2012 Academy Awards Predictions

We've got three days left until the biggest night in Hollywood, so I figure it's about time I made some predictions. I've been holding out to see as many of the nominated films as possible, and I didn't get to many. Entire categories are unknown to me personally, so my predictions for those categories will be educated guesses (except for the shorts, which will just be shots in the dark). My predicted winner will be in Oscar Gold, and on some I will explain my process. I'll start with the shorts and work my way up the list. So without further ado, the winners of this year's Academy Awards will be....

Best Live Action Short Film

• Pentecost
• Raju
• The Shore
• Time Freak
• Tuba Atlantic

Best Animated Short Film

• Sunday
• The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
• La Luna
• A Morning Stroll
• Wild Life

Shut out for the first time ever in the Animated Feature category, Pixar should still bring home an Oscar Sunday night for the whimsical, beautiful La Luna.

Best Documentary, Short Subject

• The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement
• God is the Bigger Elvis
• Incident in New Baghdad
• Saving Face
• The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Best Documentary, Features

• Hell and Back Again
• If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
• Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
• Pina
• Undefeated

I've seen one of the nominated documentaries, If a Tree Falls, which is decent but not great. And 2 of the 5 have Memphis connections (Paradise Lost 3, about the West Memphis 3, and Undefeated, about the Manassas High School football team), which makes me want to lean their way. But I think the stunningly shot 3D documentary Pina, which captures the work of the late choreographer Pina Bausch, will take the gold.

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

This is often a tough one to call, because you can never be quite sure what the Academy considers to be "good" in visual effects (spectacle vs. realism). I picked the last two Transformers movies to win, finding their effects not only spectacular but incredibly realistic looking (see how the light pings off that digital metal?!). Since I'm not picking it this year, I won't be surprised if it wins. But for me this is the bottom line: if the performance of Ceaser in RotPotA is not the result of an incredible acting job (which Andy Serkis's exclusion from an acting nod would indicate) then it is the single best, most nuanced performance ever given by a "special effect." For that it more than deserves to win.

Best Achievement in Sound Editing

• Drive
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Transformers: Dark of the Moon
• War Horse

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing

• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Moneyball
• Transformers: Dark of the Moon
• War Horse

I've leaned towards Transformers in the sound categories before as well, but since War Horse pretty much cleaned up at the Sound Editor's Guild Awards (Along with Super 8, which is notably absent from these categories), I think it'll claim these two as well.

Best Original Song

• "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets - Bret McKenzie
• "Real in Rio" from Rio - Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, Siedah Garrett

50/50 shot here since there were apparently only two good original songs all year (WTF Academy? WTF?). Even though the wrong song was nominated from The Muppets (should have been the infectious, cheery, and knowingly cheesy "Life's a Happy Song") it will still take it.

Best 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

It filled most of the movie, it paid homage to silent scores as deftly as the movie did for silent movies, and it's just darn good. Which is why Ludovic Bource will be making the first of several french accented acceptance speeches for The Artist.

Best Achievement in Makeup

• Albert Nobbs
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
• The Iron Lady

Nobbs is to simple and Lady is too extreme, which is why the makeup artist for HPatDH:P2 will be taking home the one and only Academy Award for the entire series.

Best Achievement in Costume Design

• Anonymous
• The Artist
• Hugo
• Jane Eyre
• W.E.

Best Achievement in Art Direction

• The Artist
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
• Hugo
• Midnight in Paris
• War Horse

I want so badly for this to go to Harry Potter, to honor the fine, ever-darkening art direction of the entire series, but I think the incredible Paris Train Station of Hugo will clinch the victory.

Best Achievement in Editing

• The Artist
• The Descendants
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Moneyball

I'm making a bold prediction here, since Dragon Tattoo was not nominated for Best Picture and this one usually goes to one of those. But on occasion, a movie that just missed out on a picture nod takes home this award as a sort of consolation. If I may cite precedence: The Matrix in 1999.

Best Achievement in Cinematography

• The Artist
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• The Tree of Life
• War Horse

Say what you will about Terrence Malick's ponderous, abstract The Tree of Life, but you can't deny the cinematography is incredible. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki makes everything from a staircase to a dinosaur to a boy standing in a field look stunningly beautiful, and he'll take home the Oscar for it.

Best Foreign Language Film

• Bullhead - Belgium
• Footnote - Israel
• In Darkness - Poland
• Monsieur Lazhar - Canada
• A Separation - Iran

I've not seen any of these yet, but this one's not that hard to call when you consider only one of these movies performed the very rare (for a foreign film) feat of scoring a nod for best screenplay, effectively creating A Separation from the rest of the pack.

Best Animated Film

• A Cat in Paris
• Chico & Rita
• Kung Fu Panda 2
• Puss in Boots
• Rango

Two movies no one's ever heard of, a sequel, a spin-off, and one true work of computer generated art. Rango is the only one I've actually seen, incidentally, but it's the only one I need to to know it will win. I knew it would win this when I saw it back in March. So, yeah.

Best Adapted Screenplay

• The Descendants - Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
• Hugo - John Logan
• The Ides of March - George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon
• Moneyball - Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughan

Best Original Screenplay

• The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius
• Bridesmaids - Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo
• Margin Call - J.C. Chandor
• Midnight in Paris - Woody Allen
• A Separation - Asghar Farhadi

Followed the Writer's Guild with both these choices, though to be honest I could have called the Original screenplay on my own. The Academy LOVES Woody Allen, and Midnight in Paris is just hilarious. It won't win Picture or Director, so it will win here.

Best Achievement in Directing

• Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
• Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
• Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life
• Alexander Payne - The Descendants
• Martin Scorsese - Hugo

They may show Scorsese the love here in lieu of Best Picture a la the Golden Globes; the Academy does love the man and Hugo is such wonderful, lovingly crafted work and so very, very different from everything else he's ever done. But I think they'll follow the British Academy and honor Hazanavicius for his brilliantly executed and also lovingly crafted homage to the silent era.

Best Supporting Actress

• Berenice Bejo - The Artist
• Jessica Chastain - The Help
• Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids
• Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
• Octavia Spencer - The Help

I would love to see Melissa McCarthy win this, and I don't think I'm the only one, so keep an eye open for her to upset. Jessica Chastain was nominated for the wrong movie; I'd have called her the winner for The Tree of Life. But from The Help she's been overshadowed by Octavia Spencer at every step in the road, and she will be here too.

Best Supporting Actor

• Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marylin
• Jonah Hill - Moneyball
• Nick Nolte - Warrior
• Christopher Plummer - Beginners
• Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

One of the two major categories in which I've seen none of the nominees. Who would've thought a year ago that we'd be able to say "Jonah Hill, Oscar nominee?" I have a hunch, though, we won't be saying "Jonah Hill, Oscar winner." It seems to be a two way race between Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow, and I'm giving the edge to Plummer.

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 Marylin

The other category in which I've seen none of the nominees. Though this one also seems to have come down to a two way race: Meryl Streep vs. Viola Davis. No one can argue Meryl's one of the best actresses we've got, but I've heard the word "impersonation" used heavily in reference to this performance. It may not have stopped Jamie Foxx from winning for Ray back in 2005, but in a race this close, I think that gives Davis the lead.

Best Actor

• Demian Bichir - A Better Life
• George Clooney - The Descendants
• Jean Dujardin - The Artist
• Gary Oldman - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• Brad Pitt - Moneyball

I'm trying to set my personal loathing of George Clooney aside as I weigh the options here, but I may have failed. He might get this, and I will cringe and moan and call him a smug bastard as he does. But I don't think he will. I would be happy to see any of the other four win, honestly. Oldman has deserved a spot on this list any number of times before and not gotten there. Pitt has gone above and beyond in the last few years to prove he's more than just a pretty face. Bichir has been working long and hard vanishing into parts so you barely notice him, and it's awesome to see him recognized. But Jean Dujardin is so good as the silent star on the verge of collapse that he not only deserves this Oscar, but they should retroactively give his character in The Artist an award for 1927, since no one has that one.

