REVIEW: Horrible Bosses

Also Jamie Foxx is a lot of fun in this movie.

I love how the main legacy of Hitchcock's terrific Strangers On A Train is everyone thinking that it makes for comedy gold. Because I know for damn sure when I saw this incredibly tense, messed up psychological thriller, the first thought through my mind this shit is hilarious. They should remake this with Danny DeVito. Because from 'Throw Momma From The Train' onward, you kill my problem and I'll kill yours has been a fairly consistent comedic mainstay, the latest of which is Horrible Bosses. Now this feels like one of those moments when studios put one and one together and it made 100 million, because this felt like a slam-dunk to the core. We're in a recession. Everybody's working jobs they hate to get by. Everyone hates their boss. Nobody's remade the HILARIOUS Strangers On A train in a while. They kill each other's bosses! Stunt-Cast the shit out of it and we've got ourselves a new private island.

And while Horrible Bosses is as watered down and as toothless as it's possible for an R rated US comedy to be, most of the cast is inspired enough that I had a good time in spite of the movie trying at all turns to be fucking stupid. And it was stupid and obvious and irritating and all those things Studio comedies always are. But it has a caliber of actor good enough to make what is probably a terrible script feel something like OK. The Bosses in particular are all terribly written caricatures turned into something like funny thanks to Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston and Colin Farrell. Spacey, well to be frank he's on autopilot here, chanelling that sarcastic psycho schtick that literally nobody in the history of time has done better and infusing it with the tiniest bit of ' I'm getting paid in 100's right?' disinterest. Spacey clearly deems this to be a walk in the park, whereas Aniston and Farrell seem vested in using this as an opportunity to play with their image. And both are fantastic, Aniston in particular tapping into something that is gleefully different from her usual dead-eyed roles.

I'd say my biggest problems with the film are the straight men leads, or at least 66% of them. Jason Bateman seems to be getting less interesting the more his career takes off, and now that he's a bona fide movie star, pretty much, he's become an incredibly watered down version of Michael Bluth persona that it's becoming increasingly difficult to explain why I think this guy is amazing. And on top of that, I don't get Jason Sudeikis. He's the kind of broad SNL comedian that gets a bunch of movie roles in a flash and then disappears of the face of the earth. I see no reason why he isn't the next Will Forte. Thanks heavens then for Charlie Day, who not only holds his own against the bosses, but is outright the best thing about the movie. As anyone who's stuck with the incredibly erratic It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia will know, Day always had a unique and oddball comedic energy that always stood out, certainly more so than the show itself. And it's gratifying to see him finally get his due and be the big movie star he certainly should be. He's awesome. And he, Aniston and Farrell elevate would could have been a horribly toothless fiasco become something that I enjoyed, even if I wouldn't say it's exactly a great movie.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2

But the ending was embarrassing.

Much like every other review of Deathly Hallows Part 2, the final installment in a movie franchise that has been ever-present through a generation if it didn't define it, two thirds of this bitch is going to be about the series as a whole. A series which I would submit is the most critically apologized for in history, a series which has seen a decade of critics fumble around for reasons why it doesn't suck, a series of eight films where not one has a rating of less than 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, making it statistically the best reviewed franchise in history. Because nobody wants to be a killjoy? Because nobody wants to look like the muggle in the room? I think the likeliest explanation is because it's such a critic proof phenomenon, all the haters give up around film three and submitted because hey, these films aren't AWFUL right. For me, it's a series of films which are simply OK, with a couple of good ones and a couple of bad ones.

But to say any of them are masterpieces, or five star films or better than Lord Of The Rings is to be quite frankly ridiculous. Fans have basically interpreted nobody hating these films as everyone loving them, and this has led to some delusional things being bandied about like best film of the year or Oscar nomination talk. Guys just no. You got an entertaining, well-formed and occasionally impressive conclusion to a series you loved. It was certainly the best film of the franchise. But let's collectively curb our enthusiasm shall we? Because I think a lot of people who previously didn't give a shit will find their sense of unpleasant truth telling suddenly renewed, and comments will be left, outrage had, friendships destroyed and villages burned. So, it's good but not great, yeah?

