I would start this by writing something like, "I regret" or "I'm sorry" but I can't say either of those is true. I am no longer blogging; this should be fairly obvious in the weeks I've gone without a post. This comes as a bit of surprise to even me, as I thought I would be able to keep this dedication up throughout the entire year. It was my intention to do so, but I've found I no longer need to write about what I see. Furthermore, I don't feel the need to watch as many films.

I've realized that films, as many people have said before, are an escape. You can go into a theatre and for a few hours live vicariously through the screen, forget about your own life and just relax. I no longer need this escape. I have to admit I've found much more contentment in the past few months and so I find myself having less and less time to devote to films. This is not to say I don't watch them, nor have I stopped loving film altogether. I still take the time to watch great films. However this time is drastically cut down because I've simply found more to do with my time. I've found a new sense of happiness and unfortunately there isn't as much room to watches movies.

If I should ever start this blog again, it would in someway be a depressing notion. As much as I adore the entire film nostalgia and experience, at this point to return to the daily film viewings would be detrimental to what I want to do with my life. I've made the decision to dedicate more time to people rather than things. Of course, I'll always enjoy seeing a good (or bad) movie with some friends, so if you ever want to, give me a shout. I was surprised how many visitors I had to this site (thanks to Google Analytics) and I hope you can forgive me. Insert cheesy final line here.

140-144

Film#140 - Austin Powers, 1997, dir. Jay Roach

I think we all know this movie, and that it's good, it's interesting, you'll have a few laughs, but it's nothing mind blowing.

7/10

Film#141 - Kalifornia, 1993, dir. Dominic Sena

This was weird. Not in a traditional sense of weird, but more that the cast seemed to be in caught in a movie that should be airing on Showcase at 2am. It really felt like it was made for tv, but on a station no one would be interested in. I feel this was either based on a book, or should have been a book. The premise is David Duchovny is a writer doing a book on serial murders in America, and he goes on a road trip with his girlfriend and two strangers on their way to California, and all intend to split the cost of the trip. The strangers are Juliette Lewis (reminiscent of her character in Natural Born Killers but without the violent tendencies) and Brad Pitt, who stood out as the best actor in the film. Pitt is a serial killer by the way, how ironic that someone writing about serial killers is on the road with a serial killer without knowing it. Wow. Deep.

6/10

Film#142 - Hitch, 2005, dir. Andy Tennant

As far as romantic comedies go, this is one of the better ones. It has a great charm to it and really makes you feel all cozy. What makes it better than any other romcom they pump out these days is this style of addressing the audience in a way that is aware of how romance works, both on screen and off, and commenting on it. Will Smith looks right into the camera and describes how love is, as if to say that is how love is portrayed on screen. He then goes into these conversations of witty dialogue that is too good to be true with Eva Mendes about the concept of dating and relationships that goes in other direction, to expose the patterns of film dating rituals and how everyone seems to be aware of them, looking for an alternative.

8/10

Film#143 - Road Trip, 2000, dir. Todd Phillips

This film loses charm every time I see it, and I've seen it more times than I would like to admit. It really feels dated. You couldn't make this movie today. That's a fact. No one uses the mail for one, but more importantly, why would they be sending video tapes when we have the internet. It's hard to believe I would have seen this when I was maybe 12 or 13.

5.5/10

Film#144 - Meet the Parents, 2000, dir. Jay Roach

Robert De Niro just has this magnetic appeal I can't resist. He delivers his lines with such comedic timing. The cast is great, the dialogue is fine, the premise is, well, basic. Not much to say here.

7.5/10

135-139

Film#135 - Training Day, 2001, dir. Antoine Fuqua

I can't stress how utterly cool this film is. Denzel Washington gives such a good performance, his character is just enthralling. I can't help but hang onto every word he says. I could imagine reading the script where it says:

"Alonzo aka Denzel Washington - 'King Kong ain't got shit on me!'"

and just laughing at how absurd it seems; Denzel does it with finesse. His entire look is just so badass, from his double guns he clinks together so often to his style of dress shirt buttoned to the neck. This may not be for the faint of heart, and it sure isn't going to lull you to sleep. It's phenomenal, a must see.

8.5/10

Film#136 - 27 Dresses, 2008, dir. Anne Fletcher

When I think of the word 'montage' I think of a few things: The Odessa Steps, Team America: World Police and this. I knew there had to be a montage of all 27 dresses, and yes, there is. I can't believe I watched this. I was predicting things left and right, and surprisingly not everything was correct. But most was. As a romantic comedy, this fell flat. There was literally no chemistry between anyone, the plot was silly, it wasn't funny. Just a terrible movie. As it was pointed out to me, it's strange how in films like this Katherine Heigl isn't considered attractive. What does this say about beauty, or love or literally anything positive? It seems to be pessimistic, that women become desperate for men to love them, men play mind games. It stereotypes gender, it plays on negative associations, it's horrendous.

3/10

Film#137 - The Men Who Stare At Goats, 2009, dir. Grant Heslov

The trailers for this looked like a Coen brothers film; it's definitely not. This film lacks the charm needed to pull off this whacky plot line and strange bunch of characters. I don't know where it went wrong. The cast is stellar; Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey. Yet somehow I just didn't like it very much. It had a few good chuckles, it was interesting to watch, but I just felt it lacked any serious value. It needed more style, more attention to detail. There is definitely nothing special about the aesthetic of the film, or the camera movement. A little disappointing.

6.5/10

Film#138 - Dawn Of The Dead, 2004, dir. Zach Synder

Wow. This was one of the most exciting films I've seen in a long time. From the first shot to the beginning of the opening credits, which is maybe 5 minutes apart, the film just dives head first into this brutal nightmare. As a result, it lacks a bit of the emotional appeal it might have had if we knew the characters beforehand. But I don't think that hurt it much. We still see these diverse people dealing with the situation (zombies) and how it affects them. What I liked the most was probably the way they still sought out enjoyment and happiness in the midst of this crisis, which takes place over a month trapped inside a mall. While it may seem to be this generic rag-tag team of survivors fighting off waves of mindless bloodthirsty zombies, you have to remember this is a remake of one of the originals in the zombie apocalypse genre. And I think it did a great job.

8.5/10

Film#139 - Last Days, 2005, dir. Gus Van Sant

Paced like an absolute snail. One of the slowest films I've ever seen. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this. It's more or less based on Kurt Cobain and his, guess what, last days alive. Michael Pitt is a fantastic actor, and I guess he did a good job here; I couldn't really tell because most of the shots are to far away or too close, or just straight up too boring for me to really care. This presents real life, but doesn't improve on it. To some that's fine. I on the other hand, going along with what Pedro Alomodovar said, (look at how pretentious I am) film should not only document real life, it should improve on it. What I gathered from that is that a movie can tell you a story of everyday people and make it interesting, make you realize the beauty of it. I didn't feel this did that. I found myself asking why I need a 20 minute opening sequence of a half dozen shots of a man alone in the woods doing arbitrary things. In comparison, the opening of There Will Be Blood is similar; a man by himself just surviving out in the wilderness without any dialogue or interruption. Where Paul Thomas Anderson succeeded, I think Gus Van Sant failed. It's just too arty for my taste; the entertainment value is minimal. I also cringed when the drummer and bassist for the band go to bed together, not because I have any problem with it but rather I have a problem with Gus Van Sant having the inability to write a single film without a token homosexual scene that has no relevance to the story whatsoever. Does it make him an auteur or just hung up on expressing his own homosexuality? I don't know, and this film doesn't make me care.

3.5/10

134

Film#134 - Entre Les Murs (The Class), 2008, dir. Laurent Cantet

This film deserves it's own blog entry. It's that good. This pretty much become instantly one of my favourite films. The film is about a 9th grade French teacher in Paris during one full school year. His class is racially diverse, as well as diverse in opinion, perspective and understanding. I can't explain the plot of this film; it's a slice of real life. As the credits rolled, I felt I knew these people. I didn't feel like I watched a film but rather I saw an actual documentary of school life, and it was dead on accurate. It's not done documentary style though; the film is highly cinematic and is one of those films that finds beauty in the everyday. I didn't see any actors in this, but rather real people just being themselves, which interestingly, nearly all the characters both major and minor went by their actual names. This type of setting brilliantly brought in concepts and issues in a way that was realistic while at the same time diving so deep into ideas that it would seem impossible for a film to do so without being too upfront about it. It dealt with gender, race, religion, sexuality, national identity, ageism, philosophy, everything. It was unbelievable. It gave me shivers. I may give out a number of 10/10 ratings, which I stand behind and believe those to be perfect films, but this is something that transcends into this level that's indescribable. This is an absolute must see; if you don't like it in even the slightest, I may have to reevaluate what I think about you.

10/10

128-133

Film#128 - The Addams Family, 1991, dir. Barry Sonnenfeld

I don't even know why but everyone knows who the Addams Family is. I can't say I've ever seen the show, yet I know the characters. And I hate them. This was a chore to watch after the first 5 minutes. It at first seemed really cinematic, and it does have a good aesthetic. The dialogue is atrocious if you're not a child though. The plot is boring. It's overacted on everyone's part, and yeah, that's the style but it could have been much better in my opinion. I never laughed at a joke. I didn't even smile.

3/10

Film#129 - The Player, 1992, dir. Robert Altman

I'm a fan of Robert Altman, but this was a fairly average film. It's interesting, engaging and well planned, and Altman has this distinct style of camera movement I enjoy but it just isn't anything special. It takes a huge stab at criticizing the Hollywood system, pumping out cultural references and little quips about the whole economy, which I like, but it's lack of subtlety in doing so I feel takes away from it. Anyone who watches it will get the vibe immediately, and in that sense it doesn't provoke thought but rather just taking it in and trying to side the audience with the film's message.

