9/11's Impact on American Cinema

9/11's impact is still going through theaters today. Here are my thoughts on how the events of 9/11 changed film. My thoughts and prayers go out to those who lost a friend, family member, or loved one.


       Throughout modern history, cinema has prevailed as one of the most popular art forms. During the early 20th century, many different events have impacted the world of cinema. Several films that impacted cinema forever: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Casablanca, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. Each one changed either the course of it’s own genre, or the entire way of storytelling. While these are important to consider, it’s also important to look at events that impacted the direction of film. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have had the greatest impact on American cinema.
       After the events of September 11, 2001, there was immediate impacts seen in many aspects of life. Film, especially, shifted focus after these incredible events. For instance, after 9/11 there was great sensitivity even to humor. Though the country hadn’t lost its sense of humor, it was not clearly evident as it had been before the attacks.The film “Zoolander” was removed from theaters seeing as it was “too much too soon” (Pavia 1).
       After 9/11 patriotism was on the rise. This became prevalent in films near the beginning of 2002. Sam Raimi’s film, “Spider-Man” shows the biggest immediate impact. While there aren’t any explicit vendettas cast by the hero against terror, the shot of “Spider Man fastened to a gigantic American flag in the very last scene of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man” shows the immense amount of patriotism audiences felt after seeing, the first post-9/11 big budget blockbuster (Fahim 1).
       Another cultural reflection from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” shows is it’s trailer. In the trailer, a group of criminals hold up a bank within the World Trade Center. They leave the building, escape in their helicopter, and seem to have made it off scott free. A
few seconds later, their helicopter is pulled back, by some invisible force. It’s later revealed the helicopter is stuck in a web between the Twin Towers. The trailer goes on to show some action sequences, but as one can imagine, the image of the Twin Towers illicits recollection of the gruesome images during September 11. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, the trailer was pulled from all films, television, and can now only be found on the internet. This shows one of the first instances of clear, self imposed, industry wide sensitivity to this event in the 21st century (Crum 1). Anything depicting the World Trade Center was taken from the airwaves. An episode of the popular children’s show, Jay Jay the Jet Plane was pulled from the series due to a “plane crash” it showed in the episode (Crum 1). The immediate impacts of 9/11 were visible, but the lasting impacts made it the event that defined the new direction of American films.
       9/11 changed the relationship we have with characters in film. During most films, whether the filmmaker intends it or not, the main character is someone the audience connects to. Usually we know exactly what the character’s goal is, or what the character is up against. But what happens when a character doesn’t know what he’s up against? Or there is no clear enemy in sight? Or, the enemy is there, but the hero has no idea what motivates him, or if he even has motives? This changes the formula for Hollywood blockbusters considerably. Examine Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek: Into Darkness.
       (Spoilers ahead) In Christopher Nolan’s gritty, realistic take on Batman,The Dark Knight, Christian Bale plays Batman again, after 2005’s Batman Begins (Thompson 33). This time Batman is going up against the Joker, a villain that we, as normal human beings, can’t comprehend. He has no motives, no goal, and no end in sight. He’s not
superhuman by any means, as one character describes it “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” (Nolan & Nolan 57). The audience, or at least that part of the audience paying attention, can draw the similarities between 9/11 and the aftermath of 9/11 and Batman’s mission. He has to go after a villain that the general public does not understand, one that has no motives, and causes destruction relentlessly. Later in the film, Batman deploys a sonar device that hacks into every cellular device in Gotham city, the place where Batman lives. This gives him a clear view of everything going on in Gotham, but also shows the hero going to incredible and new lengths to stop a villain - one’s who’s likes have never before been seen. The parallels here are, Joker: Al Qaeda, Batman: The Government, Attacks on Gotham: 9/11 attacks. Even though it may not have been Nolan’s intention to make a film reflecting the Bush administration’s decisions “it brought that image to mind for viewers because of the time and place in which it was made and released” (Donarum 3). Without 9/11, this film might not have been made. It would not have had relevant impact on viewersWhen Batman, or any hero in general, doesn’t know how to take down the villain, the audience sympathizes with him. Blockbuster films usually try to take the fears of the audience, and, somehow, alleviate them. They try to give them an out. With 9/11, this is becoming increasingly difficult.
       Another prime example of the lasting effects of 9/11 is J.J. Abrams’ recent film Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge Spoilers ahead). Not only are 9/11 parallels seen in this
movie, but conspiracy theories are clear within the film: Chris Pine plays Captain Jim T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise. He is up against a terrorist named John Harrison, who was responsible for the bombing of a weapons bay outside of London. Harrison then launches an attack on Starfleet HQ, and escapes to a (seemingly) barren planet. Admiral Marcus, a high ranking officer in Starfleet (the group of space explorers sworn to explore and protect the galaxy) commands Captain Kirk to go after Harrison, using special missiles developed by the government, without starting a war with the indigenous population. It is later revealed in the film that Admiral Marcus was behind the attack the entire time. He was the one ordering John Harrison to bomb Starfleet, just to give Captain Kirk a reason to kill John Harrison. The parallels here are John Harrison: Al Qaeda, Admiral Marcus: The Bush Administration, Captain Kirk & the crew of the Enterprise: The Military. Later on in the film, there’s a shot of a spaceship flying into buildings on the coast of San Francisco. For many audiences, that hit too close to home. Star Trek Into Darkness shows the political undertones that are sometimes placed before an audience, many of which go undetected.
       Films that directly deal with the attacks of 9/11 are often harshly criticized. In the film “World Trade Center” starring Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña, “Oliver Stone tried to make a patriotic film.” (LaSalle 1). He tries to make a film that “celebrated the heroism of those called to action as a result of tragedy.” (Terry 2). Many saw it as a film that
focused too much on the human aspect of surviving, and not honoring to those who were killed during the 9/11 attacks. While it takes courage to directly deal with these attacks, many people viewed it as too much human interest too soon.
9/11 changed American cinema more than any event before it. We no longer see movies themed as in most of the twentieth century. We no longer see the United States fighting armies from within or outside our borders. Rather, we are left to sit in a darkened theater in heightened awareness and movie-induced fear of an enemy we can’t immediately identify. We watch in terror for terror. 

