Much More Than A Little Spark

"You're only given a little spark of madness. You mustn't waste it..."

That was Robin Williams, the legendary (an over-used eulogy nowadays but, in this case, oh-so-accurate) comic-actor who sadly passed away August 11th, 2014. 

It's a death that many will mourn for some time, as is testament to the flux of anguish and grief as the news first broke. For once, a celebrity death hoax was much needed, but, alas...

Robin Williams did not commit to a handful of good movies, no, he took part and elevated a plethora of great ones. Throw them in as you will: Good Will Hunting (his well-deserved Oscar), Good Morning, Vietnam, Mrs. Doubtfire, Flubber, Awakenings, One-Hour Photo, Insomnia, The Fisher King, Aladdin, Dead Poets Society, Hook, The World According To Garp, World's Greatest Dad, What Dreams May Come, Jumanji, The Birdcage, and many others, religious to the fact that this man wasn't just a wild, eccentric genius, but also a solemn, calculating and convincing advocate of the trade that regarded him in such esteem.

He began a glittering career as an alien in sit-com Mork and Mindy and developed into a raucously funny comedian with a set of serious acting chops when it was required. He could navigate his way through a film, switching from one persona to another effortlessly, as he displayed so vehemently as airman Adrian Cronauer in Good Morning, Vietnam, a role that distributed the actor's witty, sharp rapid delivery and penchant for comedy alongside his refined, troubled dramatic side. Other films, One-Hour Photo and Insomnia stripped the humour away entirely, proving that Williams could stand up alongside juggernauts such as Pacino and shine bigger and brighter.

There's a time and a place to delve into detail and whatever Williams struggled with, his inner demons, they were sadly left to him and him alone. For now, though, it's time to celebrate and herald a genius, a legend, a captain, my captain.

Amazing, Spider-Man Was Not

You're running a risk of unsettling every film reviewer's wet dream when you release a film with the adjective 'AMAZING' running prominently in the title. Specifically when the movie is a massive blockbuster that is going to garner a number of reviews, a number of divisive reviews, something that Spidey has commanded since Sam Raimi's infamous trilogy.

Many argue that a reboot of Spider-Man wasn't needed, certainly not so soon after Raimi's movies and the reason was simply the fact that Sony's rights to the character are limited and they'll certainly milk it for all its worth before it returns to the Marvel Universe and, dare I say, The Avengers?

No, the movies weren't needed but I take a sullen enjoyment out of different incarnations of the same character and casting Andrew Garfield was a step in the right direction - no offence to Tobey Magure, a decent actor, but his Peter Parker was a crybaby; no one likes a crybaby - and his chemistry with real-life girlfriend Emma Stone (as Gwen Stacy) anchored the first movie and elevated it above its silly comic-book narrative. It works even better with the second, sweeping away the poor, formulaic nature of the movie and its incredibly flimsy portrayal of supervillains.

Jamie Foxx stars as Electro, a man who takes a tumble into a vat of electric eels, wiping away every ounce of human flesh and matter, replacing it with surging electricity. There is no science to it (phew!) and you pretty much take it as is. His primary scene in Times Square is actually very good; it's large in scope but works well, showcasing director Marc Webb's abilities at setting the stage. From then on, however, it's a mad descent into anarchy - not enough time is given to develop Electro and he side-steps from misunderstood sap to Batman and Robin in the space of a couple of scenes.

Then we have Harry Osborne, the Green Goblin. Dane DeHaan is, again, a better casting decision than James Franco was. He has the right look of charm and unhinged ferocity. However, he seems to be succumbing to his genetic illness far too quickly (again, it's lazy writing, convenient plot ordering and given light by the odd line of exposition) - I'm not even going to start on how quickly it took for him to become accustomed to the latest in high-tec weaponry forged by his father's company - again, take it with a large handful of salt.

The movie rumbles on, showdown after showdown (the lack of creativity in the final act is overlooked due to the emotional conclusion of the movie), never really offering anything new or exciting; as a superhero movie, it's remarkably dull - has the trope become a fad after all these years? I doubt it.

No, what elevated the movie to something other than mindless, meandering action is the coming-of-age story hidden beneath the special effects and multi-million dollar shots. Spider-Man is a teenage at heart, a high-school outcast that gets the superpowers and the girl. His relationship with Gwen is here and there at times as he fights with his own warped sense of morality, torturing himself with the promise he made her father in the previous movie - keep away from Gwen, keep her safe. It's an interesting direction and takes a number of turns throughout the movie, culminating in, arguably, the best moment of the movie. Garfield and Stone have incredible chemistry, very much acting like a young couple in love, figuring out their places in the world they occupy, troubled by the extraordinary circumstances. Within that aspect, the movie works quite well, but, ultimately, it's hampered down and bloated by the influx of maniacal villain that don't belong - unfortunately, this is, once again, a movie that has been stuck inside an upside-down glass and I fear that, like Raimi's trilogy, the third film may be the one to kill it off.

The Wolf Of Wall Street

It's hard to look away from Martin Scorsese's cautionary tale of greed, guts and Gecko-esque monologues. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort, a young, hungry stockbroker who, through a series of dodgy dealings, ascends Wall Street, conjuring up a small fortune for himself whilst hastily indulging in a life of hookers and blow. Those who've done their homework will know it's based on the real-life memoirs of the real-life Belfort (who also snags himself a cameo at the end of the movie, introducing DiCaprio at a seminar).

A lot of criticism has been aimed at the movie, the focus straying on how it, potentially, could be seen as glorifying Jordan Belfort's lifestyle and his dirty, aggressive methods. He sure has a lot of fun but I question whether any sane person would opt to live that way. He's got the money, a beautiful wife, a luxurious yacht yet he's never portrayed as a happy person - his bitterness and rage is released towards the end of the film in a shockingly visceral scene as he attempts to remove his daughter from his wife's care, with force. There's no glorifying of any kind there.

Many will draw comparisons with Scorsese's Goodfellas and, in truth, the two travel side-by-side for a considerable length. In both movies, there is little hint of a plot, but a tugging to go one way, as far as bad taste will possibly dictate, before highlighting the spectacular fall from grace. Both sets of characters are criminals, one group are gun-toting and maniacal, the other group pearly-white grins and, also, maniacal. There are no friends on Wall Street, a harsh fact but an understandable truth given the context, particularly in this movie. Jonah Hill takes on the role of Belfort's best friend, Donnie, once again proving that Moneyball was no illusion. He's as unhinged as Belfort and enjoys the lavish lifestyle, replicating as little remorse as possible - there's no time for sentimental reflection here, highlighted by Belfort's gung-ho decision to fight the FBI and continue making money when all good sense demands he step down, cut a deal and live off his millions. Belfort's deranged view: where's the fun in that? And so says Scorsese's audience.

