaking, in the hopeful faces of our young protagonists we can see the bittersweet memory of own childhood aspirations, reminding us of a time when darkness was painted over with an uninhibited hand and such dreams seemed all too possible.

 

In a similar vein, the US/South African film "Asad" offers up another heartbreaking child's-eye view of a Somali boy struggling to do what he needs to survive in a war-torn fishing village plagued with violence.  Asad must choose between defying the armed pirates in favor of a traditional fishing life or joining with them and potentially losing the freedom he holds dear.  In what seems to be a lose-lose situation, Asad gives credence to the belief that children often see things more clearly than we adults ever could.

 

In what is certainly the "hippest" of the entries, "Curfew" takes a bold subject matter and finds a harmless balance of serious content, dark comedy, and tenderness.  "Curfew" follows a troubled and drug-addicted young man named Ritchie on the brink of suicide whose attempt is interrupted by a desperate phone call from an estranged sister.  When she begs Ritchie to take care of her daughter for a few others, Ritchie concedes and embarks on a transformative journey during which he hesitantly lets someone in and finds himself unable to let go of this new spark of life. While coming off as slightly kitsch and trite at times, its saccharine premise works, in no small part due to the charming young actress playing the niece.

 

With circumstantial connections to Oscar-nominated "Amour," "Henry" follows an 84-year old former concert pianist--played with heart-wrenching authenticity--tortured with the slow terror of Alzheimer's.  Filmed with fluid and melodic camera movements, "Henry" becomes a disorienting dance through the visceral emotions of Henry's ever-present past as he goes from touching encounters with his daughter to futile and frantic searches for his late wife.  Unlike the devastating deterioration of his memories, this Canadian short film stays with the viewer long after it ends.

 

What seem to be downers on paper really come to life on the big screen and somehow manage to become moving rather than depressing. Each serves to shed light on the state of our society, to illuminate our flaws and what makes us human, while also demonstrating what people are capable of when faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges. In this way, you may find yourself touched in a surprising way when the credits finally roll. 

David Gaillardetz is a contributor to this blog. He is a senior Social Work major at Saint Louis University who likes working with kids, reading books, and talking passionately about things nobody else cares about. He comes from a background of faith and social justice, and these underline his perspective on films.

Netflix Streamer: Oslo, August 31st

Foreign movies are definitely an acquired taste. I don't mean this in snobbish sort of way , but I think everyone can agree it takes a certain type of subtle determination to choose to watch a film in a language that you cannot understand. In my case, my eternal problem is that I love to gently multitask while watching movies in my own home, which simply cannot work for foreign movies. Thus when I sat down to watch Oslo, August 31st (a 2011 Cannes Film Festival entry that has been showing up in my Netflix Queue forever), I found myself having to rewind and watch different conversations again and again as I got used to hearing the Norwegian and forgot to read the subtitles.

Oslo, August 31st is the story of a recovering drug addict named Anders, who has been given leave from his treatment in rehab to attend a job interview in his old stomping ground of Oslo. The film begins quite nostalgically, providing us with idyllic shots of the city along with testimonials by random people telling us about their experiences in it. Almost immediately, a starkly emotionless scene involving a river and some rocks tell us that Anders' relationship with the city is not quite as great ,and that while the interview has been encouraged to help prepare him to feel some sort of normalcy upon release, it is clear that Anders is  not quite ready to deal with the aspects of the real world that come with it.

It's impossible not to cringe as we watch Anders dealing with his friends and family, most of whom seem to have gone right along without him. While Anders was deep in his addiction and subsequent recovery, his old friends have gotten married, are having children and have settled into an early-30s rhythm that is not exactly welcoming to a former drug addict. It is here that the film makes its emotional strides, through the use of acting that is particularly stirring. It is perhaps for this reason that I would forget to even look at the subtitles and just focus on the faces of the actors.  Actor Anders Danielson Lee, who ironically plays Anders, does a fantastic job of giving us just the right amount of emotion. His frustration at the wasted years of his life is not exemplified by any epic tantrum of rage complete with heavy breathing, but rather a look of quiet hurt flashing across his face every once in a while at the odd inconsiderate comment by one of his old pals.

As the film nears its end, it becomes evident that it is not a good one to watch on a rainy day. In fact, I was so depressed by the sadly predictable ending of the film that I  finished half a chicken for supper. But even after I had eaten myself back into a normal mood, I could not escape the film's messages about drug addiction; messages that are very relevant in this country and that countless people in my life have had to deal with. I was forced to remember if I had been there for them in their re-introduction into the world, or whether I had simply watched them come and go, making them and their experience pieces of gossip at a reunion of our group from high school.

If I have done so, I will never do so again thanks to a truly thought-provoking film that ends quite abruptly in Oslo, August 31st.