Works Cited

Crum, Steve. "Nightmares for the American Dream Factory." Rotton Tomatoes. N.p., 19 Oct. 2004. Web. 30 May 2013.

Donarum, Nathan. "The Dark Knight Trilogy and 9/11." The Racked Focus. N.p., 18 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 May 2013.

Fahim, Joseph. “A decade in film.” Al Jazeera (Qatar) 05 Jan. 2010: Newspaper Source. Web. 30 May 2013.

 Mick, LaSalle. “How patriotic films change with times.” San Francisco Chronicle (CA) n.d.: Newspaper Source. Web. 30 May 2013. 

Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. The Dark Knight. Revised Final Script. July 2008. Nolan Fans.  30 May. 2013.

Pavia, Frank. "10 Years After: 9/11's Impact on Film." MSN. N.p., 2011. Web. 30 May 2013.

Prince, Stephen. Firestorm: American Film in the Age of Terrorism. Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2009. Print.

Terry, Joshua. "The impact of 9/11 on popular media." Deseret News 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 May 2013.

Thompson, David. The New Biographical Dictionary of Film. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.

Fall Movie Preview

With the fall comes the rise of Oscar worthy films. Much like the summer of 2015, the movie theater is where I’ll be spending most of my free time these coming months. Here are just a few of the films I’m looking forward to.

Captain Phillips: This seemingly built-for-film true story is one of survival, desperation, and sacrifice. While the Oscars are no stranger to films “lost at sea” (see Life of Pi or Titanic), this tale of one man’s journey to keep him and his crew free from the harm of pirates is one that won’t be overlooked when it comes to the awards time. Also, having Tom Hanks in the film certainly doesn’t hurt it’s chances.

Romeo and Juliet: While there may not be a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo, the cast assembled for this film brings an aura of excitement more than sorrow. Hailee Steinfeld, someone not foreign to classic dialects (see: True Grit) stars as Juliet, while Douglas Booth is Romeo. The film relies on the chemistry between these two and it’s tough to judge from the trailer. I’d put my money on Damian Lewis, Lord Capulet, giving the stand-out performance in this film. This one poses many challenges, (it's quite the period piece, there've been many adaptations already made, and Shakespeare doesn't exactly scream blockbuster) which makes it one of the most interesting films coming out this fall.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Having read the Hunger Games series, I can’t help but be extremely excited, yet cautious about this film. Easily the best one in the series, “Catching Fire” poses a large amount of hurdles to conquer. With that being said, the casting seems incredibly on point, Francis Lawrence (director) is used to conquering big hurdles (see: I Am Legend), and they’ve got the source material. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is impossible not to like. You won’t see me at the midnight showing, but I’ll be sure to catch this one opening weekend.

