Woman on the Verge: “Haywire” Features Some Cool Fights but Not Much Else

Sometimes sports stars – wrestlers, fighters, basketball players, etc – make good transitions to film. Of course, by good I mean, they get audiences in the seats but critics are forced to watch movies like “Kazaam” or “The Tooth Fairy.” But sometimes, just sometimes, these people find just the right material. Now it’s time for a female to find a role that makes people question her acting abilities. Gina Carano, a Mixed Martial Arts star (who also appeared as Crush on the new and short-lived American Gladiators) stars in “Haywire” as a black ops super soldier. She fights a lot and mostly kicks dudes’ asses which she’s rather good at – although I’m skeptical whether she could ever play a role that doesn’t require her to punch and kick.

Steven Soderbergh has been rather busy for a man who has declared that he’s retiring from filmmaking. I feel like I’ve just seen a Soderbergh movie recently. And that’s true because the pandemic thriller “Contagion” was released just this past September and he has three movies slated for release within the next two years. Soderbergh uses his trademarked low budget look on “Haywire” which sort of feels like an independent version of “The Bourne Identity.” It still features an all-star cast – Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton, Channing Tatum, Ewan McGregor, and the “I’ve been in every movie this year” Michael Fassbender. It remains a great showcase for some new female kickass talent and Carano is certainly up to the task, although I still don’t think she has the necessary charisma and acting ability to be a breakout star.

“Haywire” doesn’t really add anything new to the assassin thriller. Carano is Mallory and as the films opens she seems like something horrible has happened and she must try to clear her name. She has a pretty impressive fight scene with Channing Tatum and it’s wonderfully choreographed. Soderbergh refuses to go in for close-ups and doesn’t shred the sequence to death with quick edits. Of course in this scene – once you realize that Mallory is pretty much guaranteed to always get the upper hand, you never quite feel that she’s in much danger. Soon we learn about what lead up to the encounter as she explains her dilemma to a young guy who she’s just carjacked. We learn she’s been double crossed by the guy who runs the independent firm she works for. Lots of fights ensue.

If there’s any real reason to see “Haywire” it’s to witness what Soderbergh does with this type of material. It’s material we’ve seen countless times, however in the hands of a guy who’s not afraid to do something different it feels more fresh. It’s interesting to see his choices and how he stages certain sequences. While other filmmakers would choose to shake the camera and barely show you anything, Soderberg actually lets the actors do the work. After all, you don’t hire an MMA fighter and then not show her doing what she does best. By doing so Carano can do what I assume is most if not all of her own stunts. But like I said, I don’t think she’s completely capable of carrying the entire film. I found her to be rather bland and her mediocre line readings didn’t quite help. And I found myself strangely unengrossed in her dilemma – and that’s probably because I never felt she was in that much danger.

“Haywire” offers some good fight choreography –the sequence with Carano and Fassbender is particularly impressive. Soderbergh remains a fascinating director and can always gather an impressive cast. The film is something to check out if you like less traditional action thrillers, but otherwise this feels like an art house “Bourne” movie and nothing more. GRADE: C+

2012 Oscar Nomination Predictions

Updated Tuesday morning: So the nominations have been revealed and the Academy refused to be boring and decided to throw in a few curve balls (some borderline predicable curve balls, but curve balls nonetheless). The Tree of Life and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close are now Best Picture nominees. Who would have thought? Max Von Sydow made it into Supporting Actor, bumping out hopeful Albert Brooks. Supporting Actress was predicable; I'm glad Melissa McCarthy made it in! The biggest surprise I'm most disappointed by is Michael Fassbender surprisingly not making into Best Actor for "Shame." Not that I'm THAT surprised considering the film's content. Gary Oldman is finally an Oscar nominee. They Academy liked Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy more than most people thought they would. George Clooney is a double nominee for Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay for The Ides of March. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo failed to a Best Picture nom, but Rooney Mara benefited (knocking out Tilda). And A Separation made it into Original Screenplay (as did Margin Call) bumping out yet another Joseph Gordon Levitt movie (50/50). It turns out there were nine Best Picture nominees, and yet, it still feels like there are some filler nominees in there. War Horse made it, yet it failed to get another major nomination.. it was nominated for five other technical awards. "Hugo" leads the way with 11 total nominations, with "The Artist" right behind it with 10. I correctly predicted five categories right: Director, Supporting Actress, Costume Design, Cinematography, and somehow Foreign Language Film. See the full list of nominations here.




Tuesday the 24th is Oscar nomination day and it's the second greatest day of the year (the first is the Oscars on February 26th). Holy crap. How strange is it that we not only have to try to predict which films are nominated for Best Picture, but HOW MANY get nominated as well. The Academy changed the rules (yet again) so that there can be either five Best Picture nominees or ten Best Picture nominees – or any number in between. A film has to receive AT LEAST one first place vote to at least be considered – there go your chances “Human Centipede 2” – and must receive 5% of first place votes to be nominated. So depending on how many votes particular films get there can be anywhere from five and ten films nominated for Best Picture. So let’s get to it!

Best Picture
The Artist

The Descendants
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

War Horse

I believe there will be about 7 or 8 nominees, but wouldn’t be absolutely shocked to only see 5 or 6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was on a sort of Guild Award roll the past couple weeks which significantly helped its chances in the overall race – I think it can get in, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see it left off. It would certainly fit into the Academy’s recent trend of rewarding gritty, violent fare – although it would have zero chance to win. But the academy loves them heart tugging as well which is why movies like The Artist, The Help and even War Horse feel like guarantees – although War Horses chances have been waning and I wouldn’t be shocked to see it miss here. But I think this list of 8 is the most likely scenario. If this was the old days, and there were only five nominees they would most likely be The Artist, The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, and Midnight in Paris.

Best Director
Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”
Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
Terrance Malick, “The Tree of Life”
Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”

Ugh, I’ve toyed with this category for too long, and I’m still not 100% happy, oh well. With a very high chance of more than five best picture nominees, it seems odd that a director would be nominated without at least its film not making it into best picture – but the one director where I can see that happening is with Terrance Malick. “The Tree of Life” is one of the most divisive films of the year – heck, of the decade. Love it or hate it, no one will deny it’s sheer scope and vision, even if you think it’s the most self-indulgent piece of over-praised pretentiousness you’ve ever seen. His DGA is kind of surprising – until you remember that a majority of the membership is part of the TV community and tend to favor less epic works (which is why Spielberg was snubbed there too). I’m not exactly sure who will be left off, but my guess, and it’s merely a guess is that the Academy will favor Malick over Fincher. Spielberg could easily show up here – but I still find the guilds’ lack of War Horse love kind of surprising.