Best Picture

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

I've seen only four of the nine nominees (The Artist, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, The Tree of Life), and even though I haven't seen it, I think I can confidently say, "WTF is Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close doing here?!?!" Now that that's out of the way, Hugo is the most nominated movie this year, and that often leads to victory (It's also my favorite of the nominees I've seen), but I don't think that will be the case this year. The Tree of Life is fervently loved by some and fervently loathed by others, and that division kills it's chances. War Horse seems pretty resoundingly agreed to by very well produced schmaltz, so it's out. Midnight in Paris is sweet and sentimental and funny, but comedies don't tend to win, so it'll have to be happy with its screenplay prize. The Help looks like it had some traction to begin with but has fallen by the wayside, so it can take its acting awards and be excused. I've heard very little about Moneyball in this respect, and that says a lot; it too may go. That leaves us with The Descendants and The Artist, the winners of the two best picture prizes at the Golden Globes (Drama and Comedy, respectively). Now I know I just said comedies don't tend to win, but The Artist rises far above the simple label "comedy" in every way, engages completely, and uses such deft and subtle tricks to upend its own premise as a "silent movie" that I honestly don't see how it won't win. Simply put: it's too good not too.

The 84th Academy Awards will air Sunday, February 26 at 7:00 p.m. (6:00 p.m. central), and between 4 and 32 hours later (depending on how long it runs) we'll know just how very, very wrong I was.

"Another Earth"

****½

Rhoda Williams (Brit Marling) is 17 and gifted; a prodigy in astrophysics, she has just been accepted to MIT, and the world is her oyster. She celebrates this news, but even a genius can make stupid decisions. She drinks too much, she drives, she gets distracted, and she plows into another car, killing a mother and child, and leaving a father in a coma. The object of her distraction is a tiny blue point of light that has just appeared in the sky, which it turns out is another planet, with the exact size and proportions of earth. And it's moving closer. We jump ahead four years and see Rhoda getting out of prison. The world is no longer her oyster. The jubilant girl we saw at the beginning has been replaced by a quiet woman who keeps her hair in a loose braid on the side of her face and hides beneath baggy clothes, toboggans and hoodies. She gets a job as a janitor at the school she once went to. And she seeks out the father, composer John Burroughs (William Mapother), who has awoken from his coma. She goes to him, wants to apologize, but she is weak and afraid, and she lies to him, saying she's there with a maid service. Soon she's returning every week, wanting to confess but maintaining the lie. And soon something develops between them. And looming over everything, growing perpetually larger in the sky, that other planet, which is clearly, somehow, an exact copy of ours.

I hesitate to call this one sci-fi. The story, as written by star Marling and director Mike Cahill, ignores the devastating effect that would occur should a planet the size of our own close in on us. It is clearly stated that this other earth is truly there, a physical presence with mass that generates radio waves (and when viewed through a telescope, has clearly visible cities and technologies that mirror our own). This one is more concerned with its very human story, and with the implications and possibilities of this other globe. There are occasional voice overs from very intelligent sounding men pondering on it in psychological and philosophical terms, but very little in the way of hard science. I'd say for that reason this is more fantasy than sci-fi. It also is, of course, very concerned with the image of this other world hanging in the sky, and what a stunning image it is. I should note this is the kind of movie that lingers on hair blowing in the wind, and dust motes drifting in sunlight, but I wouldn't slander it by calling it an "art film." It is not dense or abstract, like, say, Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain or Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. It is a very simple and straightforward story, that could honestly work without its fantastical element. But that element allows it to explore possibilities that a standard drama would not have. Those possibilities come to the fore in a scene where a SETI scientist attempts to make first contact with the other earth. This scene is one of my favorites in the movie; it is moving and surprising and chilling all at once.

Brit Marling seems to have come out of nowhere and landed on the scene with a performance that should have earned her an Oscar nomination. In another of my favorite scenes she recounts the story of the first Russian Cosmonaut, and the ticking sound that almost drove him insane. Doesn't sound like much, but the way she delivers it is stunning. Mapother is also very good; his John's life ended at the same time as his wife and son, and now he simply endures. He rots away along with his large, rambling house, drinking, reading, playing Wii, but not feeling, and not living. They are both powerful performances, but Marling has the edge (she should, she wrote the part for herself). I should also note the rave-infused score by Fall On Your Sword (whoever or whatever that is) that is alternately driving and lyrical, and features a sonata played on a saw. It is a perfect fit. Also of note is the cinematography, also by director Cahill (he edited too), which captures his concept with brilliant imagery.

It is a beautiful movie, that ponders on the paths our lives take and whether we can be redeemed for our mistakes. I should note it finishes with an epilogue that may leave viewers a little baffled (I was), but ultimately that just means there's something to discuss after. It's one last gift from a stunning and haunting film.

"Chronicle"

*****

The first image we see is Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan) reflected in a mirror on his bedroom door, standing behind his camera. Outside the door is Andrew's father (Michael Kelly), and the mirror shakes violently as he pounds on the door, demanding entry. "I'm filming this," Andrew tells him (and us), "I'm filming everything from now on." Dad backs down, and we hear him walk away. We sense he has just won a small victory, and in that moment, his camera becomes his shield. We quickly learn more about Andrew. He is a social reject, pale and sallow, bullied at school, on the street, and in the home (the camera does capture some violence from dad, and it is...upsetting). His cousin Matt (Alex Russell), a good looking but self conscious brainiac who quotes Plato and Jung just to make sure everyone knows how smart he is, is his closest friend, but even he is distant and socially embarrassed by Andrew. And Andrew's mother, who seems to be the one bright spot in his life, is slowly, painfully dying. I'm going to step up right now and say I understand Andrew better than any character in any comic book/superhero movie I've ever seen. In telling his story first time film makers Max Landis (writer) and Josh Trank (director) have established that they are a pair that will need to be watched. I am reminded of another documentary style sci-fi/drama that did the same thing a few year's back: Neill Blomkamp's debut and Best Picture nominee District 9, which was my favorite movie of 2009.

This one might even involve aliens. Or it might not (we'll get to that). When Matt, in a character defining display of social generosity, invites Andrew to a rave at a secluded barn, Andrew of course brings his shield, err, camera. Compulsive video-blogger Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) is introduced ostensibly as a love interest for Matt but really to provide us a second camera to see through, which will be useful later. After the expected social calamity, Andrew withdraws and sits by himself outside. There Steve (Michael B. Jordan), jock, class president favorite, and all around nice guy, finds him and enlists him and his camera to come out into the woods, where in a clearing by a ridge he and Matt have found an odd hole in the ground. Since they are teenagers and will never die, they go down in the hole, and the find... something. Its a crystalline, glowing something, that starts to affect the camera and then to affect the boys, causing nose bleeds. And then we jump to bright daylight and the boys catching baseballs thrown at their faces in mid air. They use their new telekinetic powers like teenage boys would: using a leaf blower to blow up shirts, pranking people at the mall. They soon discover they can lift themselves as well as others, and they take flight. Scenes like this are what I love about the first-person camera style, usually called (sometimes wrongly, like here) "found footage." We've never seen film flight from the point of view of the flier like this, and that immediacy, that "in-the-moment" sensation, makes these some of the most dynamic, most exciting flight sequences I've ever seen. It far outpaces anything in the recent Red Tails (also, incidentally, featuring Michael B. Jordan). All this creates a tight bond between the boys; they don't just share a secret, we find they can actually feel each other. And Andrew is opening up, and we are thrilled for him, even though we know it cannot last. He finds popularity. Suddenly girls are looking at him differently. A turning point is coming, and it pivots around that most damaging of events to the teenage psyche: sexual humiliation.

