Reviews by Matt

It has been 10 years since the first “X-Men” movie. Take a moment and let that sink in. Maybe that means more to me than it does to you, but it means that the comic book frenzy has gone on for the better part of a decade. It is not going to stop anytime soon. There are a lot more coming out, some recent movies, like 2002’s “Spider-man,” are being rebooted. As long as they keep making money, studios will keep making them.

Now we have “X-Men: First Class.” It is not a reboot of the franchise, but a prequel to the events of “X-Men.” The focus of the movie is on the relationship between Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) who will one day become Professor X and Magento, two rivals with a great amount of respect for one another. They are brought together in order to stop Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) a mutant who absorbs energy and wants to start World War 3 by getting the United States and Russia to go to war.

McAvory and Fassbender are the heart of this movie. Stripped down it is about the relationship between the future Professor X and Magneto. The audience (presumably) knows what the future holds for these two and that makes it all the more powerful to watch these two become friends and work together. Both McAvoy and Fassbender deliver amazing performances and prove why they should and will be bigger stars.

I do have some problems with the movie, despite how much I loved it. Jennifer Lawrence, who plays a young Mystique, is wasted. Her character is given nothing to do. I am still excited to see her in “The Hunger Games,” but this did nothing to help. She is basically reduced to saying the line “Mutant and proud” a lot. She did a fine job with what she was given, but someone with her talent should have had more to work with.

The other problem I have is that the other mutants were not that exciting or interesting. They were basically glorified background characters. There was so little development of them that I could not care about them. Since the focus was on Xavier and Eric, these characters who suffered. During the final big battle, I was more invested in what was happening with Charles and Eric than with the other members of the team. I had a hard time caring about their fates. No tears would have been shed if they were killed or sacrificed for the greater good.

The action scenes were pretty good, but they were few and far between. This is really a character piece masquerading as a comic book movie. I can understand why some people would not like it, but I loved it. I was a bit worried about it, but it delivered.

Just a quick note before I end this review. This movie has the best use of the one f-word rule in any PG-13 movie ever. To say more than that would spoil something awesome.

I look forward to seeing this story continue. Seeing super hero movies as period pieces is an interesting idea (look for another one this summer with “Capitan America”). This movie breaths new life into a tired franchise and the potential is there for some great stories.

9 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some sexual content including brief partial nudity and language.
132 min

Working at a summer camp means that I spend a lot of time around kids during the summer (Not exactly a shocking statement, I know). I can also count on one summer movie for the kids to be quoting (or in some cases singing) parts of the movie. This summer that honor falls to “Kung Fu Panda 2.”

Po (Jack Black) has become the Dragon Warrior and along with the furious five, protect The Valley of Peace. When Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) looks to wipe out kung fu, Po and his friends fight back. Along the way, Po learns the secret of his past.

I was not a huge fan of the first movie. It is a good movie, but my general dislike of Jack Black, tainted my view of the first movie. That being said, I really liked this one. It was funny, action packed and had a pretty strong story to back it up.

Jack Black basically plays the same character in every movie: a goofy schlub. In this case, it works. Po is kind of a klutz and uses humor to cover for insecurities-basically Jack Black. In this movie he has taken on the role of Dragon Warrior and mastered kung fu. The important thing in a sequel is character development (I’m looking at you all sequels to “Pirates of the Caribbean”). Po grows through the revelation of where he comes from. We find out about his family and how he ended up being raised by a duck.

There are some great action scenes in this movie. I did not see this in 3-D, but I would have purely because of those scenes. In animation there is a lot that can be done that cannot be done in a traditional action movie. There is one scene where Po and the Furious Five run up a building as it is falling down. You won’t see that in any other summer blockbuster.

Is this better than any of the Pixar movies? It might beat “Cars,” but it does not reach “The Incredibles.” Still, on its own, the movie is really good. I had only a passing interest in seeing the movie, but it as well worth paying for. With this and “How To Train Your Dragon,” Dreamworks Animation is showing that they can reach Pixar level of awesomeness if they keep trying.

8 out of 10
90 min
PG for sequences of martial arts action and mild violence.

Here’s the thing about the first “Pirates of the Caribbean,” it was a surprise. No one saw it coming. At the time it was seen as a movie based on a ride at Disney. Then it came out and was awesome. It was a legitimately good movie, not just fun summer fair. It was funny and had all the swashbuckling action you could ask for. It was, basically, the best type of summer movie. Then the sequels happened. They were a bloated mess where the director, cast and crew were trying way to hard to get back the magic of the first movie. They failed miserably. Yet, they made billions and that brings us to “Pirates of the Caribbean on Strangers Tides.”

This time Capitan Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is looking for the Fountain of Youth. Along the way we meet old faces, like Barbossa (Geffory Rush) and new ones, like Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz).

Either I am getting better at writing synopsis or movies are getting dumber—maybe both.