Best Actor

George Clooney, “The Descendants”
Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”
Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
Michael Fassbender “Shame
Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

I’m pretty confident in this list, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see a surprise nomination for that foreign guy from “A Better Life” who got a SAG nod, Gary Oldman for “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” or even Michael Shannon, who loves to show up unannounced (“Revolutionary Road”). If anyone seems vulnerable it’s got to be Fassbender or even DiCaprio, who’s had to deal with his film being critically maligned over the past month.

Best Actress

Glenn Close "Albert Nobbs"

Viola Davis "The Help"
Meryl Streep "The Iron Lady"
Tilda Swinton "We Need to Talk About Kevin"
Michelle Williams "My Week with Marilyn"

I’m even more confident in this list than with the actors. Unfortunately both Charlize Theron and Rooney Mara will have to settle for at least getting Golden Globe nods.
PS – I know the eventual race is between Meryl Streep and Viola Davis - but what if, just what if, the “young pretty thing” Michelle Williams pulls off a big upset?

Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh, “My Week with Marilyn”
Albert Brooks, “Drive”
Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
Nick Nolte, “Warrior”
Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Oh dear Lord this is the weirdest category to call. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Academy came up with five completely different actors. Various groups have spread the wealth for this year’s supporting actors which has made for an interesting if not difficult to predict award season. Plummer is definitely in – it’s practically his to lose. I never really thought Jonah Hill could go all the way, but it seems like he will after getting nominations from all the requisite groups – BFCA, Golden Globes, SAG, and BAFTA. At this point if he didn’t make it (like Mila Kunis last year) it would definitely be a snub whether he deserves it or not.

Best Supporting Actress
Bérénice Bejo, “The Artist”
Jessica Chastain, “The Help”
Melissa McCarthy, “Bridesmaids”
Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

BAFTA placed Bérénice Bejo in the lead category, but I think she’ll end up here. The big question remains whether Melissa McCarthy will be nominated for her hilarious turn in “Bridesmaids” a type of film that is usually way off the Academy’s radar. She is wonderful in the film (as is everyone) so if she does get nominated it won’t just be for “shitting in a sink.” Unfornately a nod for her means the young Shailene Woodley who is really good in “The Descendants” will be left out – unless she takes Janet McTeer’s place which could very well happen.

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Descendants

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball

This is a category – like many this year – which feel like it has four definites and one that can go any which way. That spot would be the one I feel will be occupied by “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” assuming that it gets nominated for best picture. Of course “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” could get in there and would be guaranteed if it was Most Confusing Adapted Screenplay.

Best Original Screenplay

The Artist

Bridesmaids
50/50
Midnight in Paris
Win Win

If the Academy nominates the above five films for Best Original Screenplay it will be one of the rare occasions in which the five screenplays nominated would all be comedies. In fact, after checking the Academy’s database it seems this could be the first time – although some of these films have elements of drama, they’re mostly comedies. And how awesome would it be for Kristin Wiig – the Target Lady herself – to be an Oscar nominee? If anything gets bumped out it’ll be for Diablo Cody’s wonderfully witty and acidic script for “Young Adult” – although I’m wondering if foreign film frontrunner “A Separation” could squeeze out one of these five comedies. The writer’s branch is notorious for including foreign films in this category.

Best Art Direction

Anonymous

The Artist
Hugo
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Jane Eyre

Best Cinematography

The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Best Costume Design

Anonymous
The Artist
Hugo
Jane Eyre

W.E.

Best Editing

The Artist

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Moneyball
War Horse

Best Makeup

The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
The Iron Lady

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tintin

The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Best Original Song

“Coeur Volant” from Hugo

“Lay Your Head Down” from Albert Nobbs

“Life’s a Happy Song” from The Muppets
“The Living Proof” from The Help
“Pictures in My Head” The Muppets

Best Sound Editing

The Adventures of Tintin

Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8
Transformers Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Best Sound Mixing

The Artist
Hugo
Super 8
Transformers Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Best Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life

Best Animated Feature Film

Cars 2
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango
Rio

Best Documentary Feature

Bill Cunningham New York
Hell and Back Again
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Pina
Project Nim

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead (Belgium)
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
A Separation (Iran)
Footnote (Israel)
In Darkness (Poland)

The Parent Spat: “Carnage” is a Decet but Stagey Ensemble Comedy

The sight of Kate Winslet projectile vomiting is worth the price of admission to “Carnage.” As an actress known for her more dramatic work, it’s always fun to see her let loose a little, kinda like Meryl Streep. But besides the rare comedic side of the British actress, “Carnage” remains a mostly awkward and unrealistic comedy about parents to quickly delve into absurdly childish behavior. The film is based on the play "Le Dieu du carnage" (The God of Carnage) and all takes place in real time with just four characters over a swift 80 minute runtime. Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly are the Longstreets and Christophe Waltz and Winslet are the Cowans. The Cowans’ son hit the Longstreets’ son with a stick, which resulted in some tooth damage, and the two couples have meet up at the Longstreets to work it out. What follows is four adults to become increasingly childish over the next hour as the four people air dirty laundry and other personal quirks which become apparent. It’s amusing and all expect for one big problem: there is no reason for the Cowans to hang out with the Longstreets for such a long period of time.

And thus lies the inherent problem with adapting a stage play that only features four characters in one location. How do you get them to stay together? In the fantasy world of live theater this works; on film however, it can be uncomfortable. Director Roman Polanski, known for films like “Rosemary’s Baby” and “The Pianist” is obviously fascinated with directing four actors in such close quarters and he makes things as visually interesting as he can (some cool shots with mirrors ensue). However, you have to look at this first and foremost as an actor’s piece, which is obviously what drew all of these wonder actors to the project in the first place. Foster is a slightly uptight, micromanaging mother and her husband is more of laid back type of guy. The cracks in their marriage become more pronounced as the film progresses. Winslet and Waltz are your average uppity snooty couple who think they’re better than everyone else – although they’re initially apologetic about their son’s violent act – after awhile they realize how tempting it was to hit a Longstreet in the face.

