Worst Movies of 2010

I was originally going to do a Top 10 best and worst of 2010, but the truth is, I didn't see enough movies in 2010 to do a fair "Top 10 Worst Of" list. (I'll have a "Best Of" list soon, just need to see a couple more movies before I post it.) 2010 had more than its share of trash, but a lot of the movies would truly be the worst of the year, I didn't see. (Again... don't have time to see them all, but I'm working on that.) So I'm going to do this, my Top 5 worst movies plus a few that might be contenders while being a bit too soon to label them as the "worst." Also just so everyone knows, the reason some infamous duds like The Bounty Hunter, The Spy Next Door, or Twilight: Eclipse (ugh!!!) aren't on this list, its because I haven't seen them yet. If I do eventually have the stomach to watch them, I might write a review.

My Top 5 Worst Movies of 2010

5. Alice In Wonderland
Sure, the movie looks great, but the visuals do nothing more than to serve as a reminder of what could have been. Instead, we get one of the worst directorial efforts of Tim Burton's career. Save for a semi-enjoyable performance by Helena Bonham Carter, every actor comes off as lethargic or uncomfortable. Even Johnny Depp looks lost! Who could blame him though, when you're acting in one of the most laughably bad re-imaginings of a classic story. Gaping plot holes, flat characters, and an absurd re-imagining of the classic Wonderland story killed any potential this movie may have had.

4. The Last Airbender
Hey everyone, lets laugh at M. Night Shyamalan! Why not? The guy hasn't made a good movie since Signs... and that was almost 10 years ago. I haven't seen a full episode of the cartoon its based on, but seeing a few clips, not to mention support from a large fan-base, I can assume that the show is miles better than this piece of trash. Some passable effects can't salvage a movie with horrendous writing and laughable performances. Plus, the white washing of the show's mostly-Asian cast isn't giving it any credence either. Honestly M. Night? What happened to you???

3. Cop Out
It pains me to put this film on here, since I am generally a huge fan of Kevin Smith. Worse yet, I have been sticking up for the guy when some of his recent films haven't been up to his usual standards. So when Cop Out turned out to be such a colossal failure, I looked like the idiot. The Smith-directed (but not written) action-comedy, Cop Out, is neither funny nor exciting. Bruce Willis phones in an incredibly bland performance, while Tracy Morgan goes waaaaaaaay over the top with one of the most painfully annoying comedic shticks I've ever seen. Throw in some been-there-done-that action cliches, and you've got a failure on many levels. I hope this is nothing more than just a bump in the road for the usually enjoyable Kevin Smith.

2. Jonah Hex
Rumor has it that the film adaptation of the DC Comic Jonah Hex was an insanely troubled production. After watching the movie... I can see that. Josh Brolin makes a solid effort but unfortunately gets pulled down in this train wreck of a movie. An asinine script, sloppy editing, poor direction, stale acting, and no respect for the subject matter are only a few of Jonah Hex's problems. If I were to list all of the film's issues... well maybe I'll save that for a full review. Bottom line... don't see it.

1. A Nightmare On Elm Street
- Ugh! Sure, take one of my favorite movies and remake it into 90 minutes of boring, bland, and uninventive horror tripe. This movie did something I had originally thought was impossible... make a boring Elm Street movie. It was derivative, predictable, bland, stupid, and so poorly cast. Although, like Jonah Hex, this movie is slightly bolstered by one good performance... Jackie Earl Haley as the new Freddy. He rocks, no doubt about that, but the rest of this movie can go the way of Freddy Krueger and die in a fire.

Not Good... but not quite "Worst Of" bad...

These movies weren't necessarily "Worst of 2010" bad (probably not, maybe when I see more of 2010's tripe, I can reassess their worth) but either they failed to live up to their promise or were just totally mediocre.

Devil
Alright, this movie wasn't as horrible as I expected nor was it the worst of the year. I even gave it 2.5 stars when I wrote a review for it. I probably was being a bit generous when I wrote that review, mainly because I went it with low low low expectations. Nonetheless, I'm not in the habit of changing my scores, and I don't intend to start. After all, it had some passable scares and some good camerawork. Unfortunately, it also had the second most laughable script this year (2nd only to Alice in Wonderland). When you add in stupid characters, laughable lines ("Jelly side up!"), and a predictable outcome, you get a bad movie. Although it does become something of a so-bad-its-good movie, so its at least more entertaining than some of the films released this year. Already its starting to build a cult following... nice!