The thing with having a huge hit like “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” is that it was a fluke. It became a hit by accident and all of a sudden, Disney had a goldmine. What do they do for the sequels? Add more. More action, more adventure, more Jack Sparrow. That was really it. The story did not get better, it just got more. The same can sort of be said of the new installment. It felt smaller in some respect, but there was still more of what the other movies had.

This was not as epic as the previous two movies. It did not have as many huge action set pieces scattered throughout the movie. Unlike the two movies preceding it, followed a (semi)logical path and was a heck of a lot easier to follow. Still, it was just not that enjoyable. I have do desire to rush out to see it again.

It was just more of the same. Even with a change in director (Rob Marshall), it was too much like the others. It was as of no one was really trying. Even Depp, who is great in the role, was just going through the motions. Nothing changes; all the characters stay exactly the same.

I wanted to like this. I love the first one and hate the second two. When I saw the previews for this one, I was hopeful. This was a chance to start anew and it was simply a retread of the first three, but this time with mermaids.

5 out of 10
PG-13 for intense sequences of action/adventure violence, some frightening images, sensuality and innuendo.
136 minutes

Yesterday (May 23, 2011), marked one year since “The End” aired. It has been 365 days since the final episode of “Lost,” a fact I had no idea about until late in the day. Interestingly enough though, I recently had a revelation about the end of the show and why some people hated it. I have heard a lot in the past year about how bad the ending was, but I loved it. I knew going in that there would still be some lingering questions. I thought the ending they chose was the perfect way to end the series.

The main bone of contention is that there are questions that were not answered. These people were watching a different show than I was. Yes, things were not answered, but to me, the show was never about knowing everything there was to know. I loved those questions and I spent hours upon hours online looking at theories and talking through my own with my friends. Despite the endless hours I spent on the mysteries of the island, that is not what defined my enjoyment of the show.

The survivors of the crash of Oceanic 815 were what the show was really about. If you look at season one, it focused heavily on who these people were. All the flashbacks were there to fill in the background information that helped define the character. The show was the characters’ experience on the island—not the viewer’s experience—on the island. Leading up to the finale, I heard executive producers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, say that they would answer a question if it was important to the characters. That right there tells you everything you need to know about the show. The questions, while fun, were not the driving force behind the show.

That is why I loved the ending. It was not about knowing everything there is to know about the island, DHARMA, and all those strange things we saw in six seasons. It was always going to be about the people we were watching. Strong, good characters beat out mysteries any day of the week. To those who hated the ending and saw it as a waste of six years of their lives, think back really hard to season one and tell me if the show was about an island or the survivors of a plane crash?

Well, the summer movie season is upon us. There will be a big name release every week for the next four months. A few weeks ago the summer opened with “Thor,” the latest in a very long line of comic book movies. It is also the first of at least four comic book movies opening this summer.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the arrogant son of Oden (Anthony Hopkins) is the god of thunder. With his mighty hammer he is unstoppable and that combined with his arrogance leads to him reigniting a war with the Ice Giants, a race his father beat a long time ago. As punishment Oden strips him of hammer and banishes Thor to Earth. As he casts out his son, Oden sends the hammer to Earth as well with the words “Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.” The hammer crashes to earth and no one can pull it from where it landed. When Thor lands on earth, he encounters Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist studying unusual phenomena in a small town. Thor is forced to change his ways and learn to live on Earth if he ever hopes to wield the hammer every again.

Chris Hemsworth, was actually pretty good as Thor. He was really funny as well as great in the action scenes. As much as I do not want to say it because it is super cliché, but this is a classic fish out of water story. We spend the first part of the movie seeing Thor in Asgard where he is at home and has power. When he is thrown out he has lost his power and is in a place where everything is different. This is where much of the comedy comes from. There were moments where it could have been too much, but Hemsworth is able to pull of these moments and make them genuinely funny.

Despite winning an Oscar, Natalie Portman was out of place in the movie. I was really not convinced with her performance. I understand her purpose in the movie. She has to be there to make the end of the movie more powerful, but her role never amounts to anything more than that.

I was worried going into this movie that it was not going to be good. There is a lot riding on this movie. If this movie or “Captain America: The First Avenger” fail, “The Avengers” fails as well. Since Joss Whedon is writing and directing “Avengers,” I want to see the movie succeed. I hope that “Captain America” is as good (if not better) because I have a lot emotionally invested in how these movies do. That being said, there is a lot to like about this movie, it is fun, action packed and funnier than I thought.

8 out of 10
115 min
Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence

When it comes to writing reviews, I need a starting point, that one thing in the movie that sways me one way or the other. In any movie this could be the acting, a certain scene or some aspect of the movie that helps to shape the review. In the past few months, I have been jotting down my thoughts in a notebook so that I have something to refer to when I write reviews. The page for “Hanna” is blank because I could not come up with why.

When she was young, Hanna’s (Saoirse Ronan) father Erik (Eric Bana) took her away to protect her. He raised her to be an assassin and taught her the skills she would need to survive. Marissa (Cate Blanchett) and others at the CIA will do whatever it takes to get Hanna and Erik.