The film begins with a brief scene that –without words – shows us the adolescent spat in the park and cuts to the New York City loft where the two sets of parents are composing a document about their son’s incident. The Cowans have been invited over and are apologetic, but Penelope (Foster) seems rather hurt, as any mother would be, that her son was attacked. The Cowans, in any other reality, would leave the apartment rather quickly at the conclusion of this meeting – but Penelope and Michael (Reilly) insist they stay and have some apple and pear cobbler. Soon after Nancy (Winslet) develops a bit of a stomach ache and then vomits all over the coffee table, nearly ruining Penelope’s art books. This incident sets into motion the next hour of bickering and childish actions that take over once the adults begin blaming each other for their sons’ behavior.

I still think that after projectile vomiting all over the living room Nancy and Alan (Waltz) would want to get the heck out of their. And besides Alan is such a busy man – he’s a lawyer – he keeps getting important calls on his cell – which naturally ends up in a water filled vase, if he had just left the apartment, there wouldn’t be much of a movie. I still maintain that this story is better left to the confines of a stage rather than endless possibilities of film. I applaud the wonder ensemble and their interesting performances – although some might complain Foster is a bit over the top, I found her delightful if a bit caustic. Everyone gets a moment to shine but the best one here is Winslet – she’s reason alone to see it. Polanski co-wrote the film with the play’s original writer Yasmina Reza and result is an obviously good attempt to bring the hit play to the world of cinema – but overall it feels like a slight misstep. GRADE: B-

Where Credit is Due... My Favorite Opening Title Sequences

Now that the opening title sequence from David Fincher’s wonderful adaptation of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has officially hit the internet (legally I believe) I must admit it’s quickly become one of my favorite opening title sequences of all time. I am a big fan of cool and innovative title sequences. When a movie misses an opportunity for a good one (like the recent Alice in Wonderland for instance) it almost makes me dislike the movie. Title sequences serve several purposes and the most important is helping set the particular tone of the film you’re about to watch. Sometimes they’re so good they can stand on their own as brilliant short films. Sometimes they’re good because they feature a great song or particularly catchy music score or sometimes the imagery is just interesting that you forget to even bother to care about who the production designer, editor etc is. Some filmmakers are known for their plain, yet comfortably practical titles – such as Woody Allen’s familiar Windsor EF light condensed text – and others are known for their more elaborate designs – like Fincher. Here is a collection of some of my person favorites. (Some sequences have been embedded here, others just have a link to youtube.)


The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
I’ve read some people complain that the film’s title sequence bares little resemblance to the movie that follows it. I disagree. The melty, gothic imagery here is all part of heroine Lisbeth Salander’s nightmare (although it feels more like a goth T-1000’s nightmare). Hello, did this sequence’s detractors even watch the movie? Even if most of the imagery here is computer generated, it features such strange and smooth textures I’m almost tempted to reach out and grab some of that black, icky goo. The wonderful cover of “Immigrant Song” blaring on the soundtrack fits perfectly with the weird images that parade across the screen. Simply outstanding. click here



Watchmen (2009)
The graphic novel adaptation “Watchmen” delievered an epic title sequence featuring a wonderful mix of history of sci-fi. Set to Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin,'” the sequence reimagines famous historical events (ranging from JFK’s assignation to the opening of Studio 54) but with the film’s superheroes added. It’s all filmed in slow motion, which is perfectly paced with Dylan’s song. This is what I mean by some title sequences feeling like a short film. You could turn off “Watchmen” after this sequence and feel completely satisfied – but the rest of the film is still good. click here

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
It comes at no surprise that I’m a big Tim Burton fan (just keep reading). “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” features one of my all time favorite Danny Elfman themes and it’s paired with a scrumdiddlyumptious title sequence that takes us inside Willy Wonka’s magic chocolate factory. It borrows heavily from the 1971 film, but it’s much more elaborate – and CGI heavy which may dismay many. But it’s lavish and perfectly sets up the entire quirky personality of not only the candy man himself but of the entire movie. It’s as mouthwatering as it is fun. click here


Lord of War (2005)
Even bad movies can have spectacular opening titles. Nothing is more true than with the Nicolas Cage film “Lord of War.” Granted the movie isn’t particuraly horrible, it’ just not one of my favorites, but the opening title sequence, which follows the “life” of a butllet is simply amazing. Set to the tune of Buffalo Spingfield’s 1967 song “For What It’s Worth,” the sequence follows a bullet as it’s manufactured and shipped off and ends up in the rifle of a war lord and ends up in some innocent child’s head. It’s an altogether fascinating sequence and ends in a tragically ironic – but not too surprising – way. click here

Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Steven Spielberg is one of the most popular filmmakers of all time. And yet very few of his films actually have full title sequences. Sometimes he’s just too eager to get into the story – but he changed that with 2002’s fun caper dramedy “Catch Me If You Can.” The film is a wonderful throwback to the types of tiles Saul Bass would have designed. Backed with John Williams wonderfully jazzy score, the sequence includes animated characters running about while the credits form and morph around them. It’s a wonderfully fun and catchy sequence that perfect sets the tone for the rest of the film. Spielberg, stop holding out on us and deliver more sequences like this – with his most recent example being 2011’s “The Adventures of Tintin.” click here


Panic Room (2002)
Another David Fincher film – one of his more underrated efforts – begins with a wonderfully simply but no less enjoyable title sequence with beautiful shots of New York City with big white titles placed randomly… seemingly floating. The letters even cast shadows and what seems like simplicity was actually a lot of work for the creaters of this sequence which can be further explored in the film’s special edition DVD bonus features. The sequence features a superb theme from composer Howard Shore which gets more and more menacing as it progresses and helps us settle into the story of one particular house in the big scary city. Many of the shots remind me of the opening aerial shots from Hitchcock’s “Psycho” – which completely makes sense since the film is entirely Hitchcockian. The film is often unjustly overlooked, but this title sequence should definitely not be. click here


Mars Attacks! (1996)
Another fun title sequence from another fun Tim Burton movie. This is probably one of Tim Burton’s least popular films – and properly so since it’s just an over budgeted B-movie homage that was obviously inspired by the subject of his previous effort “Ed Wood.” But even lesser films can have wildly entertaining title sequences (see “Lord of War”). Set in outer space during an alien invasion, the sequence features another winning Danny Elfman score that perfectly sets up the campy fun the audience is about to experience. If you think this sequence is super lame, you might as well just turn the movie off right then and there. click here