7.5/10

Film#130 - Terminator Salvation, 2009, dir. McG

I was under the impression that people liked this film. I've seen the first three, the first two of which were great. The third was a major departure. This was also a departure. They seem to think if they digitally put Arnie into the movies it'll be better, when really it just makes it worse. Christian bale, wow, terrible. The dialogue is horrendous, I was cringing throughout it. It's like no effort at all was put into the screenplay, they just approved it because it's guaranteed to bring people in. And this lack of attention is very clear. The look of the film is at times wonderful, but in all honesty it's a rather simple process of colour correction.

4/10

Film#131 - Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, 2009, dir. Michael Bay

I thought the first Transformers was entertaining. More of just a feeling that this is cool because I grew up on it. This second film though it much worse. The gimmick of the premise is gone, and it's replaced with a plot so full of holes it's ridiculous. Too many times I was thinking something didn't make sense. There's also so much just whacky scenes like Shia meeting his roommate who apparently set up a massive network of computers as well as full decorated their dorm room in what is apparently the morning before Shia moved in. And why they had a scene where his mom eats a pot brownie and makes a fool of herself I don't know. This really is the definitive reason why people make fun of Michael Bay. In the 2+ hours, there's maybe an hour and a half of explosions. Constant explosions. It's a joke.

4/10

Film#132 - Vanilla Sky, 2001, dir. Cameron Crowe

I thoroughly enjoy Cameron Crowe's style. It's true. This is a bit of a departure for him though, who typically makes coming of age movies, although in a way that's what this is; a coming of age film for adults. Tom Cruise is great in this, he plays the character perfectly. You honestly believe that is what someone would be like if they grew up the son of a millionaire. Cameron Diaz is great, Penelope Cruz is great, Jason Lee is great. It's great. The plot line throws people off though, as it's incredibly jumbled, but one a second of third watch it makes complete sense and you can start to appreciate the complexity to it. It's incredibly existential and dives into philosophical thought full heartedly. I wouldn't judge this film without watching it at least twice, and actually paying attention.

8/10

Film#133 - Hook, 1991, dir. Steven Spielberg

This is one of my favorite movies. Not only did I grow up watching this all the time, I think it's actually a perfect film. The style perfectly captures the vibe of childhood and more importantly maintaining this childlike ability to find enjoyment and do things for others. I could rant about the morals of this film for ages, and I find it incredibly fascinating. The actors are all fantastic in this. Great child acting, and Dustin Hoffman is practically unrecognizable. Just go see it.

8.5/10

122-127

Film#122 - Toy Story 2, 1999, dir. Jon Lasseter

This movie really jumps right into the main storyline. It wastes no time setting up the setting, characters, anything. It assumes you know who Buzz and Woody are, at least remember the general plot of the first film and just goes right to the meat of the movie. Within 5 minutes the entire plot is set up. Another noteworthy feature of the film is how heavily it plays on your emotions. It'll tug at emotional strings you didn't even know you had. It has such a range of feeling it's incredible, things that only this film can really do. The animation is better than the first, obviously, but in a way to not be noticeably different. If you've seen the first, you need to see the second.

9/10

Film#123 - Cocoon, 1985, dir. Ron Howard

I really had no idea what this was, apart from the small introduction John Cusack does for this film when showing it to a group of senior citizens in a retirement home in Say Anything. And it makes so much more sense after seeing Cocoon. The basic idea is, well, it's not very basic but, a group of mysterious strangers move into an old mansion beside a retirement home, and everyday they go out and scuba dive for these large egg-shaped rock-looking things, 'cocoons' if you will. A group of men from the retirement home spend their days swimming in the abandoned mansion's pool, and even after the strangers arrive they keep doing it. The strangers leave the cocoons in the pool, and what happens is after a swim, the old men are rejuvenated. Their youth is returned and their lives are improved. Long story short, there are aliens and space adventures. It was a unique take on the alien genre and a bit of a forgotten classic.

8/10

Film#124 - The Cove, 2009, dir. Louie Psihoyos

I had a different idea of what to expect from this film from the publicity than what was actually in it. Yes, it is about a cove where dolphins are slaughtered. But what was surprising was the way it dealt with larger issues, namely the high mercury content of dolphin meat. I also didn't know that literally the entire film is leading up to actually filming what happens in the cove. The film, which I have to be more gentle on because it's a documentary, but it doesn't have a large attention to shot composure or aesthetics. It's really just to present the information. This would be fine if it wasn't so one-sided. It's entire thing is to make you feel sorry for the dolphins rather than logically sort out what's wrong with the situation. The actual footage of the dolphin slaughter is insane, like nothing I've ever seen before. But my issue was that if you were to see any animal slaughter, you'd probably be equally as shocked. We aren't used to seeing things die, and as such the film plays on that, when I think it should have put more attention on the implications of dolphin slaughter, as well as the issue of whaling that they only briefly touched on. I felt the discussion of how Japan basically bribes impoverished countries in order to get votes on their side was incredibly interesting, but that was literally 5 minutes long. It could have been the entire film really.

7.5/10

Film#125 - Gangs Of New York, 2002, dir. Martin Scorsese

Unbelievable. Daniel Day-Lewis, of course, is insanely good. Everyone was so good. The whole look of the film, my my. The dialogue though, that's where I think the film stands out. They use a dialect so different from what we would use today, yet it's all recognizable based on the way the words are used. Great stuff.

10/10

Film#126 - Extract, 2009, dir. Mike Judge

I'm a big fan of Mike Judge's Office Space, and this has a lot of the same feel to it. At times it even seems to be the same film. It is again about alienated workers, tired of their jobs and subjected to the formulaic work they have to do for a living. This time we're positioned to relate to the boss rather than the workers though. It has a lot of obscure plot points and some strange scenes that at times seem incomplete and left too open. This is where it starts to differ from Office Space. The general plot is about exploiting the business, but again, the only real difference is we're put in the place of the opposite side this time. There are some genuinely funny moments, but I found almost all of them had to do with Ben Affleck.

5.5/10

Film#127 - The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, 2008, dir. David Fincher

Where to begin. My biggest problem with this is the way it constantly reminds you how he's aging backwards. We got the idea before we even saw the movie. I also had an issue with the chemistry between Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. They didn't seem to be 'destined' for each other. As kids, although he was super old looking, they meshed. Then they get separated, meet in their mid 20's, but she's radically different. She won't let him get a word in, conceited, and in a way, shallow. Yet for some reason he still wants to be with her. Years later she passes it off as she was 'so young back then', but my problem was, so was he. He's not mentally aging backwards. He stays the same but she goes through phases. I didn't get why he liked her, it just didn't make sense. I actually thought he was so into her simply because she looked like Tilda Swinton's character. Still, it was a beautiful film, and Jared Harris as Captain Mike was a great character. Brad Pitt was good, his mother was better, but it relied too much on gimmick. I also didn't like how it was set as a story told during hurricane Katrina, which is rumoured to be because New Orleans offered a higher tax credit than Baltimore where it was originally set.

7.5/10

1/3 of the way

As this marks the 1/3 point in my conquest, I've assembled a selection of films I found to stick out. I've been criticized for being too generous with the scores I give out, but I have to disagree. Firstly, the films I've given 10/10 to, they are flawless; they're cinematic, engaging and touching. You shouldn't be afraid to like things. Secondly, not everything needs to be a 10/10 to be one of my favourites. In fact, many 10/10 didn't make the cut; they're perfect films but what I think is worthy of a high score doesn't mean it's a personal choice, but rather I try to judge films critically rather than just picking what I like the most. Keep in mind these are more or less personal favourites, as well as I've tried to give a semi-eclectic range of films. With that, I give you my list of 10 films I feel everyone should see.

1. Magnolia

Over 3 hours and I wish it was longer. This is the story of practically a dozen main characters all so well developed they could carry the film individually. This film has such passion it can't be ignored. The incredible ensemble cast weaved together through a provocative storyline, this is my favourite film.

2. As Good As It Gets

One of the deepest character-driven stories ever. This movie transcends the actors who most definitely have extensive baggage and brings it to a level where you see them as people rather than actors. Truly amazing.

3. Fargo

The Coen brothers made a masterpiece; the dialogue is sharp and the characters are some of the most unique I've seen. They're comical yet realistic, giving the film a tone unlike any other. A perfect balance of the Coens' wackiness and grit.

4. The Deer Hunter

Another intensely long film, but one I feel holds such cultural relevance even 30 years later. The film plays out like life, setting a tone and an environment that mimics real people, and in doing so makes it's message all the more effective. Do not give up on this one, it takes drastic twists and turns that will shock you.

5. Inglourious Basterds

Tarantino's finest film in my opinion. He's found a perfect formula for his extended dialogue to spill out like poetry, yet still be just so badass, and then contrasting with rapid spurts of brutal violent montage. It's beautiful and epic.

6. Let The Right One In

One of the strangest ideas if you haven't seen the elegance of this film; a romantic horror film with vampiric children, dark and ominous yet simultaneously inspiring. This is the best child acting I've ever seen, and even through it's oddness, it's stunning and touching.

7. C.R.A.Z.Y.

This is the best Canadian film I have ever seen; it makes you question why you ever thought there was a Canadian film stereotype to begin with. This shows that a modest budget and an inspired writer/director can create cinematic magic even in a global standard.

8. 500 Days Of Summer

I'm sure many people may think this isn't one of the best films, but I honestly and obviously disagree. Not only is it such a sentimental love story, the way it goes about it is so distinctive it's one of a kind. It's quirky, and edited so well I can't even describe. The attention to detail is beyond belief; just look at their clothing, apartments, offices, bar, everything. Every scene is so carefully put together.

9. Hot Fuzz

This may be another film people are skeptical of. I have to say this is an absolutely phenomenal hybrid of action and comedy; it's self-referential and aware of the genres it's playing with, and it does so in such a way I can't take my eyes off the screen. It's charming and beautifully paced.

