Breaking Wind

First of all, let me say first and foremost that I didn't actually expect this movie to be good, okay?

In recent years, most notably with the popularization of famous trainwreck 'The Room', bad movies have gotten a lot of attention. When we watch movies, if we want to have a good experience, we have two choices: we can see something legitimately good, or we can go laugh at something terrible. You can empathize with poor King George the VI and his awful stutter, or you can crack up at the masterclass dialogue in The Room ("avry body betray me i fed up with this wurld!"). Both are fun to do.

When I stupidly shelled out 10 bucks to see The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, I was expecting the latter. I more or less received that experience when I went to see the first three Twilight movies, so why wouldn't the fourth installment be just as laughably bad? I mean, there had to be gratuitous teen shirtless-ness, awful dialogue, awful acting, putrid melodrama, stupid plot devices, sparkly goodness, etc. etc. etc. Right? (*)

After three consistently bad movies, Breaking Dawn was bad as well--but in a totally different way. Gone were the belly laughs brought about by the 80th monologue about how gorgeous Edward is. Above all, Breaking Dawn is BORING.

I mean, this is a snoozer. I'd rather watch 5 hours of a congressional hearing than this piece of smelly fecal matter ever again. Of course, like I said, it's bad. But it's not fun bad. It's just bad bad.

Where do I start? The movie just plunges into the thing the fangirls have been ooing and awing over for years--OMG THE WEDDING! It's over quicker than Taylor Lautner's career after Twilight. It's over quicker than Justin Beiber's time as a father. Not that I was particularly looking forward to it, but just as a human familiar with plot pacing...come on! And nothing ridiculous happened at all. Just a wedding. With cheesy speeches. No sparkly vamps jumping out of the trees, no burst of sunlight on Beautiful Edward's Granite-like Chest. Just a wedding. Snooze.

Then the honeymoon. I will admit, I lol'd at some of that stuff, but it wasn't nearly as ridiculous as it could've been. The trailer ruined the whole 'omg he broke the bed' thing. Anyway, again, boring. Boring, boring, boring.

One morning after crazy PG-rated vamp sex, Bella makes some chicken, feels weird, and throws up. VERDICTS IN SHE'S PREGNANT. But how?! How can--how can this be?! W...what are we gonna do?!

After this point in the movie, which I'd say was probably the 30-minute mark, almost nothing happened. Let's see. Bella went back to the Cullens and chilled until the baby was ready to pop (which wasn't until the last 15 minutes?). We got to see progressively deathly-looking makeup on her and CGI'd puniness because the monster baby was eating all her food or something. That was such a huge majority of the movie--Kristen Stewart looking worse and Edward telling her to get rid of the baby. But inexplicably, Bella's in love with it. I'm not getting into the pro-choice vs. pro-life thing here, but a character who's been stale and stupid for 3 movies suddenly wants to be a mom more than anything in the world? Even when everyone is telling her it's more than likely going to kill her? And when everyone says it's a monster?

Whatever. Anyway, that discussion might've been appropriate if it accounted for 10-20 minutes. Not over and over again for an hour and a half. Oh yeah, and Taylor Lautner's in the movie too. The wolves want to kill Bella and the baby because they think it'll be a monster and that it'll be a danger or something. This never comes to anything until the end of the movie when Bella's giving birth. An entire movie of build up for a fight that lasts for 3 minutes before being shut down because Jacob IMPRINTED on Bella's child. Don't ask me what imprinting means. I mean, I know what it makes me think of, but that's inappropriate.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that this film is boring. In an effort to suck all the money possible from Twilight fans and stupid sacks like me, they've split the last book into two movies. Also, because Harry Potter did it (even though Harry Potter actually NEEDED two movies). If you plan on seeing Breaking Dawn because you're genuinely into the movies, more power to you I guess, although I don't know why you'd be reading this movie blog. If you plan on seeing Breaking Dawn for yuks, like me, I say pass it up. At least wait until it's on video. Because, above all, this film is BORING. I can not stress this enough.

No more campy dialogue, no more cheesy romance. Just snoozes. If you want a REALLY bad movie, go see Jack and Jill. Or Tower Heist. Or In Time. Or (cont'd)....