The Expendables
Again, not a God-Awful movie like some of the others, but its on the list for not living up to its potential. I dug the idea of an 80s style action movie starring some of the genre's most revered stars. Aside from a cool opening and decent finale, it failed to live up to the nostalgic premise. The camera was shaking all over the place, the villains were flat, and the great cast wasn't used to their full potential. Might be worth a rental, but nothing more than that.

Hereafter
Another one that's not horrible, but fails to live up to its promising concept. Actually, there's one other reason I'm putting it here... BECAUSE HEREAFTER'S CRAPPY CGI WAS NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR WHILE TRON LEGACY WAS NOT!!! Okay, well that aside, Hereafter just wasn't that good. Matt Damon does his usual good job, and the whole concept with three separate characters with intertwining afterlife-themed storylines was intriguing. Unfortunately, the story rambles on until you realize it had nothing particularly poignant to say about the subject. Also, Clint Eastwood still can't direct young actors, Matt Damon's storyline was considerably more interesting than the other two, and yes... the special effects were either bland, derivative, or fake-looking. Its too bad, because this could have been a really good movie.

So yeah, consider these my bottom films of 2010. Don't bother watching them!

Oscar Nomination Snubs of 2011

Okay, so the Oscar nominations have just been announced, and for the most part, there were no huge surprises. Still, with every year there will be snubs... some expected and some that just piss me off. This year... there are some pretty massive snubs that I just have to address.

Christopher Nolan once again gets cheated out of a Best Director nomination!!!

- This is the biggest WTF in the Oscar list. Not only was Inception one of the most innovative, entertaining, and well directed movies of the year, Nolan has been consistently making one excellent film after the other, and the guy has not received one nomination! Honestly, he is one of the industry's most unique and creative filmmakers. Yet he has been overlooked by the Academy every time he makes a movie. What the Hell Academy???


TRON Legacy gets snubbed out of a Best Visual Effects nod... and a few others

- Just like I thought Christopher Nolan would be a shoe-in for a Best Director nod, I thought TRON Legacy would definitely get a nod for Best Visual FX. In the words of John Belushi... "BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" Seriously, the first TRON (one of the greatest pioneers of cgi technology) was snubbed out of the same nomination in 1983 because the Academy considered using computer graphics "cheating." And now, TRON Legacy, one of the year's most visually stimulating movies gets the shaft. Not to mention, it lost in the categories of Art Direction, costumes, and music (more on that next)... but the most glaring snub is definitely the Visual Effecs. And lets look who it lost out too...

Alice in Wonderland: Stupid stupid stupid movie!!! But it did have really good effects, so I guess it earned a nomination for that.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1: Actually, this movie was really good... so well earned.

Hereafter: WTF!!! This movie had HORRIBLE special effects! They were just God Awful! What the Hell Academy!!!

Inception: This movie had great FX... actually probably the best of the year, neck and neck with TRON Legacy. Well deserved. I expect this one to win.

Iron Man 2: Well rendered effects in an entertaining movie... yet kind of meh when you get down to it. Doesn't tick me off as much as Hereafter, but I hope it doesn't win.

Well, TRON Legacy did AT LEAST get a nomination for Sound Editing... so that's something.

Daft Punk snubbed for Best Musical Score

- Actually, this one doesn't surprise me at all. The band, Daft Punk, did an all electronic musical score for TRON Legacy. Don't get me wrong, I totally think the movie's score should have been nominated, but the fact that an all electronic musical score wouldn't go down too well with the Academy wasn't unexpected in the slightest. Too bad.


Mila Kunis snubbed for Best Supporting Actress

- Not a huge surprise but a snub worth mentioning nonetheless. Maybe the fact that a girl best known for a goofy 70s themed sitcom or Meg on Family Guy wasn't exactly Oscar's favorite sort of performer had something to do with it. Its a bummer, since she did a really good job in her part, and probably put more heart and soul into such a challenging role than a lot of the nominated actresses this year.

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World gets no nominations at all

- Its not just the fact that I'm a game geek that I've been supporting this movie... its the fact that its a really good movie. I'm not too surprised that it didn't get any nominations, but I thought it at least stood a chance with some of the technical categories. Between the creative cgi, cinematography, and sound design, there should have been at least some consideration. Plus, it had a good and insightful script and Edgar Wright, a really good director, far better than most of the movies released this year. Can't say I'm surprised it got overlooked, but a bummer nonetheless.