10. There Will Be Blood

This film ends and I want to just start it from the beginning again. It has one of what has become my favourite soundtracks I've ever heard. I don't even need to mention the caliber of acting in this thing. It's a cinematic masterpiece.

Honourable Mentions:

Far From Heaven - Modern revisioning of the 1950s melodrama, combining so many social taboos and issues still present today.

Funny Games - Cruel yet refined, this film speaks to the culture of film audiences as well as society itself.

The Messenger - Drastically overlooked, this is a hard-hitting take on the aftermath of war from a perspective rarely seen.

Boogie Nights - Long but worthwhile, this film is dirty but it's grand story and wonderful cast make it a great experience.

A Serious Man - Bizarre and quirky, this film may be boring to some but I found the entire tone and look to the film to be enthralling.

117-121

Film#117 - A Single Man, 2009, dir. Tom Ford

So going into this I knew who Tom Ford was, and for anyone who doesn't he's a fashion designer and icon. This is his first film, and for that he did a very good job. The film is visually stunning, and of course it would be; everyone is dressed so refined and well groomed. The film is meticulous. The sets, the colouring, the old cars and perfect hair. I actually had no idea this was at all about homosexuality. The sad thing is, I never think a movie needs to be 'about' homosexuality in order to discuss it, it should rather just be a means to tell a story. You may argue that it was in this case, but I have to disagree. I feel the film did things that only queer cinema can, and in that process it makes the film about being gay rather than the love story you're supposed to be involved in. I could go into a handful of examples I pulled from the film but I'd rather not; simply see it yourself. It's not something for people who have short attention spans, as many of the shots are long and without much 'happening.' Still, a good first effort.

7.5/10

Film#118 - White Chicks, 2004, dir. Keenan Ivory Wayans
As much as this may be a terrible movie, it made me laugh until it hurt more than once. The premise is insane, and is executed poorly. There should have been a much better reason WHY these men had to dress as white women, and even how they got it done. But other than that, and of course a lot of cheesy dialogue, bad acting and nothing special cinematically, this movie is hilarious at times. The Wayans brothers have some great comedic timing and the contrast of black men acting like white 'chicks' is both hilarious and in some sense offering an overt depiction of racial differences, for good or bad.

6.5/10

Film#119 - Funny Games, 2007, dir. Michael Haneke
This made me anxious literally from the opening credits. It, as other things, is literally insane. As this is far more unknown than the other films this week, I'll give a little plot rundown. Naomi Watts and husband Tim Roth, along with their young son, go off to their vacation home. they are clearly wealthy, and soon after they arrive some friends of their neighbours come to ask for some eggs. Well, they don't really want eggs, but more so to torture and kill the entire family. You get the point 15 minutes in, but it's not going to let up for a long time. It really gets brutal at times, completely unrelenting. There isn't much graphic violence on screen, and it isn't even necessary. The film builds suspense and horror in, oddly, a beautiful way that on one hand tries to be reminiscent of what horror/thriller's used to be, but at the same time this film is a direct criticism of what I would say to be Western horror and violence. At several times, the lead torturer played by Michael Pitt (who if you've ever seen you should know is both intensely creepy as well as provocative and a fantastic actor) directly acknowledges the audience, breaking the fourth wall and playing with your expectations of what's to come. As with any torture film, there are ups and downs, times you think the protagonists will triumph and at others feel hopeless. This film knows the way it works and tells it to your face; Pitt asks the audience questions, suggests the results, describes the feelings you should be having. As a slight spoiler alert, at one point in the film the tables are finally turned on the tormentors as Naomi Watts manages to shoot and kill one of them; this is common in the genre, obviously. Pitt's character immediately starts looking for the television remote, and in a literal sense rewinds the scene in order to change the plot of the film. I'm sorry to be pretentious, but this film is postmodern; selfreferential and suggestive that film is formulaic. It says that everything has been done to try and push the boundaries and it's gotten to a perverse level, and acknowledges the audience as simply seeking the same story over and over. This is a bit different, and if you can handle a two hour nightmare, go for it.

8.5/10

Film#120 - Say Anything, 1989, dir. Cameron Crowe
I've got to say, I can't help but draw connections between this and Crowe's other films, namely Almost Famous and Fast Times At Ridgemont High. They're all coming of age films, dabbling in as many teenage issues as possible. While I adore Almost Famous, I can't say the same for this. I didn't feel the chemistry between the leading cast. For a love story, it felt censored and scripted, and not at all 'lovey.' John Mahoney, a.k.a. Martin Crane from Frasier, is pretty great in this. His character seems the most developed and at times I loved him, at others I hated him but overall he just made sense. The famous scene with John Cusack standing outside holding the boombox over his head, well, it completely let me down. It was so anticlimactic, nothing happened. The song wasn't even epic. I liked what the film had to say in some sense, but it just wasn't up to par.

6/10

Film#121 - Toy Story, 1995, dir. John Lasseter

Well, this is pretty self-explanatory. It's good. It's super short though (81 minutes, what a joke). The animation was of course breakthrough back then, but now it surprisingly seemed a little dated. More so than I expected. The people in the film look so goofy it's hilarious. The Soundtrack might be the best part of this for me, it's just so classic and memorable. Also, I thoroughly enjoyed this after so many years because I pick up on so many more things now, os many little nuances and easter eggs they put in for people in the know, like the Binford tool box and the Megadork poster. But the film, sorry to say, isn't mindblowing.

8/10

110-116

Film#110 - A Beautiful Mind, 2001, dir. Ron Howard

It's been so long since I've written a review I can't really remember how to do these. This film, it's great. It's pretty simple. Russell Crowe is intensely good at what he does. I've seen it many years ago but I was reminded of the plot twists early on in the film, and I have to say it took away from the experience. I was also very aware of some the stylistic choices that make the film slightly cheesy at times. Ron Howard made some aesthetic choices that if you have any inclination of what's happening, it becomes all too obvious, if you know what I mean. It's hard to describe without spoiling the film.

8/10

Film#111 - Gladiator, 2000, dir. Ridley Scott

This movie kicks ass, but far more than just the battle sequences. Russell Crowe, again, is such a good actor and gives so much intensity to his character it's unbelievable. What makes this film truly amazing is its flow and its revival of the historical epic. A genre long since forgotten except on those Easter Sundays when The Ten Commandments comes on TV.

9/10

Film#112 - There Will Be Blood, 2007, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

If you've read any of my other reviews for Paul Thomas Anderson, you'll know I love what this man does. This film is probably one of my favourite bits of cinematic glory I've ever seen. With a running time of over two and a half hours, and yet when it finished I just wanted to play it again. I could literally watch this over and over and never get sick of it. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely enthralling as Daniel Plainview. This may be the very best example of how character development should work on screen. Please do not let the title fool you, this is not some gory film. It's a masterful story with such a visually appealing aesthetic that every frame could be a painting. The soundtrack, it really makes me wonder how in the list of Oscars this was nominated for it wasn't up for best original score. It's so original and overpowering, it's the perfect companion to such great writing, acting, cinematography and directing. See this, and invite me over.

10/10

Film#113 - Year One, 2009, dir. Harold Ramis

This was horrendous. Seriously just a horrid film to try and get through. There were maybe 2 good jokes in the entire thing. Jack Black should stop 'acting', he just plays himself. He's completely depthless, butchering his way through the dialogue. Do not see this. Ever.

2/10

Film#114 - Annie Hall, 1997, dir. Woody Allen

This as not at all what I expected, on many levels. I thought it would be a, well, typical love story. It's not. It also kind of let me down the way they showed Allen and Keaton's romantic relationship; I can't say I felt the connection. Woody is however, hilarious. He has so many great lines it blew me away. This may be the only comedy I've ever seen that won best picture. I also felt the film left off a bit too abrupt. However, the way it breaks the fourth wall, the incredible wit and comedic delivery and the originality of the whole thing make it a great film.

8/10

Film#115 - Capitalism: A Love Story, 2009, dir. Michael Moore

I've just about seen all of Michael Moore's work and I have to say I've liked it all. This was maybe his most difficult to follow, which isn't to say it was THAT difficult to follow. But still, it just jumped right into the meat of it all and was at times rapidly paced, leaving you to really try to keep up if you don't already know these concepts. It was incredibly informative, but of course I realize it's highly constructed and is intended to show on side of the issues. What I have to question is in this argument that documentaries should be objective and tell the 'truth', the unbiased facts, well, I have to ask if that's ever possible? Any film will ultimately have to show certain things and cut others with it's time constraints. It will have to place us at a single viewpoint from the camera. And for the sake of making things interesting, I have to argue it has to take a stance. People need to remember this isn't a journalistic film, it's a film trying to tell a story, to expose social issues in an extreme way in order to get people to pay attention. And I have to say it does so fabulously. It's also incredibly witty and at times down right hilarious. I actually went over several parts a few times just because of how funny they were (namely a certain dubbing of Jesus Christ). Check this out.

8/10

Film#116 - The 40 Year Old Virgin, 2005, dir. Judd Apatow

I've seen this a handful of times before. It's one of these films I would put under the category of comfort movies, things that are well done, really no discernible faults but it's definitely not going to win any major awards. It's funny, and you don't need to worry about sudden unexpected plot twists. It's just an enjoyable couple of hours. A comedy classic.

8/10

EAVB_PNCYYJJJHU

106-109

Film#106 - Wedding Crashers, 2005, dir. David Dobkin

Being that this is such a popular movie and all, and the title is fairly obvious, I don't need to go over any plot points really. This is a good movie. Fact. It achieves what it set out to do, no, it exceeds. Maybe people think this is a 'typical' comedy, but really, it's unique in so many ways. The concept, where else have we seen this before? The dialogue, well, it's just witty. Well spoken and delivered with such comedic timing that I think so many comedies these days forget that it's not as much what you say but how you say it. Vince Vaughn plays his character so well, with such quick little jokes, the subtlety is just great. I feel this movie never made any promises it would be more than just a romantic comedy, and it's one of the best. It brings os much comedy to the romantic side, which I must say the characters have such deep chemistry it just makes sense. If you haven't seen it I don't know what you're waiting for. A great, no, phenomenal, comfort film.