*Well, actually all of these things were in there, but not in the campy, fun way that they were before. There's too little story stretched out over too much time, and so much of that time is spent saying the same things over and over. You're too zoned out on boredom to appreciate the occasional hilariously-bad scene.

The Walking Dead - "What Lies Ahead": Hopefully Something Better

So, I just decided right now that I'm going to start reviewing television shows on this blog as well. Why? Because I can. Also? Nobody reads this anyway, so I have total freedom. Woot?

I'm beginning my TV-reviewing career with the long-awaited premiere of The Walking Dead's second season. Again, why? This show is hugely popular, and I will say that it's better than most of the tripe on television. But is it deserving of its massive popularity? Is it popular because the story it's telling is captivating--its characters richly-drawn? Or are audiences just falling for the premise of a zombie apocalypse and awesome special effects/makeup?

That's debatable. The Walking Dead, throughout season 1 and "What Lies Ahead" as well, had its moments. For example, the freeway scene with our characters hiding beneath cars and dead bodies was expertly paced and truly scary. The Walking Dead doesn't go the route of your typical horror movie--there's no hysterical people running around screaming at the top of their lungs. Instead, we have the much scarier alternative of people with their hands over their mouths, watching in silence as a herd of flesh-eating zombies stagger by just inches away. Also, the dynamics that exist between several of the characters are interesting. Key word being DYNAMICS. Is Shane by himself a compelling or necessarily memorable character? What about Rick? Lori? I'd venture to say not really, but the story that exists among the three of them is ripe for plenty of drama.

In season 1, the character most brought-to-life was Darryl, but it seems as though the risk everyone put themselves in by being around such a loose cannon in season 1 has been totally forgotten by the start of season 2. I suppose the event at the CDC placed him firmly on the team--that, or the writers were tired of writing him that way. Which is a shame. Darryl existed in season 1 as the only truly memorable, or even different, character. Now, all our survivors seem to bleed into one another. Lori's the concerned loving mother. Well, her and the other concerned loving mother. But she has short hair. Rick is the leader who makes hard decisions. Well, Shane does that, too, but he doesn't wear a hat.

These characters only shine in relation to one another, and I don't think that's a good thing for a show. I believe season 1 succeeded in establishing the Shane/Lori/Rick triangle in a way that made us care about it. The near-rape at the CDC showed us just how obsessive Shane has grown over Lori, and how conflicted he really is about Rick's return. This element of the story will probably continue for as long as The Walking Dead runs. But when this element isn't touched upon in the narrative, what are we left with? Shane, when not dealing with the love triangle plot, is a totally unremarkable character. Rick on his own is only good for overwrought monologues and conflicted heroics. If you could describe Rick with three words, what would they be?

Uh...brave...heroic...uhhh...hat?

See? It's hard. And it shouldn't be. Look at AMC's other hit shows like Mad Men(*) or Breaking Bad. These characters are so richly-drawn, it's like we know them all personally. Don Draper is a cocky, womanizing ad man with a compelling and secretive past. Walter White is a man who just wants to provide for his family, slowly seduced by the dark underbelly of the drug trade. Rick is...a sheriff dad who is a good leader and stuff? Andrea is the depressed one because her sister died (and man, none of those other characters have ANY idea what it's like to lose somebody, amirite)? It doesn't make for compelling television, or at least as compelling as Mad Men or Breaking Bad can be. Look what those shows accomplish just with their characters. The Walking Dead, without it's special effects and fanboy zombie gore, is an empty show about half-established characters. The television equivalent of a shrug.

*Some of Mad Men's most minor characters are more fully-fleshed than TWD's main protagonist. Sal? Harry? Francine? Carla the maid? I know them all better than Sheriff Rick.

It's certainly not too late for the writers of the Walking Dead to place more importance on character development, but I have a feeling most of their concern is on plot and special effects. And really, I don't blame them for being stuck on the plot--how one writes an entire season of people running from zombies is a mystery to me. Once they figure this out, though, can't we get some characterization? You can create the coolest plot in the world, but if I don't care about the people stuck in these situations, why should I care at all?

All of this said, The Walking Dead is still one of the best shows on television (then again, Two and a Half Men is on television). There's so much potential here for a great show, but until the writers realize how short-lived the shock is going to be for audiences after they've see a zombie getting hacked in the face for the 250th time, The Walking Dead will be continue to be just 'okay'.