But like I said, this is the best Harry Potter movie. It feels the least like a piece of fan service, as my biggest complaint about previous films is that rarely do they feel satisfying as their own movie, often feeling ill-formed or patched together, such is the need to get all the fans favorite moments in the films that the films themselves tend to be an incoherent mess. There's no film that didn't contain a scene or set-piece I didn't enjoy, but the story always felt rushed. This one felt like a movie, it felt like what happened should happen, and it made sense in the context of the movie as opposed to the books. It was a straight forward war movie, a straight forward good guy vs bad guy story that was basically Star Wars. No more going through the motions school-day tedium, and it payed off nicely.

Now for the elephant in the room, which is the performances of the three leads. The conventional narrative is that they grew up on camera, going from OK to great. I buy this sort of, although for me the metamorphosis goes from incompetent to OK. In fact there was one scene at the end of the film where I was actually quite impressed by the acting of Daniel Radcliffe. I was like wow, that was actually good. And then I thought, this is the first time I've been impressed by Radcliffe in 20 Plus hours of movies. And this is the first time I've been interested in Potter as a character in that same time, and it made it all the more frustrating that for the most these movies had three fully functioning black holes at its centre, destroying everything that could have been great with a sheer lack. Radcliffe is probably going to be a good actor from here on out, but its funny how the role of his life had to be the one where he figured out how to get there. As for Watson and Grint? Sorry, I've got nothing.

There was one sequence, as there always is, which particularly impressed me. That revolved around Alan Rickman's Snape. Rickman who to me has always been the best performance in the thing by a mile, has too often been relegated to caricature or flat out wasted in lieu of kids screen-time. But he gets his due here in a surprisingly affecting sequence that to me, is the best thing the movie's have ever done. My Voldemort problems have never gone away, to the end he's a simply drawn big bad, who may as well just be called the final boss, because that's how the movie treats him. In spite of the fun Ralph Fiennes is having, and that can be sort of infectious, it's a nothing character and that's incredibly disappointing. Everyone else kind of comes and goes, with only Matthew Lewis' Neville getting anything of substance to do.

Ultimately, it's a great summer movie that was suitably visually impressive and enjoyable. But it comes at the end of a series that always felt like a work in progress and not in a good way. And somehow what worked so well about deathly Hallows part 2 is a little less impressive knowing how long it took to get there. But I guess I don't want to look like the only muggle in the room, so this comes recommended.

Rating: 7/10 (Totally the first Harry Potter Movie to get anywhere near this rating)

REVIEW: Holy Rollers

Jews as gangsters.

Holy Rollers belongs to a specific genre of film that I hate, but most people seem to love. That is of course the thriller based on a true story. To me these films are always both decidedly unthrilling and painfully self-serious. Of course it's not a finite rule, I liked Maria Full Of Grace quite a bit, but Holy Rollers, in its tale of hacidic Jews becoming drug mules, is like so many films before it utterly generic. It has no interest in being detailed and no interest in telling a character story. It just wants to be a coming of age gangster film and ride the pathos of the true story all the way to credibility. It's one of the laziest and most commonly seen film-making con tricks, but as far as I'm concerned simply being based on a true story doesn't give you a Hail Mary on poor storytelling, and employing cliche after cliche after cliche.

One of the greatest fallacies of movie-going is that subject matter has something to do with quality, when of course it has nothing to do with it. You can have a masterpiece about a man who dresses as a bat to punch people and a complete Bomb about 9/11. Yet people will continue to think this kind of film 'worthier' even though in many ways it's quite derisive and trashy. There's tons of potential with Jesse Eisenberg's Sam, from his faltering relationship with his family and his faith, to his development of a darker identity, but the film is way too seduced by the run of the mill crime story at hand, as opposed to the much more interesting personal one. So instead of seeing why Sam would do something so out of character, he kind of just does. A necessary obstacle to get past so we can get to the making out with hot chicks and doing drugs and engaging in bland scenes of criminal enterprise. And it just becomes plain boring. Spending way too much time with bland moll and crime boss Ari Graynor and Danny A. Abesecker for one. I think they we meant to be much more interesting than they were.