Ender’s Game: Another big budget book adaptation, “Ender’s Game” could go one of two ways. It could be Summit Entertainment’s “Lone Ranger”, or it could end up being a smash hit at the box office. I haven’t read Ender’s Game, but I know enough about Asa Butterfield to say he’s the man for the job. Hugo was one of my favorite films of 2011, and a big portion of that was the faith put into a relatively unknown child actor, much like “True Grit” with Hailee Steinfeld, also in this film. He delivered, she delivered, and I’m sure they’ll deliver again. Plus, with an all-star group of actors like Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Viola Davis, and Abigail Breslin, this makes “Ender’s Game” one of the many films I’m looking forward to this Fall.

Frozen: While there’s not much to know about “Frozen”, it looks plenty like it could be Disney’s rebound from Planes. The trailer shows a rivalry that’s later to be revealed as a friendship between a snowman and a moose. I’m hopeful about this non-Pixar animated film, but relatively cautious. With enough focus on the storytelling, I think Disney could have a terrific Christmas film on their hands.

Saving Mr. Banks: Speaking of Disney, what would be better than a holiday film about Mr. Walt Disney himself? More specifically, the making of “Mary Poppins,” one of the most famous Disney films ever made. Emma Thompson stars as P.L. Travers, the author of the book, and the person Walt must convince to let Disney studios make her beloved book into the Hollywood hit it would become. This seems to be the season of Tom Hanks, and I’m certainly not complaining. If I had to choose one film to see this Christmas, it would be “Saving Mr. Banks”.

The Wolf of Wall Street: There have been three trailers that floored me for this fall. “Don Jon”, “Gravity”, and “The Wolf of Wall Street”. “The Wolf of Wall Street” trailer is harsh, loud, and visually satisfying, making it right up my alley. With the Oscar starved Leonardo DiCaprio starring as a stock-broker with more money than he can deal with, and Scorsese directing, you’d be hard pressed to find a more captivating duo. I can’t wait for this one.

Gravity: This year I, like many other lucky fanboys and girls, made the trek down to San Diego for Comic-Con 2013. One of the most surprising films to receive a raving response from the masses was Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity”. They showed about six minutes of footage from the film and I was absolutely floored by it. What I saw wasn’t a science-fiction/horror film with Sandra Bullock screaming and George Clooney mugging. No, I got an intimate, intense, and irresistibly gorgeous journey. With the already growing Oscar buzz surrounding it, I’m anxiously anticipating the release of this one. (Sidenote: There is no sound in the vacuum of space, and Alfonso Cuaron intends to keep it that way. That’s right, no sound effects.)

12 Years a Slave: A cast of incredible people can’t save a film, and it certainly doesn’t mean the film will be good. A cast of incredible people, however, does not hurt a film when it comes time for Oscar buzz. “12 Years a Slave” has just that. Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Paul Giamatti (who seems to be the Pharrell Williams of film this year, in that he’s in every hit), this story about a man sold back into slavery is already getting incredible reviews. While there hasn’t been a shortage of films focusing on slavery in the past few years, this one is the most intriguing to me. Don’t be surprised if multiple actors in this film get nominated for Oscars.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

As Christmas approaches (and hopefully isn't stolen by the Mayan calendar) we were given an assignment in English class: Write a critical review of the grinch. Best assignment ever. Here it is in it's entirety. Merry Christmas.


I’m submitting a new title for the movie. It’s called “How The Grinch Stole Two Hours of My Life”. While there’s a certain audience for this movie, and I’m not included in it, I don’t think Ron Howard or anyone else working on the film knew who that audience was. It was like watching a rhinoceros attempting to juggle; it failed miserably. 

The film opens on a snowflake when, with a closer look, turns out to be the small town of Whoville. On it rests the materialistic society of the Whos (no pun intended) who uphold Christmas with the same fervor Americans uphold 4th of July. It defines the Whos and their lifestyle. Only one person in Whoville (more like near Whoville) despises Christmas. His name? The Grinch (Jim Carrey). An outcast as a child, the Grinch has hated Christmas since he stuck his neck out on the line for Martha May Whovier (Christine Baranski) and was ridiculed for it. He lives in constant hatred of the Whos and their atrocious holiday until one day, a little girl named Cindy-Loo Who (Taylor Momsen) gives him the benefit of the doubt and invites him to enjoy Christmas with the Whos. Odd though, the film only focuses on ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’ for about 15 minutes. The majority of the film is focused on the despicable way the Grinch lives his life, while the Whos enjoy the pleasures of Whoville. That’s where the trouble begins.