Seven (1995)
David Fincher’s serial killer opus “Seven” features not only one of the most famous opening titles in modern cinema, but definitely one of the most unsettling. It completely sets up the film’s creepy and tone. Arguably it’s the scariest part of the movie and certainly helps get the mood and setting disturbing right by giving you a first glimpse at a serial killer who we won’t even meet until the film’s third act. This title sequence was so popular it’s influenced countless other films in the genre with equally strange titles. One could easily argue that this is the best title sequence of all time. click here


Beetlejuice (1988)
The main reason why I love the Beetlejuice title sequence so much is because it’s 100% a gigantic tease. The whole time you think you’re sweeping over a New England town in an elaborate helicopter shot and ending with a creepy spider crawling on the roof of a house. At first you might think this is a giant spider movie, until you realize you’ve been duped and it’s just in fact a scaled down model. It’s a model of an entire town, which will actually play an important role in the film. Not to mention another classic Danny Elfman score. Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! click here

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)
The most flat-out hilarious sequence on this list is definitely “The Naked Gun” which proves that even comedies can have awesome titles as well. The sequence which perfectly captures the wonderfully zany tone of the entire film follows the point-of-view of a police cruiser as it makes its way down a city street… and proceeds to increasingly stranger and stranger locations. It starts off by going through a car wash, drives through a family’s house, a woman’s locker room, a roller coaster, and finally ended up in front of a donut shop – of course. Each of the film’s sequels – parts 2 ½ and 33 1/3 – feature even more bizarre sequences which are just as hilarious. These are sequences fans of ZAZ comedy know all too well. click here


Psycho (1960)
Forget “Vertigo,” this is where it’s at. Graphic designer Saul Bass was a master of the title sequence and a frequent collaborator with Alfred Hitchcock. One of their most recognized sequences is for Hitchcock’s most famous film “Psycho.” It’s a simple sequence with gray lines streaking across the screen – in time with those screeching violins – wiping the credits on and off. It’s an eerie sequence which perfectly sets up the tone of the movie that you’re about to watch. Bernard Herrmann’s classic score (which was criminally not Oscar nominated) is one of his most famous scores of all time. If black & white isn’t your thing, check out the 1998 remake’s striking green version. Why green? Like the remake itself, I have no clue. Also, see the little seen thriller “Vacancy” for a wonderful Saul Bass-like title sequence with an equally catchy and creepy score. click here

The 1998 remake version:


And the wonderful "Vacancy" opening titles:

It’s Complicated: Espionage Thriller “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Remains Entertaining Despite its Density

Truth be told I didn’t follow much of what was going on in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” and that’s fine with me because odds are you didn’t get most of it either. Heck, it even confused Roger Ebert. But what small pieces I could put together worked so well and the film as a whole is such a wonderful nostalgic work of 1970s American New Wave cinema (despite the fact that it’s not even American) that I found myself being sucked in by artistic merit even if I had no clue what exactly was going on. Some confusing movies are so complicated that even the visuals don’t make much sense (like “The Good Shepherd” for instance). But “Tinker Sailor Soldier Spy” is so rich in atmosphere and good performances that I still managed to enjoy myself.

I’m not really going to attempt to rehash this film’s overly complicated plot, but I can at least try. The film is set in the early 1970s during in Britain. The film follows characters who work for British Intelligence (referred to as “the Circus”) during the Cold War. A failed mission in Hungary reveals that one of the higher ups in the agency might actually be a mole working with the Russians. “Control” (played by John Hurt) assembles his team of men, one of whom he suspects is the spy. They consist of George Smiley (Gary Oldman), Percy Alleine (Toby Jones), Toby Esterhase (David Dencik), Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds), and Bill Haydon (Colin Firth). Control and George were “dismissed” after the Hungarian incident, but Control forces George out of retirement to smoke out the mole. And there you have it! That’s the plot of the movie! If it was only so simple. There’s way much more going on here and it’s all fascinating to watch even if it takes awhile to sort out. There’s many more characters were that came from including Mark Strong’s Jim Prideaux who was sent on that failed mission, George’s right hand man Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch), and fellow agent Ricki Tarr played by the up and coming Tom Hardy.

So what makes “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” the most confusing spy thriller since the original “Mission Impossible?” Many factors. The script by the late Peter Straughan (who also co-wrote the similar but less confusing “The Debt”) and the late Bridget O’Connor weave many characters into their story and director Tomas Alfredson (“Let the Right One In”) and his editor have decided to unfold the story in a nonlinear way. There are present day scenes and flashbacks and sometimes it’s hard to figure out which is which. Characters (and there relation to each other) and events are referred to even if we don’t know who or what they’re talking about. Miss the quickest line of dialogue and be lost forever. But even if you’re confused about what is specifically going on, the general overall story of “who is the mole” is always something to come back to and enjoy. It can be a fun mystery. Oldman does a great job as a weathered old man who quietly goes about his duty to find the mole. The film doesn’t rely on action the way other films in the genre do and the quieter scenes make the few moments of graphic violence all the more shocking.

Now onto what “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” gets absolutely right and that is its 1970s look and feel. If you showed me the film and I knew nothing about it or who any of the actors were, I would have guessed the film was originally released in the 70s. From the use of the zoom and telephoto lenses to its use of brown and tan hues to its accurate art direction and production design; it’s all impeccably crafted, but not particularly flashy. There are shot and plot details in the film that could have been lifted directly from movies like “The Godfather,” “All the President’s Men,” and “Midnight Express.” The scene on the tarmac in particular is one of the more memorable uses of a telephoto lens I’ve seen in quite some time. Simply great work from cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema can be found here.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is a thoroughly dense film that definitely requires several viewings to comprehend its intricate plot. It's unnecessarily complicated, though I would have no problem revisiting the film because it was so enjoyably atmospheric. For a film as slow-placed and calm as this one, it features some decent suspense and is never ever boring or dull. I can’t imagine everyone getting out of it what fans of this type of film would get, but it’s worth the work required to get through it. GRADE: B

May the Horse Be with You: “War Horse” is a Powerful, if Sometimes Schmaltzy War Pic

It’s hard to imagine Steven Spielberg making a bad movie. I didn’t particularly care for “The Adventures of Tintin” and his latest “War Horse” still feels like a disappointment after waiting three years for him to make another movie (his last having been the fourth Indiana Jones film). “War Horse” kind of feels like “Babe” meets “Saving Private Ryan.” In that it’s a powerful war film, but one of the main characters is a four-legged animal (though to be fair he doesn’t talk). It’s sort of an odd combination and overall the film feels sort of overly sentimental, especially since Spielberg had been trending toward the dark side in the past decade (with gritty stuff like “War of the Worlds,” “Munich” and “Minority Report”). Spielberg makes powerful war films; the footage in “Saving Private Ryan” is some of the genre’s best, but having a story about a teenage boy’s horse weaved in sort of feels overly cheesy. And like I said, at least the horse doesn’t talk.