The Wolf Of Wall Street is a good film, perhaps even a great one. Whether or not it'll stand the test of time and deserve utterance amongst the likes of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull remains to be seen. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Scorsese movie that deals in such outrageous set-pieces and situations; it's definitely his funniest film though we're mostly laughing at Belfort, his senseless addictions and his habit of consuming and devastating everything around him. Scorsese deals in mindless excess here and many will raise an eyebrow at the movie's length (two hours, fifty-nine minutes), though it flows well, packed to the brim with twisted entertainment. It could have been condensed but when dealing with such outrageous source material, Scorsese was never liable to toe the line, he jumps head-on and encourages DiCaprio to the do the same (an Oscar with this guy's name on it is waiting down the line, though perhaps not this year), dealing out an unblinking performance, in terms of directing and acting. When the camera could choose to cut away, it doesn't (a trend that's becoming increasingly prevalent nowadays, thankfully), and like it, we, the audience, have the choice to look away but never do.

Whether you like it or not (and it's met a very stubborn disapproval amongst some circles), there is little morality to be found here. DiCaprio's on-screen charisma and hi-jinks are enough to anchor an audience onto his side though it's Scorsese who, after navigating us through a torrid series of depravity, is able to effortlessly remind us of who this man is behind the curtains.

12 Years A Slave

12 Years A Slave starts its harrowing journey by reminding us that the following tale is based on truth. It then proceeds to recount a story of betrayal, violence and utmost survival. It tells of Solomon Northup, a black man living in the northern territories of 1800s USA, a free man, until he is unceremoniously duped, thrown into shackles and sent to work across a series of plantations and cotton fields, turning this antebellum tale on its head.

In terms of narrative, what we have is relatively straightforward, though it begins en media res, an overused but efficient cinematic technique. Solomon's experience gradually wears him down, though, early on, he proclaims he will not wallow in sorrow or fall into despair. He's a remarkably strong character, accentuated by a remarkably strong performance by lead, Chiwetel Ejiofor - you hear that? Oscar bells a-ringing. It's a subtle performance and much of the story relies on the way director Steve McQueen has the camera linger on Northup for an extra 30 seconds or so, letting him do his work as well as lingering, rather uncomfortably (that's the point) on the atrocities committed by the slave-owners and their overseers. A scene late on stands out, but rather than let the audience use their imagination, McQueen allows us to experience it in its entirety, barely any cuts thrown in, one continuous moment of pain, grief and despair.

McQueen has made note of the lack of films depicting slavery in Hollywood (I love it, but I don't think Django Unchained rings the same bitter truths) and he's certainly gone a way to creating the essential entry that others will aspire to and be judged by. This movie has something of a happy ending, maybe bittersweet is more apt, considering what comes before, but it ends assuring the audience that this was an anomaly, a 1 in 1000 lightning strike, a story worth telling. There is no almighty push for the others on the plantation that Northup leaves behind - for many of them, worse off than him with his education and talents, things will only get worse - and we're meant to remember them the most. Aside from Ejiofor, Lupito Nyong'o plays Patsy, a unique slave, shown a warped affection by vicious, drunk slave owner Edwin Epps (McQueen regular Michael Fassbender). Her performance is stunning and captures both sides of the spectrum, a willingness to please, to survive, to do what is required of her as well as a dark turn of hopelessness, beginning Solomon to end her life. The final shot of her desperately trying to cling to him as he leaves for a better life, knowing her own will probably be over soon, packs a punch. 

Aside from all this, there are a fair few solid performances from household names in here - Benedict Cumberbatch continues his launch as benevolent slave owner Ford, an odd character who seems to be living the way a southerner is expected, but with a clear conscience. Fassbender is terrifying and hard as Epps, alternating between a soft-spoken, veiled menace to an explosion of rage, seemingly with ease. Brad Pitt has seen a lot of marketing for this film, the film he's produced, and he has a couple of good, important scenes. He's something of an aberration as well, a white man who calls Epps out on his actions and promises something better for Solomon. It's an important moment as we've got to this point, with Solomon, not knowing who to trust, but like him, we've been through so much that the sheer desperation is all we've got, all he's got. The score chimes in every now and then, representing the movie in its entirety; subtle, but not afraid to pack a punch, always inspirational and morbidly uplifting.

It's a favourite come Oscar season and it brings with it some uncomfortable truths (again, the point) but it's impossible to deny the significance of the film, as well as the technical brilliance and star turns. It's a long film, just over two hours, but it's hard to look away, running down the time with scene after scene, never wasted, never lingering too long in one place, always ready to shock and awe. It's an inspirational story, one that needed to be told, one that, all too sadly, could be considered as relevant today as it was back then. It's a total triumph of cinema and evoking emotion - I doubt many will chatter excitedly as they leave the cinema and many will remain silent as they shuffle out the doors, long after the final credits roll. But, again, that's probably the point.

American Hustle

David O'Russell's had a busy year; fresh off the success of The Silver Linings Playbook, he's back, reunited with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, as well as Christian Bale and Amy Adams (from O'Russell's greatest effort, The Fighter). It's a fantastic cast and each member contributes in their own unique way, adding an element to the film, playing off one another with precision, flair, humour and that surreal slice of Scorsese-ism that, ultimately, makes the film something of a success.

Somewhere around the mid-point of the movie, the moment I realised that the director's selection of tunes was stylishly obvious, I made sure to note how surreal the movie truly was. Essentially, it was all a con, it never really happened - nothing was real. Of course, that's one way of looking at it. With a layered story such as this one, who really knows what was going on - Richie (Cooper) didn't seem to have a clue and I guess we've been planted with him for this one. How long were Irving and Sydney plotting all this? Did it come to them late on or was it always in the works? It's never actually answered though there is one scene which seems to point to the former. Either way, you make your own assumptions - this is not a story, it's a character-piece, like most of O'Russell's films, and he'd have it no other way.

That being said, it does meander this way and that for a large portion of the movie - Sydney and Irving are con-artists, taking advantage of a gullible nation that's looking to make a quick buck until, bam, they're caught by FBI Agent, Richie. He claims he'll provide them with leniency if they aid him to catch four other con-artist. That seems like a plot and a direction, yet, all of a sudden, we're introduced to politician Carmine (Jeremy Renner), who may, or may not, be a shady character - again, it's never really clear. He appears on and off throughout the movie as if the plot depends on it but it's never really that vital - it provides Irving with some form of emotional backdrop, though most of that is provided with his unstable wife, Rosalynn (Lawrence).

Perhaps it's a movie that has to be seen twice to be fully appreciated - my viewing seemed all too brief and for much of it, I was viewing it out of necessity as opposed to desire. It may have altered my viewing somewhat but I expected more. It's quite a good time and, as mentioned, the performances are good fun and though the music was painfully obvious and never really in-keeping with the movie, it added to the flippant tone the movie seemed to employ.

For me, this is your average 7/10 movie - it's not something special and won't be the movie O'Russell is remembered for but it follows a collection of offbeat, unique characters and has fun with it. Though, partly based on a real event, you're never so sure if what you see should be taken seriously. These are criminals after all.

