Review: Paul

Plot: Graeme Willy (Simon Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost) are two best friends from England out to enjoy the San Diego Comic-Con. Both avid science fiction enthusiasts and believers in extra-terrestrials, the two decide decide to rent an RV and take a road trip to several locations of alien significance such as Roswell, New Mexico. One night while on the road, the two witness a car crash. Upon investigation they come upon Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) an alien who implores them to help rendezvous with a rescue ship. Along the way Clive and Graeme will have to contend with FBI agents Lorenzo Zoil (Jason Bateman), Haggard (Bill Hader), and O'Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio), a naive Christian fundamentalist named Ruth Buggs (Kristen Wiig), and the "Big Guy"(Sigourney Weaver) a mysterious superior who wants Paul dead at all costs.

Review: Anybody who's a fan of all things nerd and also the work of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) will probably find Paul as hilarious and entertaining as I did. Full of quick wit, plenty of pop culture and fantasy/science fiction references, and a steady pace that rarely lags, Paul provides a nice balance of sci-fi action and steady laughs.
Director Greg Mottola keeps the focus of the film where it should be--the relationship between Graeme and Clive. From that stance the film almost directs itself. Pegg and Frost once again prove the ultimate duo. Their buddy chemistry is hard to ignore. It worked in their previous two films and it works in Paul. Graeme comes across as a sweet artist who despite the strong friendship with Clive desperately wants to find love. Clive on the other hand is a struggling author who once won a Nebula award for best science fiction story for anyone under the age of sixteen. Both men struggle for meaning in their own lives and often fill it with fantasy and the belief that hopefully one day they'll meet aliens.
Despite being somewhat sad, they both come across as sweet in their own way. And incredibly funny. Whether it's Clive swearing in Klingon or Graeme's awkwardness around romantic interest Ruth, each possesses a distinct comedic charm that resonates with the audience. The pair also wrote the script which is rife with movie quotes, everything from Jaws to Aliens. While this was grating at times, most of the lines were delivered at opportune moments that were hysterical. The scene where Haggard (Hader) points a gun at the duo and quotes Jaws with, "Smile you son of bitch!" and then proceeds to run over a ravine is only one example. The screen writing duo also added a nice twist at the end which I was not expecting.
Also anchoring the movie is Paul himself, voiced by by Seth Rogen, who also did the motion capture for the character. As an alien trapped on a planet for six and half decades, Rogen does a great job demonstrating how Paul has adapted to the situation. Concealed by the government, Paul has been advising the USA on scientific and sociological insights. Moreover, he's actually influenced pop culture by creating Fox Mulder from The X-Files and assisting Steven Spielberg with E.T. The scene between Rogen and Spielberg over the phone in a flashback to 1981 is classic.
What's great about Paul is how human he is. Paul drinks, smokes, watches television, and eats all kinds of bad food like the normal American. It makes the fact that he's being hunted now by the FBI so they can harvest his stem cells to obtain his psychic powers, that much more heart wrenching. You see his human side come out especially with Clive, who feels jealous because Graeme and Paul developed a connection after Clive fainted at the initial meeting.
Kristen Wiig delivers another strong comedic performance as the naive Ruth. The scenes wear she beings swearing for the first time are initially funny but get old after awhile. However, an awkward scene where she grabs Graeme's junk more than makes up for it. I have to say though that the chemistry between Wiig and Pegg wasn't great and at times the relationship felt forced.
Jason Bateman excels as FBI agent Lorenzo Zoil, although his name is a bit of a groaner. Bateman, rather than his usual goofy self, plays Zoil completely straight laced. The two rookie agents continually confound him and at one point he even refers to them as "Frick and F**k". (Hilarious!) Bateman's dedication to Zoil's stuffiness makes the awkward hugging scene between Zoil and Ruth's father Moses Buggs (John Carroll Lynch) that much funnier. Just when I though Bateman's schitck was getting old he busts out with this performance.
Not surprisingly Bateman's partner in crime from Arrested Development, Jeffrey Tambor makes a cameo as Adam Shadowchild, a popular science fiction writer that Graeme and Clive both respect. Tambor is a perfect egotistical and pompous ass who tells people who haven't bought his book to "F off." Other cameo's by Blythe Danner and Sigourney Weaver round out a balanced and cohesive cast.
My only complaints about the film are that the movie was about ten minutes too long and that the spaceship at the end looked a little cheesy. In addtion the way Paul signals the rescue ship is kind of ridiculous. (Fireworks? Really?)
However, it wasn't enough to distract me from enjoying Paul. Chalk up another comedic success for Pegg and Frost. May the duo live long and prosper.

My rating: 8/10

Out of The Grey and on to Death...Death Wish that is for director Joe Carnahan

Fresh off of his latest film The Grey, director Joe Carnahan (The A-Team, Narc) apparently plans on tackling a remake of the 1974 Charles Bronson classic Death Wish.* The original film resolves around a pacifist (played by Bronson) who, after a brutal attack that leaves his wife dead and his daughter raped, decides to become a gun toting vigilante. Death Wish propelled Bronson into the limelight and spawned four sequels.

MGM and Paramount have tapped Carnahan to direct the film which will naturally be a reboot. Since forty years have almost passed since the original I'd say that's a good idea. Reports also indicate that Carnahan will pen the script as well. Tony and Ridley Scott's production company Scott Free will be financing the film.

I can honestly say that I've never seen the original film, mostly because I've never been a Charles Bronson fan. While I don't think rebooting the franchise is a bad thing, I think it seems kind of unnecessary. Hasn't the "man taking the law into his own hands" routine been done to death already? Incidentally don't audiences already have enough of that with super hero movies?