Kick Ass snubbed for Best Costumes

- I guess they weren't the most elaborate costumes, but similar to Watchmen getting snubbed out of this same category, I think Kick Ass should have been nominated. Sure, they were simple, but they fit the film quite well. Does the Academy only think of period piece costumes? They really need to broaden their tastes.

Gotta say, the Oscars left out some heavy hitters this year. Still, there were some good calls. Darren Aronofsky finally got nominated for Best Director. Christian Bale has been long overdue for a nomination, and he finally got it. Natalie Portman will probably win her Oscar! Plus, a lot of the year's best movies did get some well deserved nominations. I'll make my predictions later on another entry, but until then, there's lots to look forward too for the Oscars.

The Fighter - Review

Reviewing a movie like The Fighter can pose a minor dilemma. Namely that its so by-the-numbers Oscar bait that many will dismiss it for adding virtually nothing new or original. On the other hand, you can't deny a quality film, and I always do my best to remain as unbiased as a film critic as I can be. So, without further ado, here's The Fighter.

The Fighter is based on the true story of boxer Mickey Ward. Growing up in a lower income family in Lowell, Massachusetts, Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a talented fighter living in the shadow of his older half brother and trainer, Dicky Eklund (played by Christian "Better finally get a freakin' Oscar nomination!!!" Bale). Eklund was once a promising boxer who, in his prime, famously beat the legendary Sugar Ray Leonard. While in his heyday, Eklund fell victim to a crack addiction, thoroughly killing his chances of making it to the top. Also accompanying Ward is his loving yet not always thoughtful mother and manager, Alice Ward (Melissa Leo) and his equally loving yet imperfect girlfriend, Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams). All of Mickey's friends and family genuinely love and care for him, but are putting Mickey in the middle of their excessive dysfunction, prejudice, and selfishness.

You can't have an effective drama without compelling performances, and this is where The Fighter shines. While not the best movie of the year, it may very well be the best cast. Mark Wahlberg gives a wonderful understated performance as Ward, caught in a believable dilemma of having to take sides he would rather not choose. Wahlberg's performance is incredibly sympathetic, and even if we haven't been in that particular situation, I think everyone can relate to him in one way or another. Amy Adams performance as Ward's girlfriend Charlene is equally compelling. She's not the most likable character, but you can see where she is coming from. Plus, both Adams and Wahlberg had good chemistry together, creating a believable romance mostly free of cliches.

Of course, what is easily the show-stealing performance has to go to Christian Bale as Dicky Eklund. Bale has been infamous for dramatically changing his physique and weight for a number of his movies, and he does it again for The Fighter. Its always incredible to see him go from his bulked up and massive physique in the Batman movies to a borderline emaciated appearance for this. Bale really sells this role, completely immersing himself into this character and losing himself in it. Some might complain that he is overshadowing Wahlberg, (and he is) but it works with the story. The movie is about a man who has been overshadowed by his older brother his whole life, and how he attempts to find his own identity. The character contrast between Bale and Wahlberg works very well in that context.

Normally, I don't delve into the supporting cast too often unless I feel it is needed, and this is one of those cases. Mickey's mother/manager, Alice, is played by Melissa Leo. In a sea of such stellar lead performances, you would think she would be left in the dirt, but not in this case. She brings a realistically complicated mother/son relationship to her performance. She is a mother who legitimately wants what is best for her sons but at times gets distracted by her own objectives and fails to see what is going on around her. Finally, the rest of Mickey's extended family, while minor characters, are realistic looking characters with believable personalities. Everyone in this movie is superbly cast, there are no characters that have black-and-white good/bad personalities, everyone has issues but all with the best of intentions.

As far as the script is concerned... there is almost nothing new or original here. Unfortunately, the movie looses points as one of the more predictable movies of the year. When you think of nearly every boxing/sports movie ever made, The Fighter follows that same basic formula and does little to stray away from it. Granted, The Fighter is based on a true story so you can't drift away too much from fact. I don't know how authentic the movie is to what really happened though, so I can't judge it for that quite yet. Despite the movie not being original, its still a compelling and interesting drama with a predictable ending. Expect some Oscar nominations for acting but probably not for screenwriting.