8.5/10

Film#107 - Choke, 2008, dir. Clark Gregg

So we've all seen Fight Club and/or heard of it, or know of Chuck Palahniuk. He's not that great of a writer, but his ideas are have fresh takes and different style that makes them enjoyable. Choke is another film adaptation for him, and well, it's no Fight Club. The movie is incredibly sexual; literally every character, major or minor, has some form of sexual addiction of deviancy. It's full of Palahniuk's little quirks that I thought made Fight Club what it is, but they were executed poorly. The style of the film needed a serious reworking. The dialogue, well, I can't say it was bad but some actors delivered it badly. Anjelica Huston was a major fault of the film. She, well, I thought she was horrendously bad. On the other side of things I'm falling more in love with Sam Rockwell, that man can act. But I have to think this could have been done so much better with more care to each shot and pacing of the film.

6.5/10

Film#108 - Gosford Park, 2001, dir. Robert Altman

I was a big fan of Altman's Short Cuts, and any polyphonic film (multiple character storylines interweaved) is a big plus to me. Giant ensemble cast here. The general idea is there's a weekend party for rich people, and a bunch of servants helping out. The rich people are upstairs doing their thing, and some of them have brought personal assistants and such, and the help is all in the basement working away. I enjoyed the way this film dealt with such a large cast and making sure the audience can tell who is who; it's fairly crucial for a film like this to stress the names and roles of each character early on without making it seemed force and out of place, and this got it just right. The overall story is, well, not 'full' so-to-speak. Not too much happens. At times it made me think this would be a great setting for a movie version of Clue. In a way, and a very very slight way, it is. I'm not sure exactly what the film intended to say, but my take on it is that it shows the relations between upper and lower classes, in the ways the deal with problems, the social taboos, the masks people wear, as well as the way these classes directly interact. I have to admit it might take another viewing to fully understand it all, but I feel there is quite a bit to be learned here.

7.5/10

Film#109 - Orphan, 2009, dir. Jaume Collet-Serra

Of all I've seen this year, this is my least favourite. This will not be a pleasant review. This film, is an abomination. Loving family of four adopt a 9-year old girl, who over the course of the film, proves to be a complete nightmare. This film, to me, is so clearly trying to make something that can still shock audiences, trying to be terrifying and horrific. But it has in my opinion, gone way too far. I enjoy the horror genre, although I feel it gets a bad reputation (and rightfully so) from all the bad films put out into the mainstream. To sound pretentious for a second, I have to believe an age of subtlety and technique in producing horror and fear is gone, and what has replaced it is this mentality of "what can we do to make people absolutely sick to their stomaches?" Horror should be scary; it should put you on the edge of your seat, terrified for the protagonists. It should explore your fears and give you a place to express them. Stephen King once wrote that horror is a necessary part of people's lives, and to experience it keeps us from committing acts of horror ourselves; he says that we have 'crocodiles in our minds' and that horror feeds those crocodiles so they don't ever get out. This film, it didn't do any of this. The emotions is made me feel were not fright, anxiety, even sadness where appropriate. No, it made me frustrated, angry and disappointed. These are not things people wish to experience. You don't hear people come out of the theatre saying, "Wow hunny, I really needed a good 2 hours of frustration tonight." This movie plays on so many things in such bad taste I feel manipulated. It uses children and all the connotations that go along with them to not only taint their ideals but to go so far that it's entire 'shock value' is relying on this notion of hopelessness and complete destruction of what I would hold as positive values. Nothing good comes from this film. I'm sad to see such talented actors like Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard is such a terrible movie. This horrible, horrible movie achieved absolutely nothing for me that I can find any value in. If there is one movie you never see, let it be this.

3/10

101-105

Film#101 - True Romance, 1993, dir. Tony Scott

I don't know why this took me so long to see. The cast alone is enough to make this a mind-blowing movie. Christian Slater in the best role I've veer seen him in, Patricia Arquette, Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Michael Rappaport, Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, it just keeps going. This movie had so many great moments, literally every 10-15 minutes I would just be ecstatic about something or other. Some genuinely hilarious moments, beautifully written (obviously I think so, it's by Quentin Tarantino), and a fairly original take on a romantic genre. Great stuff.

9/10

Film#102 - The Insider, 1999, dir. Michael Mann

Extremely political and historically significant, this is really something I feel everyone should at least be aware of. It's such a courageous story that's actually true, it's inspiring to say the least. For anyone who has no idea, this is about Jeffrey Wigand, a former executive at a "Big Tobacco" company who goes to great lengths to expose the industry for what it is. He changed the face of cigarettes and took great risks to do so. Russell Crowe and Al Pacino are quite the pair here, and Pacino arguably gives one of his best performances. He's just very well suited for his role as Lowell Bergman, a producer of 60 Minutes on CBS. A bit lengthy but never what I would consider a dull moment.

9/10

Film#103 - Todo Sobre Mi Madre (All About My Mother), 1999, dir. Pedro Almodovar

I was more or less forced to watch this. In a certain class of mine we had to pick a film from a list and do a presentation on it; I got last pick. I appreciate what this film is trying to do, with it's allegory to the global positioning of Spain, and the way it breaks down ideology with it's discussion of gender and sexuality, but really it's just an 'okay' movie. It's well acted, sure, but it also doesn't seem to know what it's doing. The first section, especially the opening credits, are just unlike the rest of the film. It goes all over the place and ignores a lot of thing I felt needed further development. It was good, not great.

7/10

Film#104 - Muriel's Wedding, 1994, dir. P.J. Hogan

Another middle of the road film. Toni Collette is great, just so awkward and honest, but the plot is nothing special. A Girl who wants to be married, an ugly-duckling, trying to find herself. Set in Australia, it gives it a bit of originality just by the way these people talk, playing on Australian culture that I feel gives it a uniqueness to me, but as a representation of Australia it may be poking too much fun at it. It's charm very well may be in it's foreign yet familiar feel. Some pretty cheesy lines here and there, and much of the family is made up of characters whose emotions and desires are in a way unrealistic and nonsensical. Still, it was fun to watch, so it made up for some of it's faults.

7/10

Film#105 - The Ugly Truth, 2009, dir. Robert Luketic

Horrendous. I honestly thought this could be okay. It was a train wreck. Katherine Heigl and Gerald Butler are just the worst actors. The premise, well, it's absurd, and the way these characters become friends and ultimately fall in love (I'd say it spoils it but it's clear from the first 10 minutes of the movie) is just so unrealistic. At first they are at each other's throats, and then just so quickly they are best buds. There were too many moments where I literally wanted to scream at the screen. It was terrible. There were, however, a few good laughs, but mostly at how bad this movie was. There are so many ridiculous scenarios that have obvious fixes but of course the movie plays them up hoping for laughs. I would sincerely look down on someone who loves this movie. There is so much dialogue about gender roles that any morals it might have had have been so forced down your throat that they've completely lost their value. That's not to say there was ever any real value to it in the first place. Do not see this. Ever.

3/10

96-100

Film#96 - The Boondock Saints, 1999, dir. Troy Duffy

I have very fond memories of this movie. Not only does it bring out my Irish pride, but when I first saw it I thought it was just the most badass thing ever. This was many years ago. Sure, it's still packed full of sweet action scenes, but I think most of the generation that grew up loving this film would be surprised to go back and hear the dialogue that comes out of this thing. There was a lot more cheese than I remembered. The overall message is much less subtle than I remembered. Willem Dafoe is breathtaking though, but for anyone who doesn't know this movie, it's not because he's that great of an actor in this. His character though, makes the film. It brings it just a little step further from being too typical of an action film. David Della Rocco, who plays "Rocco", and has literally only ever been in this film, is also phenomenal, but that's mostly because he brings the light-hearteded side of the movie out, giving it a unique place between genres. The film is incredibly self-referential, and plays with the genre very overtly. It's commentary both on film as well as social problems is extreme at times, but it's the kind of satire that goes above and beyond in order to really get the message out there, not unlike A Modest Proposal way back when. This is a classic, although it definitely left me with a different feeling than when I saw it as a youngin', but I think it' definitely something people should see.

7.5/10

Film#97 - The Boondock Saints 2, 2009, dir. Troy Duffy

This, unlike it's predecessor, was much more disappointing. There are just handfuls of little tidbits that fans of the original will love, such as the MacManus brothers have literally become shepherds ("and shepherds we shall be, for thee my lord for thee") and many other things like this. The film really started going downhill when they brought in the replacement sidekick for Rocco, in this case being Clifton Collins Jr, who is absolutely ridiculous. He plays the most obnoxious, over-the-top, Mexican stereotype and it really just makes many of the films scenes just silly. There is no subtlety or comedic timing with this guy, and he butchers the movie. The story, also a bit much but still in the vein of the original. Julie Benz takes over for Willem Dafoe as the FBI agent come to investigate, and honestly, just the worst written and acted character I may have ever seen. Maybe the people behind Dexter saw her in this. The trio of cops from the first film play a much larger part in this one, and their banter is often just too much. If you liked the first one, don't see this.

5/10

Film#98 - The Deer Hunter, 1978, dir. Michael Cimino

An absolute classic, and honestly one of the best films ever made. I've seen it before and in some way I think it gave me a new perspective to watching it the second time around. What become very clear was how much the first act sets up an undeniable air of love and friendship, with such loyalty between friends it's really quite moving. This may be too slow of a film for some people, as the first section is pretty much over an hour long without much of anything happening in terms of plot. What it does do is set up the rest of the movie in extreme contrast, both in the middle section taking place in Vietnam and the last act as the return of the war-scarred men. And let me tell you, it does it so well it's unbelievable. This story still has such social, cultural and political resonance today that it really does stand the test of time so to speak. Christopher Walken like you've never seen him before, and Robert De Niro in one of the best roles of his career. A must see.