That’s not to say the film didn’t have it’s moments. A couple scenes when the Grinch, who as Roger Ebert describes him “looks more like a perverse wolfman than the hero of a comedy,” breaks the fourth wall completely are well played (Ebert). Even the Grinch’s best moments are faulted though, seeing as the majority of the audience, children, won’t understand this joke. While I know they’re trying to appeal to a larger audience, that humor doesn’t need to be there. There are many references, including one to the film’s own director, that take away from the experience.

Roger Ebert also describes the films aesthetic aspects spot on. “What is strange is how the inspiration of his drawings has been expanded almost grotesquely into a world so unattractive and menacing,” (Ebert). The oddest portion of the film comes in the Grinch’s lair. It shows him snacking on glass bottles, with everything looking one shade of green or another. The color correction was done to capture the Christmas-y feeling, although all that was accomplished was a thin haze in every shot.

While the film doesn’t entirely deliver, certain portions do. There’s something to be said about a fearless actor, Andy Serkis in ‘Lord of the Rings’ and Sharlto Copley in ‘District 9’ are two of the best examples. Jim Carrey is obviously the stand-out in this film due to the very same fearlessness both Serkis and Copley portrayed. He does an outstanding job in this film, given the material. The problem is, no one else rises to the occasion. Every other actor or actress in this film, especially Taylor Momsen, plays the cuteness of Who’s and Whoville. This goes back to the films main problem; little to no balance. 

A terrible aspect of HTGSC is the annoying, redundant, cliche theme that centers around the entire film. “Christmas isn’t about the gifts, it’s about each other.” “We don’t need presents to make us happy.” “If we sing at the end, everything will turn out alright.” There’s nothing new about the Grinch’s plot, which is good when you’re marketing to small children but, again, the inadequate job of balance makes the substandard plot boring and repetitive. 

While certain features work in HTGSC, the cons far outweigh the pros. Jim Carrey’s performance can only carry so much of the film, and it’s already carrying too much. It strains under the dead weights of unnecessary dialogue, overused themes, and a bar set almost unreachably high. A rare miss in Ron Howard’s directing life. D+

Lone Ranger Trailer #2 Reaction

This summer I had the incredible opportunity to visit the set of the “Lone Ranger” and work as a PA for the visual effects team. I can’t say much about what I saw, so I’ll let the trailer speak for itself.

The most prominent feature of the footage is the aesthetically pleasing atmosphere Gore Verbinski uses in his films. It can be seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean series and his Academy Award-winning animated film “Rango”. 

Another constant theme in his films is the use of Johnny Depp, which no one can really complain about. He’s one of the most fearless actors out there today, which makes him perfect for the role of a Native American sidekick with a bird on it’s head throughout the film. 

While the aesthetically pleasing aspect is incredibly important to notice for this film, the underlying dark tone of this trailer looks to be another crucial element in this adaptation. The first and most obvious example of this would be seeing what looks to be the Lone Ranger’s (Armie Hammer) only family get torn away from him, which also seems to happen to Tonto (Johnny Depp) later on in the trailer. This trailer shows to hurt heroes looking for justice, much like Batman and Robin. Also like Batman, this modern adaptation is much grittier than the rest of the franchise.

The film will rely heavily on Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp’s chemistry, which we got a little taste of on the subject of Armie Hammer’s “resurrection” from the grave Tonto buried him in. There isn’t much chemistry to see in this trailer (mainly because of how action-driven it is), so we’ll have to wait and see in the coming trailers, or just wait for July 3rd, 2013.

I have a few doubts about this film; how far it’s been pushed back, how over-budget it’s gone, but most all of them were put to rest with this trailer. I’m stoked for this film and the only thing the trailer has done is fan the flame. I’ve got faith in Jerry Bruckheimer and I have a fondness for Gore Verbinski’s directing style, not to mention my enjoyment of Hans Zimmer as the composer.

All I’m hoping for is that this film is compared to the Dark Knight trilogy. A darker toned adaptation, with a fine cast, and a well-suited lead. From this trailer, I can’t wait to see more, hopefully before next summer.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFsNSoDZK8

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer

Shots that are completely out of context, with a blaring horn section, and a british voice over (done wonderfully by Benedict Cumberbatch). This is a routine, yet effective teaser trailer for a big budget summer movie like this. While there still isn't much known from the trailer, we can learn this much. The USS Enterprise shouldn't be taking a bath.