Carnahan and his representatives have yet to confirm his involvement in the film and there are no casting announcements or start date at this time.

*Believe it or not Death Wish was actually Jeff Goldblum's first film at the tender age of 21. He played Freak #1 according to the official credits.

Spiderman! Spiderman! His Logos are all over London man!

Although The Dark Knight Rises is the hands down number one film I want to see this summer, (probably multiple times) I have to say I'm very intrigued by the upcoming The Amazing Spiderman. It takes courage to re-boot a franchise only five short years after the last film, 2007's horrendous Spiderman 3. With Emma Stone, Dennis Leary, Rhys Ifans, and the talented Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) in the lead role, I have high expectations for this film. Columbia Pictures and Marvel Entertainment bills it as "The Untold Story" of how Peter Parker became Spiderman, and apropos of recent comic book films, the trailer comes across very dark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XayxMPrUP4
Despite a release date still over five months away, the superhero (or at least his producers) are spinning a web of intrigue across the pond. According to the British film site Hey You Guys (love that name!) Spiderman logos are appearing all across the city. These logos are to promote an upcoming sneak peek at The Amazing Spiderman on February 6th. Similar displays in Rio, New York, and Los Angeles have also been appearing.
The real question is what does a "sneak peek" mean? I would be stunned if it a full screening of the film. More than likely it will be a significant scene. Perhaps the one where Peter Parker becomes Spiderman?
The Amazing Spiderman opens July 3, 2012.

Director Vaughn Signs on for Sequel to X-Men First Class

In a 2011 summer season littered with super hero films such as Captain America, Thor, and Green Lantern, I thought Director Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class stood far ahead of the pack. Unfortunately, this is Hollywood where well-reviewed big budget films often don't get sequels if they don't bring in the green. With a budget of $160 million, First Class had moderate success hauling in $148 million domestically and $353 million worldwide.

Despite its slightly underwhelming performance domestically, Fox made the decision (rightly) to go forward with the sequel. They've already made a step in the right direction by signing director Matthew Vaughn for the next film. Aside from Simon Kinberg writing the script and Bryan Singer returning as producer, there are no casting details at this time.

It gratifies me that Fox is moving ahead with a sequel and that Vaughn is returning as director. I feel like his guidance was the impetus for making First Class a success. Having said that this film will fail miserably if James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender don't return as Professor X and Magneto respectively. Both actors nailed their respective parts and I can't imagine replacing either actor, especially Fassbender. Fassbender's slick, almost James Bond-esque portrayal of Magneto carried First Class. His intensity permeates the entire film.

With films like Shame, Haywire, Jane Eyre, A Dangerous Method, and the upcoming Ridley Scott sci-fi film Prometheus, Fassbender is hotter than the surface of the sun right now. Consequently, his agent will likely ask for a significant increase in salary. With limited returns on the first film however, I wonder to what extent the second film's budget will be impacted. I would hope that Fox doesn't get into a pissing contest with Fassbender about money. To quote Teddy KGB from Rounders Fox better "pay that man his money."

Aside from the returning cast members, my main interest lies in the time frame this film will be set in. The first film revolved around the Cuban Missile Crisis in '62, so where does the sequel go? My hunch is that it will be set sometime in the early to mid-70s. While there is the possibility Vietnam may be involved I highly doubt it. That might be just too much of a hot button topic to address. My respect for Fox would increase immensely if they made the bold choice to involve Vietnam however.

Officially there is no start date for the project but look for casting announcements soon now that Vaughn has signed on to direct.

"I'm Invincible!" Monty Python troop returning for another film!

This is awesome news. In a memo released today by The Ministry of Funny Walks, the Monty Python gang (sans deceased Graham Chapman) will be reuniting for an all new movie. OK so the first part of that sentence is piffle but they really are going to release a new movie.

The group who first gained recognition with the television show Monty Python's Flying Circus and later with films like Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Monty Python's Life of Brian, will re team for the upcoming film Absolutely Anything. Terry Gilliam (Time Bandits, 12 Monkeys, The Fisher King) will direct and Michael Palin, John Cleese, and Terry Jones are already signed on. Eric Idle is the only holdout right now but I'm sure he won't...ahem...idle for very long. (Cue Krusty the Clown groan here.)

While Jones says it's not technically a Monty Python film "it certainly has that sensibility."

The film will be a combination of live action and CGI. The script revolves around a group of aliens (voiced by the ex-Monty Python members) who travel to Earth and give a Frenchman the power to do "absolutely anything." Of course hilarity ensues. There's also apparently a talking dog named Dennis (Robin Williams) in the movie. Williams may also be playing the Frenchman as well but that's not official. Producers associated with the film say the Frenchman will be in the vein of Inspector Clouseau from The Pink Panther. Even though Jones says this isn't a Monty Python film per se, it sure as a dismembered Black Knight sounds like a Monty Python film.

As long as there are no snags, the film is set to begin filming this spring in the United Kingdom.

Talking Spock: Zachary Quinto dishes on the Star Trek 2 script and

It's only been about two weeks since the followup to 2009's Star Trek began principal photography but E! recently caught up with Zachary Quinto (Spock) about the upcoming film and he had some interesting tidbits to say about the script.

Although Quinto wouldn't reveal any specifics about the film, he says the script is much more fluid this time around and has been allowed to evolve. Quinto went on to say that since there was writer's strike the first time out, the script for the first film wasn't really allowed to mature. I find this interesting considering I thought Star Trek had a fantastic script. Now Quinto's saying there's even more room for creative change? Sweet.

Spock--I'm sorry Quinto--also revealed that newcomers Peter Weller, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Alice Eve are fitting in nicely. Now if they could only get William Shatner* to do a cameo...** (On second thought, considering Shatner's reputed temperament that might add an undo level of stress to the set.)