At first glance, I wasn’t particularly thrilled with the overall look of “War Horse.” Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography seemed way too bright and stagey. But then since knowing “War Horse” is also a stage play I was willing to forgive it. He achieves a darker, more cinematic look as the film progresses. And there certainly some luscious shots here; some are even worth framing. The look and feel of the World War I setting seem right. The music from John Williams is wonderful, if not particularly memorable and the sets and costumes appear authentic. This is a top notch production for a movie that only cost about $60 million to make. But something about the story itself just didn’t captivate me the way the director’s other films do.

Albert (Jeremy Irvine, sort of wooden, but still impressive for a newcomer) is a teenage boy who lives on a farm with his mother (Emily Watson) and his father (Peter Mullan). Albert’s father comes back from an auction with a wimpy horse. Albert’s mother is furious because the horse seems too small to pull the farm plow. Albert insists that he will train the horse to pull the plow. As you can imagine Albert becomes extremely attached to the horse who he names Joey. Unfortunately, since the family is in desperate need of money for rent, Albert’s father sells the horse to a Captain as the war begins, where he’s shipped off to France. And so Joey Forrest Gumps his way through the war from owner to owner as we try to figure out how in the world Albert will ever be reunited with his horse. Eventually Albert does join the army where it only seems natural, however unlikely, that the two will meet again one day.

The film’s script was written by Lee Hall (Billy Elliot) and Richard Curtis (Love Actually) so I’m surprised to find moments of lightheartedness and even comic relief. The comic relief was supplied by non other than a duck on Albert’s family farm, which is why the film’s first quarter felt more like a family talking animal movie than anything else. The film’s most successful moments are the war scenes which are staged so perfectly and beautifully you’d think Steven Spielberg had actually fought in WWI. One of the film’s standout scenes involves two enemies coming together to help free Joey after he’s caught in a mess of barbed wire. I was also equally impressed with the performance of the horse. I imagine it took a lot of work and training to get scenes just right. Spielberg does a good job of making us see this war through this horse’s point of view.

"War Horse” is a Steven Spielberg film I never thought I would see. It’s a war film that feels overly sentimental. Spielberg has always taking his serious projects with a disturbing dose of reality – depicting battles with gruesome and disturbing violence. Here he makes things much more family friendly. And that makes sense since the original novel is in fact a children’s novel. While it feels like an odd mix, overall the film is powerful and engaging enough to warrant a recommendation, but still feels like a lesser achievement for one of best directors of all time. GRADE: B

Silence is Olden: The Silent Film Homage “The Artist” is Simply Charming

If you had told me months ago that I would go see a silent movie in the theater and also enjoy it I would have said you’re crazy. Silent films are so last century. But somehow the wonderful silent film “The Artist” manages to not only be entertaining, but a fascinating look back at an important era in cinematic history. Nostalgia has been a strong theme this year with films like “Hugo” and “Midnight in Paris,” and the “The Artist” is no exception. Watching the film was like a miracle – me, sitting there, not completely bored out of my mind - without a line of audible dialogue uttered.

Just like “Singin’ in the Rain,” “The Artist” is set back in the day when silent films began transitioning to sound. Jean Dujardin (a definite Best Actor nominee if not winner) is the movie star George Valentin. He is silent movies. However, for some reason, once “talkies” become all the rage, it’s out with the old and in with the new. A young up and coming actress named Peppy Miller (the bubbly Bérénice Bejo) becomes the hot new item in cinema. It’s the perfect story to tell for this kind of format, which to be frank, feels like it should be extremely gimmicky, but somehow manages to overcome this trickery. You quickly get over the fact that you’re watching a black & white silent film with modern day filmmaking techniques, and you lose yourself in the story and characters.

French director Michel Hazanavicius (who also wrote the film) has crafted an utterly entertaining, and purely delightful tale. His movie is downright funny – and it features one of the best performances by a dog ever captured on film. His film is completely devoid of pretentiousness. He just wants to tell the story about a silent film star using silent film as a medium to do it. Nothing more, nothing less. His actors – some of which are completely recognizable – give it their all. It was great to see people like John Goodman and James Cromwell – heck even that lady from “Speed” who always shows up in things – getting paid to be expressive and hone their non-verbal acting skills.

What is truly great here – besides all the wonderful technical aspects (like wonderful cinematography and production design, and a pretty cool dream sequence) is the dazzling performances and chemistry of the two lead performers. Dujardin first of all just looks like an actor from the 1920s, which helps; he gives such an animated and heartfelt performance, it’s amazing to realize you never actually hear him speak. The same goes for Bejo who, like her leading man, is able to emote feelings of sadness or glee as if it were as easy as tying her shoes. Ludovic Bource’s wonderful film score is also a wonderful character in the film. I would have to assume that Hazanavicius is an expert in silent cinema, or at least a huge fan, as he directs their performances with great precision and yet makes it seem like an effortless breeze.