If I need a jumping off point to get the review done, then the action is as good a place to start as any. There were some pretty intense action scenes in the movie. Hanna is a trained assassin. She has been working all her life to gain these skills in order to survive, whether that is hunting for food or evading and killing CIA agents who are after her.

Hanna is an interesting character and Saoirse Ronan plays her with a hint of innocence, which is tough when the character is a killer. She is cold and calculating. Her childhood was made up of training, so her social skills are lacking. At one point, Hanna meets a girl her own age and the two form a sort of friendship. Hanna, the killer, is seen as Hanna, the () year-old girl.

Neither the action nor the character of Hanna helped me form a coherent opinion about the movie. It is frustrating for me to sit here and not be able to explain why I liked it. The action was cool, but not outstanding and the character of Hanna was interesting, but the performance was not mind blowing. I should give this movie a 5, because looking at the review, I thought it was “good not great.” There is something about the movie that I really enjoyed. The time flew by and I was toughly engaged, but I just cannot figure out exactly what it was. My hope is that when I rewatch the movie I will be able to see what it is I missed. If I can figure it out, I will let you know.

8 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sexual material and language.
111min

Two posts below this one is a movie that had a cool concept and failed to live up to that concept. Now we have another movie where the concept is what put my butt in the theater more so than the actors or director. This time though, I went in expecting one movie and got a completely different one.

One day Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up to find himself in another man’s body. He is on a train sitting across from Christina (Michelle Monaghan). As he tries to make sense of what is happening, the train blows up. Suddenly he is in what appears to be a capsule. Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) appears on screen and tells him that he is part of a program that is trying to stop a series of terrorist attacks by entering the mind of a man who died in the first attack that morning. Think “Groundhog Day” with terrorists.

The movie was actually pretty good. In this case the concept and the story work well together. The plot was not bogged down with the concept. It is not a love story more than it is a science fiction or crime story. It is well told, well acted and over all a worth a trip to the theater.

If you have not seen the movie, do not read any further because spoilers will follow.

My problem with the movie is the very end. In the end, as expected, Stevens finds the bomber and is able to stop the bomb from going off, therefore thwarting the future attacks. After he stops the bomb, he asks to go back in one more time. He makes it a perfect ending. He and Christina end up kissing and the rest of the train car is happy. The movie freeze frames on that. And that is how it should have ended. Instead, it continues. Colter Stevens has taken over the body of the man and walks off the train with Christina. There are implications that there are now two Colters — one in someone else’s body and one still in the Source Code program. There is a lot that the movie leaves open and that really just bugs me, but not enough to dislike the movie.

8 our of 10
Rated PG-13 for some violence including disturbing images, and for language
93 min

I have no problem admitting I am a geek. Movie geek or Whedonite, I have no problem copping to either. There is nothing wrong with obsession when it is channeled the right way. Sometimes when I go to see a movie, I feel like I should love it. Some movies are right up my alley. So, by all accounts, I should have loved “Paul.” Simon Pegg and Nick
Frost love movies and it has been shown in “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” Yet, when I walked out of the theater, I was under whelmed. It was just so-so. A comedy that I should have loved, was just a mediocre movie at best.

Two friends, Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) decide to cross America and visit all the UFO hot spots. Just outside of Area 51 they run into an alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogan). The government is perusing Paul after he broke out of his cell. Graeme and Clive decide to help Paul get off the planet and back home.

Let’s get the good stuff out of the way. Normally I hate Seth Rogan. In the past few years he has become way to overexposed. He was the best part of this movie. At first, I had a problem hearing his voice come out of the digital character, but he actually did a great job of it.

The animation on Paul was amazing. He looked real which is quite the feat considering the nature of the character. In other science fiction movies/TV shows, it is pretty obvious that the aliens are fakes, but Paul felt like he belonged in each and every scene.

So that was the good. Here is the bad. The humor was not that humorous. Much of it came from the fact that Paul was a crude, crass character. The novelty of a CGI character swearing, drinking beer and flicking people off wore off quickly. After that it was just cussing for cussing’s sake. I was over it, but it did not destroy the movie for me.

Some of the humor comes from likes that are from other movies. They are not funny because of the content, but more of “oh, that is from ‘Aliens.’” It does not make the movie funnier. It just makes it more inside for those who have seen movies like “Star Wars” and “Aliens.” Other references like Paul being responsible for writing the character of Fox Mulder from “The X-Files” or being the inspiration for all alien merchandise since he crashed in the 70s were nice, but added nothing to the movie.

I wanted to like this movie. I tried hard to like it as much as everyone else in the theater did, but I could not. It ends up being a decent comedy, but nothing I have not seen before.

6 out of 10
Rated R for language including sexual references, and some drug use.
104 min

Every once and a while, what draws me to a movie more than the actors, the director, or the plot is the concept. If a movie is based on a cool idea that I think could make a good film, I go see it. Most recently this happened with “Vantage Point.” The movie was about the same event from different points of view. It was awful. I did not like it and only two of the different vantage points were actually interesting. Now there is “The Adjustment Bureau.” Cool concept, but will the movie live up to it?