Trank and Landis nail every beat. There is no dawdling, no wasting of time. The movie moves with breathless momentum to the inevitable and awesome third act. They also invent a very clever way to expand the limitations of the format: Andrew begins moving the camera with his mind, opening up the scope, allowing wide shots, pans, whatever. Casey's camera offers another angle, and becomes very important toward the end. Indeed by the end the scope has widened much further, and we see through security cameras, traffic cams, police dashboard cameras, cell phones, laptops; nothing is outside our field of vision. We are privy to any lens that might capture the boys. And in the end they leave questions hanging. The movie has very little actual spoken exposition; the story is told through the action as it happens. Hence we have no explanation for what is down that hole, or where (or when, or what) it came from. When the boys later return to the hole it has collapsed (or been filled in) and rangers (many of them...too many) suddenly appear along the ridge saying they can't be there. Is it a cover-up? Good question, but not one that's answered. I love it when a movie leaves behind trailing riddles like this.

Before I finish let me call out Dane DeHaan. Though the movie is about three boys, its really about one boy. One very damaged boy on the verge of an incredible rise or a perilous fall; the movie would not have worked had his performance not felt honest and true. That incredible third act would be nothing more than an action climax, if you were not emotionally invested in Andrew. But DeHaan works magic here. He reminds me of Leonardo Dicaprio in The Basketball Diaries. We feel his pain, we see his rage, and we believe in his power. And it is an awesome thing.

"The Artist"

*****

When asked if she would like to see The Artist, my Grandmother said, "Why would anyone make a black and white, silent movie in this day and age?" She did not go see it. It is a fair question, but one could also ask why anyone would make a hand-drawn animated movie today. Or a 70's style blaxploitation or kung-fu movie. Or a 40's style film noir. The answer is two part: homage, and service to the story. The Artist is undoubtedly an homage to the end of the first great era in movie making: the silent era. It is a cousin to Hugo (which celebrated the birth of film itself) and Super 8 (which celebrated the birth of the blockbuster and the juvenile film making that gave rise to some of today's most prolific directors), rounding out a coincidental trilogy of love letters to the movies in 2011. But it also serves its story, of a silent film star doomed by the advent of "talkies," brilliantly. And it manages to emerge as one of the most giddily entertaining movies I've seen in a good, long time. Charming in its simplicity, often hilarious, this one kept a grin on my face for the vast majority of its run time. The grin faded a bit in the last act, as the movie takes a melodramatic turn (not because I was unhappy with how it was going, but because it does the melodrama as well as everything else) that culminates in one of the most shocking-but-clever uses of a title card I've ever seen in a movie of this type. The movie should not be judged by being black and white and silent; you should watch it even if you think you don't like this type of movie. You'll probably be surprised.

And it's not really a silent movie anyway. Director Michel Hazanavicius cleverly uses sound at a few key points in the movie. An inspired dream sequence shows silent star (and titular Artist) George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) discovering everything around him, including his dog and perpetual costar Uggie, suddenly making sounds while he himself remains unable to speak. This sequence manages to be both horrific (in its implications for Valentin) and hilarious (in the way it plays with our expectations of "silent movies"). And watch for the falling feather (not that you could miss it); it's slow decent is both the dramatic and comic climax of the scene. Hazanavicius, in his directing and script, continues to play with what we know and expect about silent films, even as he displays his enormous respect for them. In another moment that manages to be both devastating and hilarious (a difficult blend pulled off over and over again here) rising starlet Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) is being interviewed in a restaurant, and says (in a title card, of course) that people are tired of silent stars mugging at the camera, referencing the theatrical over-acting usually employed in silent films. Valentin happens to be sitting behind her when she says this, and expresses his displeasure by mugging at the camera!

Speaking of that over-the-top acting style, Dujardin and Bejo do it perfectly in the leads, but that's not all they do. Their faces are so open and expressive they could have actually been silent film stars (that they both have fairly substantial accents would have mattered about as much then as it does here, now), but it's when the movie requires a bit more subtlety and nuance that the performances shift from being just very good and comical to being purely brilliant. Dujardin especially is a wonder, creating a character who's proud without being Clooneyesque (smug), who hides enormous fear and (with the fall that always cometh after pride) pain with a 1,000 watt movie star smile. It sits alongside the immortal Brigitte Helm in Metropolis as one of the best silent performances I've seen, and I really hope he wins the Oscar. The rest of the supporting cast is wonderful, most notably John Goodman as imperious director Al Zimmer, James Cromwell as the faithful chauffeur Clifton, and Missi Pyle (whose hugely expressive face I now realise was made for silent movies) as jilted starlet Constance. Oh yes, and I'm obligated by the great movie gods to again mention Uggie the dog, who does indeed steal more than a few scenes.

So yes the movie is black and white and it is mostly silent. It is also brilliantly written and directed, beautifully shot (in that wonderful old silent movie aspect ratio of 1.33 to 1), perfectly acted, uproariously funny, more than a little moving, and incredibly entertaining. In the end, isn't that all we go to the movies for?

Post Script: This is the most ludicrous PG-13 rating I've ever seen. The MPAA cites "A crude gesture and a disturbing image" as the reason for the rating. The gesture would be a simple bird flipped right at the beginning. I won't mention the image, but while I agree it's disturbing, it's certainly no more so than a number of scenes in The Lion King, for example, which was rated G. Ignore the rating; this one's appropriate for everybody!

"The Grey"

*****

"Once more unto the fray
To fight the last fight I'll ever know.
Live or die on this day.
Live or die on this day."

It seems the competition for my favorite movie of 2012 has begun much earlier than I expected. I honestly didn't anticipate this. Director Joe Carnahan is responsible for movies like The A-Team and Smokin' Aces; in other words, fun, bit silly and ridiculous. But here he has given us an incredible movie, a reminder of the creeping dread great cinema can sometimes inspire. I'm pretty jaded in this respect; loads of thrillers and horror movies have left me fairly desensitized to the tricks of most movies. But I felt this one in the pit of my stomach, a queasy sensation I'd forgotten, and was thrilled to be reacquainted with. The movie doesn't even look like Carnahan's other efforts. This one's lean and mean, raw and real, and punctuated by imagery both beautiful and terrible. The script (by Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers) is wonderful and sometimes poetic, but like the wild, it is without pity. There is no sentimentalizing here.

The movie begins in silence: the title emerges as if from a fog, and then we see the wild; an image of rock and tree and snow that instantly evokes the idea of cold, creeping death. And I'm already hooked. A voice rises, Ottway's (Liam Neeson), poetically describing the oil rig he works on as a kind of hell, populated by people "unfit to interact with society." He works as a sharpshooter, killing wolves to protect the men working in the field. But as the movie opens he is pondering another use for that rifle: in a beautiful juxtaposition he rests his hand on a dying wolf, feeling it's breath ebb, while in cross cuts he puts the barrel in his mouth, and reaches for the trigger. He doesn't do it, for we then see him boarding a plane with the rest of the crew. Some are heading out to see family, some to party, some to get laid. He's carrying a letter, headed "Dearest One." We get glimpses of the woman the letter is for (Anne Openshaw) lying in bed with him, her hand on his face, looking beatific and angelic. But there's heavy turbulence, then heavier turbulence, and then, in one of the best sequences of it's type I've ever seen, the plane goes down. 7 survive, but then there's the wild. And the wolves. And that ever-growing queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach. There is an incredible moment about midway through. The survivors have gathered round a hastily started fire and watch the tree line around them. We hear the wolves out there, but can't see them. Then, following a terrible growl from what we learn is the Alpha of this pack, silence. And then, as we look up a ridge, a single howl sounds out. We don't see the source, but suddenly a plume of breath appears from the blackness, just caught by the firelight. It is joined by another, and another, and another as the rest of the wolves begin to howl. They are there, just beyond the light. This is incredibly chilling, and incredibly brilliant.