Your Standard Film of 2013 List

What is the greatest movie of 2013? Who really knows, everyone has their own opinion, and that single fact makes the magical world of film one of the very greatest. My list is not comprehensive as my own viewing history this season, this year, hasn't been particularly thorough. A combination of poverty and sloth has contributed to a limited selection of movies so you may have to power through some of these choices with little more than a snicker and a shake of the head. Let's get to it:

Star Trek Into Darkness

Granted, Star Trek Into Darkness is constantly, and probably fairly, branded an incoherent space trip with a significant lack of plot, character and sense. But it's a great time at the cinema, a pure popcorn flick in the way The Avengers succeeded last year (and Batman failed...). Also, Hollywood woke up and noticed more British talent in Benedict Cumberbatch and, as many expected, he stole the show. JJ Abrams is a good director, lens flare aside, so I'm glad he's making this his final Trek film before moving onto another beloved franchise. Here's for 2015...

Captain Phillips

The comeback for Tom Hanks? Not that he really needed it. But, Larry Crowne...

Captain Phillips, based on a real-life story surrounding piracy of the Somalian coast, is a kinetic thriller, directed by Paul Greengrass, anchored by one hell of a leading performance from Hanks. It's practically a lock-in for Best Actor, as most Hanks performances should be. Again, the movie's relentless and, despite its run-time, it's good times.

Pacific Rim

Again, we're following on from Star Trek, Pacific Rim was pure spectacle, but thanks to the name associated with it, Del Toro, it was well-crafted spectacle. I enjoyed it for what it was and, after Pan's Labyrinth, I have a lot of time for Del Toro. I'm sure there's a mass of homage and cultural references that flew right by me, but it's a monster movie done well. Robots too...

Saving Mr Banks

This is a Disney production about Walt Disney - an element of sugar-coating is to be expected and it's what we get. Throwing that aside, we also have a very competent, heart-warming/heart-breaking movie about a two-week period before the ever-loved Mary Poppins was released as a movie. It's amusing, well-paced and amicable - it's not the truth, as has been highlighted in a number of media outlets over the past few weeks, but it's as much truth as an audience needs.

The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug

I was a sucker for the first so the mere fact that the sequel was a hell of a great deal better made it inevitable the movie would make its way onto my list. I love that word - 'popcorn flick' - and the movie lives up to its reputation in every way. Once again, Martin Freeman proves he was impeccably cast as Bilbo and, though most of it focuses on the dwarves, he certainly gets his time to shine, particularly in the key scene towards the end with Smaug - another good year for Cumberbatch.

World War Z

This film makes the list merely because of the surprise factor that it was actually a darn good movie. I was scared, freaked out, on tenterhooks, on the edge of my seat, all of the above. It was rapid and frenzied and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Brad Pitt gives a good performance though, once again, it's something of a popcorn flick, moving from one set-piece to another. It's not high-art, but, on account of my limited cinematic viewings this year, it makes the cut.

Gravity

Gravity is a movie that is expected to be on most lists, a glorious example of spectacle film-making. It's not particularly substantial nor does it fall under Michael Bay's 'style-over-substance' category. It's remarkably beautiful and a lock for Best Cinematography during the awards season. In terms of performances, Sandra Bullock acts out her inner-Tom Hanks, left alone for much of the time despite George Clooney's sporadic space-ramblings. Is it the best movie of the year? Probably.

The Butler

Interesting trivia about The Butler, it was written by the cat who played Jonathan in Buffy The Vampire Slayer. That's not quite enough to push a mass audience towards the movie, that mainly deals with the struggle for civil rights in a torn nation, but it's an entertaining movie which flows freely from era to era, never settling for too long. And I appreciate that.

The Place Beyond The Pines

The narrative is certainly an odd one here, and I wasn't quite expecting it. I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it but it may push both ends of the spectrum. Some may turn off after the opening hour whilst others may stray a bit further. It's ambitious, a flaw to some, but spells out an interesting story on legacy and the sins of our fathers, I don't know, something like that, but it's always intriguing to see a movie that includes a series of events that act as ramifications of previous events. Act and react.

Prisoners

This was a movie that came in from somewhere else, something really unexpected. You look at the cast and you automatically expect something special but it didn't get a triumphant release and, for many, it was a hidden gem. It's a subtle, minimalist story that plays on tension rather than thrills and energetic set-pieces.

A TV Show So Exciting, It Has Its Own Name & Theme Music...

Here we are, once again, blogging about the important things in life. This time around, it's CBS's Stephen King-adapted UNDER THE DOME. Next time, I promise to hark about some serious worldwide issues, such as Rice Krispie Marshmallow Squares: What flavour WILL they come up with next?!

UNDER THE DOME is a show that served as a summer mini-series for CBS. It's adapted from Stephen King's science-fiction novel of the same name and follows a small town and its folk as they become trapped...under a dome. THE Dome. The mother of all domes. Without spoiling anything for those who are leisurely strolling through the first season, it follows the plights of those within as they try to adapt to life...UNDER THE DOME. Bam, there you have it.

I feel it serves up a semi-adequate blog topic due to its surprising RIDICULOUS STORY AND CHARACTERS vs DECEPTIVE POPULARITY correlation. The truth is, the show is not great, has poor, poor, clumsy exposition-filled dialogue and senseless characters. Yet its ratings are good, very good. So good that it's been commissioned for another season. So, and this is the million-pound question, why...?

Audience Love-In
I haven't read King's original novel but I get, from common sense, that it's a lot darker than the TV show. Then again, this is a CBS channel and we're hardly going to see sex, drugs and rock'n'roll on the same network that provides us all with unhealthy dollops of 'Geeks Are Ridiculous & We're Going To Mock 'Em Silly' otherwise known as THE BIG BANG THEORY. So there's that, the show engages with a larger audience, embracing the prudes who turn their noses up at the likes of HBO, FX, Showtime and Walter friggin' White.

Hank Schrader
That being said, it's not short on its badass factor. The town's councilman, Big Jim Rennie (played by Dean Norris aka ASAC Hank Schrader), has evolved from ominously caring father figure to an eyebrow raisingly insane mass-murderer. Rolling off the success of BREAKING BAD, Dean Norris is in demand and his presence in a Stephen King associated sci-fi show will have no doubt brought in a few more viewers. It helps that he's, by far, BY FAR, the best actor on the show, the best character on the show, and the guy who seems most liable to take out everyone else, freeing us of their lunacy.

Brains-Off Approach
There's a lot to be said for those rare breed of TV shows, usually reserved for the cable channels, that engage an audience's mind. UNDER THE DOME isn't one of them, and that's mightily OK. Sometimes, you need a show to spell it out for you because, bluntly put, thinking is overrated and TV is meant to morph our fragile, tiny minds (thanks to the PTC for that one). This show is a gem at presenting subtle mythology in keen and creative ways and then following it up by surgically dissecting it for you in the form of clunky exposition and maddening dialogue. I say go for it - I've stuck with LOST for far too many years and I'm tired of having polar bears and hench, icy donkey wheels running through my mind all day.