“The Artist” was a film I was prepared to dislike since it’s made in the style of film that I’m not particularly a fan of (although Penelope Ann Miller from “Adventures in Babysitting” always helps). I’m sure there are plenty of people my age who would rather go to church than sit through a silent film, but this is the rare exception. I doubt it’ll start a new wave of silent filmmaking – and I don’t know that it’ll be that well remembered years from no – but I’ll be damned if it isn’t simply one of the most charming movies of the year. GRADE: A-

Animal Kingdom: The Sometimes Sappy “We Bought a Zoo” is Sort of a Miss

Who doesn’t like cute animals? You’ll get a lot of them in “We Bought a Zoo” a kind of sappy end of the year feel good family dramedy about a single dad who moves his family to a wildlife preserve. He wants to “start over.” His preteen son is having trouble in school (he draws violent images which the school is concerned about but they still hang it up in the hallway regardless). He also has a cute little girl. She’s really cute, almost too cute. Benjamin’s wife has previously passed away. It’s hard on him and his family as would be expected. I’m not sure if moving to a zoo is really the answer, but it is for him. He’s a writer and used to crazy things. He flew into a hurricane with a storm crew. The zoo comes fully staffed one of those people is Scarlett Johansson. You can kind of predict everything that will happen next. But at least it has cute animals.

“We Bought a Zoo” tells a real life story about Benjamin Mee (who’s book this film is based on) a single dad struggling to deal with the aftermath of losing his wife. He has two kids to take care of. His young daughter Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), who’s probably no older than 6 is observant though: her dad is the only one with a full head of hair, so there’s still hope for him in the romance department. He also has a troubled son Dylan (Colin Ford). Lucky for him, Elle Fanning works at the zoo too. Benjamin picks up and sort of hesitantly moves his family to a struggling wildlife preserve which he plans on renovating. There are lions and tigers and a grizzly bear, oh my. It also staffs about 8 or so people, all of with varying degrees of personality and character development. It’s kind of a pathetic lot, one that I wouldn’t necessarily trust taking care of animals with sharp teeth and claws, but I digress. At least they mean well. The most important one though is Kelly Foster( Johansson). Kelly and Ben kind of have a thing going.

So the majority of the film deals with Benjamin’s attempt to renovate not only the zoo, but his family as well. And that’s about all we get really. Cameron Crowe likes making sort of sappy romances and this time it involves fuzzy animals. There’s even a little monkey that is trained to slap his own forehead. Cue audience laughter. If the film has any problem really, it exists somewhere in the script. Aline Brosh McKenna and Crowe, who co-wrote, can’t really find much for these characters to do except deal with opening the zoo. Benjamin mopes around, as does his son, who begins a mostly awkward teenage romance with Fanning’s character, who is sort of creepy in her own way. Every time I thought maybe things were being wrapped up, the movie kept going and going. And then there’s Christopher Guest staple John Michael Higgins playing a goofy inspector that the zoo staff despises. God forbid there be strong safety regulations at a wildlife park that houses animals that could kill human beings with one bite or pounce.

“We Bought a Zoo” will probably satisfy the late December “I want something sappy” crowd. It has all the perfect requirements of such a film. The movie isn’t really bad in any particular way. It’s just not all that interesting or innovative. The performances are decent. Maybe I just didn’t quite buy Matt Damon as a single father of two. I’m sure the family audience at which this film is directed at will be more than satisfied, but I found it to meander too much with not much interesting conflict. But at least it has cute animals. GRADE: C+

The Canine Mutiny: Steven Spielberg Takes a Crack at Motion Capture in “The Adventures of Tintin”

Where’s Janusz Kaminski when you need him? The wonderful cinematographer has given each one of Steven Spielberg’s it’s trademark look since 1993’s “Schindler’s List” and for the firs time since then he hasn’t been needed because “The Adventures of Tintin” is the director’s first (and hopefully last) foray into the world of 3D motion capture filmmaking. I don’t know if I just don’t “get” motion capture, but it tends to not work (in Robert Zemeckis’ recent films) more than is works (James Cameron’s epic “Avatar”). There’s something about having “animation” so realistic that just doesn’t quite make perfect sense. I’d rather just see live images than computer images that looks really lifelike. This style of filmmaking caused hollow gap between me and film which made me feel distant. There’s something about watching CGI characters get into life threatening situations that just isn’t all that exciting or suspenseful, not matter how well Spielberg stages them.

If you’re like most Americans, than you probably don’t know much about Tintin. That’s because it’s way popular in England and not very popular here. It’s a comic book series by Belgian artist Hergé about a young reporter named Tintin (I thought he was just a young teen but perhaps he’s in his twenties) and his trustworthy dog Snowy. They go on fun adventures together and solve mysteries. In the film, Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a model of a three mast shipped called the Unicorn. Of course, he’s not the only one who wants it – the bad guys want it to. It turns out that this model ship (and two others) are hiding clues to a hidden treasure. In turn, Tintin is shot at and eventually kidnapped, and put on a cargo ship where he meets up with the drunken Haddock (Andy Serkis). They’re able to escape, but in hot pursuit while they get caught up in wild action scene after the next. The script (by Steven Moffat and Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish) is really just a series of fast-paced action scenes with hardly time to get a chance to care about anyone but the dog.

I’m actually surprised that I found all of this adventure stuff to be rather uninteresting, as Spielberg has yet to make a “dull” adventure film. I think most of that has to due with the motion capture aspect of the film because I just didn’t find the characters or locales to be particularly engaging. I never once felt for the character’s lives - Tintin never seemed in danger to me, and he was way too brave. In fact, Snowy, the cute Wire Fox Terrier, definitely had the most personality. I would watch an entire spin-off film about him. The film just relied too much on action set-pieces that weren’t all that exciting – or impressive – because they were animated. If this had been an actual live action film, it would have been astonishing. And I realize that’s the point – because you can accomplish certain shots with animation that you can’t accomplish in live action. But if anyone could, couldn’t Spielberg?

“The Adventures of Tintin” is not a bad movie by any means – it’s beautiful to look at – although I’m not even sure why it needed to be seen in 3D – but something about it left me cold. I felt disconnected from the adventures occurring onscreen. Too much time was spent on a plot I didn’t find particularly interesting or characters I didn’t find particularly appealing. The film is a technical achievement (Weta Digital does it again) and it features another enjoyable John Williams score. But had I not known who directed this film going in, I might not have even realized Steven Spielberg was involved. I missed the trademark look of a Spielberg film, which is why at least I’ve got “War Horse” to look forward to. GRADE: B-

Home Swede Home: The Excellent “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Truly is the Feel Bad Movie of the Christmas Season

Here’s the David Fincher I’ve been missing! The director known for such dark and gritty fare like “Fight Club” and “Seven” has finally returned to gloomy form after a few attempts at breaking out into the mainstream with Oscar favorites like the strange period drama “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and the mildly overrated “The Social Network.” Here he tells his version of the popular Swedish crime novel “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (originally titled “Men Who Hate Women”)about a journalist who teams up with a young goth computer hacker to help solve a murder mystery. The world has already given us one film adaptation merely a year and a half ago, but this material was made to be turn into a Fincher masterpiece. It’s cold, stark atmosphere and disturbing mix of violence and sex are weaved into a fascinating, if sometimes complicated, story of vengeance and murder.