I do think Eisenberg gives a good performance, and I was more impressed by Justin Bartha as probably the most interesting character and one can;t help feel he should have been the protagonist of this story. Eisenberg's Sam is just a sheep, someone who just passively went along with his situation because he's told to, whereas Bartha made the choice to break from his traditions and beliefs off his own back, and was entirely more dynamic. I don't think it would have mattered all that much though, because the story here is slender, so dramatically underfed that only a miracle could have made this film something other than bland.

Rating: 5/10

Breaking Bad: Thirty-Eight Snub - Left 4 Dead

Zombies are dead. It don't matter what they're job was when they were alive.

- I often think that you can identify the greatest television by how fascinating watching nothing happen is. If a show can develop its world and its characters enough that watching them be is as fascinating as watching them do, then I'd say you're onto something special. Now I have no doubt there will be Breaking Bad fans who wish every episode could be 'One Minute', who wish every episode could be 'Full Measure'. Those who wish the show would be about Heisenberg as opposed to Walter White. I'd imagine they won't like this episode very much. And don't get me wrong, those are my two favorite episodes, but they work as well as they do because of the sheer delicacy and intelligence the show puts into the build, because of the incredible level of understanding it has of it's characters.

- I don't mean to diminish viewers who like the show best as a thriller, but I am saying that if that is the only version of the show you have time for then the week to week Breaking Bad experience may be a little frustrating. For example plot-wise, there's pretty much scraps here. Walt decides to take out Gus but hits a dead end, Skylar tries to purchase the car wash but hits a dead end and Walt tries to sway Mike to his side. Thirty-Eight Snub was in many ways the calm after the storm episode, dealing with everyone reacting as oppose to acting, but it's still one that did a tremendous amount of character work and it's the kind of slower, quieter episode this show can do so well.

- I think the strongest aspect of the episode was the Jesse plot-line, which essentially saw him throw an epic day-spanning rager in his house, anything to avoid quiet, to avoid having to deal with what he's done. This both allows the show to get extremely creative visually, which it does at all quarters here with at least three visual set-pieces looking and feeling exemplary, but also Aaron Paul to do so much yet again whilst saying very little. I don't quite know how it happened, but Paul has gone from exaggerated comic relief to giving one of the best performances on television, and Jesse has gone from tertiary annoyance to profoundly tragic protagonist, the worst inflicted victim of Walt's path of destruction and I'd argue the truest centre of the show.

- Jesse's someone who's grown into a man before our eyes, yet this development has been surrounded by despair, by loss and by corruption. He's been disowned by his family, had his girlfriend die in bed next to him, been forced to fight back his almost innate decency all the way up to killing a man, all the while being deeply alone. Walt has his family. Jesse has no-one., because Walt's taken it all away from him. And the tragedy is Jesse is trying to become a bad guy at every turn, he desperately wants to feel nothing and be the monster his world requires him to be, he is just incapable. Which is why I loved his stuff in this episode. The party, which was just basically Jesse doing anything and everything not to deal with killing Gale (and seeing Victor's throat slit in front of him can't have helped) but at the end, everyone has to go home, even Badger and Skinny Pete, leaving Jesse with the person he least wants to be with, himself.

- How haunting was that final shot with Jesse in front of the super-woofer. Seeing him crack-up for the first time believe since all the shit went down, it was just agonizing. Give all the Emmy's to Aaron Paul for that scene alone. Honestly, when is this kid going to catch a break.

- Ok so the Rhoomba-cam shot was pretty inspired, as we got a POV of the little cleaning machine as it cruised through the aftermath of Jesse rave 2011. Not to mention the terrific way the raging scenes were shot, and of course that last pull away from Jesse. Some pretty pimp camera work and editing on display here.

- I do enjoy that Skinny Pete and Badger have become the number one source of hope and light on this entire show. The darkness is so thorough at this point that the mere sight of Jesse's ridiculous friends makes me do an internal jump for joy and have an involuntary big grin on my face. For Skinny Pete and Badger. Love these guys. True to form, their drug-fuelled debate about what in fact the best zombie game is ( Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead and call of duty: WOW zombie mode all in the mix) was a neat little comic gem. And Matt Jones and Charles Baker's giddy performances add great colour to the series.