Small Town Ambience
A sure-fire way to my heart, the show has this fantastic feel of community. Even better, it's an eerie community. Set apart from the rest of the world, no one can come in or out and everyone deals with their own problems together, as a team, an eerie team...

An element that this show has really nailed is that aspect of being alone in the world, properly detached from anything else resembling civilisation, built-up cities, commercialisation, Starbucks... This, of course, all culminates with Big Jim building his own gallows so he can hang those who do him wrong. Handy.












*Strawberry, I reckon

Hollywood's Uncovered Gems?

There is a rowdy queue of merits associated with the serene art of cinema; perhaps one of the strongest advantages lies in its powerful sense of evocation. For some very privileged people, cinema is able to paint more than just a pretty picture and is fully able to rip into its audience’s soul and juggle with their emotions, their thoughts and feelings. Let me throw some names at you:

Nolan. Tarantino. Spielberg.

Household names; ground-breaking directors who have caused more than a mere stir during their renowned careers and all thanks to one endearing trait; their pure love of cinema. Their contribution has helped make cinema a dominant art form, one which truly caters for everybody with its eclectic style and creative prowess. So it’s really no surprise that the deaths of Tony Scott and Michael Clarke Duncan have packed such a brutal punch.

Tony Scott lived his life in the shadow of his more-critically accepted brother, Ridley (Alien, Blade Runner) yet thankfully, the overwhelmingly positive tributes that have flooded in for the late and certainly great director have focused solely on his aesthetically pleasing body of work. Many will recall the likes of Top Gun, an undoubtedly popular addition to the macho-men volume of Hollywood cinema and far superior to the likes of Charlie Sheen’s Navy SEALS and oh, yes…Iron Eagle.

What Scott lacked in critical backing, he made up for at the box-office. However, unlike film-makers who experience similar critical contrast such as Michael Bay, Scott was a true master of his craft. His ‘on-the-fence’ reviews would usually pin-point a lack of dramatic and narrative resonance (that was attributed so highly to Ridley) yet a picture made to pure perfection. In Poker terms, he was always the Full House opposed to the Royal Flush. His knowledge and dexterous touch as well as sublime craftsmanship were second-to-none and his flicks provided audiences with endless hours of thrills and spills. A truly remarkable, yet severely underrated film-maker.

Michael Clarke Duncan was a unique screen presence. Big Mike stood at 6’ 5” and his muscular frame, imposing stature and deep, booming voice were bizarrely contrasted by his kind, caring nature; or at least that was the way he consistently came across as.

Like many others, the role I’ll always associate him with was that of the (wrongly) convicted child-murderer in Frank Darabont’s The Green Mile. Strongly considered one of the best movies made in the last 20-years or so, The Green Mile was an adaption from Stephen King’s novel of the same name. Duncan portrayed John Coffey (“like the drink, only not spelled the same”), a seemingly uneducated simpleton who had been sentenced to death after being discovered with two dead girls. As the audience learns more about the character in Darabont’s majestic and emotionally charged movie, Duncan himself is a revelation. Never looking like a fish-out-of-water next to co-star Tom Hanks, Duncan was rightly nominated for an Oscar that year for his portrayal which will be remembered for a long time to come.

The point I wish to make is one that rings a beneficial bell in terms of Hollywood. Tributes poured in from all over when the shocking announcements were first made. It quickly became apparent that though neither was considered a household name, both were respected by those who cherish the art of cinema as well as those who perhaps consider themselves casual acquaintances with their local movie theatre. I think it’s a testament to the power of movies and the much-maligned Hollywood that these two figures are being celebrated so much. Scott’s True Romance defined the hyper-stylised and violent movies of the 90s (written by Pulp Fiction’s Tarantino of course) and contemporary film fans hold recent efforts such as Unstoppable starring Chris Pine and Denzel Washington and Man On Fire, again starring Scott-favoured Washington, in such high-esteem.

Duncan also had a varied career; The Green Mile will go down as his magnum opus due to his Oscar nom, but he also starred in many a-blockbuster such as Armageddon, The Whole Nine Yards and Daredevil. He was appreciated by the industry he loved so much and by the fans who flocked to the cinema, even if they couldn’t quite recall his name.

Hollywood is damn-near impossible to break and once you’ve made it, it can knock you back down from whence you came within a matter of seconds. That’s what they say anyway but I believe the likes of Michael Clarke Duncan and Tony Scott oppose that theory. Consistent, efficient, hard-working and reliable; they weren’t stars that shone the brightest and perhaps didn’t always get the recognition they deserved but when it came down to the final haul, both got the rousing send-off they deserved and the industry has suffered a great loss. The beauty of film is that they will always be remembered through their art and cemented within the rich history of cinema forever more.

Tony Scott (21^st June, 1944 – 19^th August, 2012)

Michael Clarke Duncan (10^th December, 1957 – 3^rd September, 2012)

The Dark Knight Rises; Better Later Than Never

There’s little doubt in my mind that by the end of the year, Christopher Nolan’s epic conclusion to his Dark Knight series will be top in box-office takings. I’m not a skilled mathematician in any way, shape or form but I believe if you deduct the extra earnings that The Avengers ripped off took from its 3D advantages (you know, an extra £1.50 for a tainted experience and over-sized glasses), then The Dark Knight Rises comes out on top. I’m sure far cleverer and wiser people than myself will tell you this is not the case though*

*it is.

But it doesn’t matter; at the end of the day people aren’t going to clamber home and divulge their full feelings and thoughts on the movie based on how much money it raked in. The age-old saying about quality and quantity comes into play massively here. Box-office success has never and will never equal critical acclaim – just ask Michael Bay.

Again, it doesn’t matter; no one is going to clamber home at the end of the day and sa—oh, I’ve done this part. Well, forgive my sanctimonious ramblings about film politics. The movie itself is wonderful. It’s a wonderful movie. It’s fantastically ambitious in scope and executed with the deft precision we’ve come to expect from Nolan’s skilled hands. It also brings up an interesting question:

Is it a good Batman movie?

Was The Dark Knight? As far as I’m concerned, Batman Begins represented the character of Batman as I, a comic-book virgin, would expect him to be portrayed. It felt like it jumped right out of the murky pages of a traditionally dark graphic novel with its steam-soaked streets, colourfully off-beat characters and, well…a guy dressed as a bat. Then The Dark Knight came along and, perhaps juiced up by Heath Ledger’s tragic death, the fan-boy community was given a sudden jolt of excitement; anticipation for this movie was sky-high and it delivered on all the right notes. I’m going to shamelessly quote famed movie-critic Roger Ebert on this one because he says it better than most:

“Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy”.

So that’s what Roger says and I agree whole-heartedly. It took Batman to a new level (for me at least) and gave us all a healthy dose of entertainment along the way. In a way it’s raised the bar for what many believe a good Batman movie should be (to be straight, I don’t quite agree with this as I really enjoyed Tim Burton’s gothic-inspired effort in 1989).