*Anyone remember Shatner on 3rd Rock from the Sun as the Big Giant Head? Hilarious. Also 3rd Rock from the Sun was one of the most underrated sitcoms of all time IMO.

**Speaking of cameos, Leonard Nimoy is visiting the set this week. Possible old Spock cameo anyone?

Know what? Noah is coming via director Darren Aronofsky

I was very upset when director Darren Aronofsky decided to leave The Wolverine, the upcoming sequel to the God-awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Black Swan and The Wrestler, his past two films, were fantastic and I really thought he could inject some life into the Wolverine character. Unfortunately due to custody issues with his ex-wife it was not to be.

However, it appears the director is about to get back in the saddle with his next project and it's a big one. Aronofsky is slated to begin work this July on Noah with release date of Fall 2013.

If any of you were expecting this to be a straight Biblical retelling however you are out of luck. The story will be based off a graphic novel (what isn't these days?) and will be a re imagining that seems part sci-fi part fantasy. Here's a brief synopsis:

It was a world without hope, a world with no rain and no crops, dominated by warlords and their barbarian hordes. In this cruel world, Noah was a good man. Seasoned fighter, mage and healer but he only wanted peace for him and his family. Yet every night, Noah was beset by visions of an endless flood, symbolizing the destruction of all life. Gradually, he began to understand the message sent him by the Creator. He had decided to punish the men and kill them until the last. But he gave Noah a last chance to preserve life on Earth…

I have to say that the plot sounds very intriguing. Leave it to Aronofsky to put a twist on an old story.

While Christian Bale was originally offered the role he turned it down. The latest rumor is Michael Fassbender will be offered the part. (My God the man is everywhere these days!) No other casting information has been forthcoming and at this time the July start date I mentioned is still up in the air.

Even though I would have preferred a straight retelling that's just not Aronofsky's style. Besides this version sounds bad-ass. I mean come on a warrior Noah who is also a mage and a healer fighting barbarians??!! Sign me up!

Risque "Shameless" poster banned in Hungary

First off I want to put out there that I am (for the most part) completely against censorship. As human beings we are free thinking entities with personal backgrounds, ethics, beliefs, and ideas that are as diverse as the choices at ColdStone Creamery. As such what people consider "offensive" is highly subjective. Only individuals can determine what is offensive.

Concurrently, from a movie perspective, I've never understood why certain groups extol the evils of R-rated films. The idea that movies (or even video games if you like) will somehow corrupt children and drive them to do violent acts is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. In my opinion claiming that a movie drove you to commit a heinous act makes no sense. I've seen plenty of films that were extremely graphic in terms of violence and sex and it hasn't affected my personal morals one iota. If anything some of those films, like The Shawshank Redemption my favorite film, have made me think and question, as great films tend to do. I go out and become a corrupt warden.

Bottom line is that the people who say they committed murder because of a film, probably had something wrong with them before hand. The argument by censorship groups doesn't hold weight. Millions upon millions of people see these films and don't become corrupt psycho killers, just like the majority of victims of sexual abuse don't grow up to become rapists.

In addition there is such a thing as personal responsibility, especially when it comes to parenting. If you don't want your children watching a certain movie or playing a certain video game--DON'T ALLOW THEM TO. It's as simple as that. Censoring a film takes away our right to choose and I'm firmly against that. Obviously I'm no babe in the woods. I know that forbidding a child to do something usually makes them want to do it more. But so does censorship. Maybe even more so. Don't believe me? Ask someone who was forbidden to read Catcher in the Rye or watch Last Tango in Paris when they were young how much that piqued their interest.

Last year Fox Searchlight released a film called Shame starring Carey Mulligan and Michael Fassbender, two of the top people acting today. The film revolves around around two sex-addicted siblings that struggle with daily life.

Although the film received an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, typically the kiss of death in terms of box office, Fox Searchlight refused to change the film. It has been met with critical success with an 80% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and many critics calling it one of the best films of the year. Many in fact think that the biggest snub of the Oscar season was Fassbender not getting an Academy Award nomination for best actor.

The reason for the NC-17 rating was mostly because of the graphic nature of the film which involved full frontal nudity from Fassbender. Again I've never understood why it's ok to show breasts in a film yet if some dude flashes a dong more than once it necessitates an NC-17 rating. Moreover why is graphic sex not ok but movies like Hostel or Saw have buckets of blood and people getting tortured and retain an R rating? It's like saying violence is cool but sex isn't. I just don't get it.

As yet I have not been able to see the film, but based on the controversy surrounding it as well the superb actors, I fully intend to.

You may be wondering at this point, "Ok Corrye where are you going with this?" A fair question. A poster for Shame has been banned in Hungary due to the provocative nature of the poster. You can see said poster at this link http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/possibly-nsfw-shame-poster-banned-in-hungary

While typically I don't agree with censorship I do in this case. You'll understand if you go to the link, as the suggestiveness leaves little room for debate. I am by no means a prude but this is crossing the line a bit. The reason I believe Hungary is right is because I wouldn't want to take my children (if I had children) to see Beauty and the Beast and have this poster slapped in their face. In this instance you can't shut the television off. Furthermore, from a business standpoint it makes sense for theaters. I can't imagine the possible loss of customers who might refuse to go the movie theaters because of this poster.

While I don't approve of the poster being in theaters I definitely respect the producers embracing this film for what it is. The films revolves around the dark and devastating world of sex addicts. If you're looking for Disney characters this isn't the film for you. Just like the rest of the world, you have the choice to see this film. Or not.