That's all I've got to say about that. Thoughts?

We now interrupt this movie blog to bring you...

...quite possibly the best song ever written.

Captain America: Can His Shield Deflect Predictability?

Captain America: The First Avenger is a completely decent film. People who are loving this recent wave of good superhero movies (and no, I'm not talking about you, Green Lantern) will embrace this film because it has all the necessary parts required. Likable main character? Yes. Sizable goal for our likable main character to conquer? Yes. Hot girl, scary villain, plucky best friend(s), special effects, etc. etc. etc.? Yes. But at times--and maybe because we're all starting to get used to Marvel's formula--Captain America seems to be heartlessly following a checklist.

For clarity's sake, let's look back at two of Marvel's biggest hits--Iron Man and Thor. Both films begin with flawed characters. Tony Stark (gloriously brought to life by Robert Downey Jr.) is an egotistical brat with big toy guns. Thor thrives on both his pride and physical strength. Steve Rogers, our hero in Captain America, may not have a defining character flaw, but physically, he's useless. He's been rejected by the US Army countless times on account of his bad medical history and extreme CGI'd puniness.

All of our heroes overcome their flaws in various ways. Tony, after seeing what harm Stark Industries has caused across the globe, vows to dedicate himself to something better and to stamp out those using his weapons for evil. Thor, after being banished to Earth and stripped of his powers, becomes humbled by his normal-ness (and that really strained romance with Natalie Portman too, I guess). Steve is given multiple injections of this awesome-looking blue serum stuff, and he emerges as a total superhuman beefcake--and with confidence!

Each of our heroes has an alloted babe who, witnessing the positive changes our hero has undergone, falls head over heels. Each of our heroes also has a close friend (or friends) who encourages these changes and helps them in their quest against the alloted villain. Each of our heroes has someone close to them die*, and it is this death that inspires our hero to fight harder. To do better.

*in the case of Thor, this death is only believed to be true because of a lie, but eh, formula still applies

And, of course, our hero saves the day. They blow up their proverbial Mickey Rourke or save a town full of innocent people. Yaaaaay.

Now, is there anything wrong with this formula? Absolutely not. As we can see by both the box office and critical successes of these films, the formula works. But my question isn't whether or not it works, my question is whether or not the formula is getting tired. Perhaps if these films were spaced out further in their release time, it wouldn't seem so noticeable. Perhaps if these films all weren't connected by the Marvel logo, we'd be able to look at them more independently. But three heroes, all existing under the same universe, all going through such similar transformations? It's hard to look past that. It's hard to enjoy Captain America: The First Avenger as much I enjoyed Iron Man because...I know what's going to happen. I've seen the formula at work several times now.

Maybe the only film that will suffer from this predictability is Captain America, because as far as I know, Marvel isn't planning on introducing any more future Avengers heroes. All that's left are sequels and the big, sexy showdown that will be 2012's 'The Avengers'. But even if Captain American is the only one that suffers, he still suffers. This film emerges, at least to me, as the weakest--not necessarily because it's the worst but because it's the latest.

Thoughts?

[3/5 stars]

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2': Nerd Perspectives

When I walked out of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, I was flabbergasted. I mean, it was actually...good. As just a movie-watcher, I was pleased with it, but for the first time in a long time I actually thought they managed to make a Harry Potter film that was both decent and faithful to the book. And I guess I should put an obvious disclaimer right here that I am, first and foremost, a fan of the books. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone came out when I was seven years old, and since then I've been on board for the whole thing. I was there at midnight on July 21st, 2007 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get a copy of the last book, and I was there at midnight on July 15th, 2011 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get my mind blown by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2. And...well.

Eh.

Part of me feels like I should write two separate reviews, because this film will be two separate experiences for two different groups of people. So, for fans of the films or just Random Movie-Watcher no. 393020188-- this is going to be brief. Basically, it's a good movie. The action is absolutely stellar, the special effects are top-notch, the emotions run high. The ending is satisfactory and ties the whole thing up with a convenient, pretty bow. It's good.

Now for fans of the book, it depends on what these last ten years of films have left you expecting. Personally, I stopped expecting faithful adaptations after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix , but Part 1 of Deathly Hallows left me thinking that the filmmakers and screenwriters had turned themselves around.