The Dark Knight Rises tries so hard to do this again and upon my second viewing, I noted the scope of the film; what Nolan tried to achieve was amazing; an entire city is ripped apart from inside, both politically and socially, and then stapled together precariously whilst awaiting the heart-pounding climax. It’s what Nolan loves to do and though I don’t think he truly achieved the successes he had with The Dark Knight, you have to stand up and applaud the guy. It’s no easy task and I doubt I could do it*

*I couldn’t.

That being said, I’d hardly label the movie a ‘failure’; its undertones and themes are convoluted and many plot-points are far too convenient and far-fetched. I’ve read thousands of plot-holes related to the movie and though I agree many of them raise an eye-brow or two, I would suggest that Nolan’s movies are perhaps slightly more exposed to quizzical wonderings from the online community due to the director’s stature which has truly polarised some as well as captivated others. I admit I’m a big fan; I wrote my University dissertation on the guy and the way in which he’s crossed the boundary between Indie and Mainstream without as much as a scratch on him. He’s a remarkable film-maker and whilst I will never be as arrogant and pompous to label him one of the greats, his contribution to Hollywood has left a significant mark.

Also, stop asking:

“How does Bane eat?”

Did you ever ask how Darth Vader ate? Perhaps he was a big fan of the suffragette era and took to consuming his daily meals through a narrowly worked straw.

I liked Bane. I liked the music (I like to imagine someone following Bane down the street, beating enthusiastically on a pair of drums slung over their chest). I liked Catwoman. I liked her outfit. I liked Michael Caine crying. I liked the special effects. I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt being called *SPOILER* Robin and I liked Bane beating people up with a bike-helmet.

There’s a whole collection of great things to like about this movie, but I think love is perhaps an expression too far.  The movie goes places that it perhaps needs to go but I don’t know how much it sacrifices audience entertainment for; the fight scenes are very well orchestrated with Bane matching Batman for physical strength with interest. Tom Hardy has a good time as the muscular and intimidating figure of Bane and his presence is felt throughout the movie, even when he’s sadly not on screen. Elsewhere, Anne Hathaway shoves her previous critics away with a flawless, confident and humorous performance as Selina Kyle (Catwoman is never once uttered) and her role is used well by Nolan as is the role of John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A lot of characters, a lot of balancing; I admit I was surprised at the lack of Christian Bale as the Batman. He has quite a journey of discovery in this movie and Bale probably puts in his best performance of the trilogy as a Bruce Wayne completely devoid of hope.

By the end you’ll appreciate the action that has unfolded; as always, it’s second-to-none and the urgency of the film’s events is felt throughout. Nolan has his pacing covered and it’s definitely a movie that you could see more than once without feeling like you need to stealthily check the time on your phone.

The story is rather insignificant at the end – I don’t think many will care for the ‘Save The World’ idea that is thrown about rather lethargically towards the beginning of the film and plot-points seem to follow suit, being branded about left, right and centre until dropped completely for the explosive ending. It’s a movie that deserves its plaudits and the money earned but it never quite reaches the heights set by its predecessor perhaps even Whedon’s Avengers, but it’s worth-watching as always and paints a beautiful picture thanks to the sublime efforts of cinematographer Wally Pfister. 

The Avengers

Note: Spoilers assemble…

A Shakespearean God from the realm of Asgard blasts his way through a top-secret facility, using an oddly shaped sceptre to brain-warp those he decides will be of some use in his scheming plans, and steals a bright blue cube of immense energy and power. This bright blue cube of immense energy and power will destroy our entire world if utilised in the incorrect fashion, and that’s all you really need to know in order to enjoy this film, which for a movie with a running time of over two hours, is remarkably fresh and breezy.

The God in question is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), primary antagonist from last year’s comic-caper ‘Thor’, one of several antecedents for the combined delight that is ‘The Avengers’ (or if you’ll humour me, Marvel’s Avengers Assemble’). It all began in 2008 when Robert Downey Jr’s revitalised career mirrored the start of something new, something exciting. The result is a well-tuned, well-acted, exceptionally-scripted blockbuster which has issued a strong, robust, and loud message, not just to its flocking audiences, but to a certain Chris Nolan. “Your move, Mr. Wayne…”

The task of bringing the outlandish egos of Iron Man (Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), and The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) together to form one cohesive narrative has fallen kindly at the feet of cult-hero (and God), Joss Whedon. You’ll have to forgive me at this point; I grew up on a healthy diet of American pop culture, of which Whedon’s Buffy The Vampire Slayer, was a strong contributor, and to this day, I would gladly give up my first born child for this man. I try to avoid inane bias in my reviews, but sometimes there is too great a force, and this is one such occasion. I shall reliably inform you that the man is a genius. An underrated, relentless, wit-tastic genius.

That being said, this movie should not work. It just shouldn’t. There is so much going on at any one moment in time that it’s very hard to comprehend what one character just said before you’re whisked away on another matter. Take the scene aboard the heli-boat-copter for instance; they’re trying to figure Loki out, figure what he wants, what he plans to do etc, then all of a sudden, we’re thrust into a brand new world where S.H.I.E.L.D, led by the one-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), are suddenly the enemies, planning on utilising that bright blue cube of immense energy and power in their favour by constructing weapons of mass destruction. However, Fury isn’t exactly up to date on this plan. I know – confusing, right? It’s a comic book film in every sense, and it’s superior to every other comic book film that has taken to our screens (I don’t include The Dark Knight in this instance as it transcends the genre) and if you don’t walk into the screening with your disbelief well and truly suspended…then what’s the point, may I ask?

Don’t compare this film to The Dark Knight Rises – it’ll be like comparing American Beauty to Pan’s Labyrinth – because these are two differently dexterous directors who have engaged in two differently dexterous styles of film. With The Avengers, you will have fun; sublime fun. There are a lot of explosions, but the on-screen action is directed with aplomb and swiftness – Whedon never forgets his constraints on time and space, and is able to move our attention to where it truly matters, delivering one hell of a final act which is brash, loud, and utterly brilliant.

I could talk forever about the script which is full to the brim with witty one-liners and dripping with banterous dialogue. Fans of Whedon will know how strong a writer he is, and his style has not been diluted by the money-starved executives behind the scenes. The film is really quite hilarious, and one of the only negatives I could come up with for the film is that you may occasionally struggle to hear the dialogue through the raucous laughter sounding out around you.

Take a film like Inception – I know I said not to compare to Nolan, but I’m not comparing styles – it doesn’t utilise all its characters, it fits them into the story well enough, but we never get a true sense of who they are. Why on earth is Ariadne helping out Cobb? What does she stand to gain? Eames? Is he in it for the money? The Avengers’ main strength is its character moments, even the smallest nuance of a smile or gesture – it gets it absolutely spot on, and is what makes the film so enjoyable. A film about characters that will never exist in our world suddenly become so relatable, so easy to connect with, that we root for them to the very end, part with our well-earned money, and eagerly anticipate the inevitable sequel.