Smokin' Hot "Lost" star Evangeline Lily dishes on her role as a Smokin' Hot Elf in The Hobbit

You're welcome.

Several months ago I reported that "Lost" star Evangeline Lilly (most recently seen in Reel Steel) would play an elf named Tauriel in the upcoming Hobbit films from director Peter Jackson. Little was known about her role as her character does not appear in the novel. However, recently Lilly sat down with "Entertainment Weekly" and talked about her role in the two part fantasy fest.

According to Lilly, Tauriel will be the head of the Elven guard and is skilled in weaponry--both knife fighting and archery. Lilly refers to her character as "lethal and deadly." Lilly goes on to say that the role is much more demanding that she originally intended as her character development expands in the second film.

I'd like to say bravo to Mr. Jackson for making a female Elf the head of the Elven guard and (it sounds like) a badass to boot.* One criticism I always had against Tolkien (as many do) is that he doesn't have very strong women characters in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Chalk that up to the era he grew up in I suppose. In any case it's nice to know this won't be a male dominated film.

In addition to discussing her role, Lilly also (intentional or not) mentioned something that I'd been wondering about since the announcement the film would be split into two, namely at what point in the first film would the story end? Of her character's involvement in the films Lilly stated, "She's not in the first film very much. She comes into the first film near the end, and has a very small part to play.**"

As an avid reader of the novel I can tell you that the band of dwarves and hobbit do not encounter the Elves of Mirkwood until after a furious battle with large spiders. This indicates to me that the first film will end at a point that is almost 3/4 of the way through the novel. I can only predict that a lot of the second film will focus on the attack on the Necromancer's fortress at Dol Guldur (not depicted in the books but only described in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings), the confrontation between Smaug the dragon and the dwarves, and the ultimate Battle of Five Armies. In any event it's nice to know approximately where the stopping point for the first film will be.***

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey releases this December 13th and The Hobbit: There and Back Again releases December 14th, 2013.

*I'd like to point out that Peter Jackson did the same thing in the Lord of the Rings films, making Arwen a female Elven warrior which was not the case in the novels.

**Lilly also happened to mention that there are still FIVE MORE MONTHS OF SHOOTING LEFT. That's insane considering that production began on March 21st of last year. That means that principal photography won't actually end until June. That's longer than it took to film The Lord of the Rings trilogy which was three films and only a 13 month shoot.

***Personally I would love the end of the first film to be Bilbo seeing The Lonely Mountain for the first while floating on his barrel. Ominous music plays and then there is fade to black. AWESOME.

A New Trick for the Old Man: Gary Oldman finally gets an Academy Award nomination

When I woke up the other day and perused the latest Oscar nominations and saw that Gary Oldman had finally been nominated for an Academy Award for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I felt something akin to how Red Sox fans must have felt when Boston won the 2004 World Series. Finally after decades of fantastic performances this guy finally gets over.

I honestly believe that in addition to Daniel Day Lewis, Gary Oldman may be the best living actor today. He's a person that consistently transforms himself in a such a manner that he becomes a character. Oldman is never "Oldman playing a character" like Brad Pitt is "Pitt playing a character" or "George Clooney playing a character."* Oldman quite literally is the character. Just check out some of the roles he's had over the years:

Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy

Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK

Count Dracula in Dracula

Norman Stansfield in The Professional

Beethoven in Immortal Beloved

Zorg in The Fifth Element

Sirius Black in the Harry Potter series

Jim Gordon in Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises

That's an impressive list to say the least and I'm not even counting some of his impressive cameo roles like Drexl Spivey in True Romance.

Yet after all this time the 53 year old actor has been unable to garner an Academy Award nomination until now. That's just a damn tragedy. If you really want to get a good baseline on how amazing an actor this guy is, I suggest you watch Sid and Nancy, Immortal Beloved, and The Fifth Element. You will be astounded at the range this guy has because each role is monumentally different.

My sincere hope is that he wins the award for Best Actor. My guess is that it will not happen because George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both nominated in the same category, and to be honest Hollywood is a a bunch of starf***ers. Yet Oldman, even if he loses will do so with grace and dignity. And that makes him an actor not a moviestar. I respect a man who wears the former like a badge of honor than anyone who flaunts the latter like Lil' John's gold teeth. Congratulations Gary! May the future be filled with many more stunning performances.

*I want to be clear that there is a distinct difference between actors and moviestars. Moviestars are a "name" to draw people to the theater. People like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, Katherine Heigel, Kate Hudson--they all fall into this category. I don't for a second consider them to be "actors" because for the most part they are playing themselves. Moneyball was a good film but it wasn't a stretch for Pitt. And even George Clooney's win for Syriana was a joke. All I saw was a fat George Clooney. Whoop de do. This is not to say that I don't enjoy the movies these guys make. I loved O Brother Where Out Thou? The Fantastic Mr. Fox, Oceans 11, Fight Club, Seven, and 12 Monkeys. That being said no one will ever convince me that Ryan Reynolds is an actor. Gary Oldman, Meryl Streep, Daniel Day Lewis, Michelle Williams, Colin Firth--those are real actors and actresses. Very rarely do people fall into both categories. In point of fact I can really only think of two right now and that's Johnny Depp and Leonardo Dicaprio. However I respect those guys a hell of a lot because both had opportunies to go the moviestar route and they didn't. They decided to make quality films that challenged their range. Now agree or disagree on who's really an actor or who's really a moviestar is up for debate. But you can't deny that in Hollywood there are actors and there are moviestars. It was that way back in the day with Frank Sinatra and Marylinn Monroe, it's true today with the people I've mentioned, and it will be true twenty years from now.