Not entirely.

Like I said, if you've grown accustomed to the films' departures from the books, the differences between the last book and the last film won't bother or surprise you very much. Maybe you've even learned to accept the films for what they are--a separate, hybrid version of Harry Potter that can be judged on its own--and if you have, truly...I envy you. You weren't left with the same question that's plagued me, along with a million other diehard fans, for the past couple of years after these last few film adaptations. And that question is why?

SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT PASS THIS LINE IF YE ARE NOT A DIEHARD FAN

Why change things? The Harry Potter series is one of the most beloved book series of all time. The reason the films are successful is because they are based off of these books. So...why does the Killing Curse now make its victims explode into a million pieces? Since when can memories be collected by saving one's tears in a beaker? These are just two examples of many, many possible examples of pointless changes in the film adaptation. I know that a lot of the changes were made for purpose of having a more 'movie friendly' vibe, and these changes I'm alright with. I'm at peace with the fact that the main battle at Hogwarts would've been less epic if the filmmakers stayed true to the book and didn't suddenly give Voldemort an army of 500,000+ followers. I'm at peace with the fact that the final duel between Harry and Voldy would've sucked if they kept it what it was in the book-- a conversation and one spell. Those changes I can accept. But needless ones...changes to plot points or details that not only combat what's in the books but also what they've explained in previous films....I just don't get it.

Also, I'm sorry, Lord Voldemort would not listen to a speech about love and friendship from Neville Longbottom for more than 10 seconds before saying, "Enough of this," and sending a jet of green light into that kid's face.

But, all in all, it could've been worse. That's what I left the theater at three o' clock in the morning thinking. It could've been worse...it could've been Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. As an adaptation, the last Harry Potter film may have its flaws, but as a movie it's solid. Although some changes left me with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth, I'm happy that they followed the MAIN plot points faithfully and that our heroes all received their proper ending.

Thank you, Harry, for 10 years of amazing books and 10 years of decent films. On behalf of all the unashamed nerds in the world, we'll miss you!

(but as Sirius Black says, as long as you're in our hearts, you'll never be gone. Awwwwww.)

UPDATE!

For the 2 of you who follow this (who am I kidding, what's up, Jeff?), I am now posting both here and at the Landmark Report blog. Here's the link: The Landmark Report

Reviews will still come up here, so I'm not 100% sure why this news needs to be shared, but whatevs.

Anyway, go check out The Landmark Report in general- because any blog that asks me to write for it must be awesome.

Bridesmaids: Half Movie Review, Half Essay, Or Something

I saw Bridesmaids this weekend, and it was funny as balls. The 'review' segment of this post isn't going to get much more complex than that (I guess I should rename it 1/8th Movie Review, 7/8ths Essay??). It was an all around great film, I didn't want it to end, and it actually had a lot of heart. I'd recommend Bridesmaids to anyone because it's FUNNY. And GOOD. That's all. Which leads me to my 'essay' portion.

The conversations that have started because of this film's release are equal parts important and annoying. Yes, I can't think of a legitimately hilarious film that's starred a predominantly female cast before Bridesmaids (and don't say Sex in the City, because I'll deck you). That's a big deal. Literally every female-driven 'comedy' film before Bridesmaids hasn't really been funny, or at least in a way that appeals to both sexes. But then some hilarious women got together, wrote a hilarious film, and now we're having this discussion. As though women haven't been funny before now. And really, can you blame people for thinking that? For the past decade or so, womens' roles in comedies have been reduced to whining about relationships or...boobs. No, literally. Watch Hot Tub Time Machine. Actually, don't. Please don't.

Because Bridesmaids is the first of it's kind, there's this pressure on the viewer. For example: "Did you like it? If you said yes, was it because it's funny, or because you don't want to look like a sexist??" Now we have people thinking that the high rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the good reviews are because "people don't want to look sexist". This is something The Hangover Part II or the inevitable Hot Tub Time Machine 2 will never have to worry about, and I don't think that's fair. Trust me, if I didn't think Bridesmaids was funny, I wouldn't say it was for the sake of supporting female comedy. And no one would doubt The Hangover's high Rotten Tomatoes rating because of something like that. The Hangover has a high review because it's funny. But, on the other hand, Bridesmaids has a high review either because it's actually funny or because, you know...those women have to defend each other...