I can’t stress enough how good this movie is; for fans of Joss Whedon’s existing works, I’d be stunned if you hadn’t already seen it, and for those who have little idea of who he is, get ready to have your minds completely, whole-heartedly, unequivocally…blown.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is not another Twilight Saga, not in any way, shape, or form. For one thing, the female lead is a strong, resilient character who doesn't lust after the stoic aid of a glitterball 'vampire', nor do her adolescent affections drive the franchise forward.

Based on the first young-adult novel of Suzanne Collins's 2008 best-selling trilogy, The Hunger Games isn't particularly new in concept, but manages to create a wonderfully vibrant pastiche, featuring strong imagery and effective satire of a world obsessed with violence and the impact of reality TV.

For those that have read the novel, many with find the movie, directed by Gary Ross of Seabiscuit fame, to be remarkably faithful, capturing the beauty of the coveted 'Capitol' city, displaying a kaleidoscope of quirky designs, colourful arrangements, and grandiose, towering structures. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the unfaltering brutality of the war-torn nation, which annually watches as 24 children, or 'tributes' (aged 12-18), are flung into a computerised arena and forced to murder each other until just one stands victorious.

For those new to this post-apocalyptic dystopia that Collins has created, the plot revolves around 16yr old Katniss Everdeen (played by the sublime Jennifer Lawrence, channeling every aspect of her Oscar-nominated turn in Winter's Bone), a resident in District 12 of the nation of Panem (a menacing futuristic vision of North America post-war). Each year, the 'Reaping' will take place and one boy and one girl from all 12 Districts will be chosen to compete in that year's Hunger Games. After Katniss's sister, Primrose, is reaped, our heroine takes centre stage, fiercely volunteering in the place of her younger sibling, and she and the male tribute, Peeta (played by Josh Hutcherson, a performance that hits back at his critics) are quickly whisked off to the Capitol to begin their training.

There is nothing bland about The Hunger Games, and each second of screentime is used to great effect, whether it be the scene meticulously depicting Katniss's supreme hunting ability, or the pure, unadulterated joy and intent on the faces of those who reside in the Capitol, free from the terrifying apprehension of the Reaping. Exposition is never spoon-fed; Ross respects the intellect of the audience, efficiently allowing us to piece together his jigsaw by showing us, rather than telling us (for the most part).

The Hunger Games may be taken as a literal understanding that outside the gluttonous Capitol, each District is repressed by poverty and despair, an image certainly fitting to District 12, a place completely devoid of colour, and where food such as bread is a rare and wonderful treat. Though Collins, nor Ross, go into much detail about the Capitol in this outing, its self-degradation from consumerism and over-indulgence in a life of lavish luxuries are hinted at on occasions, painted in the inhabitants' faces, prevalent in their need for mindless entertainment. In a world dominated by Big Brother, artificial thrills are generated from behind the scenes by head gamemaker, Seneca Crane (an ignorant, yet assured, Wes Bentley) and whilst teenagers slaughter each other, those outside the arena view it as nothing but a mere game on which they are able to bet on, invest in competitors, alter the Games to their liking, and care little about mundane topics such as ethics and morality. There is no line to cross here.

Though the novel sticks closely to Katniss (it's written in first person), the film doesn't waste its talented supporting cast, each of whom embrace their role wildly, bringing the words to life with zest, ambition, and strong individuality. Woody Harrelson as District 12 mentor Haymitch is particularly memorable, playing his character with slightly more warmth and humour than his literary counterpart, but his affection for Katniss when he recognises her ability and her gutsy intent is never downplayed. Elsewhere, Elizabeth Banks is blissfully unaware and bubbly as Capitol appointed District 12 representative, Effie Trinkett. Lenny Kravitz is the kind-hearted stylist, Cinna, whose goal is to help Katniss in making an 'impression', and Donald Sutherland shows hints of his ruthless leadership as the nation's leader, President Snow, a role that, as the final scene suggests, will loom larger in the following films.

The Hunger Games is an intense affair, dominated by raw emotion and brutal action. The violence is toned down through quick-fire cuts and editing, perhaps to accommodate a larger audience, but the movie is resoundingly bloody, particularly the first scene inside the arena where blades, swords, knives and arrows are wielded, culminating in disturbing shots of lifeless children lying bloodied and battered whilst others rush around, no time to think about what's right and what's wrong. It caters to those going in fresh-minded and will satisfy those with high expectations. It's a film unlike any other, and though it borrows heavily from other works, it's a postmodern success, kept fresh by creatively minded architects, bright performances, and dazzling displays of refined popcorn-entertainment. A must see.

The 84th Academy Awards

And so it comes to that grand old time again -- the Oscars. The biggest awards ceremony on the planet, and by far the most watched. Even with dwindling ratings, millions of people across the globe tune in to catch a glimpse of their A-list idols, and see who snags the biggest of big prizes.

2012 sees the return of Billy Crystal, back to resume his love-affair with the Academy and show James Franco and Anne Hathaway how it's done.

In terms of nominations, Martin Scorsese's Hugo leads the way with 11 nominations, but I think the more prestigious categories may elude Marty this time around.

So here's my rundown of the main events -- these are purely my opinions so don't criticise or belittle me in any way, shape, or form.


Oh, and one one more note -- I haven't got around to seeing The Help yet -- nothing against them, I just haven't done it yet. Soon. Soon....


Best Picture

The Artist
The little black and white picture that has taken the world by storm. Is this film a serious contender? Yes, and not just because it features a strong yearning for a classical period of Hollywood. It's a great story, featuring strong performances, reminiscent of a golden era, and is smartly told, beautifully orchestrated, and never loses focus or interest. I'd encourage you all to see it -- dialogue is not necessary, and it's easily the best film of last year. Except for maybe Rango...

Chances of Winning?: Bang on the money.


The Descendants
Featuring the performance of Clooney's career, this little gem stands a real chance. Its complex subject matter is simplified through its recurring theme of family, and what that means to those involved. Everything is put firmly in place with effortless style and significance, and the movie hits the audience hard, tugs at their emotions and is a charmingly smart, funny, and heart-wrenching tale.

Chances of Winning?: Very good. Strong contender.


Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close
Again, this is my opinion, and clearly the Academy disagree with me. But this movie should not have been nominated. Yes, it has Tom Hanks, and it deals with 9/11 in some capacity, and therefore, feels like Oscar fodder, but it's rubbish. It's insanely dull, features an incredibly irritating protagonist, and doesn't seem to reach any discernible conclusion (for me) -- it's place should have been taken by Drive or even We Need To Talk Above Kevin. Both are superior in every aspect, and this film severely falters in comparison to the names it's listed with. And I hated that fucking tambourine. Still...Tom Hanks ftw.

Chances of Winning?: Lol.


The Help
My girlfriend thought it looked good. She didn't like Real Steel though...(or E.T.).








Hugo
Real movie magic. That's what Hugo has to offer. Created by a man with an obscene amount of love for the art, and featuring a story about the birth of cinema, it almost can't go wrong. Fortunately, Scorsese is well-equipped for his first foray into 3-D, and makes efficient use of the format, providing the audience with a world in which they are able to fully immerse themselves, and get lost, along with Hugo, in the intricate mazes of Scorsese's beautiful tale.