BBF Mark Wahlberg and Justin Bieber may remake "Fear"

Ok so I'm just going to throw out there what everyone is thinking: WTF is going on with Justin Bieber and Mark Wahlberg???
Several months ago Wahlberg was recruiting the Beebs for a basketball movie. Strange as that was now there's another curve being thrown moviegoers way.

Apparently Bieber, for some inexplicable reason is obsessed with the 1996 dark thriller Fear starring Mark Wahlberg. Although the film came after Wahlberg's other two films Renaissance Man and The Basketball Diaries*, Fear elevated Wahlberg out of Funky Bunch status and into the limelight. His next role was the classic Boogie Nights and as they say the rest is history.

According to Movieweb, Bieber wants to acquire the rights to remake Fear and tone it down to a PG-13 rating. (natch!) Currently there are no plans to remake Fear or if Mark Wahlberg will in any way be involved.

Bieber's desire to remake this movie makes about as much sense as Garth Brooks doing that terrible Chris Gaines album back in the 90s. The basic problem here is that when Wahlberg took this role he was a jacked badass that oozed testosterone and brought a sense of menace to the character. Justin Bieber is a skinny little bitch who looks like a girl and couldn't intimidate a decrepit cat with social anxiety disorder. I just don't see how this works. I'd like to think this won't happen but Bieber, remakes, and PG-13 ratings are "the thing" in Hollywood so it probably will.

Can a remake of Howard the Duck starring the Jonas Brothers be far behind?

2011 Oscar Nominees--Snubs and Surprises

Well another year and another round of Oscar nominations. Which of course also means another year of raised eyebrows at those chosen--and those excluded. Rather than rehash a list of nominees that's already plastered all over the web, I've decided to focus this post on where the Academy got it right and where they went horribly wrong. Look out everybody! It's Oscar Snubs and Surprises--the 2011 edition.

Best Picture

Surprises: This category may have been the most perplexing of all not just based on who was nominated by why 9 movies were picked. Being an astute follower of the Oscars I knew that after last season the number of Best Picture nominees could range from 5 to 10. However for a clearer explanation of the voting process and why this is so, I suggest you go to http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/24/oscars-best-picture-why-nine-nominees/. It's a much more in-depth description than I can provide.

You can make a case that all nine films on this list are deserving of a nomination except one--Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. This is a film that has schmaltz and sentimentality written all over it. Throw in a dose of Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Max Von Sydow, and stir in a 9/11 backdrop ala father/son story and you get a half baked film that currently rates a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact the by-line on the site reads as follows: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has a story worth telling but it deserves better than the teachy and pretentious treatment that director Stephen Daldry gives it." That's not a rousing endorsement from the site I consider to be most spot on when it comes to movies. Of the other eight films nominated the lowest percentage is The Help with a 76% approval rating. Don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the Academy missed the boat on this one.

Snubs: There are two clear cut ones in my mind. The first is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Smart, sleek, exciting, brilliantly acted with a fantastic score it was one of the best films of 2011. Same goes for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Both films could have taken the place of War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, or Moneyball.

Best Actor

Surprises: In this category I think the surprise was a pleasant one. After a long and impressive career that has run the gamut of portrayals from Sid Vicious to Beethoven, Gary Oldman finally gets a nomination for his brilliant performance in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. It's probably too much to hope that he wins the award, as most critics predict a fight between Clooney and Pitt, but you never know. The only other surprise might be Damien Bachir getting a nod for A Better Life a foreign film that had limited release and few people saw.

Snubs: The one that jumps immediately out at me is Leonardo DiCaprio for J. Edgar. While I haven't seen the film yet, critics have extolled his performance,if not the film. Also one of the most talented actors working today--Ryan Gosling--was snubbed for both The Ides of March and Drive. I'd be remiss if I also didn't mention Michael Fassbender's harrowing turn as a sex addict in Shameless as a total snub by the Academy. Shame on them. (Cue the Krusty the Clown groan.)

Best Actress

Surprises/Snubs: None. As far as I'm concerned this is the one category where the Academy got it absolutely right. I was nervous that Rooney Mara might not get a nomination for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, however the Academy didn't let me down. She joins Meryl Streep, Viola Davis, Glenn Close, and Michelle Williams in the category. This one will be a tough battle between Streep and Williams but in the end I think Streep comes away with her third Academy Award. Incidentally this is the 17th Academy Award nomination for Streep.

Best Supporting Actor

Surprises: Again a pleasant one here as Nick Nolte gets a well deserved nomination for his role as Paddy Conlon in Warrior. Max von Sydow's nomination for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close was quite the curve ball, however Jonah Hill's was not. To be fair, while I thought that Hill's performance in Moneyball was solid, I didn't think it was Oscar worthy. This is kind of a reflection on how it was a down year for films though.

Snubs: Andy Serkis for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Yes I know his character was a digitally generated chimpanzee but he also did all the motion capture and facial expressions for the character and singlehandedly made that film a success. Furthermore, if John Hurt can be covered in a mountain of makeup for The Elephant Man and receive an Oscar nomination, then why not Serkis?

Best Supporting Actress

Surprises: Melissa McCarthy's nomination for Bridesmaids came as a bit of a shock. Despite being one of the few bright spots in an extremely overrated film, the Academy typically doesn't like comedies for some reason. Kudos to McCarthy. While many people predicted that Octavia Spencer would be nominated for The Help, I didn't see Jessica Chastain being nominated for the same film. It makes for quite the intriguing category.

Snubs: Only one here--Shailene Woodley for The Descendants. Not only was she supposed to be a shoe-in to score a nomination, but many had her as the front runner to win it. Goes to show what starring in The Secret Life of the American Teenager can do to you. (I kid. After all Jennifer Lawrence got her start on The Bill Engvall Show.)