If there is justice in the world (and I fear there is not) we will be asking this time next year whether Liam Neeson will win an Oscar. It is amazing enough that he has discovered this niche as an action star late in life (he'll turn 60 in June), but here his undeniable "don't-mess-with-him" machismo is tempered by heart and a heavy burden. We believe that he could stand and lead in this situation, but we also see that he is broken. A scene where he cries to the heavens for help, for hope, for something, is heart-wrenching. I'd venture to say it's the best performance he's ever given. He recites the lines at the head of this post three times in the movie, each time evoking a different sense of meaning from the words, as his character goes from being ready to die by his own hand, to fighting his hardest to survive. The rest of the survivors are well written and admirably played, but this is Neeson's movie. And the wolves'.

This movie is dark and grim and as I said before utterly without pity. As are the wolves. As is the wild. But it is also incredibly powerful and emotionally resonant, and truly a masterpiece of suspense. It will likely haunt you after you leave the theater. It is still with me now, as I write this review 24 hours later. And some moments may be with me forever. And this movie will take its place as one of the greatest thrillers of the 21st century. Mark my words.

"Midnight in Paris"

****½

Some would argue that discussing the major element at the heart of the plot of Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris the separates it from being just another romantic comedy is a spoiler; that it's better to go in not knowing. I'm not sure I agree, but since that idea exists I will preface this review with a SPOILER ALERT! Do not read on if you don't want to know, just take my recommendation to watch the movie.

Now that that's out of the way, let me list a few names for you: Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso, Luis Bunuel, Tom Elliot. Do these names mean anything to you, some or all? They certainly mean something to Gil (Owen Wilson), a self described "hack" screenwriter who dreams of publishing a novel and wanders around Paris fantasising about the Golden Age of the 20's when any or all of those people and more where walking these very streets or drinking in these very bars while masterfully shaping the very future of literature, art, film, and music. His fiance (Rachel McAdams) is kind of a bitch, and is obviously crushing on another man, a very pedantic professor (Michael Sheen). One night while wandering the streets, just as the bells toll midnight, an antique car pulls up bustling with passengers, who invite him with them. Two of those people happen to be the aforementioned Fitzgeralds (Tom Hiddleston and the wonderful Alison Pill), and when they arrive at their destination Gil finds he's in a bar in Paris in the 1920s, surrounded by his heroes. And every night thereafter at midnight, he goes back.

Allen never bothers to explain what strange magic is happening here, but ultimately it doesn't matter; this one's far more concerned about comedy and character than wonder. Most of the old guard Gil meets are exactly what you would hope for them to be, and wonderfully written and acted. I particularly loved Corey Stall as an Ernest Hemingway who waxes poetic about the meaning of life one minute, and boisterously asks who wants to fight the next; Kathy Bates as a no-nonsense Gertrude Stein who advises everyone around her on everything they do, usually correctly; and Adrian Brody who appears only briefly as an extremely inebriated Salvador Dali. Gil himself of course is the Woody Allen character, and Wilson does it surprisingly well; it's probably the best Woody character not played by Allen himself. There's a good bit of comedy that requires some knowledge of these people and their work (Gil suggests a movie idea to Bunuel, where people at a dinner party suddenly find themselves unable to leave. Hilariously, Bunuel doesn't get it, we leave him shouting "It doesn't make sense!" 40 years later Bunuel made The Exterminating Angel. Guess it took him a long time to make sense of it!) I would suggest that this is a "thinking person's" comedy, but don't want to imply it's pretentious or inaccessible; it is not. You might not love it if you don't know something about these people, but you'll still like it, and you'll still laugh. In fact the funniest moment in the movie requires no art or literary knowledge at all. That's when we discover the fate of a private investigator hired by the fiance's father (Kurt Fuller) to follow Gil one midnight. Hilarious!

I should mention much of the movie has a golden glow, particularly evident in an early scene at Versailles. Some people call this glow yellow and find it annoying; I thought it was lovely and warm. Plus it emphasizes a wonderful idea, one brought to the forefront in a late twist that plunges Gil and prototype art groupie Adriana (Marion Cotillard) even further back in time. It would seem everyone's Golden Age was once someone's Boring Present. Hence we are right now living in a Golden Age, we just can't see it for what it is. That might be one of the happiest thoughts I've come away from a movie with in a good long time.

"Red Tails"

**½

George Lucas has been passionately working for more than 20 years to get this movie on the screen, running into coincidentally the same problems the Tuskegee Airmen, on whom the film is based, encountered all those years ago. Namely: bigoted opinions of African Americans. Then it was what they could and would do in war, now it's whether a big budget action picture starring them would draw an audience. It is ironic then, that the movie we now have as a result of all that work and all that passion is so, well, bland. It is an action picture. And nothing more.

And it could have been so much better. It skips shallowly along the surface of the problems faced by the Airman: an n-word shouted by a white officer here, a one-note stereotype bigot commander there. Ultimately it eschews depth for flashy digital dogfights. Being the main focus of the film, these action scenes look good, but have little gusto and less tension; they are amateurishly staged, like most everything else. About halfway through the movie I suddenly decided this must be a first time film director, and sure enough when I researched later, I discovered director Anthony Hemingway has a number of television and assistant director credits, but this is his first time at the helm of a major motion picture, and it does show. Some scenes don't seem to end, but just stop. I swear at least once it happened mid-line. A surprising number of scenes are statically staged with people just sitting around and talking. For an action film, it has little momentum. Perhaps if Lucas had selected a more seasoned director the movie would have been better, but I'm not so sure. The script, you see, is just a mess. I assume Aaron McGruder (creator of the brilliant and subversive The Boondocks television series and comic strip), who shares screenwriting credit with John Ridley, mostly just contributed jokes. Though it sometimes misses, when it hits the humor is the best part of the movie. Surely he couldn't have been a part of these poorly written characters or this incredibly stilted dialogue. (The worst offenders: two white bomber pilots whose job it seems to be to sum up the feelings of the entire white air corps in as few words as possible. Clunky doesn't even begin to describe the words that come out of their mouths.)

The cast is a mixed bag. Of the ensemble of airmen some are good (Elijah Kelley as "Joker") some not so much (Tristan Wilds as "Junior"). And of their commanding officers, Terrence Howard is decent as Colonel A.J. Bullard, but doesn't approach the level we know he's capable of, and Cuba Gooding Jr. completely phones it in as Major Emanuelle Stance. And he's perpetually chewing on a pipe. And not smoking it. We see him light it once, but I'm pretty sure he never actually takes a puff. Can't say why, but that annoyed me. Daniela Ruah is very pretty as Italian peasant girl Sofia, whose mother is far too happy with her dating a black man (at least if my knowledge of the racial opinions of elderly Italian peasants in the 40's is accurate). Yes, very pretty. And that's all she needs to be.

The movie wants to celebrate the courage of these groundbreaking African Americans, but if you ask me it only celebrates half. Yes, they got up in those planes and risked their lives to fight for their country. Many white pilots did that too. But these guys did more. They leaped barriers and smashed prejudiced "factual" opinions, endured the worst kind of ignorant hatred and still held their heads up and risked their lives. By skimming the surface of this added burden, the movie has ultimately done them a disservice. The fairly substantial audience I watched with applauded at the end. I could not bring myself to join them. I would like to believe, however, that they were applauding the heroes this movie is based on, and not the movie itself. The men are more than worthy of our applause and our respect. The movie is not.

"The Tempest"

***½

I'd have to say The Tempest is one one of Shakespeare's lesser works. Ultimately a comedy (because it's not a tragedy, and technically there's only the two), it amounts to a Shakespeare fluff piece; it's more interested in amusing than in moving. It still has Shakespeare's signature rhythm-based, beautiful dialogue, however, and ironically, contains one of his best, most beautiful, most insightful lines. After conjuring then dismissing a fanciful pageant of spirits, Prospera (the infallible Helen Mirren) begins to wax poetic about the nature of life. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," she says, "and our little life, is rounded with a sleep." Wonderful.