The trailer begins ominously with shots of Starfleet Academy. Captain Kirk looks to be receiving some sort of commemoration, most likely for the battle with Nero and the Romulans in the previous film. We're then shown a moment where Kirk and Bones are jumping off what seems to be a giant red island, connected to other red reefs. All this with Benedict Cumberbatch whispering about how their world isn't safe. 

By the end of his monologue, we're finally given a good glimpse at Cumberbatch's character, one who looks nothing like I thought he would. It still isn't completely clear who he is, but one thing does become clear. This is a villain with a purpose, to extract vengeance on someone for something. 

From there we're shown shots of the rest of the crew including Spock brandishing a phaser, Uhura, Scotty, some falling crew members (red coats, we can assume), and a classic shot of the main cabin sparking up whenever the Enterprise is hit.

All in all, this is a perfect teaser trailer. One that captures the dark tone of the second film while not giving much away at all. Hopefully by the time I see the prologue in the Hobbit it'll all become a little more clear as to what's going on.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUwH14wsbc

Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs

A new photo has emerged of Ashton Kutcher in the new film “Jobs” as... well, Steve Jobs, the late co-founder of Apple Inc. I have many doubts about the film “Jobs” and the release of this picture only adds to them. I don’t think the problem is Kutcher not looking enough like Jobs, but looking way too much like Kutcher with a beard. I hope his performance makes up for the lack of Jobs-esque he displays in the released image. I can’t judge anything about the story seeing as there’s still no trailer or any footage, but so far I’m still quite skeptical about their casting move.

Poster Reactions 12/3/12

Today, Warner Bros. released posters for two of it’s most anticipated movies of the year. The first was Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel”. 

The poster reminded me of Loki being voluntarily captured in “Avengers”, not only due to the way they both were cuffed in front, but also the fact that either one of them could have easily avoided the situation. Loki was voluntarily captured, which we later found out was part of his master plan. The same could be said for the man of steel. Those handcuffs are about as much of a threat as an abandoned car is to Godzilla. That being said, the handcuffs could be made of Superman’s only weakness. Or maybe it’s a lack of that good-old-planet-earth-yellow-sunlight that has the son of Krypton looking about as defenseless as Lois Lane in, well, any situation Lois Lane is put in. 

But there seems to be a much larger question lurking in the haze of the poster. Why is Superman being captured in the first place? Especially by what looks to be soldiers from the planet he’s come to protect. And what’s up with the gleaming chip he seems to have on his shoulder? All this talk about soldiers and shoulders is giving me a headache so, let’s move on to the second poster released today.

While there aren’t many things known about Star Trek Into Darkness, or any things to be learned from the poster, you can take a few things from it. The crew of the USS Enterprise is going up against a one man army, much like Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises”. 

Although the more striking impression from this poster is that the marketing team at Warner Bros. seems to be fresh out of ideas for summer blockbuster posters. 

A destroyed building forming a well known symbol of hope is also reminiscent of TDKR. Either the symbol of hope will “rise” out of the destruction, or it’s the symbol that is literally being destroyed. In TDKR’s case, it was a little bit of both, which could mean that “Into Darkness” will follow it’s path. While I don’t think that’ll be the case, I have a feeling this villain (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) will try to break Captain Kirk, or quite possibly, all of Starfleet Academy. 

Star Trek showed the forming of a crew, Star Trek Into Darkness looks to test the crew’s teamwork. A team that has already shown they’ve got it in themselves to fuel a franchise that will “live long and prosper”. 

2012 Oscar Nominations

It's been a long time since I've posted, (mostly due to school, but a few other things) so I thought it would be good to get my predictions for this year's Oscars posted. I'll be giving you my thoughts on who will win and who should win (even if they weren't nominated). I haven't seen all the nominated films (due to my age and time) but I've seen a good deal of them. Without further ado, here are my predictions for this year's Academy Awards.

Picture
Will Win: The Artist
Why: The Artist was the first black and white silent film I've ever seen in the theaters and it was quite an experience. I didn't realize how much power dialogue held in storytelling. I won't take it for granted next time. Every single person in that movie deserves an Academy award due to how much emotion they were able to convey without words. It's also swept up almost every pre-Oscar award, which helps.
Should Win: The Artist

Actor
Will Win: George Clooney
Why: Although I haven't seen The Descendants, it'd be tough to find someone who could beat Clooney this year. Clooney is one of my favorite actors and, from all the acclaim he's gotten from critics and moviegoers alike, I'd put my money on him to win. He's also won a great deal of the pre-Oscar awards.
Should Win: Jean Dujardin
Why: Anyone who can tell such a story with their eyes and their actions deserves an Oscar. He's an incredible actor and I sincerely hope he decides to continue doing US films. I don't mind reading subtitles, I'd just like to be able to hear him talk.