David Norris (Matt Damon) is an up and coming New York senator. A chance meeting with Elise (Emily Blunt) changes his life forever. He was only supposed to meet her once, but he becomes determined to find her again. Members of a mysterious group called The Adjustment Bureau know Norris’ path and Elise is not on it. They set out to get him back on his path.

The problem I have with the movie is that it never rises above the concept. What I mean by that is that the movie relies on the concept of “fate” too much. It uses the Adjustment Bureau as the only way to advance the story. Which is a shame because Damon and Blunt are actually pretty good actors. They do a fine job here, so I cannot blame them for the failure of the movie. The cool concept becomes what the story is about and not the relationship between the two main characters.

There are some highly religious overtones in the movie. They never mention any deity, but the Bureau is a “higher power” and there is a lot of talk of free will versus divine intervention. We never see who runs the Adjustment Bureau, though he is referred to several times.

There is a lot of wasted potential here. The concept is relied heavily upon to drive the story and is not developed enough to hold up over the movie’s runtime. There are some interesting things with the hats they ware and how they get around, but it really leads nowhere and the story suffers.

5 out of 10

Rated PG-13 for brief strong language, some sexuality and a violent image.

106 min

It takes a lot for me to see something new when I go to the movies. I have seen more than my share of movies so I have seen damn near everything there is to see when it comes to characters, plots, twists and so on. Normally the previous sentences would lead into me writing that the movie I am about to review was something new and exciting. Not this time. “Battle: LA” crams every war movie cliché into its relative short run time. For some reason, I found it entertaining.

Aliens attack Earth. This movie takes place in Los Angeles. How’s that for a plot synopsis?

Let’s run through the clichés that “Battle: LA” provides.

The hero is about to retire but is pulled back in for one last mission.

He is also well known for a botched mission.

One of the soldiers is an expecting father.

One just lost his brother in the hero’s botched mission.

One is going to be married.

They just happen to come across a solider that is an expert in the very thing that they need to bring down the bad guys.

It has speeches about honor and duty.

It has civilians being told to be brave in the face of insurmountable odds.

It was so predictable that I was actually shocked that the hero did not give his life in the end to save his men.

I should have hated this movie. I did not love it, but I actually enjoyed it. It was mindless fun. Sometimes, that is all I need from a movie.

5 out of 10

Rated PG-13 for sustained and intense sequences of war violence and destruction, and for language.

116 min

This past week it was announced that Jennifer Lawrence, a best actress nominee for “Winters Bone,” was going to play Katniss Everdeen in the movie adaptation of “The Hunger Games.” And some fans were outraged. They said that they could not see Lawrence playing the Katniss because she is too old, her body type is not right and she does not really fit the physical description.

I call shenanigans on those people.

I recently tore my way through the three books in the trilogy and they are awesome. They are ripe for the silver screen and I look forward to the films.

The one thing that these people are missing is that it does not matter if the person in question is to old, to blond, or to tall. All that matters—and I mean ALL that matters—is can they act. Everything else is just details.

This happens every time there is a casting announcement. People hear a name that they do not think immediately fits with whatever idea they had in their head and they go crazy about how the movie is going to be bad because of the casting. They really need to calm down at times like this. The movie has not been shot yet and people loose their minds.

They say she is too curvy to play Katniss, who is skinny because to starvation. Have they not seen Christian Bale in “The Fighter” or “The Mechanic.” The human body can undergo changes like that. As for Katniss’ straight dark hair, grey eyes and olive skin…its call makeup people! Dye some hair, throw on some contacts and all of a sudden you have Katniss.

The only issue I really have is the age thing. Some of the power in the book is that this 16-year-old girl has so much strength. She is a role model to young girls everywhere. It is important that she be young, but not the end of the world.

Lawrence proved that she could not only act, but also carry a movie and get nominated for it. I am completely fine with her in the role. She is a phenomenal actress. Just watch “Winters Bone.” So much was required of her as Rea. She had to be strong, smart, brave, and vulnerable. Katniss has to be all these things and more, so I think Lawrence will do a pretty damn good job.

That being said, my pick for the role would have been the actress who SHOULD have won Best Supporting Actress this past year— Hallie Steinfeld. She can easily do everything that is required of Katniss. Since they cast Jennifer Lawrence I will be intrigued and look forward to see how she pulls it off. If they cast my pick of Hallie Steinfeld, I will be overjoyed and be more excited for the movie.

In the grand scheme of things none of it matters. Jennifer Lawrence could be terrible and the movie could be the worst thing put on film in the history of Hollywood. In the end fans will still have the books that they love. I know that regardless of how the movie ends up, the books I have are going nowhere and nothing could ruin them for me.

So lighten up people.

I am really looking forward to the Oscars on Sunday purely because I have seen a lot of the movies that were nominated. When it comes to the Oscars and picking the winners, there is a lot that one has to keep in mind. The movies/performances that you love, what the popular opinion is and what the Academy is likely to pick (and that opens up a different thought process that is more and more complicated the deeper you go.) I kept things simple this year and just picked the major categories-though it should be noted that I believe “The Social Network” will win every writing Oscar it is nominated for.