--EYE ROLL--

It's bullcrap, but I guess I understand it. What worse than that, though, is the blatant hate you can easily find on any Youtube clip of the movie. Before the film was even out- when all we had was the trailer- people (men) were polluting Youtube, giving it millions of thumbs down and saying awful things, a la "this movie is a rip off of the hangover by girls" (?? totally different plots??) or "ughhh i feel bad for whoever's girlfriend drags them to this". I'll admit, the trailer wasn't the best, but it didn't warrant that kind of backlash. But again, I understand it. A lot of men either a) feel intimidated by funny women or b) don't think they exist because they've grown up on Hot Tub Time Machine. Which...is sad.

I really don't want this to turn into a feminist rant, so I'll stop here. I'm just confused as to why we can't call a funny movie funny without being suspected of ulterior motives. For men who honestly believe the hype for Bridesmaids is a manufactured side effect of political correctness, I'd advise you to watch the movie. I was surrounded by guys at the theater who were cackling the whole time.

Anyway, I give Bridesmaids 5/5. Loved the whole thing.

And finally: The Top 10 Films of 2010

No setup necessary- let's just do this thing.

10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Although you won't see this film discussed in any Oscar circles, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World definitely deserves some recognition. It's rare to find a film that is so eclectic and, at the same time, not a bit smug about its electiveness. SPVTW didn't have to market to the "indie" crowd to be successful- it just had to be itself. Which is, at its core, just a brilliant, fun movie. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is not just for comic book nerds, video game shut-ins, or hipsters who recognize the Frank Black song in the soundtrack or Scott's reoccurring Smashing Pumpkins shirt...it's for everybody.


9. Winter's Bone

I didn't realize how intense this movie was until after it was finished. Everything starts out so calmly paced, and then, before you know it, people are getting coffee thrown in their faces. Sundance's Best Picture winner sneaks up on you in a way that is truly admirable, and it has pretty much scared me away from the rural Missouri area for life. If the plot doesn't capture your interest (daughter chasing her deadbeat, meth-cooking dad), at least check this one out for newcomer Jennifer Lawrence's Golden Globe-nominated performance for Best Actress. Although Natalie Portman will most likely take the title for her work in Black Swan, Lawrence is definitely one you want to keep your eye on.


8. Inception

While I remain a firm believer that this film is extremely overhyped, I can't honestly look myself in the face and say that it wasn't one of the best films of the year. Even though I had my issues with the convoluted plot and bloated love story (seriously, way too much time devoted to that), Inception is clearly a Christopher Nolan production. What do I mean by that? It was sleek, ambitious, original, and ingenious, just like everything Nolan has ever done.
I don't believe that Inception will win Best Picture or any acting awards, but Nolan has a very good chance at winning the Best Director and/or Best Screenplay awards.


7. How to Train Your Dragon

Who knew that an animated movie about a dragon could make me cry? TWICE? I was dragged to the theater for this one, and I have to say that I left it completely awed by how surprisingly good this film was. It may appear to be a children's movie about a cute dragon, but HTTYD is so much more. It's a movie about self-confidence, father/son relationships, friendship, and love. And if you're not at all moved by it, I question the existence of your heart.


6. The King's Speech


The King's Speech is painful in the way that, from the very beginning, it puts you right in front of the problem. Before I saw this film, I wondered how a movie about a speech impediment could really be that good. But man. The opening scene is brutal. Sure, having a stutter sucks, but having a stutter and being forced to speak publicly on a regular basis? At a time in history before most people had the sensitivity to forgive you for it? Yeesh. The reason this film works is because we feel the gravity that this stammer has on King George VI (Colin Firth). We can see how much it has, basically, ruined his life. And it makes you want to root for him.
The King's Speech will be a big contender for Best Picture, and I'm pretty much calling Colin Firth's win for Best Actor. Geoffrey Rush will be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but I don't think he'll get it (only because one other nominee slightly out shined him, which...I'll get to later).