Finally, we come to the visual style. Director David O Russel shoots The Fighter is shot in the sort of gritty, realistic, documentary-style that has become so popular lately. I've never been a huge fan of it, but this time it works quite well. Yes, the camera is mostly hand-held, but its held in a way so that it is not flailing around all over the place. I prefer to see what is happening on screen... nicely done. The fight scenes are shot quite well, with most of the actors actually taking their hits. Most of the locations are, from what I hear, not even sets, but actual locations belonging to the real Mickey Ward. Everything works... its sets up this believable environment that accentuates the mood quite well.

Overall, The Fighter is an incredibly well acted, well shot, and decently written movie. This one will definitely get some Oscar nominations and should stand a good chance at winning a few of them. Go check it out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

True Grit (2010) - Review

Its a new year, and I still haven't posted an entry for my choices for the best and worst films of the year. I'm working on one, but unfortunately there are still a few more films from the year I'm hoping to see before I finish the list. In the meantime, here is a review for the Coen Brothers, newest film, True Grit.

True Grit is a Western based on the 1968 novel of the same name by Charles Portis. The novel's first movie adaptation was released in 1969 and starred John Wayne in his Oscar-winning role. This version bills itself as a more faithful adaptation of the novel and stars Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld.

True Grit centers around Mattie Ross (Steinfeld), an ambitious 14-year-old girl whose father was murdered by an outlaw named Tom Chaney (Brolin). Bent on revenge, Mattie hires brutal bounty hunter Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to find Chaney and bring him to justice. The two set out on their adventure when they are joined by Mr. LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), a Texas Ranger also on the lookout for Chaney.

Joel and Ethan Coen are a talented duo. With an extensive filmography including films like Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou, and my personal favorite, No Country For Old Men, you can generally expect a good movie when they're attached. With that in mind, the Brothers do a solid job adapting the novel. That being said, while True Grit is far from a bad movie, in some ways it seems like an odd choice for the two. Their films are well known for having intricate stories, complete with deep messages, symbolism, and clever twists. True Grit is arguably their most straightforward film yet. There's little depth behind these characters aside from the typical western cliches. The characters and story are enjoyable, don't get me wrong, but the absence of their trademark storytelling is a bit disappointing. Make no mistake, its not a bad script, but don't go in expecting an in-depth storyline.

True Grit's biggest strength lies in its acting. The film is told from the point of view of the young Mattie Ross. Hailee Steinfeld is definitely the breakthrough performance of the year. It looks like she was enjoying herself in the role, delivering some great lines with memorable gusto and charisma. She's really a blast to watch, and I have no doubt she'll have some great roles offered to her very soon. Next is Matt Damon, giving another great performance to add to his list of good roles. There's not a whole lot to say about Damon that hasn't already been about him a million times... he's a great actor and he does his usual good job.

Next up is Jeff Bridges, an actor whose career has taken off recently. With his Oscar victory last year for 2009's Crazy Heart, Bridges has just been dominating with one great role after the other. He does a good job as Cogburn, even though you may not always understand what he's saying due to his slurred speech. Finally, I have to mention Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney. Brolin isn't on screen for long, but he makes a decent impression with the little screen-time he has. I just have to say this... since the guy is clearly capable of playing a character in a Western, you can't blame him for the disastrous results of his previous movie, Jonah Hex.

Honestly, there really isn't much more I can say about True Grit. Its far from original, but has great performances, good direction, and is a generally well shot and well crafted movie. The script may not be up to the same caliber of the Coens' previous works, but its still an enjoyable story. Its a great movie, but kind of a "by-the-numbers" great movie. Solid filmmaking that's worth watching, but will it be remembered years from now as a classic... probably not.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

TRON Legacy - Review

Its 28 years later... special effects have improved, film making has changed, and a fan-base has grown. Enter TRON Legacy, the long-awaited sequel to Disney's 1982 sci-fi classic, Tron.

As much I enjoy watching the original, I will admit that its not a perfect movie. It excelled in visual department with experimental cgi designs that were practically unheard of, creating a technological universe known as The Grid. It featured Jeff Bridges as Kevin Flynn, a game designer and computer genius whose ideas were stolen by an executive for Encom, a software company at which he was once employed. After hacking into Encom's mainframe to expose the scam, he is accidentally beamed into a computerized world known as The Grid. There, he fought for his life in a sort of computerized purgatory against malicious humanoid programs.