Let me attempt to make sense of this complex plot and all those Swedish names. Henrik Vanger’s (Christopher Plummer) great niece Harriet disappeared from her rich family’s estate 40 years ago. There’s been no trace of her. Henrick believes she’s been murdered and he suspects one of his family members. He hires journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) to research his family’s history and try to help figure out what happened to Harriet. Mikael is in some trouble of his own after he’s caught up in a libel suit at “Millennium” magazine where he works. Since Henrick is offering lots of money and some possible insider info about the rich businessman suing him, Mikael hesitantly accepts the job where he stays in a drafty cottage while he meets the extended family and tries to put pieces of the puzzle together. Meanwhile, a young socially reclusive woman named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara, who took on another iconic female role in the “Nightmare on Elm Street” remake), who’s an expert computer hacker and heavily pierced, is hired to do a background check on Mikael, and once he discovers how easily she’s able to find info on him, insists that she come work with him to help solve Harriet’s possible murder.

That’s the basic gist of the plot, but there’s so much more. Lisbeth is a pretty interesting character and that’s mostly because we learn that she’s had a rather difficult upbringing and unfortunately her financial assets are locked away, where her sleazy financial guardian makes her perform grotesque sexual acts. This includes a disturbing rape sequence that Fincher doesn’t shy away from. This stuff is hard to watch and feels almost manipulative to get you to side with this character and force you to become implicated in her equally disturbing revenge, where she ties up her attacker, sodomizes him, and tattoos “I am a rapist pig” on his chest. This later helps her sympathize with Mikael’s quest to find out what happened to Harriet and lots of other tortured and murdered women. And of course things get lonely for Mikael and Lisbeth, so eventually they “get together.”

Besides telling a rather absorbing story, which has already been told twice before, so it’s all new to me, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” also offers many great reasons to classify this as brilliant filmmaking. The acting is superb. Mara totally takes command of her role. She’s sort of cold and withdrawn, but feisty enough to be likable and sympathetic. I imagine most young actresses who would take on the role would do it serviceable justice, but Mara completely transformers herself not only emotionally but physically. Craig is good as well, in a less flashy role, and Plummer has a few good moments as well. Overall the ensemble is impressive. Fincher’s trademark bleak style fits perfectly with the story and his cinematographer captures his vision wonderfully. This is simply a film that feels as cold and isolated as it looks. Oscar winners Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ terrifically cold and mechanical score helps tremendously. And probably the coolest sequence in the entire film is the opening titles, set to Karen O’s wonderful cover of “Immigrant Song” with such strange and mind-bending images; it’s a Fincher standout and certainly a worthy rival to “Seven’s” notoriously creepy titles.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is wonderful filmmaking all around. Does this movie need to exist? No. But what movie really needs to exists after all? This movie should exist because it deserves to be made by someone of Fincher’s unbridled talent. It offers everything a fan of his work would want and it’s arguably as good as any of his earlier work. Sure some parts sort of went over my head, but that’s what Wikipedia is for. And if it makes someone want to go back and see the original Swedish version, or even read the book then it has every reason to exist. It certainly won’t warm your heart this holiday season; that’s what war movies about horses are for.GRADE: A-

Going Rogue: You Should Definitely Choose to Accept “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”

All four “Mission: Impossible” films have taken on various forms over the years. They’ve all had four different directors and have resulted in varying degrees of success. The first movie, with its overly complicated plot was a fun spy thriller directed by Brian De Palma. The second entry went into silly full-fledged action mode with director John Woo. Things got brought down a little in the much better third entry directed by J.J. Abrams. And strangely enough Brad Bird, known for directing animated films, makes his live action debut with Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol and it’s probably the best entry in the series. Of course most of that had to do with filming many scenes with the large format IMAX film which create such beautiful, breathtaking and sometimes vertigo inducing shots. This fourth entry is made to be seen on IMAX screens where it belongs and is one of the most fun and all around awesome film going experiences I’ve had all year.

Yes Tom Cruise is getting older. But he still has some Ethan Hunt left in him. This time he’s broken out of a Moscow prison by Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg). He’s recruited to infiltrate the Kremlin to extract some information about an assassinated fellow agent (played briefly by Josh Holloway). Unfortunately things go horribley wrong when another team piggybacks on their frequency and sets off a massive bomb that blows up the Kremlin, and Hunt’s team is targeted as the culprits. The president then issues “ghost protocol” which basically shuts down the IMF, leaving Hunt and his team to go rogue and clear their name. Like all of the Mission Impossible films, the movies contain plot elements that can sometimes be difficult to follow, yet are constantly entertaining if you can’t quite follow along perfectly.

So what’s so great in “Mission Impossible 4”? The actions scenes – and maybe it’s because I was in the second row of a giant IMAX theater – are mind-blowingly intense. Part of the team’s mission brings them to Dubai where Hunt must climb the outside of Burj Khalifa which just so happens to be the tallest building in the world. There are aerial shots that are almost nauseating to watch, in a good way of course. Hunt wears gloves that stick to the windows and one eventually goes kaput. Even though you know Tom Cruise won’t die in the middle of his movie, the level of suspense is almost unbearable. And Bird even stages an entire sequence during a violent sandstorm which was probably not too much fun for cinematographer Robert Elswit (who shoots all of PT Anderson’s films) who had to shoot action that was able to be seen through basically a brown, dirt covered lens. There is some rather impressive stuff going on here.

The film benefits greatly from some great additions to the cast. Patton who is known for quiter material such as “Precious” really gets to get into the fun and even has a nice fight scene with a fellow female assassin. Jeremy Renner who was an IMF secretary and former field agent gets into the fun as William Brant. He can hold his own against Cruise in the action hero department – and even has some good comic timing. And speaking of which, Pegg is also wonderful in an expanded role now that his character has been promoted to the field. He makes some mistakes unfortunately for the team, but comically for the audience’s benefit.