5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1

Just when I'd written off the Harry Potter movies as complete and utter crap, the second-to-last one came out and basically blew me away. After several years of progressively bad releases, the Harry Potter franchise closes the last stretch and suddenly decides that it wants to be good again. Actually, even better than it's ever been. It's the only one on the list that I wrote a full review of, and you can read it here: http://bit.ly/91fOB6


4. True Grit

Finally, the Coens reign themselves in and deliver a full, dense, and brilliantly executed story. No weirdness for the sake of weirdness, no loose ends for the sake of loose ends- True Grit is a rare Coen film in the fact that they didn't write it and, therefore, it doesn't seem distinctly Coen. And, the way that I personally look at Coen films, that's a good thing. Having seen the original, I have to say that this version is much better, and that Bridges plays a much more grizzled and complex Rooster Cogburn. Fans of John Wayne might find that sacrilege, but hey, what can you do. Matt Damon and 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld (Maddie) are pretty outstanding, too, and if any of them receive acting nominations they'd be well-deserved. The Coens may be nominated for Best Director, but, as good as True Grit was, I think that award belongs to Fincher or Nolan.


3. The Social Network

Before I saw this film, I was bewildered by all of the buzz. Seriously, how could a movie about Facebook be that good? I'll tell you how. With a talented cast, an amazing director, and a screenplay that's whip smart and expertly paced. This film isn't a history lesson about Facebook. It's a character study of Mark Zuckerberg, brought brilliantly to life by Jesse Eisenburg. We see how ingenious he is and how, in a way, his intelligence directly combats with his social life. Mark is too cerebral to sit and have a friendly chat with a girl he likes; his smart mouth and quick tongue will get him into trouble regardless of his intentions. Another aspect I really loved about this film is its entrepreneur, capitalistic-friendly message. If you're smart enough and you have the ambition, you can do anything you want. I'm not sure if The Social Network will win any major awards, but I'm telling you right now it will be nominated for everything.


2. Toy Story 3

The other film on this list that made me cry. THRICE this time. I don't know what it is, but those animated movies really get me. Much like Pixar's entry last year (Up), Toy Story 3 had me emotionally unstable throughout the entire thing. You feel the sadness at Andy's growth and disinterest in his toys, you feel the defeat in the middle (not going to get into the details), and, lastly, you feel hopeful about where these characters are going in the end. Again, I don't want to give away too much, but there is one scene in this movie that KILLED me. Let's just say that they're all holding hands. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. Pretty heavy for a 'kids movie'.
As good as How to Train Your Dragon was, Toy Story 3 is pretty much a shoe-in for Best Animated Feature.


1. The Fighter

The Fighter took my top spot for a number of reasons. First of all, I was completely blown away by Christian Bale's performance as Dickie Ekland, Mark Wahlberg's crack-addicted, fading star of a brother. Christian Bale may be credited as a 'supporting actor' in this, but to me, he stole the show. That's not to say that this movie is only good because of the acting, though. The Fighter is inspiring and uplifting without being cheesy or obvious about its message. Unlike similar, based-on-true-story success films, The Fighter isn't about making the audience feel good or empowered. It is about Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) and Dickie's story as two brothers fighting for two different things- success and sobriety. And neither one can succeed without the other.
While I hope this film takes the title of Best Picture, I'm not sure if it'll win. What it WILL win is the Best Supporting Actor award for Christian Bale. I'm calling it now, and if that award goes to anyone else, I will honestly be very upset. Melissa Leo will win the Best Supporting Actress award, too, I think, as Mickey and Dickie's tough-faced but fragile mother Alice.

MOVIES YOU EXPECTED TO SEE ON THIS LIST BUT DIDN'T:
-The Town. I felt very meh about The Town, mostly because it felt like so many things I've already seen before. The only thing noteworthy to me about this film was Jeremy Renner, who will most likely receive an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
-Black Swan. I mentioned earlier that I think Natalie Portman will win the award for Best Actress, and I say that because I think she deserves it. Her acting is superb. So much of me wants to trash Black Swan because I didn't like it, but really, it has nothing to do with the merit of the film. I just personally didn't like it. I found it much too disturbing and depressing to enjoy, but that certainly doesn't mean it wasn't good. It's an effective film, just not one that I liked.