Chances of Winning?: Good. Perhaps in the shadows of The Artist/The Descendants.


Midnight In Paris
From one love letter to another. Midnight In Paris is a top return to form for Woody Allen who has noticeably struggled recently. He's back on path with this latest offering, a dainty and sweet depiction of Paris through the eyes of an American Romantic. It's a remarkable feel-good movie (even for someone like me, who bloody hates Paris) and will leave all with a smile on their face and a distant wish to visit the Eiffel Tower in the near future. Plus...Marion Cotillard.

Chances of Winning?: Very meh. Possible, but would be punching above its weight.


Moneyball
Penned by Aaron Sorkin, fresh off his 'Social Network' success, this film is snappy, succinct, and gripping. As traditionally expected with most sports films, it features an underdog tale, but like its main characters, it does it with style and an unexpected method, working with statistics rather than rousing music and last-gasp victories. Pitt proves his acting credentials once again for any of those niggling doubters, and the movie fully deserves its place among the best of last year.

Chances of Winning?: No, not really, but a great film nonetheless.


The Tree Of Life
Perhaps the most polarising film of last year. A traditional marmite situation; you either loved it, or you hated it. I, unfortunately, dislike it immensely. That's down to personal taste. What I can't deny though, is its beauty. It features some truly stunning shots and the 'creation of the universe' segment will grip you entirely. Brad Pitt, yes him again, is in top form, and the coming-of-age story is well told, paced, and intriguing. Sean Penn, however....

Chances of Winning?: Perhaps TOO polarising. It's a darkhorse.


War Horse
When people ask about Spielberg's greatest film, expect responses like 'Jurassic Park', 'Schindler's List', 'E.T.' -- timeless classics. Can I say the same for War Horse? Probably not. It has great beauty, and stunning shots (the full-on pelt through the trenches), but I don't think it has the winning formula employed so successfully by Spielberg on other films. It's slightly uneven at times, and ever so contrived, but it has emotion, a plethora of good performances, and all the foreigners have the decency to speak in English.

Chances of Winning?: Doubt it, but the Academy does love Spielberg.



Best Director

Woody Allen -- Midnight In Paris

Has whipped back into form with this latest picture, creating a world which worships culture seemingly with ease. Well constructed, and deftly directed, it's great to see him nominated again. He doesn't actually show up to the Oscars nowadays though, but will perhaps be coerced this year.

Chances of Winning?: I'd love to see him up there, but this won't be his second Directing win.


Michel Hazanavicius -- The Artist

Very little known about this guy before The Artist (at least for me anyway), but he's made himself known with this daringly creative picture. Stretching back the years, and channeling a forgotten era into modern day Hollywood, Hazanavicius has achieved something quite remarkable here.

Chances of Winning?: The Oscar is his.




Terrence Malick -- The Tree Of Life

I'm not great with Malick's movies -- I've seen two of them, and neither completely gripped me; but it's clear he has a strong affinity for cinema and the way it appears on screen. The sheer beauty of Tree Of Life may be interpreted as pretentious by some, but I don't think that's what he was going for, and his achievements with this film should be commended. It's the most beautifully visual film of last year.

Chances of Winning?: Unlikely, but remains a dark horse, akin to his movie.


Alexander Payne -- The Descendants

Payne is hardly a household name, but take a gander at his track record, and you'll realise how hugely talented this guy is. Following on from his successful Sideways, The Descendants is a remarkably ambitious film which is made to look effortless (in a good way) by the sheer skill which the director demonstrates in manipulating events so very delicately in order to tell his story. He's rewarded by a host of great performances, but he keeps the story tight and compact throughout and stands a real good chance of winning.

Chances of Winning?: Second favourite behind Hazanavicius.


Martin Scorsese -- Hugo

The winner of the Golden Globe for Best Directing, and easy to see why. One of the greatest movie directors in history, Scorsese creates a love letter to cinema in a similar vein to Hazanavicius, but blends old and new with his venture into 3-D. It has a wondrous effect, and it's a world unlike any other. It's a film which no one can really dislike, and an effort that may find more fans among the Academy than some of his grittier features.

Chances of Winning?: The dark horse.



Best Actor In A Leading Role

Demián Bichir for A Better Life as Carlos Galindo

I haven't seen all of A Better Life. Not that it was boring or anything, I just wasn't in the right frame of mind, and will get back to it ASAP. What I did see what quite captivating though -- and Bichir, popping so suddenly into our lives, has done well to put himself on the radar with a performance that oozes desperation. Though I don't know how it ends, he shows himself as a lowly immigrant gardener, struggling with American life, and does it with so much conviction, that I can imagine it was hard for the Academy to overlook him.

Chances of Winning?: No, Dujardin has this one.


George Clooney for The Descendants as Matt King

Guy's having a good year -- having recently made the transition from acting to directing, Clooney has also had a busy year, directing films like The Ides Of March. The Descendants sees him at his very best though, and conveying a host of emotions, he manages to juggle the aspects of drama and humour with relative easy, proving once again how talented an actor he is.

Chances of Winning?: Good. Probably a two-horse race between him and Dujardin.


Jean Dujardin for The Artist as George Valentin

Have you seen this guy off-camera? He's arguably the most charming bloke like EVER. He made a Benny Hill crack at the BAFTAs which was a hoot. Had the audience in the palm of his hands. It's almost a shame he wasn't born in the 1900s, because he is made for silent movies. He has a range of expressions and gestures, which are fittingly apt for silence. He also has an incredibly strong french accent, which is used to amusing effect towards the end (watch the movie). He channels figures such as Douglas Fairbanks in this performance, and it's refreshing to watch. There are no negatives in his performance.

Chances of Winning?: The favourite. Deservedly so.


Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as George Smiley

It's pretty great to see Gary Oldman nominated for his first Oscar. It's long overdue, and though he won't win it, it's probably a great honour to have his marvelous work recognised by his peers. His work in Tinker Tailor is relatively simple it seems, but this is down to Oldman's precarious approach to the role, his effortless ease at moving around the camera, and essentially becoming one with the misty canvas (fuck knows what I'm talking about, but there's a real meaning in there somewhere) -- it's a brilliant performance in a brilliant film.

Chances of Winning?: Not much. But hooray for England.


Brad Pitt for Moneyball as Billy Beane

I hear a lot of crap about Brad Pitt from some people. In a nutshell, 'he's a pretty boy who can't act' seems to just about cover it. This is, of course, bullshit. Though he hasn't had a lot of success in winning awards outside the usual MTV Movie Awards arena, he's been nominated for an Oscar 3 times now, accompanied by a host of other big nominations. Whilst this won't be third time lucky, you just have to watch the film to see how he gives such a zest to the script, and brings the film to life in an entertaining way. I really enjoyed the film and its subject, and he deserves his nomination.

Chances of Winning?: Naaaah.



Best Actress In A Leading Role

Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs as Albert Nobbs

She plays a dude.