Actress
Will Win: Viola Davis
Why: There's a pretty tight race between Viola Davis and Meryl Streep this year but, Viola Davis gave one of the most moving performances of the year and there has been some backlash against The Iron Lady. But, besides all that, it comes down to who gave the better performance, and I think it was Viola Davis. She deserves it and I believe she'll win it.
Should Win: Viola Davis

Supporting Actor
Will Win: Christopher Plummer
Why: I haven't seen any of the performances in this category besides Jonah Hill in Moneyball. SO this would be the category I'm least qualified to predict. But from all the pre-Oscar awards he's won, I'd be surprised if Christopher Plummer didn't win.
Should Win: Andy Serkis
Why: Before you tell me he can't win because he isn't nominated, let me tell you, I know. It was the most moving performance of the year. It also led to the best moment in the movie theaters I've ever experienced. He deserves the Oscar more than anyone I've seen and it's a shame he didn't get nominated. Hollywood needs to embrace the motion capture animation more (I've been a long time supporter of motion capture) or they're going to miss out on some of the best performances and movies ever.

Supporting Actress
Will Win: Octavia Spencer
Why: The role was funny, smart, witty, and surprisingly moving; Octavia Spencer channeled Minny Jackson in such a terrific way, it would be incredibly surprising if she didn't get an award for it. Then again, surprises are what the Academy is known for. All of these women gave terrific performances (I didn't see Melissa McCarthy's much talked about role in Bridesmaids, nor Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs) and they all deserve it. But the one to take away the award will most likely be Spencer.
Should Win: Octavia Spencer

Animated Feature Film
Will Win: Rango
Should Win: The Adventures of Tin-Tin

Director
Will Win: Michael Hazanavicius "The Artist"
Should Win: Martin Scorsese "Hugo"

Original Screenplay
Will Win: Woody Allen "Midnight in Paris"
Should Win: Michael Hazanavicius "The Artist"

Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxton, Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
Should Win: John Logan "Hugo"

Foreign Language Film
I can't judge this one, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Original Score
Will Win: Ludovic Bource "The Artist"
Should Win: Ludovic Bource "The Artist"

Original Song
Will Win: "Man or Muppet" The Muppets - Music and Lyrics by Bret McKenzie
Should Win: "Man or Muppet" The Muppets - Music and Lyrics by Bret McKenzie

Cinematography

Will Win: Guillaume Schiffman (The Artist)

Should Win: Robert Richardson (Hugo)

Art Direction

Will Win: "Hugo"

Should Win: "Hugo"

Costume Design

Will Win: "The Artist"

Should Win: "Hugo"

Documentary Feature

I can't judge this one, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Documentary Short Subject

I can't judge this one, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Film Editing

Will Win: "The Artist"

Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Makeup

Will Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Both Short Film Categories

I can't judge these, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Sound Editing

Will Win: "Hugo"

Should Win: "Hugo"

Sound Mixing

Will Win: "Hugo"

Should Win: "Real Steel"

Visual Effects

Will Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

The Adventures of Tin-Tin

As this review is posted a week in advance, I won't be giving any crucial plot points away. All the same, if you don't want to know anything about the movie, stop here.

Very few directors create the kind of expectations Steven Spielberg does. The movies he's made in the past have, more or less, redefined the adventure genre. This isn't something to be taken lightly. Think of the adventure movies you remember most as a kid. Odds are they were directed by Spielberg.

Remember the first time you saw Indy run away from the boulder? Or when you realized (Spoiler Alert) E.T. wasn't dead (End Spoiler Alert)? Remember how you felt during those scenes? Spielberg's greatest weapon is storytelling, but his second best is attachment.

In The Adventures of Tin-Tin, his first weapon was extremely evident. But his second wasn't firing at full power.

Now, granted, this isn't a thought-provoking-oscar-winning-tear-jerking drama by any stretch. It's an extremely entertaining animated popcorn movie. By that standard, it surpasses expectations. There were two sequences done in the movie that are truly jaw dropping. First, an incredible scene in which Tin-Tin chases a hawk across a large market on a motorcycle. All done in one seamless shot. I'd argue this is the best chase scene of the year.