Directing

Surprises: Far be it from me to say that Woody Allen receiving an Oscar nomination for directing is a "surprise" but I clearly think it was and many agree. While many thought his film Midnight in Paris would land screenplay and picture nominations (they did) few expected the director to grab his first directing nomination since 1995.

Snubs: David Fincher for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. After getting robbed last year by the Academy for The Social Network, the least they could have done was given him an Oscar nomination. It would have been well deserved and a makeup at the same time. Steven Spielberg for War Horse. After all the love that the film received from critics and the intensity that went in to making the film, I thought for sure that Spielberg would net another nomination but.

Other than the major categories the snubs and surprises were few. I felt that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo writer Steven Zaillian was passed over for Best Adapted Screenplay and that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross were equally deserving of a nomination in the Best Score category for the same film. I also don't see how you leave Hoyt van Hoytema off the list for Best Cinematography for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. His work was superb in that film.

Despite the fact that this is an extremely down year for the Oscars* I predict that this will be a highly competitive race with some definite surprises. In the coming weeks look forward to my Oscar predictions as we near February 26th.

*Incidentally I think next year's Oscar nominations could have some real box office pop to them. I know it's early but I have a feeling that both The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will have numerous nominations next Oscar season.

George Lucas Swinging out of the Blockbuster Jungle?

*

I want to say that I love George Lucas for bringing Star Wars and Indiana Jones into my life. It's hard to imagine my life without those movies only because they were not only a key part of my childhood but they fundamentally shaped my outlook on movies and my love for science fiction and fantasy.

Unfortunately, Lucas has had more hatred dumped on him in the last fifteen years by fans than Hoth has had snowstorms. Fans have complained of everything (justifiably in most cases) from his constant tinkering with Star Wars, Jar Jar Binks, bad prequels, Hayden Christiansen's apparent lack of acting, greed, and Indiana Jones 4. While I agree on the tinkering, Jar Jar Binks, and Hayden Christiansen, I actually liked the prequels and anybody who reads my blog knows how I've come around on the last Indiana Jones film. Truth be told I think my biggest complaint is the greed situation and Lucas's seeming indifference to his fans' complaints. No one would have a problem shelling out the money for the Star Wars DVD and Blu-ray if he didn't space them out to get the most money and/or if he released the original versions as well.

As a result of my previous comments, I have a real hard time trusting anything George Lucas says anymore and that includes his latest six page interview in the New York Times, where he states he's retiring from making big-budget films. Instead he wants to devote the rest of his film making career to "personal films" that are "small in scope, esoteric in subject, and screened mostly in art houses."

Ooooookaaayyyy.....

If George really wants to do this, more power to him but I highly doubt it. How many of George's films have ever been "small in scope" or "esoteric"? The closest one is maybe American Grafitti.

Is ole George trying to pull a Jedi mind trick on us because if so it's pretty weak. I don't buy it for a second because honestly George Lucas has too big of an ego to make films that are shown mostly in art houses and seen by a few people. Most of his films (good and bad) have been big budget films that say "LOOK AT ME!!!!" I don't see that changing anytime soon.

An interesting question though is if George Lucas is serious, what does this mean for Indy 5? Ford is apparently set to play the role again and Lucas at last telling was generating a story. Does this mean that the movie isn't going to happen? Not necessarily. While Lucas might help develop the story and script, it doesn't necessarily mean he has to have a huge role in the movie. In fact it might be a great idea if he sat back on this one and let others take over. However I doubt very highly that Lucas will be able to show restraint when it comes to Indiana Jones.

Either way I wouldn't look for Lucas to be headlining the next Indie flick convention anytime soon.

*I found this poster on the Internet and couldn't resist. The caption is just too perfect.

Director Ben Affleck nabs writer for Stephen King's "The Stand" movie apaptation

Several months ago Warner Bros. dropped the news that Hollywood A-Lister Ben Affleck would be adapting Stephen King's seminal end of the world novel "The Stand" into a feature film. At the time the Academy Award winning screen writer was also supposed to do the screenplay, however that is no longer the case.

WB has hired screenwriter David Kajganich to adapt the novel. Kajganich is best known for his screenplay of the 2007 film The Invasion with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. Personally I haven't seen the film but it's rating on Rotten Tomatoes is pretty poor--only 19% with 128 rotten reviews against 31 fresh. However the overall RT statement calls the film "slickly made but it lacks psychological insight and thrills." Take that for what you will but it speaks to possible weaknesses in the screenplay. Just sayin'.

Despite this WB hired Kajganich for "The Stand" ironically because they were so wowed by his screenplay adaptation for another Stephen King book--"IT"* which is also getting a fresh look on the big screen.

From my perspective I'm excited for both of these projects. I consider "The Stand" and "IT" to be my two favorite Stephen King novels of all time, and while I did enjoy the television mini-series back in the day, both would look great on the big screen. My only concern is that "The Stand" is such a gigantic novel that you really can't do it justice even if you made it into a 3 hour film. Splitting it into two or even three films might work out better.

In any case I'm excited to see what Affleck does with this film. I know a lot of people out there think Affleck is a talentless hack but I'm not one of them. Yes he's made some bad films (Gigli, Reindeer Games) however the two films he's directed, Gone Baby Gone and The Town were phenomenal. As far as I'm concerned he can stay behind the camera for the rest of his life.

As of right now the film is in pre-production but there is no start date or cast so this film could be in development hell or simply fall apart at any time.

*Despite the fact that it was a mini-series, IT scared the crap out of me when I was a child. I didn't like clowns before then but after that I detested them. If I ever have kids they are never going to get a clown for a birthday party. Not a chance.