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees: Amy Adams in “The Fighter,” Melissa Leo in “The Fighter,” Haliee Steinfeld in “True Grit,” Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom,” Helena Bonham Carter in “The Kings Speech.”

Favorite: Everything I have heard tells me that Melissa Leo will win for “The Fighter”

Who Should Win: Haliee Steinfeld in “True Grit.” I honestly think that she is the best part of the movie. I was so impressed with her performance. She holds her own on the screen opposite Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, two amazing actors.

My Pick: I am going to go out on a limb and pick Steinfeld. Of the performances I saw this past year, hers was the most demanding and most impressive.


Best Supporting Actor

Nominees:
Christian Bale in “The Fighter,” John Hawkes in “Winter's Bone” Jeremy Renner in “The Town,” Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right,” Geoffrey Rush in “The King's Speech”

Favorite: This would appear to be Christian Bale’s year to finally take home the little golden man.

Who Should Win: This is a toss up between Bale and Geoffrey Rush. Both deliver amazing performances and are deserving the win.

My Pick: I have to go with Christian Bale. As awesome as Rush was, Bale’s performance was even more so. He transformed himself into Dicky and I would be shocked to see him not win.


Best Actress

Nominees: Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right,” Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole,” Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter's Bone,” Natalie Portman in “Black Swan,” Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine.”

Favorite: Natalie Portman is going to win.

Who Should Win: Have I not made my point—Natalie Portman WILL WIN

My Pick: It is pretty clear who my pick it.


Best Actor

Nominees: Javier Bardem in “Biutiful,” Jeff Bridges in “True Grit,” Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network,” Colin Firth in “The King's Speech,” James Franco in “127 Hours”

Favorite: Colin Firth is getting all the praise and rightfully so.

Who Should Win: I really think James Franco gave the better performance. He had to carry “127 Hours” and it could have been a really bad movie if he had not delivered.

My Pick: I have to go with Firth. His performance is the kind that the Academy loves and the award is all but his at this point.

Best Animated Picture

Nominees: “How to Train Your Dragon,” “The Illusionist,” “Toy Story 3”

Favorite: “Toy Story 3” will continue Pixar’s winning streak.

Who Should Win: My love for “How To Train Your Dragon” is very well known. I have professed it to everyone who will listen—family, friends, strangers on the street.

My Pick: It kills me to say so, but “Toy Story 3” will win. I re-watched it recently and that last scene is powerful stuff to watch. Though I hope I get this one wrong and “How To Train Your Dragon” knocks Pixar down a peg.

Best Director

Nominees: Darren Aronofsky for “Black Swan,” David O. Russell for “The Fighter,” Tom Hooper for “The King's Speech,” David Fincher for “The Social Network,” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen for “True Grit”

Favorite: History says that the winner of best picture will be the movie that wins best director. It would have to be between Hooper and Fincher.

Who Should Win: Since Christopher Nolan was robbed of a nomination, Darren Aronofsky deserves to win instead.

My Pick: David Fincher, hands down. The directing of “Kings Speech” was not as good as “Social Network.” Fincher has a style and he lends that to make this the second best directed movie behind “Inception”

Best Picture

Nominees: “Black Swan,” “The Fighter,” “Inception,” “The Kids Are All Right,” “The King's Speech,” “127 Hours,” “The Social Network,” “Toy Story 3,” “True Grit,” “Winter's Bone”

Favorite: It is really a two horse race between “The Social Network” and “The King’s Speech.” What it will come down to is does the Academy want to go with the same old movie they do every year like “The Kings Speech” or do they want to go for the “hip” movie that the younger audience is watching and gain some shred of credibility with that crowd and pick “The Social Network.”

Who Should Win: “Black Swan” was the best movie I saw out of the bunch—just look at my rankings located right below this post. “Inception” was also a masterful piece of filmmaking. It does not stand a chance of winning because the Academy is not ready to give the biggest award of the year to that type of movie.

My Pick: It is a toss up really between “The Kings Speech” and “The Social Network.” Gun to my head I would have to say “The Kings Speech.” It is a safer pick for the Academy to make.

On Sunday it will be one week until the Oscars. I was super lucky this year and was able to see all 10 of the best picture contenders. Going into Oscar Sunday I will be watching the Oscars better educated on the major contenders than ever. I have been trying to figure out how to rank the Oscar hopefuls, yet stick with my Top 10 list for 2010. Instead of putting all the movies I missed in 2010 into an updated list, I figured it would be easier to rank the 10 nominees in a completely new list. I should mention that this list is not indicative of my predictions because what I wish and what the Academy chooses rarely intersects.

10) I put this at the No. 10 spot because I was not as impressed with it as everyone else seems to be. When I left the theater I was left wishing that it was something more. Even now, 6 months later I cannot figure out what it was. I am hoping that a second viewing will help me make more sense of it, but I still feel like this movie should have had something more to it than what it provided.