10/10

Film#99 - The Last House On The Left, 2009, dir. Dennis Iliadis

This was pretty much appalling. The way this film was portrayed in it's marketing is really just, well it's wrong. I thought this was a teen slasher, something like the typical stuff that makes up modern 'horror'. I was completely wrong. This is a remake, and I can't even imagine how this film was received back in the 70's. It's insane. It's gruesome and some of it is really rather in bad taste. There's just about as much murder, torture, rape and pain I could take before I would have turned it off. And believe me, I've never turned off a movie for gratuitous violence. This however, it left me thinking what the point of it was. It really doesn't say anything worth saying. The basic idea is a family of three go out to their cottage, and the daughter goes into town with a friend. They go to pick up some weed, at which point the dealer's father and murderous friends come back, and so begins an hour and a half of torture. By the halfway point these girls have been abused to badly that they'd be so scarred they would have absolutely no chance of living a normal life afterwards. Stop reading if you care about spoilers, since what happens next is the friend is stabbed to death, the daughter is raped graphically for several minutes, and then shot. The murders then go seek refuge at a local house, pretending to be trapped in the storm. The house nearby? Yeah it's the girls parents house. She crawls back, they figure out whats going on, and now the parents start a rampage against these people. People are stabbed, shot, limbs are put in a garbage disposal, and to cap it off someone gets their head microwaved. I don't know why this was made, and who it was made for. The acting, very believable. But it's not enough justification for the absolutely brutal plot line.

4.5/10

Film#100 - Inglourious Basterds, 2009, dir. Quentin Tarantino

Here we have a film where unlike the previous review, knows how to go about on-screen violence. And it's straight up "glourious." I love this film. It's my favourite Tarantino, and it's one of my favourite all time films. If you haven't seen it, I don't know why. Well, it's probably because you think this is just a shoot-em-up, action-packed typical Tarantino film, and in some ways you're right. But in reality, the violence in this is short-lived and intense, while the vast majority of the film is an absolutely enthralling tale from many different perspectives. I'd give a plot rundown but I can't bring myself to reduce it to something like that. It's visually stunning, with such diverse characters and charm that I can't resist it. I don't know how anyone could. Quirky and fun for sure.

10/10

91-95

Film#91 - Mystic River, 2003, dir. Clint Eastwood

Unbelievable. This was so well done in every sense. Sean Penn, absolutely breathtaking. That man can act something fierce. It's flawless.

10/10

Film#92 - Milk, 2008, dir. Gus Van Sant

I could rave about this, but I'm sure everyone knows by now this is a great movie. Culturally significant, beautifully done, phenomenal acting. It has all the elements of a great movie.

9/10

Film#93 - Fast Times At Ridgemont High, 1982, dir. Amy Heckerling

Fairly disappointing, in many ways. Firstly, as I'm on a bit of a Sean Penn marathon, he was barely in this. He's first billed, but he has such a small role, maybe 10 minutes of screen time. Secondly, for 'fast times' this was surprisingly slow actually. I expected it to be, you know, fast paced. What was weird was seeing all these young actors who would eventually become some of the most respected in their craft in the world, namely Penn, Forest Whitaker, a small cameo by Nicolas Cage, Jennifer Jason Leigh. It's a star-studded cast of people who have yet to become stars. It felt like a failed version of The Breakfast Club both in style and content. I expected more from Cameron Crowe.

6/10

Film#94 - Hard 8, 1996, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

For a first try, I guess this was okay. I'm definitely a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, and this was, well, weird. I thought it felt like it should have been trimmed down significantly, and made part of an ensemble polyphonic film. John C. Reilly was very good, as I think he usually is (in his serious roles), but the others felt a little underdeveloped. The story seemed a bit dragged out, and probably could have been told in half the amount of time. Still, it had that Anderson feel and look, which I love, but it wasn't enough to make the movie.

6.5/10

Film#95 - Paris, Je T'aime, 2006, 21 directors

This had been hyped up a lot to me over the years, and some people just love it. I, on the other hand, did not. Some segments are great, that's without a doubt. Others just didn't speak to me. Some of the more absurd sequences broke the feeling the film was creating. In fact, I wouldn't even call this a complete film. It really is just a collection of shorts, obviously, but more so in the way they didn't always play well off of each other. In that sense, each short really has to be judged on it's own, and the number of really good ones just didn't match the number of mediocre ones. Plus I'm not a big fan of short films altogether. Maybe I'm just under the impression that if a story is worth being told, it's worth taking the time to tell it properly. Many of these seemed like the kind of story you might tell a friend when they asked how your day was. Nothing special, maybe some chance encounter or little thing that happened, and they have little meaning if you don't know the context. If you met someone for the first time, asked how they were as a kind of social formality and they told you a five minute story of meeting someone that day who spoke a different language to you and then gave you their number, you wouldn't really know what the point was. On the other side of things though, some of these gave a glimpse into that sort of thing that didn't necessarily need context. Some though, felt as if I'd rather just not have seen them at all.

6.5/10

86-90

Film#86 - Coraline, 2009, dir. Henry Selick

I really liked this one. I actually think it was better than Up, both in terms of animation and overall production value. The story was pretty good, and something that is perfectly suited for animation. There was just no other way to make something like this. I actually thought the look of the movie was one of the most cinematic, eclectic and beautiful aesthetic designs I've seen in a long time. It has such drastic changes in scenery. The story was interesting, voice acting was top notch. Plus there's a cat so I already like it.

8.5/10

Film#87 - Let The Right One In, 2008, dir. Tomas Alfredson

This was hard to judge. Not because I was unsure how I felt about the film, but because the version I got was dubbed in english, rather than subtitles. It pretty much ruined the entire experience. It's as if the translator had no idea what they were doing. Take an early scene for example, where two drunk russian men are saying goodnight. The dialogue went something like this:

"You are my favourite pal"

"Thanks bud, I enjoy you as well"

"Oh friend, have a good night"

This dialogue, along with the horrendous voice acting, it made me cringe basically the entire length of the film. However, beyond this problem with my copy, the film was phenomenal. The basic idea is 12 year old girl moves into an apartment beside a 12 year old boy. She happens to be a vampire, and her father goes out at night to drain people of their blood for her to survive on. The boy, Oskar, he's bullied at school and has no friends. What genre is this film? It's a horror, but it's horror elements are rather toned down. It mainly deals with emotional problems and elements of fitting in, so it's a drama. It's also romantic, and at times very sweet. So I guess it's a horror drama romance. And it's done beautifully.

9/10

Film#88 - Drag Me To Hell, 2009, dir. Sam Raimi

This really isn't a movie for everyone. If anyone saw Raimi's Spiderman 3 and it's notorious dance sequence, you have a vague idea of how cheesy this man can get. This is sightly different though, as the film is very aware it's cheesy, both in style and premise. We've got a woman who gets cursed by a gypsy for not giving her an extension on her mortgage payment. It's filled with voodoo and blood, but the movie doesn't take itself all to seriously, and neither should the audience. I think the audience is somewhere between a Shaun Of The Dead fan and an Evil Dead fan. It's bizarre, and not terribly well acted, but it makes up for it with these strangely funny quirks added to the most horrific and gory scenes.

7/10

Film# 89 - The Machinist, 2004, dir. Brad Anderson

This was like a bad version of Fight Club for me, both in the content of the story and some aesthetic choices. It's dirty. The first thing that sticks out, and sadly one of the most interesting parts of the movie, is that Christian Bale is literally a stick figure. He lost 60 pounds for this role, and he looks disgusting. The director obviously knew this, so Bale spends a considerable amount of time shirtless. It's unbelievable how thing he is. This film is full of strange occurrences you're not sure what to make of, but I guess in the end they all make sense. It's that kind of movie. And it's not particularly well done, in comparison to other films like it.

6.5/10

Film#90 - Moon, 2009, dir. Duncan Jones

This was nuts. I was literally saying, out loud and to myself, "What is going on." Sam Rockwell is an astronaut who is stationed on a base on the moon. The basic idea, that is explained at the film's start so no spoilers, is that in the not so distant future scientists discover that the moon has absorbed helium over time from the sun's rays, and has it stored in the rock. There is an operation where automated machines go along the surface and collect what they call Helium3, which is a clean energy source that supplies the entire Earth. The station is fairly fully automatic, except Sam (both real name and character name) is given a 3 year contract to live there in case things need maintenance. I can't say much more without spoiling the movie, but what I can say is Sam Rockwell is an absolutely brilliant actor. This is a unique story, and it's done so well. So much of the film is just so technically difficult, and it's done flawlessly. Highly recommended.

9/10

Oscar Follow-up

I've got to say, this years Oscars did not live up to last years in terms of the overall show. Hugh Jackman was straight up hilarious, and that opening song and dance last year was just too good to be true. This year, it was just failures left and right. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin flat out sucked together, although they had a few good jokes when they were on their own. It makes me feel the two hosts thing just really doesn't work. That strange stare-down with George Clooney at the start was incredibly odd, like an inside joke no one understood. The opening song, well, it was fine and all but nothing special. It really didn't compare to last years.

As for the actual awards, I'm pleased to say of the 20 predictions I made, I got 15 correct. I'm surprised I missed some of the biggest awards though, namely both the writing categories as well as picture of the year, which was a pleasant surprise. I officially picked Avatar to win but of course I did say it would be ideal if The Hurt Locker won. I'm terribly disappointed Inglourious Basterds didn't pick up any of the awards I thought it would, minus Christoph Waltz for best supporting. The little introductions to each of the best pictures throughout the show, well, I'm sure if I hadn't seen any of them I'd be loving it, but the problem is I'd seen them all so it was a bit of a bore. The introductions to each best acting category seemed very dragged out at times, and some of the speakers, unfortunately, weren't very good at telling their stories.