“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” is just simply a perfect action film. There’s nothing negative to be said about any of it. Every technical aspect from the music to the camerawork is simply flawless. And I bet they had some kickass craft services as well. Bird certainly came through and crafted a wonderfully entertaining action film that never feels the need to sacrifice story or character for the sake of action, even thought there’s plenty of it. This is a film made to be seen on the big screen because it’s a spectacle – and the bigger the better. Get to an IMAX theater now. This review will self-destruct in five seconds. GRADE: A

NOTE: “The Dark Knight Rises” footage is pretty spectacular as well.

Season of the Bitch: Charlize Theron Humanizes the Girl You Hated in High School in “Young Adult”

“Juno” had a warm fuzzy pop cultured heart at the center of its story of a high school outcast. “Young Adult” is its darker, more cynical cousin that tells the story of an aging former popular high school girl whose life isn’t nearly as awesome as her old classmates would assume it’d be. Charlize Theron is a wonderful actress who can transform physically for a great performance – like in "Monster" – but here she looks like herself. She’s beautiful and fit. It’s her facial expressions and mannerisms that she nails completely. She can articulate emotion (although her character hardly knows the meaning of the word) with just a simple expression or scrunch of her face. She can tell you what she’s thinking without saying a word. That’s great acting. And it helps when you have a sharp and acidic screenplay by Oscar-winner Diablo Cody and assured direction from Jason Reitman.

I can’t imagine that “Young Adult” is going to be a crowd pleasing hit the way “Juno” was. “Young Adult’s" main character is a selfish, self-destructive alcoholic nobody who only cares about her own needs. I’ll tell you right now she doesn’t change much throughout the film which might irk some people. But why should she change? This isn’t a life lesson movie or a traditional Hollywood story. This is the story of a woman who was a mean girl and still is at age 37. But Theron is so good in portraying her that I cared just enough about this despicable human being. And that’s the thing: you get to sort of care about a horrible person, which can sometimes be fun.

So who exactly is this horrible person anyways? She’s Mavis Gary. She’s from a small town in Minnesota. She was the popular Prom Queen with the perfect jock boyfriend. She left her tiny town to pursue big things in the big city – Minneapolis. Not LA, not New York. She became the author of a popular young adult series. Well actually she’s a ghost writer. And the series isn’t doing well and has been canceled and she’s working on the last book. She overhears dialogue and gets insight from the teens she observes daily. She drinks a lot, her super nice condo is basically a dump, and she lounges around in over-sized sweatpants and Hello Kitty t-shirts. This is certainly not the life she envisioned for herself. Besides, how often do we achieve the goals we set for ourselves? But if the popular girl ends up like this, what does that mean for the rest of us nerds? She hears about her ex-boyfriend’s new baby daughter, and even though he’s married with a new family, she insists on going back to the stinking town and steal him back. What a skank!

Mavis packs a suitcase and her tiny dog and hits the road. She has a new goal in life: steal back her ex. Lofty ambitions indeed. She stumbles into town where she confronts a former classmate named Matt (Patton Oswalt) who was in a completely different circle in high school and paid for it badly: he was severely beaten by bullies which left him physically scared. Matt and Mavis form one of the more unlikely pairings in recent memory. I’m surprised she even talked to him for as long as she did, but once she found out he made his own booze at home, that’s all she needed to know. Matt, being the voice of reason, insists that trying to steal back Buddy Slate (Patrick Wilson) is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Mavis clearly hates everything about this town whether it’s the kitschy local bars or the Kentucky Fried Chicken/Taco Bell/Pizza Hut or having to run into her own parents. And then there’s the look of pure disgust on her face when she gets a first look at Buddy’s new baby in person. While most humans smile with joy at seeing an infant, Mavis looks like she just got selected for jury duty. And Theron sells it.

Diablo Cody is a great writer and she makes a wonderful team with Reitman’s great direction. Cody tones down the pop culture savvy dialogue, but her trademark wit is there front and center. It’s cool to see the darker side of both artists and it’s obvious with the success of their other films that they pretty much have free reign to do whatever they want. “Young Adult” is truly a fascinating look at a woman who never quite grew up. She’s stuck in this eternal young adulthood, having to literally write for years about teenagers. As the film progresses you realize that she’s not just a teenager in a woman’s body, but a seriously flawed and psychologically damaged individual, and since I’m not a horrible, evil person, I can even find sympathy for people like Mavis Gary. GRADE: A-

2012 Golden Globe Nomination Predictions

the nominees: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/12/15/golden-globes-nominations/


Best Picture – Drama
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
War Horse

Best Picture – Musical/Comedy
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight in Paris
The Muppets
Crazy Stupid Love

Best Actor – Drama
George Clooney – The Descendants
Brad Pitt – Moneyball
Leonardo DiCaprio – J. Edgar
Ryan Gosling – Drive
Michael Fassbender - Shame

Best Actor - Musical/Comedy
Joseph Gordon-Levitt – 50/50
Jean Dujardin – The Artist
Johnny Depp – The Rum Diary
Owen Wilson – Midnight in Paris
Steve Carrell – Crazy Stupid Love

Best Actress – Drama
Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady
Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis – The Help
Tilda Swinton – We Need to Talk About Kevin
Rooney Mara – The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Best Actress – Musical/Comedy
Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn
Julianne Moore- Crazy Stupid Love
Charlize Theron – Young Adult
Kristen Wiig – Bridesmaids
Cameron Diaz – Bad Teacher

Best Supporting Actor
Christopher Plummer – Beginners
Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks – Drive
Jonah Hill – Moneyball
Patton Oswalt – Young Adult

Best Supporting Actress
Jessica Chastain – The Help
Octavia Spencer – The Help
Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids
Shailene Woodley – The Descendants
Berenice Bejo - The Artist

Best Director
Steven Spielberg - War Horse
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Martin Scorsese - Hugo
Alexander Payne – The Descendants

Best Screenplay
The Descendants
The Artist
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
Young Adult

Best Score
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
War Horse
The Adventures of Tintin
The Artist
Hugo

Best Original Song
“Man or Muppet” – The Muppets
“Life’s a Happy Song” – The Muppets
“Pictures in My Head” – The Muppets
“The Living Proof” - The Help
Star Spangled Man - Captain America

Best Animated Film
Kung Fu Panda 2
The Adventures of Tintin
Rio
Rango
Puss in Boots