The premise was intriguing, the action scenes were fun to watch, and the visuals are still a blast to see. It was held back by a number of issues, including underutilized story ideas and an occasionally plodding pace. The movie was a moderate success, but failed to catch on with the mainstream aside from a small cult-following of mostly computer nerds. Now, 28 years later, when technology has taken over the world and nerds have taken over Hollywood, Tron returns!

TRON Legacy is set in 2010, 28 years after the original. In the time period, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has disappeared. His orphan son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) has become something of a rebel, refusing to take his father's place as Encom CEO. After receiving a message from his father's office in his abandoned arcade, he goes to check it out. While investigating, he is accidentally zapped into the grid. The technological world introduced 28 years ago, has turned into a virtual dystopia, run by a corrupt program named Clu, a virtual copy of Kevin Flynn. With Sam trapped in the grid, he is forced to compete in barbaric video games while trying to find his lost father.

The original TRON is a movie I've always enjoyed. I wouldn't call it a "guilty pleasure" per se, but its one that's more or less appealed to a select audience... ie sci-fi/computer nerds like myself. TRON Legacy comes off as a bit more mainstream. The main character, Sam, is an adventurous and daring everyman with some hacking talent as opposed to the straight-up rebel computer hacker portrayed by Bridges in the previous movie. There's not as much computer jabber this time and the filmmakers come off as trying to please a broader range of fans. That includes fans of the original, fans of summer blockbusters, and visual effects aficionados. If there's one thing filmmakers should know, its that trying to please everyone is generally a bad idea. As a result, TRON Legacy suffers a bit on that front.

Ultimately, the movie plagued by almost the exact same things that hurt the original. The pacing is a bit off, some of the characters aren't the best, and the storyline contains a multitude of great ideas that ultimately go unrealized. The storyline tries to be profound, throwing in numerous references to religious and existential philosophies while trying to keep it accessible to audiences looking for a simple blockbuster. It works as a straightforward blockbuster, but the attempts toward profound symbolism come of as a half-assed effort. Plus, there are numerous hints at Disney hoping to turn TRON into one of their new franchises. That wouldn't be a bad thing if they didn't leave so many plot threads unresolved.

The biggest strength TRON Legacy has... the presentation! Displaying some of the most incredible and artistic cgi I've seen in a long time, TRON Legacy stands a good chance at winning the Oscar for best visual effects. It kept the same style from the original while updating them for a more modern age. The colors are still fairly monochrome, but all very pretty to look at. I can see why these visuals took well over a year to render. The 3D was quite impressive too. It wasn't quite Avatar level, but it did a good job at immersing you into the world it was presenting. Definitely worth the extra 3 dollars.

The sound design is one of the most creative I've heard in a while too. I love how it kept the classic video-game motifs from the original, while throwing in some modern touches. I wouldn't be surprised to see this one take home Oscars in sound design and mixing as well. I have to mention the all-electronic soundtrack by Daft Punk. Their beats fit the mood of the world created before us and add to the excitement presented. I'll be buying this soundtrack real soon.

Acting-wise... I guess the visuals kind of outshine the performers, but there were no particularly bad performances. I enjoyed seeing Jeff Bridges in duals roles as the aged Kevin Flynn and as the villain CLU (a digitally rendered younger version of Flynn). Bridges was a welcome addition, and certainly gave the movie credibility as a sequel as opposed to a reboot. Hedlund does a fine job as Sam. He brings good credibility to the action scenes and does well enough in the rest of the movie. Olivia Wilde (Dr. Thirteen from House) plays Quorra, a resident of the grid and ally to Flynn. I enjoyed watching Wilde. She does a good job during the action segments and looked like she was having fun making this movie. I wish she would demonstrate a little more emotional range, but for a movie like this, it didn't bother me much. I also have to mention Michael Sheen playing one of the most over-the-top characters I've seen in a while... just watch.

So that's TRON Legacy, the long-awaited sequel. Overall, its pretty fun. I enjoyed the visuals, sound design, soundtrack, and action scenes. The storyline and plot could have been substantially better, but I still found it enjoyable enough. Probably not good enough for repeat viewings, but its definitely worth the price of a movie ticket.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Black Swan - Review

Darren Aronofsky, the filmmaker behind indie classics such as Pi, Requiem For A Dream, and The Wrestler brings us a new masterpiece in the form of Black Swan, a psychological thriller starring Natalie Portman.