9) This will win best picture, despite the fact that “How To Train Your Dragon” was a much better movie. If you have not see that one yet, do so. It is stunning. Anyway, “Toy Story 3” is a great way to wind up one of the best movie trilogies ever. The way the movie ended was a perfect way to wrap up the story of Woody, Buzz and the gang. If you did not cry at that last scene, check your pulse.


8) This is another one I did not feel as I should have when I left the theater. I should have been blown away, but I was not. I really liked the movie, but I did not love it. I passed up an opportunity to see it again earlier this week because I was just luke-warm about it. With the exception of “The Kids Are Alright” I would race to see anyone of them again, but for me “True Grit” did its job and I am set until it comes out on DVD. The performance, while strong, are were not enough to get me into the theater for a second time.

7) This movie lives and dies on the performance of its lead, Jennifer Lawrence. This is her first big role and she was rightfully nominated for an Oscar, though she is a long shot to win. It is not an uplifting movie by any stretch. It is bleak and depressing and a lot of bad things happen. Lawrence’s Ree goes through a lot to make sure her family is taken care of and that they can keep living in the home her father built. I have a feeling this movie will get shut out on Oscar night, and while it is a sad thing to think of, it deserves the recognition.

6) Great performances, but not great movie. That is the 6-word memoir I would use for this movie. Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams and Melissa Leto are awesome in the movie, but the movie would not be as good without them. It is these three strong performances that is getting the movie noticed and they are worth the price of admission.



5) Here is where is gets tough. I love all the movies in the top five. On any given day, these five could go anywhere. Today “Inception” lands at No.5. There is so much I love about this movie. The story and its complexities are top among them. The movie is not that hard to follow if you pay attention to the color palette of each dream level. The performances are strong, but the story is stronger—it is the anti-“Fighter.” Vary rarely does a movie truly blow my mind and this one has with every viewing—and that is tough to do.

4)A movie about the founding of Facebook should not be this good, but “The Social Network” is. It the most well rounded movie I saw this year—great writing, great directing and great acting. So why is it No. 4? Simply because I enjoyed the movies at No. 1-3 more. There is nothing wrong with it per-se, I am just not chomping at the bit to re-watch it. I would do so willingly, but I am not going out of my way to get a second viewing in.


3) So, my No.1 movie of the 2010 actually should have been my No.3 had I seen all 10 before I did my list. I know this may sound like a broken record but, without the performance and the directing, this movie would have sucked. James Franco, who is pulling double duty as Oscar host and Oscar nominee, is stunning as Aaron Ralston. The movie is about him and him alone. There is no one else to help carry the load of the emotions and power of this movie. Franco will not win, though he is my sentimental pick, but his performance is one that would win if the competition were not so tough.

Let me rephrase-This is where is gets tough. I can easily go either way with what one I put at No. 1.

2) I think that this will win best picture. There is just something about “Black Swan” that makes it No. 1. “The Kings Speech” is an awesome movie with stellar performances. The sign of a truly good movie is what happens on that second viewing. I was glued to the screen just as much as I was on the first. I was worried that seeing this again, I would be bored, but Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth are fantastic and riveting to watch on screen. If I had to pick one movie to recommend before next week’s big ceremony, this would be it.

1) No movie effected me more than this one. Sometimes as I sit through the credits, I get antsy because I think of all the other things I have to do that day or what work I need to finish for school. After the final shot of “Black Swan,” my mind was still on the movie. It still is from time to time. If someone said, “Let’s go see ‘Black Swan’” I would be there in a heartbeat. This might be one of those movies I buy on the day it comes out. I love this movie and I love all that it did to me while I watched it. I have never been so glad to be so unnerved and confused while watching a movie. It may not be or everyone and that’s what I love about it.

I have had a very lucky year (or at least a lucky few months) in terms of movies. When the Oscar nominations were announced last week, I had seen seven of the 10 best picture contenders. My roommate had “Winter’s Bone” so I watched that, bringing my total to eight. That Thursday I made it nine by going to see “The Fighter.” That left one movie on my list-“Black Swan.” So instead of watching the snooze-fest that is the NFL Pro Bowl, I decided to bring my total to 100 percent and cross “Black Swan” off my list.

Nina (Natalie Portman) is a ballerina who strives for perfection. She lives with her overbearing mother (Barbra Hershey) who does all she can to control her daughter. When Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) casts her as the swan queen in his new version of Swan Lake, Nina starts to spiral down into madness. As she tries to embody both the white and back swan, she becomes paranoid that Lilly (Mila Kunis) is vying for her spot in the ballet company and begins to lose sense to reality.

I was tired when this movie was over. Physically and mentally tired. All I wanted to do was crawl into bed and pray this movie did not make its way into my dreams. As much as I loved this movie and want to see it again, I was tired when those credits rolled. The key to this movie is not just the amazing performance from Portman, but that the movie keeps you as unbalanced as Nina is. There are times when you have no idea what is real and what is in Nina’s head. The way things are shot and edited, keeps the viewer off kilter for 95 percent of the movie.