The second is a flashback/mirage Captain Haddock (played by motion capture pioneer Andy Serkis) has. Spielberg has the sheer audacity to change a barren desert to a riveting clash on the high seas. It's that audacity that has made him the filmmaking icon he is today. Those 5 or 6 minutes were easily better than the best ship battle in all of Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 3, or even 4.

I've long been a huge fan of motion capture technology. Avatar was a much needed breakthrough for the process. It's one piece of technology Avatar made famous I'm grateful Hollywood embraced. Motion capture allows detail to be portrayed through the mask of an animated character -- it's really remarkable, almost creepy. This new medium is a significant advance for a new era of animated films.

Casting was another great move. Jamie Bell was a wonderful Tin-Tin, Daniel Craig was an evil, menacing, all around great villain, and casting Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as twins was a stroke of brilliance. My favorite character though was, hands down, Captain Haddock. Andy Serkis has a serious leg up on the rest of the cast with his extensive work in motion capture and it really showed in this movie. His performance was my favorite in the film.

If I were to critique it by the extremely entertaining animated popcorn movie standard, I'd say it was an A. But I'm holding it up to the work Steven Spielberg's always delivered. While this is his first animated film, and yes it's harder to connect to an animated character than a real actor, it could've had a bit more substance. I wanted to connect more directly with Tin Tin.

Nevertheless, it's the best animated film of the year I've seen, and it has more than that little bit of magic only a true artist like Spielberg can bring.

Actors: Jamie Bell (Tin-Tin), Andy Serkis (Captain Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivanovich Sakharine)
Recap: B+

Photo Courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

Ok, I confess. I've seen all the Twilight movies. I haven't gone to any midnight shows, or begged and pleaded to see them, I haven't read the books, and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a die-hard fan (I'll avoid the twi-hard comment). It's just been on cable, rented, or seen when there's been nothing else to watch.

I didn't like Twilight at all. It was awkward, awfully scripted, and the acting was amateur. New Moon was better, it seemed like it was starting to find it's footing. Adding Michael Sheen, Dakota Fanning and going to Venice really helped the movie.  Eclipse was my favorite of the three. The characters had developed, the scenes were engaging and interesting to watch, and Taylor Lautner's acting had become bearable (remember, everything is relative). Since the movies seemed to be getting progressively better, I had some hope for Breaking Dawn Part 1 (Wonder where they got the idea to split the finale into two parts...).

Sadly it fell short of my expectations.

The movie starts with Bella and Edward's long awaited wedding. The decor was so white it made the vampires look tan. There's a creepy dream sequence Bella experiences early on, and I think that was the best scene in the entire movie. The first act is emotional - they did a very nice job with the soundtrack's melancholy chords. But the second act dragged on and on. I thought it would never get out of it's quicksand-like pacing.

Thankfully the movie started to pick up near the end, and left us with a well done, but extremely predictable, cliffhanger. I was disappointed by the movie's slow pacing, and let down by it's awful writing. There were lines where I laughed out loud because of how out of place and unneeded they were. The acting was not great but good. The person who stands out in these movies for me is Robert Pattinson. He has the hardest character to portray; Edward can't show emotion because he's a vampire but at the same time, he has to love Bella enough that he would give his life for her. He found a nice middle ground for showing that.

All in all, thoroughly disappointing. And since I'm on Team Moviegoer, I hope they have better luck with part 2.

Actors: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen)
Recap: C+

Photo Courtesy of Summit Entertainment

Real Steel

I have a love/hate relationship with sports movies (don't even get me started on my hate/hate relationship with fighting robot movies. Transformers 1&2). On one hand, they're predictable. The hero's either going to win or loose, there's not much else you can do about that. On the other hand, the good ones really know how to get you cheering. And Real Steel really knows how to do that.

Hugh Jackman stars as Charlie Kenton a struggling robot boxing fighter (stay with me) who's looking for one great robot to put him back in the game. He and his newly discovered eleven year old son Max (played by newcomer Dakota Goyo) find an old bot in a junkyard (Atom), clean him up and train him with some of Charlie's old boxing moves. 

I was thoroughly satisfied when I came out of Real Steel. I haven't felt as satisfied after a movie since July (HP7). Real Steel's real left hook (both puns intended) is the emotion it brings. I was pulling for Atom to win all the fights. I wanted Charlie to become a real father to Max. I felt bad when Atom was loosing.