Black Swan centers around Nina (Natalie Portman), a young ballerina in New York living with her psychotic and over-bearing ex-dancer mother. A perfectionist in every sense of the word, she dances for a local company preparing for their production of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. The ballet features one lead dancer in dual roles... one as the graceful and innocent White Swan and the other as the dark and sensual Black Swan. With her innocent demeanor, Nina embodies the White Swan perfectly while having difficulty adapting to the Black Swan. A new dancer to enter the studio, Lily (Mila Kunis) is the polar opposite as Nina. She's a free-spirited and impulsive individual with a passion for sex, drugs, and junk food... perfectly embodying the Black Swan. With increasing pressure from her instructor, mother, and a new rival, Nina slowly descends into madness and mutilation while attempting to find the Black Swan within.

I'm going to start by saying this... Natalie Portman is by far one of the best actresses working in the industry today. Few performers come even close to matching her talent, grace, and beauty. She's already shown her ability to perform in movies such as Garden State, V For Vendetta, and Brothers. With Black Swan, she has truly outdone herself. By far the best performance of her career, Portman goes to seriously dark territory showcasing an array of expressions and emotional instability. She is all but guaranteed to receive an Oscar nomination and stands a good chance at winning as well. I can't think of a female performance this year as incredible as Portman was in this.

Mulis Kunis plays Lily, a rival dancer and embodiment of the Black Swan. Kunis is probably best known for TV work, namely for roles in That 70s Show and as the voice of Meg on Family Guy. She's shown she has some good comic timing, but until now all of her non-comedic roles have ranged from "meh" to just plain bad (American Psycho II anyone???). Here, she does beging to show more promise as a dramatic performer, going into darker territory than she usually goes. She does a solid job with the role and is really showing her range as a performer. Obviously Portman outshines pretty much everyone in the movie, but Kunis does a bang-up job (no pun intended) with some very graphic scenes that would probably make many actors uncomfortable. I look forward to see what Kunis will bring in future roles.

The rest of the cast also sell their roles efficiently. Barbara Hershey plays Nina's mother Erica. Both her and Portman work off each other really well and create a great mother-daughter dynamic that fits the tone of the film quite well. A typical trap among actresses playing psychotic mother roles is a tendency to overact (Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest for instance). Hershey has some memorable dramatic scenes, but never goes over-the-top.

There's also a memorable performance from Vincent Cassel as Thomas, the perverted director and ballet instructor. I suppose its not the most original character to grace screen, but he embodies the creepy character quite well... maybe a little too well at times. Finally their Winona Ryder is a smaller role as Beth, a dancer who was recently fired from the studio for being "just past her prime." Normally, I'm not a huge fan of Ryder, she's had a few decent roles but in a lot of her movies, she fails to impress. For Black Swan, she sure makes an impact in her limited screen time. I don't want to spoil too much... lets just say you'll have a hard time getting her out of your head after you watch this.

Out of all the filmmakers who are either still alive or working in the industry today, Darren Aronofsky is probably my favorite. Taking inspiration from filmmakers like Kubrick, he specializes in movies depicting the human psyche and a descent into either madness or obsession. Whether it would about hallucinating dancers, former professional wrestler (The Wrestler), drug addicts (Requiem For A Dream), or psychotic mathematicians (Pi), his films are as emotionally impactful as they are visually stimulating. Psychotic characters are no stranger to film these days but nobody in the business today portrays them as well as Aronofsky.

Its a little premature to say Black Swan is his best movie yet (I'll need to watch it again to make that call), but its probably his most visually enticing. Featuring beautifully shot cinematography, great dance choreography, perfectly timed editing, and some of the best use of cgi I've seen in a long time. Every shot was perfectly positioned, every edit was cut as the precise frame, and every moment of cg was used effectively. Best of all, none of the visuals ever upstaged the actors or story. They found the perfect balance of acting, story, and visual so that nothing felt like too much or too little... it was just right.

While watching this movie, I couldn't help but draw comparisons to the 1984 movie, Amadeus. The movie was a heavily dramatized depiction of the life and times of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, inspired and styled after the operas Mozart was famous for composing. Black Swan rides along a similar theme, only instead of an opera but more like a ballet (no duh!). The movie starts out graceful and slowly but builds to an epic and intense climax complete with the appropriate musical motifs. The score, composed by Clint Mansell features both original works and re-workings of Tchaikovsky's score. Its a flawlessly timed piece of screenwriting and music composition.