Unfortunately, (I hesitate to use the word, but will anyway) visionary director Julie Taymor didn't seem to notice the ultimately frivolous nature of this work, and presents it here in very dramatic fashion. Best known for her Broadway work ("The Lion King", the much-troubled "Spider-man: Turn Off the Dark") Taymor has found some success with her Golden Globe and Oscar nominated films, Beatles musical Across the Universe and painter Frida Kahlo biopic Frida, but her first film, the Anthony Hopkins starring and also Shakespeare written Titus, remains her best. Presented with the same drama and visual flair she goes with here, Titus was profoundly moving, deeply disturbing, and visually stunning, with at least two images that have remained with me down through the 12 or so years since I saw it. The style fit that film like a glove. Not so here. The lighter elements often seem drowned by a heavy hand; moments that might have been funny are sometimes lost in translation. As a whole I think the film would have benefited from a lighter touch, and Taymor, who (admirably) always strives for the heights, just doesn't have it in her to tone it down.

But don't get me wrong, the movie's not bad. Taymor even succeeds with some of the more fantastical moments. When Prospera sends her spirit servant Ariel (Ben Wishaw) to torment her usurpers in the guise of a harpy, it appears as a large, black, winged, feathered, crouching monstrosity (featured in the top panel of the poster above) that distorts the very air around it and summons forth ravens with flaps of it's wings. It's the best image in the movie. And Ariel itself is quite a creation: sexless, it appears sometimes with the narrow, flat chest of a young man, and sometimes with small breasts (hence the PG-13 rating), and it divides into multiple pieces as it runs, flies, swims, crawls around the island. The cast (featuring Chris Cooper, Alan Cumming, Russell Brand, Djimon Hounsou, Alfred Molina, and David Straithairn) is mostly very good. Dame Mirren is of course superb, though I'd say Brand over does it a bit (not surprising, honestly), and Hounsou spends so much of his screen time either growling or whining it, combined with his thick accent, makes the fair majority of his lines indecipherable. There's no denying however that he, as Prospera's slave Caliban, creates quite a physical presence, in both the mannered, crouching body language he uses and in the bizarre but fascinating make-up he wears. Finally, the decision to change the sex of the main character (originally Prospero) is inspired, not just because it allowed the casting of Mirren, but also because of the way it alters the dynamic with her daughter (Felicity Jones). As a mother trying to secure a hopeful future for her daughter, Prospera becomes a deeper character than Prospero ever could have been.

"Attack the Block"

****½

It's Guy Fawkes Day in South London, fireworks are going off in the air, and a young nurse named Sam (Jodie Whittaker) is on her way home on the increasingly dangerous streets of South London. Suddenly a group of thugs appears before her, their heads hooded, their faces masked, She knows where this is going, and so do we. A knife comes out, a brief struggle over a ring, when suddenly something crashes into the car next to the group, giving Sam her chance to escape. Then the movie does a most surprising thing: it let's Sam go and stays with the thugs. They investigate the car and find more than they bargained for. Injured by this whatever-it-is, the gang's leader Moses (John Boyega), swears vengeance. The gang follows the thing as it seeks shelter in a shed, where they corner it, scare it with fireworks, and beat it to death. Moses and his crew know what they've got here, and they carry it back to their block (read "project") as a trophy, visions of wealth and fame taking shape in their heads. Big mistake, for you see that was just the first thing to fall from the sky that night.

First time writer/director Joe Cornish has fashioned an unusual, sometimes hilarious, sometimes scary, often inventive sci-fi horror comedy. Yet he's done something more: buried within this silly monster-a-thon is some very pointed social/racial commentary. It doesn't preach, however. You can easily glide along the surface of this one and have a good time, never noticing the meaning in its depths. We get glimpses into the lives of the protagonists, the thugs that mugged a woman at knife-point in the beginning, but the movie never really tries to make you sympathize with them, never creates excuses for their behaviour. The characters themselves sometimes try to make excuses, but the movie won't let them. And suddenly the find themselves pursued by some big, bad, black beasties. The creature design here is wonderful in that it's so hard to pin down. Roughly gorilla shaped with rows upon rows of luminescent teeth (first shown in a brilliant reveal), the monsters are covered in deep, inky black...something. It might be spiky fur, it might be scaly spikes. I can't tell. You even see them quite clearly and fully in bright light...but I still can't quite nail their form or texture. Other than the form and the teeth, their just like a void of blackness. "It's so black you can hardly see it," one of the characters says. Indeed. And don't think this blackness is just an element of good monster design. It's no accident that the thugs suddenly have to fear black things in the night.

I must make mention of an incredible performance from newcomer John Boyega. His Moses is stoic and quiet, but authoritative, with a sense that there is some rage brimming underneath that steadily calm exterior, and, surprising in such an ultimately unsympathetic character, a sense of nobility and bravery. It's easy to see him as a leader. All the rest of the cast is good as well, especially Whittaker (who we see again of course, a nurse soon becomes a valuable commodity), Luke Treadaway as a stoner/zoologist who happens to get caught up in the fray (and offers his opinions on what the creatures are and what their motives might be), and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Paul) as the resident drug dealer. I must also mention the movie lost out on five stars only because there was so much London street jargon spoken in such thick accents that there were sometimes long stretches of dialogue I couldn't follow. Context helped sometimes, but not always. Subtitles might have helped more. Ultimately, though, the ride is lots fun, the characters and monsters are fascinating, the rise of its antihero is compelling, and its deeper messages and desire to make you look at yourself shine through if your looking for them, but don't overwhelm if your not. It comes at you like a beast in the night. As Moses would say, "Allow it."

"Buck"

*****

"If there was anything in real life like a horse whisperer, it would be Buck." Indeed Buck Brannaman was even an advisor on Robert Redford's film, and informed the character as Redford played him. Redford appears in this documentary, and says so himself, so I have it on good authority. He doesn't whisper to the horses of course, not really. But he seems to have an innate understanding of them, of how they think and function and perceive the world around them, and of how to work with them. He doesn't believe a horse should be broken. He understands that we're asking the horse to do some pretty strange things, comically suggesting you put yourself in the horse's place. "Let me throw some dead animal carcasses on your back," he says, " then let me put this bar in your teeth and pull back on it. It'll only hurt a minute."

Buck is a simple, elegant documentary from director Cindy Meehl that shines a light on a singular human personality. Buck Brannaman tours the country half the year, giving clinics on horse training, sometimes accompanied by his wife and daughter and his wife's plethora of dogs, but usually alone. Although not alone this year, for he's invited us with him through the eyes and ears of Meehl's cameras. And along the way we learn what staggering things he has overcome in his life. The victim of severe abuse as a child, Buck has astoundingly grown into one of the most calm, patient, tender men you will ever see. His methods for horse training, which we are told time and again tend to bleed over into everyday life and interactions with not just horses but people, emphasise patience, nurturing, generous rewards and only subtle punishments where necessary. And just watch the man on a horse! With the subtlest of movements, usually completely invisible to our eyes (but not to the horse's touch!) he has his horse shunting forward and back, side to side, breaking into a gallop and skidding to a sudden halt, and even doing a sort of sideways box step. It really is incredible.

One of the most compelling moments comes when a young, possibly brain damaged stud is brought to Buck, to see if there may be any hope for him. This horse is wild, and dangerous. At one point his rider is attempting to mount him, and he starts fighting back. The rider tries to stay beside him, avoiding the dangerous front and back, but the horse is quick, and the rider ends up a foot or two in front of him. Quick as a flash the horse leaps out, teeth bared, straight for the rider's face. I won't say how that turns out, but it's one of the most frightening single moments I've seen in a movie all year, and probably the sole reason for the PG rating. But what makes this so compelling is what comes next, how Buck, in assessing this horse that could have been saved from what it became, ends up assessing the owner, how she failed the horse, and what problems she might have in her life that need addressing before she tries to be responsible for another living thing. It feels a bit harsh of Buck in the moment, but based on the owners reaction, it seems a slap in the face was just what she needed. In the end his innate understanding of horses seems to have led to an innate understanding of humans. And that's fascinating.