HONORABLE MENTION:
- The Other Guys. I have a soft spot for dumb comedies, and this film starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg honestly made me laugh out loud a lot. Unfortunately it starts to lose steam by the last thirty or so minutes, but if you're not in a thinking mood and you just want to laugh, go with this one. And if you're not a Ferrell or Adam McKay fan, please consider enduring this for Michael Keaton, who made me cackle obnoxiously.
-The A-Team. Before you get all snooty and preachy on me for including this, tell me: what's wrong with a big, fun action movie? There's nothing brainless about this film. In fact, in terms of its genre, it's pretty smart. The cast is magnificent and, as a huge childhood fan of the TV series, I was very pleased with the outcome. Also, please put Sharlto Copley in more movies, Hollywood.

ONES I MISSED:
-127 Hours. Unfortunately I missed this one when it zipped through theaters, and I think I've got a long time to wait before it's available on DVD. Still, I feel almost certain that I will enjoy it, and I'm extremely bummed that I didn't have a chance to catch it before awards season. When I do get around to seeing it, expect a review, and, if necessary, an alteration to this list.

IN CONCLUSION, MY OSCAR PREDICTIONS:
Best Picture: either The King's Speech or The Fighter
Best Actor: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)
Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (The Fighter)
Best Director: either Christopher Nolan for Inception or David Fincher for The Social Network
Best Screenplay: either Christopher Nolan for Inception or Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network
Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3

Thoughts?

My MINOR problem with '500 Days of Summer' that has caused outrage

Okay. Let me set up this story.

So, over the weekend, I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer. And it was...okay. There were things about it that I thought were really clever, there were things about it that I thought were cute- all in all, I'd say it was a good movie. Nothing spectacular, but definitely not bad. Just an enjoyable, light, predictable romantic comedy. And there's nothing wrong with that (and actually, is it even possible for a romantic comedy not to be predictable?).

While I was watching it, though, one scene stood out to me. The scene where Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is singing karaoke. Actually, all the scenes where anybody was singing karaoke, other than the drunk dude singing "I'm Proud to be an American". I'm not familiar with the song Zooey D...?'s character was singing, but Tom was singing a Pixies song. Here Comes Your Man. In a karaoke bar.

I don't think so. Tell me, have you ever encountered a karaoke bar that plays indie music? Alternative music? Don't even bother telling me the answer, because I know it's no. At a karaoke bar, you hear top hits. You hear drunken people ruining Michael Jackson songs. You know why? Because EVERYBODY knows 'Billie Jean', and EVERYBODY can be amused by some drunk chick slurring out the lyrics. What kind of uppity, smug karaoke bar would have "Here Comes Your Man" preset on their machine? Only a handful of people in the bar would be familiar with the song, and everyone else would be going, "...what is this?"

I'll tell you why Joseph Gordon Levitt's character is singing a Pixies song- because 500 Days of Summer wants to be an "indie movie". And guess what- it IS an indie movie! The soundtrack consists of alternative music, the way they tell the story is inventive and creative, and it wasn't made with a huge budget or, necessarily, A-list stars (although I would argue that JGL might be classified as A-list post-Inception). The makers of this movie thought that they couldn't have the characters singing 'Billie Jean' or 'Private Dancer' or what have you because a popular, mainstream song wouldn't be "indie enough".

To me, this scene took me out of the movie. It shows me the hand of the creators. Everything else about this film was organic, but that scene was unrealistic on purpose for the sake of appeasing smug viewers. There, I said it.

Apparently I've upset some people with this opinion and been told that I have a problem "suspending reality". Well, my favorite book series is Harry Potter and I grew up watching Star Wars, so I find that doubtful. Yes, there are fantasy scenes in the film, but they are clearly fantasy scenes. Most of the scenes in 500 Days are based in reality. Flirting at the IKEA store, sitting on a bench and looking at buildings, getting in fights with your significant other, singing karaoke at a karaoke bar. Like I said, it's an obvious play by filmmakers afraid to have anything remotely mainstream in their movie, and it bugged me.

Honestly, it wasn't even a big deal to me, but the moment I mentioned it I had rabid fans telling me I couldn't suspend reality and that I was wrong. For the record, again, I liked 500 Days of Summer. Some people love 500 Days of Summer. Either way, I should be able to critique it however I want and not be accused of misunderstanding something.

THAT IS ALL. Thoughts?