I couldn't think of anything I didn't enjoy in Black Swan. These are actually my favorite kinds of movies... intense psychological thrillers with creative imagery, great performances, beautiful scores, and fabulous directing. I'm just going to say this... its not for everyone. I've recommended Aronofsky's films before... only to have my friends return the movies to me saying that they only made it about 10 minutes into them. This, like most of Aronofsky's films, is one intense and brutal piece of cinema. Not for the faint of heart, it includes scenes of self-mutilation, nightmarish hallucinations, and really dark subject matter. Personally I love seeing thrillers taken into darker depths, but I know they're not for everybody.

Overall, Black Swan is the best film of the year! Beating out notable contenders like Inception or Toy Story 3, Black Swan delivered on everything that I could want out of a psychological thriller. Definitely gonna be buying this one on Blu Ray!

My Score: 5 out of 5!

Julie & Julia - Review

It has been a while since I've reviewed a non-new release, or at least one that's not immediately fresh on people's minds. I actually was hoping to write about Black Swan, but unfortunately that movie only got a limited release this weekend as isn't playing anywhere in the Vancouver area (Seriously, you have no idea how much that irks me off). Plus, the number of chick flicks reviewed on my blog is somewhat low. So I thought this would be a good time to review a movie I had watched recently, Julie & Julia.

Julie & Julia is two stories in one movie. Both based on true stories, the first narrative takes place in the 1950s and follows renown cook Julia Child (Meryl Streep) detailing when she was writing her French cookbook that would eventually make her world famous. The second story takes place in 2002 and features Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a young aspiring writer working a mundane job who decides to enliven her life by cooking through Child's aforementioned cookbook every day and blog about the project.

Julie & Julia is one of those movies that is quite difficult for which to write a review. Its not bad, but it isn't particularly great either, yet still is not completely average either. The storyline is where this is most obvious. There's an inherent problem when you make a movie with two separate storylines... they often feel disjointed. Unfortunately, Julie & Julia does fall victim to this... albeit only moderately.

The Julia segments are filmed more like a biopic, detailing the life and experiences of a familiar public figure. The characters are entertaining, the set pieces are interesting, and it doesn't come off as particularly dramatized or glamorized (a typical flaw in many biopics). The Julia segments were an enjoyable movie in itself, and were definitely the better half of this flick.


The Julie segments are more of a romantic comedy... and an average one at that. I know its based off of a true story, and that it needed to follow its real life counterparts, but the characters just aren't particularly relateable, creative, or interesting. I suppose these were the everyday kind of folk that we, as the audience, are supposed to relate with and sympathize. The characters are believable, but believable doesn't always equal entertaining. Plus the ending and outcome of this particular storyarc ends on a predictable outcome.

The two narratives are only loosely connected, mainly via Child's cookbook. This is admittedly a clever way to connect the stories, as both Julie and Julia had never actually met each other, but by the time this was over, I couldn't help but feel like this movie would have been immensely better if they dropped the Julie story and just stuck with the biopic about Child.

What is one way to remedy a hit and miss storyline? The answer is, of course, good performances. Julie & Julia is a movie that I like to call "One Actors Shows." This is an otherwise decent or average movies that become immensely more entertaining thanks to the performance of one particular actor (Think Robert Downey Jr. In Iron Man, Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.). In this case, Meryl Streep is the actress who makes this movie special. Her performance as Julia Child is fantastic, and by far the best in the whole movie. She nailed Child's demeanor, personality traits, and her famous voice. She was a real blast to watch and was by far the best part of it.

Amy Adams plays Julie Powell and, despite being out-shined by Streep, does an admittedly good job in the role. Adams has a good range of emotions, some funny comic timing, and gets the job done. Again, there's just not a whole lot to her character, making it a bit of a challenge to give an in-depth critique. The same can be said for most of the supporting cast. Although, I did enjoy Stanley Tucci as Paul Child, Julia's husband. The two had great chemistry together and looked like they had fun in their roles. Not to mention, the Julia segments featured older, and seemingly, more experienced actors who could easily outshine the younger cast of the Julie segments. Again... the Julia storyline is just better.

Finally, there's some creative production design, some pretty settings, decent cinematography, and an tasty array of food. It goes without saying that a movie about one of the world's most famous cooks would feature a variety of tasty delights, and Julie & Julia certainly delivers on that front. You'll probably get pretty hungry after watching this.

Overall, Julie & Julia is a fun movie and definitely worth watching. It would probably blend in with the crowd if it weren't for Meryl Streep, but this is still a solid movie that's worth at least a rental.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!