"Fast Five"

****

Ten years after the first Fast and the Furious movie one would think the franchise, at an average of one movie every two years, would be running out of gas. Bad pun intended. But this fifth outing, economically titled Fast Five, is not only the most successful of the franchise, it's arguably the best, if not necessarily the most flat-out entertaining. After a bravura opening involving three cars and a prison bus, the movie kind of lags a bit. But it's what it does during this unusual (for a "F & F" movie) down time is also what sets it apart from the rest: it dares to attempt some actual character building. Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel), Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker), and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) come across as real people for the first time in the series. Dwayne Johnson joins the fray as federal agent Luke Hobbs, who makes Tommy Lee Jones' agent in The Fugitive look like a do-nothing wuss of the highest order. Sexy Elena Neves (Elsa Pataky), apparently the only non-corrupt cop in all of Brazil, joins Hobbs to track down Toretto and Co. The rest of the characters are one note, including the villain, but mostly lots of fun.

The introduction of most of these secondary characters (including several from previous "F & F" movies) as the new crew is rather amusing, and marks the turning point where the movie slips into a higher gear and starts delivering up the action and the humor in ample doses. After setting up a street race and then daring to have it occur off screen (gasp!), the movie more than makes up with a "just-for-kicks" drag race in police cars that is loads of fun and, right at the end, suddenly contributes once again to character. Hobbs and Toretto share one of the most bad ass Mano-a-Mano brawls I've seen in a good long time, even if it does end somewhat disappointingly. And it all leads up to one of the most wildly ridiculous but incredibly entertaining chase scenes ever, involving two sports cars, possibly hundreds of cops (all supposedly corrupt), and a dragging, several ton safe. Did I mention it was ridiculous?

Don't let my comments about character building fool you, ultimately the movie is as silly and irrelevant as the rest. But unlike the rest, it bothers to lay a little groundwork before pelting the mindless action at you. And for that, it earns a little more respect.

Post Script: stay tuned when the credits start; a final scene is tucked into them that not only sets up the inevitable F & F 6, but throws in a delightful twist!

"Summer Wars"

*****

I honestly don't know if Anime has changed, or if I have. I once would have told you I did not like it; that I found it visually simplistic with jarring color flashes and god-awful voice work. But here, now, we have the fifth Anime movie in a row to which I've given 5 stars. (Following Grave of the Fireflies, Tales from Earthsea, Howl's Moving Castle, and Ponyo. All fantastic movies and well worth a look.)

This is a sci-fi/romance/comedy/family drama/action movie. Yeah. And it pulls off all these elements wonderfully. Set in what I imagine is a not-too-distant future (the film never specifies), Summer Wars imagines a world where much of the technologically advanced world has joined an uber-social network called Oz. The movie opens with a sort of commercial for Oz, familiarizing us with this virtual space, that is nothing like Facebook. There they can play games, access endless resources, buy things (for the real or virtual world), or even work. In fact most people have linked Oz directly to their jobs, so they can just work from home. People have customized avatars in this virtual space, and their avatars have digital access to everything they choose. Hence some avatars would have government access, some access to power and water facilities, some access to satellites in space. They do it all in Oz.

Young math genius Kenji actually works for Oz, writing code. He also has a crush on the pretty Natuski. And when Natuski asks him to come to her hometown for the summer to do a job for her, he agrees immediately. We meet Natuski's family, an enormous group of interesting folks, many of them cops or firefighters, lead by a matriarch nearing her 90th birthday. She's one of the best characters: a very strong old woman with a long lifetime of wisdom and resources, a quick wit, and a quicker temper. Just after arriving, Kenji gets a message from Oz, with a long number sequence and the words "solve me." Kenji, who as all math geniuses seem to be is slightly obsessive, solves the problem after a few frantic hours work. He has no idea that he's just unleashed what is essentially an artificially intelligent virus unto Oz. Overnight, havoc is wreaked on public works systems, financial systems, lighting grids, everything; because everything is wired in. Then the virus (hilariously called "Love Machine" by its inventor) begins consuming other avatars. And gaining their access. It should come as no surprise that it's going to come down to Kenji, Natuski, and the entire family to save not just the virtual world, but the real world as well.

At times this movie is visually stunning. Do not be put off by the cutesy image on the poster up there. There are some cutesy elements, yes, but as a whole I think this:

is far more representative of the look and feel of the movie. The virtual space is visualized brilliantly through one of the best blends of hand drawn and computer animation I've seen. And a moment comes towards the end that echos Chernabog during his "Night on Bald Mountain" in the seminal Fantasia. This gave me chills. But beyond the visual, the movie is often hilarious, occasionally thrilling, very smart, and more than a little touching. It's got heart to spare, and it's dead on in it's representation of a large but close knit family. And of course it is somewhat unsettling. How far are we from Oz, or something very like it? Not far I'd say. Not far at all.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"

*****

Early on in this movie, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) receives the specs of his new mission from a little screen that pops out of a pay telephone somewhere in Russia. At the end we hear the now famous line, "This message will self destruct in 5 seconds," followed by a timer appearing on the screen. Hunt hangs up the phone, the screen retracts within, he starts to walk away and... nothing happens. Hunt turns back to the payphone and hits it, the oldest standby for making faulty gadgets work. And of course it works here, producing a sizzling sound and a puff of smoke from within the phone. This moment is very funny, one of many great laugh-out-loud moments in the film; but it is also the first in a long series of malfunctions with the tech used by the agents. Of course these malfunctions lead to some serious problems, and it's up to Hunt and his crew to resolve these problems personally. A theme has emerged: in the heat of the moment, you must rely on the people you trust to get the job done.

This is just one of many smaller themes running beneath the surface of this movie, and one of the many reasons I loved it so much! Director Brad Bird, arguably one of the greatest animation directors working today (The Incredibles, Ratatouille, The Iron Giant), has delivered his first live-action movie with as much humor, as much pulse pounding, kinetic action, and as much intelligence as he puts into animation, if not quite as much heart. Among the spectacular action set-pieces presented here is a chase through an enormous dust storm, a fight through several levels of an automated parking structure, and an attempt to scale and then descend a portion of the world's tallest building that, of course, does not go quite as planned. This last scene is an excellent reminder that the depth of 3D is not required for a movie to induce an enormous sense of vertigo. I should also make note that the movie is shot and edited in a very clean and straightforward way, and makes no use of the rapid editing and shaking, wobbly camera work that some directors (I'm looking at you, Tony Scott) seem to think is required for action. This is a breath of fresh air.

The cast is superb. Cruise has been playing this character for something like 12 years now, so he slips into it like a glove. Paula Patton is sexy and seductive, but can kick ass with the best of them, and carries a touch of grief with her through most of the movie (for reasons that become very clear in the early moments). Simon Peg is Simon Peg, and for the purposes of his role as tech man and first time field agent Benji Dunn, he need not be more; this man is living, walking comic relief. Jeremy Renner, as seems to be becoming his trademark, is better than he needs to be. As William Brandt he is burdoned by guilt over a secret he is carrying, and in some ways the slow revelation of who he is and why he's so burdoned is the very element that elevates this from really good movie to great movie. It's a touch of that heart that Bird brings in such abundance to his animated features. (Incidentally, Renner's character will take over the series once Cruise decides to step down.) And Michael Nyqvist, probably best known for playing the Daniel Craig role in the original Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo and its sequels, plays Kurt Hendricks, the very best kind of villian. No mad schemes of power or wealth for him, rather a pure and righteous belief that what he's doing is the right thing. He not only seems ready to die for this belief but it looks to me as if he expects to.

I didn't care for the first Mission Impossible; I found it unnecesserily convoluted and more than a little silly. But every one that has come has improved upon the last. And here, now , with the fourth in the series, we have not only the best Mission yet, but also very likely the best straight-up action movie of 2011.

"Contagion"

****½

This is the most un-sensational epidemic movie I've ever seen, and that's a compliment. It is so grounded in reality, so meticulous with it's scientific detail, that it steps ahead of the vast majority of other entries into it's genre. This could happen tomorrow.