Hugh Jackman can really deliver emotional scenes when it's needed. His chemistry with Evangeline Lilly was really fun to watch. But the relationship that really made the movie was between Goyo and Jackman. The casting for both of them was spot on. They have the same quirks, same personalities, and same attitudes.

I'm a big fan of motion-capture technology and I thought it was utilized perfectly for this movie. I sure hope they continue to use it in these kind of movies. It makes everything seem a little more human. Well, as human as boxing robots can get.

When a movie about robots fighting each other can get the audience to cheer (and not just the female portion when Hugh Jackman takes his shirt off) for the robots, you know it's good. Real Steel was just that. Not an Oscar winning drama, but a genuinely fun movie. A nice surprise. 

Actors: Hugh Jackman (Charlie Kenton), Dakota Goyo (Max Kenton), Evangeline Lilly (Bailey Tallet)

Recap: B+

Photo Courtesy of Dreamworks SKG

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a thoroughly entertaining movie. The emotions portrayed by the ape (Caesar) are just remarkable. The performance capture technology used in this movie is a huge step up for Hollywood, and I think, a step in the right direction.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an interesting story that works. The performances were really good, especially John Lithgow's as the alzheimer's stricken father of Will Rodman (James Franco). The other performance that stood out was Andy Serkis' as Caesar, leader of the ape rebellion. Certain scenes really showed how good his performance was, even through the mask of the ape.

The movie moves quite well at the beginning and final act, dragging a bit in the middle. The percussive music composed by Patrick Doyle was great, . The cinematography was very well done. It made me feel like I was in the trees with Caesar.

What Rise of the Planet of the Apes comes down to are the emotional attachments it makes. I felt connected to Caesar, in both the sad moments and the exciting ones.

It's an extremely sweet, entertaining, and action packed movie.

And by the way, since all the apes are CGI, no actual apes were harmed in the making of this movie.

Actors: James Franco (Will Rodman), John Lithgow (Charles Rodman), Freida Pinto (Caroline Aranha), Andy Serkis (Caesar)
Recap: A-

Photo Courtesy of 20th Century Fox

Captain America: The First Avenger

To put it kindly, this hasn't been a great year for superhero films (Thor, Green Lantern, The Green Hornet). And while there have been one or two good ones (X-Men: First Class), so far they've left me wanting a satisfying, fun, and original superhero movie. Captain America was all of those things.

The look of it alone was great, very WWII era. I had just finished the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers, which I highly recommend. I gained some knowledge of WWII from Band of Brothers so I was interested to see how director Joe Johnston would portray the period. Keeping it accurate and within a PG-13 rating is tough, but I thought he did a good job of it.

Captain America is the story of Steven Rogers, a skinny kid from NY who gets picked on but never runs away from a fight (sounds a bit like a certain friendly neighborhood web-spinner), turned super-soldier from a serum developed by Dr. Abraham Erskine (played by the always solid Stanley Tucci). Rogers has tried in the past to enlist in the army, multiple times, but was always rejected because of his puny physique. He's picked for this test because of his heart and his personality, not his physical attributes, or lack of them. The serum enhances everything in his cells, which means that his personality is enhanced too. Bad becomes evil, good becomes great. The story is pretty interesting, deeper than most superhero movies. But what's really good in Captain America is the cast.

Chris Evans is perfect as the small kid in a super improved body. He's got such a nice guy persona about him. Hugo Weaving is great as Johann Schmidt/Red Skull, Nazi officer turned faceless head of HYDRA. Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly) said it best, he's a cross between Hellboy and Michael Jackson. HYDRA plans to do exactly what Hitler is trying to do, just without Hitler. The action sequences between the Americans and HYDRA were fun to watch, and believable. Tommy Lee Jones, as always, was fun to watch as the gruff, gritty colonel. Dominic Cooper played Howard Stark, father of Tony Stark/Ironman. You can see the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. But, Hayley Atwell was the standout in this movie. I haven't seen her in anything but this and she was terrific. The ending was a good twist, but not a great one, a bit predictable. Speaking of the ending, stay after the credits. You won't be disappointed.

A highly entertaining historically-based superhero movie.

Actors: Chris Evans (Captain America/Steve Rogers), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Tommy Lee Jones (Colonel Chester Phillips), Hugo Weaving (Johann Schmidt/Red Skull)
Recap: A-

Photo Courtesy of Marvel Entertainment.