I was actually quite shocked at some of the award winners, since I was fairly confident in those predictions that ended up being incorrect. The White Ribbon of all things I was under the impression it was a certainty for best foreign film, seeing as how it won the Golden Globe as well as the Plame d'Or, only the most prestigious film award in the world. As for Precious winning best adapted screenplay, I just don't know about that. Content wise, yes it's compelling but I don't know if it was all that well written, especially in comparison to the magic of Up In The Air. When Inglourious Basterds didn't pick up best original screenplay it was like a knife in my heart.

Here are the winners:

Editing - The Hurt Locker

Visual Effects - Avatar

Makeup - Star Trek

Costume Design - The Young Victoria

Art Direction - Avatar

Cinematography - Avatar

Sound Editing - The Hurt Locker

Sound Mixing - The Hurt Locker

Original Score - Up

Original Song - The Weary Kind - Crazy Heart

Animated Short - Logorama (I called it based on the short clips they showed so I though I'd include it)

Documentary - The Cove (I also called it, but it was purely based on publicity)

Animated Feature - Up (as a side note, seeing Coraline just hours before the show, I felt it should have won)

Foreign Film - El Secreto de Sus Ojos

Original Screenplay - The Hurt Locker

Adapted Screenplay - Precious

Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz

Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique

Actor - Jeff Bridges

Actress - Sandra Bullock

Director - Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker

Best Picture - The Hurt Locker

Also, what was up with the Best Picture award being the most rushed thing in history? They went over time either way, they might have as well done a proper introduction.

81-85

Film#81 - 3:10 To Yuma, 2007, dir. James Mangold

This right here is a little gem that seems to have been overlooked. I was under the impression that this was somehow basically the same thing as Letters To Iwo Jima but no, this is really quite a wonderful story. It's a remake of a 1957 film of the same name, and it is indeed a western. You really don't see many westerns being made these days, and this film makes you wonder why not. I haven't seen the original, but I have to assume it isn't as graphic as this one, as there are several scenes that were honestly jaw-dropping. The basic premise is Russell Crowe is a notorious thieving, murdering outlaw, and Christian Bale is just a simple farmer trying to survive a drought. Through circumstance, Crowe is captured, and has to be taken to jail, so the mission is to get him on the train to Yuma prison. Yes, the train comes at 3:10 in the afternoon. Crowe's gang is still on the lose and desperate to get him back, and here lies the problem. They are understaffed, so townsfolk are recruited to guard the prisoner on route to the train station, Bale being one of them. It's really quite good. Crowe is deceptive and ruthless, but he has a side of civility towards Bale, and the pair make an interesting connection. A film about honour, respect and struggle in the face of certain death, this some I highly recommend.

9/10

Film#82 - The Bourne Identity, 2002, dir. Doug Liman

It took me forever to get around to seeing this, and it wasn't what I expected. Anyone who doesn't know, the basic idea is Matt Damon is found floating in the ocean by some sailors, and he has no idea who he is. Interesting, he has the reflexes of a God and seemingly out of control will react to dangerous situations. It's like he's on autopilot and it's working wonders for him. Other than that plot element, it's a fairly typical action movie, but a good one at that. It has everything you'd expect, car chases, gun shoot outs, seemingly superhuman enemies at points as well as hopeless guards who are dispatched just too easily. A love interest to top it off. But still, it went about the whole thing very well.

8/10

Film#83 - Das Weisse Band (The White Ribbon), 2009, dir. Michael Haneke

This film not only looks like it's 70 years old, but it's overall style of filmmaking is reminiscent of something you might be forced to watch in a film course. I would normally have some reluctance getting into those types of films, but this was just enthralling. Set in what I believe to be set in the early 1910's in Germany, the film revolves around a small village. The movie is starts with the town doctor being tripped on his horse by a trap set for him, and he is sent to the next town for treatment. Later on, at the town's annual festival all the cabbage crop is destroyed by an angry townsman. The plot really picks up when the son of the family of nobles (is that a correct thing to say?) is found hung upside down and badly beaten, although still alive. They leave town, and later on another boy is found in a similar situation. No one confesses to this crimes, and suspicions are on high. Meanwhile, there are several stories being told, namely of the town school teacher and his new love interest, the doctor and his family issues, and the town priest and his disobedient children, although by anyone's standards today they would be some of the most disciplined children you've ever seen. The film is narrated at times by the school teacher, in a voice that seems as if he is retelling the story as an old man, while in the film he is in his early thirties. It's interspersed with wide shots of fields of wheat, and with the high contrast of the black and white film, the wheat glows bright white. It's really quite beautiful. In contrast, much of the film is very dark, playing on the lack of electricity of the time. It doesn't even seem like actors in the film. It's stunning. Some key scenes really do stick out, particularly one where a young boy, maybe 4 years old, asks his sister about what death means. Really touching stuff.

9/10

Film#84 - Blue Velvet, 1986, dir. David Lynch

I don't even know what this was. David Lynch, he's a nut job in my opinion. This right here is a film that's 'visual art' and I have to say, in my view of what makes a good movie, this is pretty much terrible. The story is bizarre, but more importantly it's told in such a strange fashion, with characters that seem under-developed while at the same time just so distinct it's difficult to put my finger on whether or not this is actually good acting. There's some intense cursing on the account of Dennis Hopper, who is just out of his mind. Many scenes are very uncomfortable to watch, and make me wonder why it's necessary at all. What point does have a film have if it's just to make you uncomfortable? I'm not sure. I just don't know about this film. I did however watch it all attentively and it never really lost me, which is really it's redeeming quality.

5.5/10

Film#85 - Observe And Report, 2009, dir. Jody Hill

This is another film I just don't know what happened to. I thought this would be a hilarious movie. No no, not at all. I've seen Paul Blart: Mall Cop before and it was terrible. This is pretty much the same movie. The dialogue may be the worst I've ever heard. There is just so much unnecessary swearing, it goes far beyond the shock value of a joke and into a place where it's just an embarrassment. The basic idea really is quite basic: Seth Rogen is a mall security officer and he feels under appreciated. Crazy I know. Where this film really confuses me is what it's trying to be. On one hand, it's marketed as a comedy. On the other hand, Rogen's character is bipolar and it's really just weird. It's like it had the potential to have depth and be a real story but it goes around with these strange scenes where I'm not sure what's funny. There is no comedic timing in this at all; the jokes are told like someone who is trying to be funny but no one in the room is laughing, and they just keep pushing it, getting more and more shocking, but it just gets awkward. I can't stress enough how much this film relies on shock value. I think the film actually sums itself so well when a character who has been eavesdropping comes out and says something like, "I thought this was going to be funny, but it's really just kind of sad."

3/10

Oscar Predictions

So in spirit of the upcoming Academy Awards next sunday, and since I've seen nearly everything nominated in the major categories, I figure I'd make some predictions. These guesses are not always what I think should win, but what I think will win. I've usually been quite wrong in my predictions since I always base it on my personal opinion, rather than the merit of each nominated film. This year I'm putting myself in the shoes of the Academy, trying to imagine what they would think is the best. With that, let's do this thing.

Art Direction - Avatar. Although I though Dr.Parnassus was more original and interesting in it's style, Avatar is an obvious choice here.

Cinematography - Avatar. I would have to say it's all thanks to how 'ground-breaking' this film is, that the cinematography had new obstacles to overcome in order to achieve a unique look in terms of technology. In a more traditional sense of film though, Inglourious Basterds was just beautiful and would be my first choice, however, it's obviously not up to me.

Costume Design - This is one of the categories I haven't seen everything, and this particular one I've only seen three out of five nominees. That being said, some what I saw, Dr.Parnassus was again very original and inventive in it's aesthetic, but The Young Victoria had very elaborate costumes. Of course, Victoria had nothing audiences haven't seen before. I can't really gauge this category because I honestly just don't know what makes a good costume. If I had to guess though, it would be Victoria, Bright Star or Coco Before Chanel, which I've only seen the first of.

Editing - The Hurt Locker. In my mind Inglourious Basterds was perfect. I think the cuts and transitions and literally all editing elements worked so well with the tone of the film, giving such a unique experience. However, I think the Hurt Locker will win. It was beautifully edited, giving just the right pacing throughout the film.

Makeup - Star Trek. Again, another category I can't really judge. If I had to guess though, and I do, I would go with Star Trek. Past winners in this category have been shocking i.e. Norbit, so I think Star Trek has a real chance.

Original Score - Avatar. It's a toss up between Avatar and Sherlock Holmes for me. If I had to pick one, I'd have to side with Avatar due to it's insane popularity.

Original Song - I've only heard two of five songs here, and both songs from Nine and Crazy Heart were nothing special to me, so I can't even guess with this category.

Sound Editing - Inglourious Basterds, simply because of the rapid action sequences with flawless sound continuity throughout.

Sound Mixing - The Hurt Locker, because every scene has so many levels of sound that flow so perfectly together, never disjointed and always with a complete sense of realism.

Visual Effects - Avatar, obviously.

Original Screenplay - Inglourious Basterds. It was honestly like poetry for two and a half hours. Both the dialogue and overall story arc are just incredible. I'll be very sad if this one doesn't win this category.

Adapted Screenplay - Up In The Air. This one gave so much heart-felt dialogue, with such realism yet at the same time everything is so perfectly phrased it's almost unbelievable.

Foreign Film - The White Ribbon. I'm only saying this because, well, it won the Golden Globe, the Palme d'Or, and it's the only one in the category I've seen.