A Major Spoiler from The Dark Knight Rises that...Most People Already Figured Out

Let me preface this post by stating that if you want to be completely surprised when you go see The Dark Knight Rises DON'T READ ANY FURTHER.

Alright you've been properly warned.

Twelve year old actress Joey King was cast in The Dark Knight Rises just under a year ago, however no one really knew who she would be playing. Well this week in an interview with My Entertainment World she dropped a bomb shell. King revealed that she will be playing none other than the young Talia al Ghul.

For those of you unfamiliar with the comic book character or Talia al Ghul I'll give you a short description. Talia is the daughter of Ra's al Ghul (played by Liam Neeson in Batman Begins) and Bruce Wayne/Batman's sometimes foe sometimes lover. (In fact in the Batman comic universe Talia is actually the mother to Bruce Wayne's son Damien--the current Robin.) Now Liam Neeson is supposedly reprising his role in flashbacks for TDKR. There will also be a flashback scene with Josh Pence as a young Ra's al Ghul. I'm assuming that King will probably be involved in these scenes.

So what's the significance of King's disclosure? It really affects the character of Marion Cotillard who plays Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda Tate. Cotillard has repeatedly insisted that she will not be playing Talia al Ghul but with King's news I think we can pretty much put that denial to rest. This sets up an incredibly new dynamic between Bruce Wayne/Batman and Talia. After all Batman, while he didn't kill Ra's al Ghul in the first film, did allow him to die. Does this mean that Cotillard's character will be looking for revenge? The relationship between the two will be complex to say the least.

To be honest this "spoiler" really comes as no shock to me. With Ra's al Ghul part of the storyline and Bane being connected to the League of Shadows, there was little doubt in my mind that Talia al Ghul would show up. There was also little doubt that Cotillard was playing Talia despite her protests to the contrary.

Nevertheless, despite Christopher Nolan's tight lipped approach to plot details, this one slipped out. I hope this doesn't negatively impact King's career or Nolan tries to pull some bullshit lawsuit. I don't get that vibe from him but hey it's Hollywood so you never know. Either way this is great news and makes me want to see the film that much more. (Is that possible?)

The Dark Knight Rises hits theaters July 20th.

Review: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Plot: Based on the best selling novel of the same name by John le Carre, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy delves into the world of British Intelligence and espionage during the 1970s. When members of the BI uncover evidence of a Communist mole high in their ranks, fired former intelligence agent George Smiley (Gary Oldman) comes out of retirement to track down the culprit. Assisted by wanted agent Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy) and British Intelligence officer Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley seeks redemption for himself and former boss Control (John Hurt). But how do you find a mole when everyone is a suspect and no one can be trusted...not even Smiley himself?

Review: My first thought after viewing director Tomas Alfredson's fantastic Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy was "Wow, they don't make them like this anymore!" Cliche I know but appropriate. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a tour de force of intrigue, suspense, and tension that hooks you from the opening reel and doesn't let go until the very end. It's ironic that the film is set in 1974 as the film has a distinct 70s feel to it, ala classics like The Sting, All the President's Men, and The French Connection.

Alfredson (best known for his 2008 vampire film Let the Right One In)does an excellent job of showcasing the distinct British acting talent this film has to offer. Check out the list: Colin Firth (Academy Award winner), Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds...it's a virtual who's who of British actors. With that many egos you might expect a film where scenes become a game of one-ups-manship. Not so. Alfredson sets just the right balance between the different actors and keeps a steady pace.

Furthermore, Alfredson accomplishes something many directors aren't able to do anymore--show a scene/character/situation without dialogue. For example, from the time that Smiley is introduced to when he says his first line, several minutes pass. Yet in that time it becomes self evident that Smiley is a calculating, persistent, and detached character. By the time Oldman actually says his first line the die has been cast. We know what type of person George Smiley is like. It's a talent that you rarely see except in Alfred Hitchcock movies like Rear Window. Hitchcock was a master of setting the scene without dialogue and Alfredson is clearly a disciple.

Working hand in glove with Alfredson were screenwriters Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan. Their adaptation of le Carre's novel is sure to garnish an Academy Award nomination for best adapted screenplay. Rather than try to modernize the film and set it in the 21st century, the producers and the writers made the correct choice of keeping the time frame of the movie the same as the novel. It's an interesting twist too, as when Americans think of the Cold War we think of it in terms of the USA vs the Soviet Union. However, the United Kingdom was just as heavily invested in the Cold War and had the added problem of being closer to the USSR than the USA. The screenplay brings to light the paranoia and inner workings of British Intelligence.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the cinematography of Hoyte von Hoytema. There is a shadowy almost grainy character to how he shot Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Many scenes are cast in a kind of faded yellow. The lighting combined with the shadows create a sense of mystery and exacerbates the idea that danger and the identity of the mole lurks everywhere. Also many closeup shots focus on distinct important images such as Smiley's glasses or a typed letter. This enhances how important details are not just for the protagonist but also for finding the mole.

Editor Dino Jonsater takes full advantage of Hoytema's work, incorporating several quick cuts between close ups. Incidentally, Jonsater's editing results in a suspenseful movie with minimal violence--not an easy thing to do. Of course Alberto Iglesias' music compliments Jonaster and Alfredson's aims. The score is understated and not overpowering, with the just the right amount of heightened tension to keep you engaged.