Director Steven Soderbergh uses vast, multi-character plot lines to portray many different aspects of a pandemic, from scientists racing to identify the virus, trace it's origin, and create a vaccine; to panic stricken people doing whatever they can (even if they shouldn't) to survive; to an average American family devastated by quick, unexpected loss; to conspiracy theorists who see the whole thing as a profiteering scheme by pharmaceutical companies. Unlike many multi-character plots I've seen, every thread here works, and contributes to the greater whole of the story as well as having many thought provoking, subtle and not so subtle meanings hidden underneath.

The methods Soderbergh uses to follow the virus are ingenious in their simplicity. Never before while watching a movie have I been so aware of what people are touching. And where. And how often. And just how dire the consequences of a simple thing like a friendly handshake could be. I should note that if you're looking for an edge-of-your-seat thriller you should look elsewhere; this is not that movie, there are very few actual "thrills" here. But if you're searching for a well thought out, sober drama deeply exploring the implications of a global horror that will leave you with lingering concerns long after you finish watching, here you have your grim, unsettling, wonderful reward.

"Catfish"

****½

An incredible documentary (that some maintain isn't true). Part character study, part exploration of our increasingly social network based society, part thriller, it's a hard movie to review without spoilers. And the very fact that elements could be spoiled is part of the reason some doubt it's authenticity. Since I can't discuss exactly why I was so blown away by this one, I'll just say it wasn't what I expected. It built a surprising level of tension for a documentary, but ultimately, it turns out touching and more than a little sad. This is a must see movie in every way! And I will never accept a friend request on Facebook from someone I don't know again!

"Scream 4"

****½

Is it the best Scream movie? Arguable. Is it the best since the first? Easily. Is it funny as hell while simultaneously suspenseful? You bet. Will you jump out of your seat? One or four times. Is it an excellent commentary on the state of modern horror flicks? Completely. Did I have a fantastic time watching it? Oh yes I did. Was my opinion colored by nostalgia the moment I heard Ghostface's voice on the phone and saw Neve Campbell's face splashed across the screen? Perhaps. Is this review composed entirely of questions and answers? Yes. Yes it is.

"Limitless"

*****

I guess sometimes it's just the right movie at the right time. I thought I'd like this one, but oh boy did I underestimate it! I identified with the main character, saw myself in him (at least at the beginning) to an astonishing degree. And I was enthralled by the ride he goes on, it's ups and it's downs. The story moves around in interesting and fun ways, and with one very minor exception, I didn't see the twists and turns coming.

One should not ignore the performance Bradley Cooper gives here. As his options truly become limitless, and as he becomes very aware of this, it would've been very easy for the character to become smug (or Cloony-esque, if you will). It would then have been very easy to stop liking him, and the whole film would've collapsed as a result. But Cooper prevents this, playing him so that he always seems too thrilled with everything that he's doing to ever become self satisfied. It's not the kind of performance that earns Oscars, but it is the kind that solidifies movie stars.

I must also note the cool, kinetic visual style of the film. Film is an intrinsically visual medium, and when the drug takes effect, the director uses it completely. Colors suddenly heighten and pop. The view expands and augments with fish-eye lenses and even (somehow) complete 360 degree angles. Several times there are infinite zooms traveling down New York's long avenues (these shots are incredible, and I have no idea how they were done. I have theories. lol). There are camera pans that manage to cover time as well as space, when the drug begins causing gaps in his awareness. Some of these visuals are actually a bit jarring, even eye boggling, but it all heightens the effect.

 The movie will leave you with some unanswered questions, which I only note because I know some people don't like loose threads. For me it was just one more thing to discuss afterwards. Bottom line: I had a whole lot of fun, and ultimately, isn't that what matters most?

"Hanna"

****½

Smarter than your average action flick! And seriously, young Saoirse Ronan may be one of the best actresses out there. She acts circles around Cate Blanchette, and that's no easy task. This would not have worked so well if she weren't so very good in it, but boy is she!

The plot is beautifully cyclical, and director Joe Wright (director of Atonement, it is worthy to note) handles his slightly fantastical and surprisingly cerebral story with gritty realism and occasional visual flare. The opening sequences in a snow covered dense woodland and the closing sequence in an old, overgrown amusement park are beautiful, and evoke not only that old creeping dread of shadowy places but also reinforce the fantastical elements yet again.

Strip this movie bare and what you've got is a girl kept captive all her life who one day escapes to discover a wide world of wonders and relationships she never imagined. Sounds like a fantasy to me. No wonder I enjoyed it so much

"127 Hours"

*****

Incredible movie: visually stunning, perfectly acted, emotionally resonant, intense, and yes, graphic and upsetting. Franco must carry this movie on his shoulders; as mostly a one man show it would fly or die based on what he could do with it. (Not to discredit Danny Boyle's intense, awesomely visual directing style or A.R. Rahman's alternately throbbing/haunting score. Both are pitch perfect.) He is simply incredible, its a performance I'll never forget, and the film soars to almost ethereal heights of humor, despair, horror, and redemption. There are some moments that are hard to watch, but you MUST see this movie. You may never forget it!

"Thor"

****

The somewhat mighty Thor! Here we have a solid, though not exceptional, comic book movie. It opens with a huge back story that may run a little too long, and immediately had me a little worried. There were a lot of effects going on, and I think some pretty sweet battle scenes. I say I think because these scenes were very dark, and very rapidly edited, and I saw it in 3D, which just made the dark darker. I honestly wasn't sure just what was going on in these scenes! But once the movie arrives at the realm (planet) of the gods, it brightens considerably, and the design of this place is simply remarkable. I was especially impressed with the bridge that lead to the bridge. (That sentence will make sense once you've seen it.) Later darker scenes didn't give me the same problem, so that early issue clears itself up quite nicely. A last note on the 3D: the movie was stretched, not shot, in 3D, but the effect is done pretty well, better than most I've seen. And while Branagh doesn't exactly "use" the 3D to any extent, the depth is still impressive.

Once Thor is grown up and the plot really starts going we get wonderful, visually exciting action scenes; a strong undercurrent of good humor (at least on earth, Asgard seems like a deadly serious place); and, most importantly, a clear, well defined character arc for our main character. At the open Thor is a narcissistic, pompous warmonger. His father Odin (Hopkins) knows those ways can only lead to disaster, so he humbles Thor as completely as he can be humbled, and it is up to Thor to learn what leadership and heroism really mean. Hemsworth is cast perfectly. He looks every inch a Norse god, but more than that, he plays the extremes the character travels to a tee. Note the smile that fills his face as he discerns an imminent fight early on. Note how that same smile appears and softens later during a moment of levity. The movie would not have worked at all had he not played it so well. Portman, as the love interest, does perhaps the best she can with a character who's just not well developed. In fact, the biggest problem with the movie arrives right there. For all the fun on display, a linchpin element of the plot is the feelings Thor develops for her. They seem to get along well enough, but there never seems to be a moment of connection, never any real sparks. It came as a surprise to me when the movie informed us they were in love; I certainly hadn't seen any evidence of it.

Ultimately, what this movie is, is a setup for the forthcoming Avengers movie. Familiar elements of the Marvel universe abound, from SHIELD to references to Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Bruce Banner (the Hulk). Also watch for a cameo from Oscar nominee Jeremy Renner as fellow future Avenger Hawkeye, and the requisite cameo from Marvel creator Stan Lee. In that function, as set up for a future film, this is perfect. It establishes the character and furthers our understanding of the world in an awesomely fun, visually exciting way. As a stand alone film, however, it never reaches the heights it's aiming for. Nearly, but not quite.

"The King's Speech"

****½

For all the technical merits of a film, this one is astounding. The script feels organic and real. The art direction and set decoration evoke London in the first part of the 20th century perfectly, and even occasionally aid in your understanding of character. The direction is subtle and at times sublime, and the (Oscar winning) director has a unique and interesting eye. He frames his shots in unusual ways that are often artistic, occasionally slightly jarring, once or twice bordering on avant garde, but always interesting to look at, and often quite beautiful. (The king and his therapist walking through a park, the camera tracking in front of them, and everything vanishing behind them in the brightly lit, starkly white London fog as they walk. It's one of my favorite moments.)