Animated Feature - Up. I wasn't a huge fan, but it was definitely very good. However I'm certain it will win as it's the only of these animated films to be nominated for Best Picture as well, so it's just makes sense for it to be the best of it's type.

Directing - Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker. Of course James Cameron is a front-runner for this award, I think Bigelow created an immensely powerful film that brings so much to today's audiences, as well as incredible social and political implications. She's given the style and tone to a unique take on modern warfare, and deserves to win.

Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz. He took home the Golden Globe, best actor at Cannes, and literally every award across the board. Not only is he the favourite going into this, he really gave such an unbelievable performance that made Inglourious Basterds the film it is.

Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique. This category almost seems disappointing to me. None of the nominees were that incredible in my mind. That is, they all have great performances but no one stood out above the rest. Mo'Nique gives such an ugly performance, intentionally, that it's really the basis for the film. She gave a tone to Precious that I really can't imagine anyone else doing it. For that, I think she will win.

Leading Actress - Sandra Bullock. Yes, she won the Golden Globe. She isn't my favourite in the category though. I'm in favour of Meryl Streep, but she's won enough of these statues. Sandra Bullock was great in The Blind Side, this is true. But my problem is how can an actress be simultaneously be nominated for the Best Actress the same year she is nominated for the Worst Actress by the Golden Raspberries. That complaint aside, I do think she will pick this up. She leads the category.

Lead Actor - Jeff Bridges. I have to say everyone in this category gave a performance that I can't imagine anyone else doing. They were all perfectly cast. Bridges though, he really was something special. I have to think this category comes down to the type of character they all played, and Bad Blake in Crazy Heart was a role written for Bridges (not literally).

Best Picture - Avatar. This was a good movie. The Hurt Locker was better, in my opinion. But, Avatar is a huge accomplishment. We have to remember that Best Picture goes to the producers. Why? Because the production goes far beyond just the shooting that the director takes part in, the editing after, or the writing before. Cameron spent however many years making this thing possible, developing new technologies, getting a massive budget, just an overwhelming amount of work. Not only does it have value in that sense, but also in it's popularity, as well as it's meaning. It has significance on many levels, and that is where this film shines. Yes, the plot is weak, but this isn't the Best Screenplay category. Yes the actors aren't phenomenal, but this isn't an acting category. This is the Best Picture, and Avatar is the most significant to the most number of people. Of course it could win just on the basis that too many people on the Academy have time and money invested in this movie that it not winning would result in too big of a loss financially in DVD sales and all other markets after it's theatrical release. Having that "Best Picture Winner" on the front of the DVD will do immense help for this, and so in a financial sense, Avatar will win. If for some reason the Academy decides to judge based on artistic merit and traditional cinematic values, The Hurt Locker will win. Otherwise, it's Avatar.

I didn't guess for Documentary Feature, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, or Animated Short. Why? I haven't seen any of them.

76-80

Film#76 - Crazy Heart, 2009, dir. Scott Cooper

The premise: we've got Jeff Bridges, who is an aging country star who has faded from the spotlight. He travels to little bars and plays the hits for his diehard fans, who are few and far between. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a local reporter in one of the towns, and yeah, they fall in love. Colin Farrell is his old protege who is a big time success. The plot line was sometimes weak, nothing terribly interesting or anything that hasn't been done before. However, Jeff Bridges is nearly unrecognizable. He plays the role with such conviction, and this is where the (crazy) heart of the film is at. He struggles with the world around him, but this is something where those struggles really are secondary to, I know it's cliche, but the struggle within himself. I have to say it worked. He's torn in every which way and it's just too believable. Colin Farrell even was pretty convincing.

8.5/10

Film#77 - Intolerable Cruelty, 2003, dir. Joel Coen (& Ethan)

I just don't know why this was made. Well, I do know, and it's money. I'm sure in some light this movie is artistic, funny, maybe even deep. However it just came off silly, not unlike Raising Arizona, and it completely overshadows any merit. George Clooney is a divorce lawyer, and Catherine Zeta-Jones is, well, a horrible person. She, along with her group of snooty women, make their living off marrying wealthy men who are somehow obscenely successful and consequently wealthy, yet complete morons. They marry, and divorce for half the goods. I don't even know what to say here, that's the entire plot. Clooney falls for Zeta-Jones, and they have their quirky problems. This is a romantic comedy gone wrong. I'm sure someone will say, "but no, don't you see, they're redefining the genre, poking at it's obscurities and premises; it's genius!" Well, I just don't see it that way. What audience would go to see this thinking that is beyond me. It's a romantic comedy for people who not only have contempt for romantic comedies, but somehow have respect for foolish plots and unreal characters.

5.5/10

Film#78 - The Young Victoria, 2009, dir. Jean-Marc Vallee

I knocked this one off my to-see-for-the-Oscars list and well, I won't be seeing it again. It's got a great look to it, somewhat different from the typical style of films in this time period and setting, and God knows there's only a hundred million of them. Every thing looks great. I believe the people are who they say they are. Even the dialogue rings true while still being playful and edgy. My problem with this film is this: it bored me to no end. Half and hour in and I was wishing for it to end. It's very historical, which it to be expected for something based on actual people. It's political. It's 'romantic'. I put that in quotations because really, I didn't get the romantic vibe past the half way point. When Victoria and Albert are initially flirting and being set up to be together, it's actually quite charming. He's at home learning to dance and memorizing her favourite things, she's being pressured to do this and that, cross-cut with scenes of them meeting for various social occasions and innocent playful interactions ensue. Just lovely. The second half dragged on for me though. They lost that lighthearted relationship in favour of a deeper romantic relationship, as they should, but it just wasn't as enticing.

6/10

Film#79 - Traffic, 2000, dir. Steven Soderbergh

First off, I'm a big fan of multiple narratives intertwining in films. You could even say it's one of my favourite things. This one, yeah, it's phenomenal. Benicio Del Toro like I've never seen him before, but then again I've only seen him in half a dozen or so movies. Still, he's unbelievable. Really everyone is in this is. I can't say anyone's performance was no less than perfect for their character and their role in the grand scheme of things. Even Topher Grace was a perfect choice. I could talk about it's political, social, cultural, and philosophical elements but I'd say just go see it. It's really quite remarkable.

9.5/10

Film#80 - C.R.A.Z.Y., 2005, dir. Jean-Marc Vallee

After my initial disliking to Vallee as discussed earlier, I have to say this just blew me away. For a Canadian production, well, it's amazing. Truly amazing. This is such a perfect film in ever sense. It's beautiful in the way it captures the era and the air of disapproval of homosexuality of the time. But that's not what this is really about. The family in this film, mother and father, and their 5 sons, they may be the most effective portrayal of family life I've ever seen on film. I wouldn't be surprised if they were a real life family. Each main character has such depth that I can't remember the last time I saw something like this. These characters are not written as two dimensional people, set in their ways and serving a purpose to further the plot. No, they are individuals which must have been heavily based on people in Vallee's life to have such complexities to them. The plot is a product of these individuals and the way they work as a unit. It's truly driven by emotional change and development, and Marc-Andre Grondin and father Michel Cote are just inspirational in the way they interact even through their hardships. How this film isn't as globally recognized is something I just cannot even pretend to understand.

10/10

71-75

Film#71 - Collapse, 2009, dir. Chris Smith

So this is my first documentary of the year, and it's really quite something. Unlike anything I've ever seen, this film is one of the most thought-provoking things I've ever seen. The sheer amount of information thrown at you in the hour and a half interview with Michael Ruppert is overwhelming, I felt I should be taking notes. The basic idea is the film is a single interview with this man who basically throws down everything he knows about the upcoming major crisis with oil supplies. He lays out why it's a problem, where we're going and when. He's a little full of himself and his accomplishments, and in some way this film is about the mind of this man rather than what he's actually saying. What he is saying though is absolutely enthralling, just tearing apart why alternate fuel resources won't work, and giving his impression of what the world will be like in 50 years. He paints a drastic change of life for everyone and in some way I think everyone should see this just to get the idea in their head. By no means is the the end-all to researching these problems he talks about, I would even say he just scratches the surface. But what he says has such resonance and tells such a story that aside from it's real world implications, it's straight up entertaining.

8.5/10

Film#72 - Big Fan, 2009, dir. Robert D. Siegel

Take a comedic actor and add in an extraordinary screenwriter, tied up in a dramatic tale and you've pegged this movie. The general idea is Patton Oswalt, who is a comedian by trade, is an obsessive New York Giants fan. Absolutely nuts for these guys. He meets his favourite quarterback and through a 'misunderstanding' gets beat up. Of course this doesn't go unnoticed, and so we have a situation where he's been assaulted by his idol, and is basically given control over whether he goes to jail or not. The plot is fairly unique I would say, but the best part of the film is the way it all plays out. Oswalt's family is such a group of characters that set up an atmosphere that you can't help but feel for Oswalt and his rebellion against their best wishes. Kevin Corrigan plays his best friend, and together the pair are such a naive match made in heaven that makes it all too plausible. Corrigan really startled me with how different he is from his typical roles, although he looks the exact same and is a familiar poor, oddball type character, yet his nervous demeanour really emphasizes how good these actors are outside of their typical roles. But I would have to say the best part of the film is the air of anxiety that runs through the entire thing, for all sorts of different reasons, that just speaks to how real life can be.

8.5/10

Film#73 - What Just Happened, 2008, dir. Barry Levinson

With such a star-studded cast with the likes of Robert De Niro, Bruce Willis, Catherine Keener and Sean Penn, this film isn't really anything spectacular. It's amusing for sure, but such a surface film that I just can't score it that high despite my deep interest in it's subject matter. De Niro is a movie producer, Willis plays himself (who stubbornly refuses to shave his beard, which is honestly a large plot point) and the entire thing is about getting movies made. This isn;t much on the production side but mostly the business surrounding it, and I loved it. But the film lacked any real depth. The characters were reciting lines and it showed. They didn't transform from the people they are in real life into characters, they were all almost just floating along. No one had any real believable passion. Still, it was pretty good as a look at the Hollywood system and poking at real actors and such.