If Portman does not win the best actress Oscar for this role, it will be a travesty. She has, by far, the most difficult role. Nina is weak. Leroy tells her she is perfect for the white swan, but lacks the seduction and passion required to dance the black swan. She pushes herself to become the back swan, but is so closed off and afraid to open up that she never really dances it to his liking. As she tries to become the black swan, she descends further and further into madness. This is where Portman really shines. Nina is not out and out crazy, she has these moments where her reality is skewed. As the movie progresses, she becomes more and more unsure of herself and if what she is experiencing is real.

I must warn you that this movie is not for everybody. When I saw “Rabbit Hole,” the theater next to us was playing “Black Swan” and they both got out at the same time. A college student coming out of that theater said to one of her friends “That was so weird.” I think this is how most who see it will think of it. Yes, there are some weird points, but it is supposed to be and that is why it works so well. If you see it, be prepared and do not write it off because it is “weird.”

9 out of 10
Rated R for strong sexual content, disturbing violent images, language and some drug use
108 min

The best two words to describe The Motion Picture Association of America, the organization in charge of rating movies, is consistently inconsistent. If you watch the documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated” explores their double standards and odd choices, and I highly recommend it for any movie fan. The most recent victim of their crazy logic is “Blue Valentine.” The film was given an NC-17 rating, but was eventually moved to an R when the studio appealed the decision.

Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) are going through a rough patch in their marriage. The movie cuts between their courtship leading up to their marriage and the breaking down of their relationship.

One reason why I love movies like this is that the plot synopsis is so much easier to write than other movies with a myriad of characters and plots that are hard to distill into a single coherent paragraph.

My true love of this movie is the performances. Williams and Gosling make these two performances real. There are times when it feels like you are watching a real marriage fall apart. They fight and argue almost as much as they show any affection.

Dean is a “jack of all trades, master of none.” In one scene Cindy tells him that he is so talented, but as settled for being just a painter. He tells her that all he wants is to be her husband and their daughter’s father. Gosling plays Dean a man who may want to believe that, but his actions tell a different story. If this were true, he would do things much differently. Things he says and does are counter to what he claims.

Cindy is a woman who is afraid of love. She has seen what happened to her parents, and is not one to believe that love makes everything better. Even as her marriage is falling apart, she is still trying to love Dean. She is willing to go away for the night to rekindle the romance, even though she has to work early in the morning. Williams plays this perfectly. She is probably the strongest character in the movie because of all she is forced to go through.

The beauty of this movie is how it is cut together. There are two stories going on. One is Cindy and Dean meeting and dating, the other is them falling out of love. We get to see the series of events that lead up to their marriage, but we never see what started them down the road they are on at the beginning of the movie. It is something that we do not need to see because, in the grand scheme, it is not important.

These are two amazing performances by two actors who shine in independent movies like these. They could (and should) have main stream success, but the fact that they stick to smaller movies is a sign of good judgment. These movies let them showcase their talents and find the best material.

9 out of 10
Rated R for strong graphic sexual content, language, and a beating.
112 min

Every now and then a movie slips past my radar. I know it is hard to believe, but I do not know about every movie that comes out each and every week. Most of the time it is because it is a crappy movie that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Then there are movies like “Rabbit Hole” which is right up my ally and yet, I just don’t seem to catch them before the hype begins.

Based on a play of the same name, “Rabbit Hole” looks at how people deal with grief and find closure. When their young son dies in an accident, Becca (Nichole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) find themselves trying to cope and figure out what to do now.

I am not sure how much more to say than that. These two people find ways to cope and their own sort of closure in very different ways.

Kidman and Eckhart are stunning. The only proof I need to show is the scene where they fight over changes Becca has made. Howie is furious that she is slowly removing any part of their son from the house. At the height of the fight, they go through the “what ifs” of the accident. The both feel a huge responsibility for the death and it comes out in this scene. This scene is by far the strongest in the film, but it is also the turning point in the movie. It is where they truly go their separate ways in grief. This scene alone is worth the price of admission.

I was so moved by this movie. It deals with grief and loss in such a real way. No one finds closure in the same way. Becca goes one way and Howie goes another. These are two people who experienced the same loss and grieve in their own way.

9 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, some drug use and language
91 min

(I hate myself for writing that headline, but after writing six reviews in two days, cheesy is all I have left)

I can remember a few years ago, in 2005, when Mark Wahlberg was attached to play the lead in “The Fighter” he said that if he were going to make this movie, he needed to do it soon. He was not getting any younger and the role was going to be very physical. Well now he has made it and recently got an Oscar nomination for his troubles.

Micky Ward (Wahlberg) is a boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts who is in the twilight of his career. He is known more as a stepping stone for other boxers than a genuine championship contender. His mother, Alice (Melissa Leto,) is his manager and his half-bother, Dicky (Christan Bale,) is his trainer. Dicky is a local legend because he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard, but has become addicted to crack. Micky deals with his mother ignoring Dicky’s addiction and not being able to rely on Dicky.