I hadn't heard anything about this movie until the Oscars. She won't win. But it's nice to see her nominated for a movie -- as far as I know, she's been playing around on TV shows for the last few years. Damages any good?

Chances of Winning?: Albert No.... (not my best)





Viola Davis for The Help as Aibileen Clark

She won the SAG award, which is usually a great indicator, so damn, I don't know. This category seems wide open. Although she was also in Extremely Loud...







Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as Lisbeth Salander

Never have I seen an actress commit so much to a film role. Total transformation here. Forget Black Swan, this was quite a horrific turn from Rooney Mara, who was featured ever so slightly in Fincher's 'Social Network' in 2010. She doesn't 'make the film', because it works on so many levels, but she is captivating, unafraid, and really fuckin' odd. Mara gives it her all, and succeeds in every aspect. She is deserving of her nomination, and in the group she's in, I'd personally give her the award, but for some inane reason....I'm not in charge of Hollywood. One day...

Chances of Winning?: No. The Academy hates Fincher and goth sex...


Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady as Margaret Thatcher

Haven't seen the film. Have no intention of seeing it, so I shall instead talk about Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice....

She was well good.

Chances of Winning?: Probably. Everyone loves her, and she's a mighty fine actress.




Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn as Marilyn Monroe

I wasn't exactly around at the time of Marilyn Monroe, but from what I've gathered, she was the kinda' woman that you fell in love with...just like 'that'. So, I assume Michelle Williams had quite a difficult job on her hands. But fuck it, I fell in love with her, so success in my book. What she does is exceedingly good; she portrays a Hollywood icon as an almost stereotype, but because it invokes such a strong sense of nostalgia, it works, and she's my choice of winner (even though I've said that twice...).

Chance of Winning?: I hope so.




Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn as Laurence Olivier

Acting royalty in this film. His job is to make his presence known and everything he does he does with sublime character. Again, I know little about Laurence Olivier, but I know a great performance when I see one, and it takes quite something to stand your own against Marilyn Monroe. Maybe not a winner this time, but yay for England again...

Chances of Winning?: Sadly not.




Jonah Hill for Moneyball as Peter Brand

Whilst I'm fully behind Brad Pitt's nomination, Jonah Hill's nod was a slight surprise. Not to say he's not deserving, because I think he was great. It's just the last time most people saw him in a movie, he was crudely declaring to Michael Cera his intentions of fucking Emma Stone. Now he's being nommed for Oscars. Good for him. His performance was great; he was ever so slightly awkward. A genius. He grew into his role well, and was never over-the-top or sentimentally mundane. G'wan, Jonah!

Chances of Winning?: He's going home empty-handed. Unless he turns up with a girlfriend/wife...


Nick Nolte for Warrior as Paddy Conlon

I think Warrior was an underrated film. If Extremely Loud... was nominated, then I'd like to think Warrior should have been too...

Well maybe not, but it was still a lot better. And Nick Nolte delivers a performance that only he could. A drunk, wreck of a man... -- that's harsh, he's trying to recover, but when he's pushed, he goes through a dramatic change and it really twangs at the heart-strings. It's an amazingly powerful movie and performance. Definitely worth watching, and well worthy of the nomination.

Chances of Winning?: Nah. This category has an easy winner.


Christopher Plummer for Beginners as Hal Fields

The easy winner. He's picked up all the awards so far, and for bloody good reason. He's incredibly funny as the gay elderly man, dying of cancer. It's a film that a lot of people haven't seen, but has a truly unique feel to it, so I implore y'all to see it. Christopher Plummer (who you should all know) has been around a while, but never won an Oscar. This will be his first time, and after throwing himself into the deep end in such an amusing, yet emotional way....well deserved.

Chances of Winning?: YEEEEESSSSSSS (Imagine Michael McIntyre screaming that)


Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as The Renter
Urgh. I like this guy as an actor -- I think he's wonderfully...weird. But I can't get behind anything representing this movie. I think I don't like him because he genuinely thought it'd be a good idea to follow this kid around the city, even if he was his (SPOILER) grandfather. Blah blah blah.

Chances of Winning?: No. Albert Brooks should be here. GROSS MISCONDUCT.





Best Supporting Actress

Bérénice Bejo for The Artist as Peppy Miller

Similar to Dujardin, she carries a lot of charm and grace with her throughout the movie, and I don't really get why she's Best Supporting Actress when she was very much the main actress in the film...I think. Either way, she stands a real chance, as I don't think there was too much difference in performance levels between her and Dujardin. She is as beautiful as she is talented, and never looked out of depth.

Chances of Winning?: Very good, I reckon


Jessica Chastain for The Help as Celia Foote
Again. Haven't seen. YET.











Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids as Megan Price

Ha, what a great nomination. I'm surprised the Academy went with this as it doesn't seem their style. I guess it would have been prudent to award the year's funniest film in some way. Best Supporting Actress seemed a safe option, and so we have Melissa McCarthy. She got more laughs than Zach Galifiniakaiskis did in both Hangover films and was unashamedly brilliant. She won't win -- the Academy wouldn't let it get that far, but it's a testament to the film's popularity and success that she was nominated for a hilarious performance.

Chances of Winning?: I severely doubt it.


Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs as Hubert Page

See Glenn Close.

Good for her though.

Chances of Winning?: Nope.





Octavia Spencer for The Help as Minny Jackson

The favourite in the category, and I back her to win it.









I'mma put the predicted winners in BOLD.




Best Writing -- Original

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

As nice as it would be to see Midnight In Paris pick this one up, The Artist will win. Those who complain that it doesn't have any dialogue need to learn a thing or two about scripts. It's not all about the dialogue (if you've seen Drive, you'll know that).


Best Writing -- Adapted

The Descendants – Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash from The Descendants by Kaui Hart Hemmings
Hugo – John Logan from The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick
The Ides of March – George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon from Farragut North by Beau Willimon
Moneyball – Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin; Story by Stan Chervin from Moneyball by Michael Lewis
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré

Christ -- any of them could pick this one up. I'm going for The Descendants because I think it's the most appealing of the lot, and probably the smartest.

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris – Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico and Rita – Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 – Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Puss in Boots – Chris Miller
Rango – Gore Verbinski

If Rango doesn't win, I'll pack up, move to Hollywood, and kick some serious Academy ass.

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead (Belgium) in Dutch and French – Michaël R. Roskam
Footnote (Israel) in Hebrew – Joseph Cedar
In Darkness (Poland) in Polish – Agnieszka Holland
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada) in French – Philippe Falardeau
A Separation (Iran) in Persian – Asghar Farhadi

People be loving it. Haven't seen it myself, but I will check it out soon-ish. Maybe you should too.


The other nominations are a mixed bag. Anything that sees fit to nominate Transformers 3 for an Award is barely worth thinking about. Expect Hugo to really ramp up the technical awards though.

For those interested, the Academy Awards will be on UK TV on Sunday night. Sky Premiere and E! Entertainment will be hosting.


Should be a good 'un.