7.5/10

Film#74 - Shutter Island, 2010, dir. Martin Scorsese

I don't know what to say. I had fairly low expectations, well, I thought it would be good but nothing special. I said it before we stepped into that theatre and this film started playing. This film that just would not let up. It was nonstop beauty in every sense. There are so many layers going on it's unbelievable. The cast is beyond phenomenal. The music was insane. It was all so overwhelming. But to get down to it, the trailer did this film no justice at all. DiCaprio plays with such heart it goes into a realm beyond typical acting and truly into playing another person's life, taking on such individuality that despite his star image you see his character above all else. The aesthetics are just too much. Scorsese plays with colour and symmetry in such a phenomenal way I can't even describe it. It's unlike anything else. DiCaprio goes through these dream-like sequences that have such style I don't know how to describe. The film has this level of paranoia and mystery that never lets up, only getting stronger to a point that speaks so deeply that the real emotions it causes are enough on their own to make this movie transcend into a realm of classic cinema. This is the reason I aspire to make movies.

10/10

Film#75 - Sherlock Holmes, 2009, dir. Guy Ritchie

This was strangely good. I guess it slipped my mind that this is a Guy Ritchie film and he's usually at least pretty good, and this is no exception. I must say Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law work together so well, they have such good chemistry and play the characters to a tee. It has this clever delivery of dialogue and a perfect pacing to make it a really enjoyable experience. In fact I can't find much wrong with this at all. The action sequences are well done and often quirky, just how I like it, and are not drawn out for the sake of violence in film. It really isn't what I thought it would be. The story basically picks up just as Watson and Holmes are no longer working together, playing on the fact that most viewers are already aware of what they generally do. The film pokes fun at all sorts of cultural structures and really doesn't ever give up it's wit and charm.

9/10

66-70

Film#66 - The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus, 2009, dir. Terry Gilliam

I just have to say I'm not particularly fond of Terry Gilliam's movies. I often find them to be too overwhelming stylistically in a way that detracts from the story and characters. This movie was a pleasant surprise as I might even go as far as to say I loved it. It still has that definite Gilliam style of camera work, as well as the gritty-yet-friendly atmosphere and the oddball characters that you'd cross the street if you saw them coming in the real world but in a Gilliam film they're somewhat loveable. What I think distinguishes this from my past experiences with Gilliam is that this film is such a cohesive story that plays out beautifully. The cast is honestly just stellar, couldn't have been better. Heath Ledger died during the filming of this movie, so he was replaced by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, and it worked. It worked phenomenally. They all did such a good job it was at times hard to distinguish between the actors. The general idea is a travelling circus sideshow with the likes of Christopher Plummer, Verne Troyer and Lily Cole, stumbles upon Heath hanging under a bridge. They rescue him, and he says he can't remember who he is. As it goes on we get insight not only into the twists and turns of Ledger's character but also the family turmoil between Plummer and Cole. This is all the while Tom Waits (who plays the devil) is on their tails. The Imaginarium is the key attraction to their act; a mirror that you walk into and experience a surreal dream world. Each time LEdger goes into this world, he becomes a different actor. The crazy thing is the first time it happens, when he switches over to being Johnny Depp, I didn't even know until he took off a mask that barely covered half his face. These other actors have taken on the role so well that they now only look remarkably like Ledger but they talk and move like him too. Afterwards I almost felt that Colin Farrell didn't work as well though, since both the actor and the character seemed like more of a douchebag than in the rest of the movie, but it fit. Throughly enjoyable.

9/10

Film#67 - The Lovely Bones, 2009, dir. Peter Jackson

This one has a bit of a heavyweight cast, with the likes of Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon, and it's a real shame the movie had to be so bad in the end. Simply watching the trailer gives you the entire synopsis, as well as the first 5 minutes of the movie. The entire thing is narrated by Suzie Salmon, a 14 year old girl who is killed by her neighbour. I'm not ruining any surprise because she straight out says it to begin the story. We all know who did it, and you can guess he isn't caught by the police. I get the idea that the story is not about the events but rather how they are dealt with by the family. It didn't work. Tucci is decent in it, but I can't help thinking his sinister demeanor is really just because of the unnatural green contacts he's wearing. The story is full of holes, and almost as if in some way to cover them up, little tidbits are thrown in that just end up feeling cheesy. I also had a bit of a problem with how they depicted purgatory, at least what I take to be purgatory. It was honestly a dream come true for this girl, just the absolute happiest place to be. This was the strange part of the film: in the middle of this story of a young girl being murdered (and possibly raped) by a psychotic neighbour, there are these strange happy montages thrown in that seem so out of place and throw off the entire mood the film has been setting. Years down the road from her murder, her mother (Weisz) leaves the family to have some time to herself. The grandmother (Sarandon) comes to hold them together. How does she do that? Oh by having a fun montage of house cleaning and cooking and wacky antics with the kids all the while upbeat 70's music plays. The only thing I actually enjoyed about this movie was the way it played with colour; many aspects of the film play with the familiar navy jacket and orangey pants, giving this wonderful contrasting colour palette. Not only this but certain scenes, such as the walk through the cornfield, have this beautiful shadowy gradient over the section with Stanley Tucci, while in the far distance we can see autumn shades of orange and yellow. However, colour is by no means a redeeming quality, and this film desperately needed some aspect to help it out.

6/10

Film#68 - Nine, 2009, dir. Rob Marshall

I have to say I'm not always sure about how to rate a musical. I've seen many more than I'd like to admit and can't say many musicals have done anything for me. This is where I think this film stood out for me. As opposed to what I may call a typical musical where a scene is set and out of no where music starts and everyone joins in on the song and and dance. It never made sense why those things ever happened. Did the characters then talk about it as if they were singing, or was that just regular for them?

"Oh but didn't you tell me meet you at 5?"

"No I never said that"

"Sure you did, remember, during that spontaneous song with all the kids at school. You remember, I mean we kind of did an organized dance routine together at lunch."

Anyways, this film doesn't do that. Instead, all the music sequences are more or less inside Daniel Day-Lewis' head, as he plays Guido Contini, who is based off of Federico Fellini. The main 'real life' sequence will continue, cut between scenes of Lewis either singing or watching someone perform for him on his unfinished movie set. The general idea is he is looking for his next big movie idea to come to him, particularly from the various women in his life. The problem is he has already signed on to make the movie, and production is well on its way, there just isn't any story or screenplay. So as he goes through his life he finds inspiration, which transform into these musical bits in his head. The way it was done was rather good, and the acting in this film is for the most part phenomenal. Of course I'm a huge Daniel Day-Lewis fan and that man can do no wrong in my eyes, but everyone else was also quite good (minus Nicole Kidman, she was only okay). My problem came from the type of music. There are musicals with catchy songs, 'real' songs, things that can play outside of the context of the film. This one was not really like that. The songs are descriptive of the characters actions, without real choruses or any real hook to them. My next problem was that some sequences seemed unexplained and underdeveloped. I'm aware that this is based off of a play (which is based off of the making of a movie), and that in the production of this film many songs from the play were dropped. I have to believe that all that was absent from this film would have helped bring the story along, and to keep it from being a collection of scenes and instead be more of a solid narrative. We get the just of Day-Lewis' life and struggles, and he gives us a certain level of depth but the narrative is just not there. Nevertheless, this was fairly entertaining despite my hatred of musicals so I have to give it credit.

7.5/10

Film#69 - Boogie Nights, 1997, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

I love Paul Thomas Anderson's movies, well, at least a good portion of them. I also have a huge interest these days in ensemble casts. I don't even know why but for some reason anything with serious development of more than just a few key characters just sits well with me. I've seen this movie before. Actually I've seen half. When I first saw this several years ago I felt it was kind of slow and lacking real plot points. I've since gained a much deeper appreciation for films and particularly things that are about people rather than things. That's not to say this film isn't full of great plot points, but it's very much about the interactions between the characters. This movie isn't about porn, but rather it uses the porn industry as a backdrop for the characters to be developed in a way that's just so unique it can't be ignored. I find one of my favourite parts about this film is that Anderson casts so many of the same actors in his films, namely John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, WIlliam H. Macy and Julianne Moore an they play such different parts. Rather than typecasting these actors he throws them into roles that are so radically different from the others that their performances are just that much better. It's a real push to develop each character as a unique identity within the story. Great film.

9.5/10

Film# 70 - Funny People, 2009, dir. Judd Apatow

I sat down to watch this thinking it was a comedy in the vein of a typical Apatow film. This was more or less not the same. It has some seriously funny moments for sure, but within the first 20 minutes a fairly dreary stage is set, and it becomes more of a serious film about comedians than a comedy. Adam Sandler again proves why he should be taken more seriously than just silly comedies, as he brings such depth to this character it feels just so real. This is not to mention his character is oddly fitting with him in a real world sense, as Sandler is playing a veteran comedian who is known for his silly comedy films. He has a form of leukemia and gets a new lease on life as a result. Sounds typical, but where this film branches off is the way he deals with it while under the public eye, while struggling to find happiness and fulfillment, to have true friends, all the while trying to be the 'funny guy' in the room. He befriends Seth Rogen, who is playing a struggling comedian, and they form a fairly convincing friendship. It goes beyond the surface level and at times hints at a truly caring relationship, but this glimpses are often masked by what I can only think are failed jokes. But this may be all part of the plan of the film, so show the struggle for these characters to cover up the problems of life with comedy and obviously not always being successful. In this sense, Funny People is hard to gauge. I can't be sure what is intended to be funny and what isn't, and it confuses the story. It keeps it from being a good comedy or a good drama, and places it somewhere in the middle where it's unsure of itself almost.

7.5/10