This is movie has probably the strongest cast of any movie this year. Wahlberg, Bale, Let, and Amy Adams, who plays Micky’s girlfriend, deliver some great performances. The boxing scenes are shot in such a way that it looks and feels like watching a fight on HBO.

I have a strong feeling that Bale will win the Oscar for his role in this movie. Dicky is a drug addict. HBO has come to document his addiction, but he claims they are there to watch is return to the ring. He is a man who is stuck in the past. He had one shining moment years ago and he has thrived on that fame for years. This is another role that Bale threw himself into--he lost weight to get the drug addict look. Bale plays Dicky as the delusional, burned out, former boxer incredibly well. He steals the spotlight from Wahlberg in many scenes, but it works because Dicky is the one who gets the most attention. He asks for it by being a drug addict, loud and funny.

I could go on about Adams, Leto and Wahlberg and their strong performances, but that would make for a really long review. It is best to look at their relationship to one another. Charlene (Adams) and Alice want what they think is best for Micky and his loyalties are torn. On one hand he has his mother who he loves and has been his manager for his entire career. On the other hand there is the woman he loves who has shown him that his mother does not always know what is best. This is a greater conflict in this then Micky faces in the ring. Those moments, when the tension comes to a head, is where the power in their performances comes from.

After the movie I texted my mom and told her that despite the cursing, I think she would like it. It is a great movie and I can honestly say that it is easy to recommend to everyone. Some movies I cannot recommend to everyone (see my review of Black Swan), but this has such a wide appeal that you cannot go wrong.

8 out of 10
Rated R for language throughout, drug content, some violence and sexuality
115 min

“The Kings Speech” follows the rise of King George VI before and leading up to England’s involvement in World War II. Prince Albert (Colin Firth) speaks with a stutter and is terrified to make speeches. In an effort to cure him of his stutter, his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) meets with Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) a speech therapist and gets him to agree to treat her husband.

I was blown away by this movie. I went in not really interested in it, but left shocked at how much I loved it. I knew very little about it going in and had managed to avoid much of the hype. It is everything you have heard. It is a stunningly made and amazingly acted.

Of the two lead actors, I was most impressed with Rush. Lionel has a respect for the future king, but demands the same back. He treats Prince Albert as an equal and even calls him “Bertie,” a nickname reserved for use only by those in the royal family. Prince Albert allows Lionel these liberties and the two of them form a tenuous friendship. The relationship is tested at many points. Things are said and done that cross a line when dealing with a prince. Rush gives an Oscar worthy performance by making Lionel someone who is not afraid to do what is best for his patient. He is steadfast in his convictions and does not relent even in the face of a king.

Firth also deserves the nomination he recently received. Albert is a man looking to find his voice. He is not the most strong-willed member of the family. His doubts about his ability to give a speech lead to his fear of becoming the king. There is a power in his transformation we see in the two bookends of the film. In the beginning we see him struggle to give a speech at the closing of the 1925 Empire Exhibition to reading the declaration of war that brought Britain into World War II. I was impressed at what a convincing stutter Firth had and part of me thinks that this is why he was nominated.

Come Oscar night, I expect to see this win many of its 12 possible Oscars. The performances alone are reason enough to see this. Rush and Firth are stunning to watch and make these two characters powerful to watch in screen.

9 out of 10
Rated R for some language
118 min

There have been a plethora of superhero movies for close to a decade now, but this coming year may be the biggest offering of comic book/super hero movies ever. This summer there are three of them coming out within a few weeks of one another. But that is six months away--right now we have “The Green Hornet.”

When his father dies, Britt Reid (Seth Rogan) abandons his playboy ways and sets out to clean up the city. He enlists the help of his father’s friend Kato (Jay Chou) and dons the mantel of the Green Hornet. Where Batman and his ilk fight crime by standing for good, Reid’s Hornet fights crime by being the bad guy.

One man has a problem with this, Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) a gangster who has a stranglehold on the crime in the city. He sets out to take out the would-be crime lord before his empire crumbles.

Rogan does a good job and is pretty funny, but his character is not even remotely likable. He is a rich, spoiled, jerk who does not earn any of the character moments the movie tries to give him.

Jay Chou is known to in Taiwan as a pop singer and movie star. In the past few years a few of his movies have been released here in the States. This is his first big movie role and he does a pretty good job. He is the sidekick in the partnership, but is really the one who does all the heavy lifting. He is a skilled fighter and designed the Black Beauty that the Hornet and Kato drive around in.

My biggest grip with the movie is Cameron Diaz. She adds nothing to the movie. All she is there for is to add tension between Britt and Kato. Even then it is forced and only hurts the movie.

Long story short, this movie is only worth it only if you catch it on cable on a lazy afternoon. Other than that, don’t worry about it. You are not missing much.

7 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for sequences of violent action, language, sensuality and drug content
119 min