At its core however, Tinker, Sailor, Soldier, Spy revolves around the character of George Smiley, and thankfully Oldman brings a damn near flawless performance to the role. Oldman is someone I like to consider a real actor not a movie star like Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Oldman creates dynamic, fascinating characters that are each distinct. (I mean look at the people he's played: Sid Vicious, Lee Harvey Oswald, Beethoven, Commissioner James Gordon, and the list goes on.) Smiley may be Oldman's most restrained character yet. It's an understated role for Oldman where everything is precise, calculating, and exacting. It's almost infuriating at times because the character is so detached you wonder if the man is completely devoid of emotion. This makes the moments where he does show emotion and humanity (especially in a closing scene) that much more impactful. Whether he's opposite Tom Hardy (great alcohol-ridden scene between the two of them half way through the film by the way), Benedict Cumberbatch, or Colin Firth, he flat out nails it. Oldman's performance should earn him his first Academy Award nomination.

With intrigue, suspense, and a plot line that keeps you fully engaged from the word "go," Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a spy movie in the classic sense. Don't miss it.

My rating: 10/10

The Good, the Bad, and the Matthew Lillard?? Scream star in negotiations to star alongside Clint Eastwood in director's next film

Ok this news from Entertainment Weekly DOES NOT make my day. In one of the most bizarre possible casting choices ever, terminally goofy looking actor Matthew Lillard, who first gained notice with the Scream films, is in negotiations to star right alongside Clint Eastwood in the director's upcoming film Trouble with the Curve. Eastwood will play an aging baseball scout dealing with blindness who heads down to Atlanta to evaluate a hotshot prospect. Lillard meanwhile (if he gets the role) will play another baseball scout.

Minor role or major role I really question this choice by Eastwood*. Lillard just appeared in one of the most well reviewed films of the year, director George Clooney's The Descendants, so maybe Eastwood thinks this gives Lillard** some clout.

I don't.

Look at some of the cinematic gems Matthew Lillard has been in over the last decade or so:

Dish Dogs

Thirteen Ghosts

Scooby Doo

Wicker Park

Without a Paddle

Bickford Shmeckler's Cool Ideas (yes that is a real title of a movie)

American Summer

Wing Commander

Shrinking Charlotte

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

In case you can't see my point by the I've-Never-Even-Heard-Of-Most-Of-Those-Films laundry list of cinematic gems I just wrote, I'll spell it out for you. MATTHEW LILLARD HAS NO BUSINESS BEING IN A CLINT EASTWOOD MOVIE. I guess the only good thing I can say is that Lillard isn't playing the hot young prospect. That would be a deal breaker for me. Amy Adams (currently filming Man of Steel) will play Eastwood's daughter as well.

*I hope that Eastwood isn't making this decision based on Lillard's role in the worst baseball movie ever Summer Catch. Just because you were in a baseball movie doesn't make you fit for a role in a Clint Eastwood film. For the record I have not been a big fan of Eastwood's films over the last couple of years. Gran Torino was mediocre at best and Million Dollar Baby was one of the most overrated Academy Award winning films of all time. Unforgiven is still one of great westerns ever though.

**SLC Punk is one of the few films I've ever liked Lillard in. If you've never seen it I highly recommend it especially if you like punk music.

Tommy Lee Jones to play General MacArthur and in a related story jolly old fat man with long white beard set to play Santa

I mean come on this one is a no-brainer right? In a match made in casting heaven, Academy Award winner and Cheeriest Man on the Planet--0 years running--Tommy Lee Jones will play one of the greatest American generals of all time, Douglas MacArthur. Aside from the physical resemblance, MacArthur was by many accounts a cantankerous and gruff military personality. Cantankerous? Gruff? This is like asking Charlie Sheen to play a crazy person. Jones could phone this one in and still have it be an amazing performance.

The working title of the film is called Emperor and also stars "Lost" actor Matthew Fox. Here's a brief synopsis of the film:

Inspired by true events, EMPEROR is an epic story of love and understanding set amidst the tensions and uncertainties of the days immediately following the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II. On the staff of General Douglas MacArthur (Jones), the de facto ruler of Japan as Supreme Commander of the occupying forces, a leading Japanese expert, General Bonner Fellers (Fox) is charged with reaching a decision of historical importance: should Emperor Hirohito be tried and hanged as a war criminal?
Interwoven with this nail-biting political thriller is the story of Fellers’ love affair with Aya, a Japanese exchange student he had met years previously in the U.S. Memories of Aya and his quest to find her in the ravaged post-war landscape help Fellers to discover both his wisdom and his humanity and enable him to come to the momentous decision that changed the course of history and the future of two nations.

As if the actors (Fox and Jones) weren't enough to get me to see this film already, the premise of the story seals the deal. There is always something so fascinating about WWII. Director Peter Webber's Emperor begins shooting this month in New Zealand and Japan with no release date scheduled yet. Audiences can next see Tommy Lee Jones in theaters this May in Men in Black III and Matthew Fox this December in World War Z.

Damn it Jim I'm a doctor not a director! Principal photography begins on Star Trek sequel

Critics log supplemental Star Date 1/17/2012:

After villains and rumors of villains, not to mention script delays and plot mysteries, things are gearing up for the Star Trek sequel. Today in Los Angeles principal photography began on the next edition in a genre that has spanned almost 50 years and generated five television series, eleven films, one cartoon series, conventions, and untold numbers of 40 year old virgins living in their mothers' basements.

Not surprisingly there is still no word on the plot, the villain, or even what the name of the sequel* will be. Cast members Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), John Cho (Sulu), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Karl Urban ("Bones" McCoy), and Anton Yelchin (Chekov) all return. They are joined by new cast members Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve, and Peter Weller.

The Star Trek sequel is set for a twelve week shoot and releases star date 5/17/2013.

*My guess is that the sequel title will not be Star Trek 2 Electric Bugaloo or Star Trek 2 Secret of the Ooze.