The acting is absolutely perfect all around, especially Colin Firth, whose performance not only deserved the Oscar it won him, but deserves to be remembered as one of the finest performances of the early 21st century. I'm not exaggerating. A friend was impressed with his stammer, how real and organic it was, rising and falling with his emotions. For me it was far more than that. Watch his eyes. I've always thought the best performances happen in the eyes. He is completely earnest.

As a whole, though, this movie was not greater than the sum of it's phenomenal parts. Between moments of great drama and moments of surprisingly high humor, it seemed to drag, and I found my attention starting to wander. It would always come back around, but the very fact of it prevents me from giving the film a full 5 stars. I should note however by the end I was wholly absorbed again, and the film finishes with an emotional wallop. It's nice when a movie honestly brings out happy tears.

"The Last Exorcism"

*½

It's sad. Not only does this movie have an amazing, 5 star first act, it also has a truly revelatory performance. It begins by blatantly mocking exorcism cliches, which gleefully assuaged my fears that this would merely be a retread of said cliches. Rev. Cotton Marcus is established as a captivating character, all the more so because he seems completely unaware of what an ass he is. He doesn't really believe, you see, and isn't sure he ever did. It's all a show to him. So we've got an intriguing main character and fabulous first act...and then...well, nothing. It just all falls apart. No scares, no mood, tinkly supposed-to-be-eerie music that completely belies the idea that this is either documentary or found footage, and an ending that, well, let's just say I think I understand now how all those people that didn't like The Blair Witch Project felt at the end. I usually love these hand-held style movies, but this one just didn't work.

What saved it from utter loathing and elevated it to mere disdain was Ashley Bell. Her performance as Nell is astounding. She shifts effortlessly between wide-eyed innocence and seething rage. The magic really happens in her eyes. Note her simple joy when a gift is made of a favored pair of boots, or the shy enthusiasm with which she plays a song on her recorder. Then note the way she looks at the camera when she's discovered atop a wardrobe, or the sheer mania when the demon that may or may not be within her confronts Rev. Marcus. The camera lingers on her eyes in this moment, so you'll see what I mean. It is truly a wondrous performance, and truly unfair to her that the movie around it is such a steaming mess.

"Salt"

***

Salt spends much of it's run time trying to keep you on edge, unsure of what's really going on, where Salt's allegiances lie, and why. It twists around several times, gleefully doing the film version of a contortionist act. I usually love this stuff, but for some reason, I'm really not sure why, I saw every single twist coming. This wants to be Bourne with a girl-power twist, but eliminate the surprises, and what's left is a fairly run-of-the-mill action thriller.

Jolie is as always a joy to watch, in fact she's probably better here than she really needs to be.  Liev Schreiber also doesn't disappoint, but I found Chiwetel Ejiofor lacked much of the earnestness I've come to expect from him, probably because he doesn't have that much to work with: his character has little screen time and is decidedly one-note.

Ultimately, if you don't see the twists coming, you'll probably have a grand time (this was the case for others with whom I saw the film), and if you do, it still passes the time pleasantly enough. However, mild SPOILER ALERT here, must every new movie be a hook on which to hang a franchise? Is it too much to ask that we get an ending, rather than a dangling of further possibilities? Just asking.

"Audience of One"

****

You wanna see crazy happen? Watch this documentary, pay close attention, somewhere along the way you might just see the moment pastor Richard Gazowsky goes insane. Silly me, I missed it. It even took me until the last few minutes of the film to realize it had happened, but oh boy did it! It starts simply enough: man feels inspired by God to make a movie. He's not the first; more power to him. Things quickly go wrong, but he has faith things will come out right. God wants it to happen, right? The movie even sounds somewhat promising...if a little odd. But odd can work. But then, what happens when EVERYTHING goes wrong? Do you back down, humble yourself, and move on; or do you continue blindly ahead? Do you tell everyone the backers have guaranteed the money for the film, money that has a habit of doubling each time you mention it? Do you suddenly aspire in the midst of your failure to even bigger, grander, wildly ridiculous things? Watch how Gazowsky handles it, and just see if you can pinpoint the moment he breaks.

"The Taking of Pelham 123"

**

Ho-hum thriller. It's so hard to believe in Travolta as a bad-ass, and he really overdoes it. And Denzel, usually so good, seems to be just phoning it in. The direction is over-raught. The camera is constantly doing zoomy, blurry, streaky, flashy things which may be meant to ramp up the excitement but instead are very distracting. The script is atrocious, with f-bombs wedged in all over the place. I assume the profanity is an attempt to create realism, but it actually has the opposite effect, and feels, well, wedged in. And there are wholly unnecessary scenes where the police are moving the demanded-for money through the city and getting in fantastic and unrealistic accidents. This also, I assume, was an attempt to ramp up the action, and it also, shocker, fails. James Gandolfini is amusing as the mayor, and that's pretty much the only reason this isn't one star. I'd say avoid this, and maybe watch some paint dry instead. That would be much more riveting.

"Ringers: Lord of the Fans"

***

Amusing and frivolous. If you are a fan, like myself, chances are you will know much of what this documentary has to say already. The writing of the books, the high-brow slams and popular raves, the rising and falling waves of success over time (Frodo Lives!), the earlier animated film versions (Rankin & Bass, Ralph Bakshi), Peter Jackson's epic masterpiece; all this would be fairly well known and covered elsewhere.

There are a few bits of new and interesting info, though (to me at least). I was aware of Leonard Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" and of course Led Zeppelin's near obsession with Middle-Earth, but not of all the rest of the Tolkien references in popular music, especially metal. Had to download "Rivendell" by Rush after watching! Also interesting that previous film versions were attempted in the 50s and 60s, but simply never worked out. (Could you imagine a LOTR film by, gasp, Disney?!) The interviews with fans assured me that I'm not as obsessive as I thought I was. Some of these folks are just plain nuts!

I'm not so sure I can agree with the movie's claim that LOTR was pretty much responsible for the counter-culture movement of the 60s, and a bit of self-indulgence at the end slightly mars the affair. In the end, if you are a fan, a Ringer, then you'll probably enjoy yourself. If not, stay away, you will be sooooo bored. Side-note: I celebrate Bilbo and Frodo's birthday every year. You see, its my birthday, too!

"The China Syndrome"

*****

During the near accident that begins the film, between the big tremors that everyone feels, there is a slight vibration that only Jack Lemmon's character notices. That vibration runs as an undercurrent through the rest of the film, with tension ever mounting because of it, and what it may mean. This is a terrifying film, more because of what it implies than what it shows. This could happen (and has.) That's just scary.

Modern sensibilities want this to be a disaster flick, which it is not, and I found myself, thanks to the ADD so many current films induce, drifting slightly. But every time that happened, it wouldn't last long, because some truly riveting moment would grab me and pull me back in. There are a lot of riveting moments here, half the movie leaves you perched precariously on the edge of your seat. One great scene cuts constantly from the loud, ratcheting sounds in the body of the plant, to the near-silence of the control room, and the intensity of Jack Lemmon's face. The effect is nerve-rattling.

And speaking of Jack Lemmon, WOW! Many of the great moments come from him, and his virtuoso performance. He deserved that Oscar nod, and I think he deserved to win. Jane Fonda is of course also fantastic in her nominated role. If Lemmon is the heart of the movie (and he is), then she is the brain that makes the whole thing run. She asks the questions we need answers to (mention must be made of the great screenwriting here, and the inspired idea to have the main character be a reporter). Plus she has a pet turtle, which is totally random and awesome.

Some, admittedly, may not enjoy a movie that relies so heavily on talking and the intensity of it's performers. Some may well be bored throughout. But I saw deft direction, excellent screenwriting, powerful performances, and yes, true fear. For me, this is one of the best thrillers ever made.