- Also the show saw fit to bring back Jesse's sort of girlfriend Andrea for what I assume is a final bow. I do think she is a character that has been used a little too pragmatically, there simply to be related to the boy who shot Combo and to cause Jesse's anger at the end of season three, to be a catalyst rather than a human being. This is perhaps why she's being ushered off the show, as Jesse gives her money to start a new life with her son. Like I say, it's a pawn of a character, but Emily Rios was solid enough and I'm glad the character was given closure as opposed to simply forgetting about her. Aaron Paul was again awesome in that scene.

- As far as the Walt side of things go, this episode yet again reinforced the notion that Walt is much more adept at improvising than he is at meticulously planning, and his schemes to both kill Gus (by basically shooting him with an illegally bought handgun) and to get Mike to waver toward his side both ended in firm dead-ends. With Mike giving him a beating on the mere suggestion, and Gus actively distancing himself from Walt. Or as Mike says 'You'll never see him again Walter'.

- I love the way that Mike's relationship with Walt has developed this season, going from the sense that despite being a professional, Mike has a soft spot for Walt, even being constantly impressed by his scheming. But post-Gale, Mike is looking at a different man, a much more calculated, ruthless one than he thought he was dealing with. And that is showing in Jonathan Banks' performance, which is so much more distant, more cut-off. Great work.

- Perhaps the aimlessness of Walt's quest was a little too telegraphed, but it felt like a necessary acknowledgement the show had to make, so I'm fine with it.

- Who else let out a cheer when Mike punched Walt in the face? Walt has certainly become the least likable character on the show, by design of course as the slogan goes they're turning Mr Chips into Scarface, so full of Ego, of entitlement and of arrogance. Yet Cranston's so great that I' watching him with no less investment or interest.

- A terrific teaser, seeing Walt purchase his gun of an aged, good ole' boy type arms dealer. Deadwood's Jim Beaver only had one scene in the episode but he made for a terrific double act with Cranston, and made the teaser feel like a story unto itself. No show opens every week stronger than Breaking Bad, it has mastered the cold-open to the point where it's not even funny.

- The Hank and Marie arc continues to simmer, as Hank takes out all his frustrations and anger on his wife, treating her with a focused disdain. Hank is a proud man, and one who perhaps defines himself in more traditional masculine terms, so seeing him deal with being disabled is its own little horror, but it's bringing the best out of Betsy Brandt, who's stiff upper lip in dealing with his cruelty is quite heartbreaking. I'd say that Brandt has been underused in the past, but this season seems to be rectifying that, as she both has more screen-time and seemingly her own arc, for the first time in the season's run. Dean Norris, needless to say, is absolutely nailing the sheer resentment Hank has for his situation. This guy is probably never going to get recognition for this performance, there are too many other showier roles on Breaking Bad, but it truly is incredible and up there with anyone else on the show.

- If I did have a complaint thus far, it's that Walter Jr. Has pretty much been an extra so far. I think he's had at best three lines in two episodes. No Gus or Saul here either.

- Is it just me or was the Car Wash guy a really good actor, Anna Gunn was great but that was an unexpectedly good piece of acting by a guy hired for his eyebrows.

- But all a terrific, contemplative episode at least up to the standard of last week's premiere if not a little better. Keep it coming.

Rating: 8/10

Breaking Bad: Box-Cutter - Mess With The Best, Die like The Rest

Man in a Barrel.

The Breaking Bad story is perhaps the most romantic in television history. Obviously when I say this I'm not referring to the show's content, which is about as far from warm and fuzzy as it's possible to be without circling back round again. A brutal, uncompromising tragedy about how the choice one man makes erodes his soul and the souls of the people he most cares about. It's about watching a good man slowly and methodically become a monster, from hero to villain in a way series television hasn't quite seen before. No, when I say romantic, I mean the story of how it went from a low rated, mixed reviewed show on the brink of cancellation to creative juggernaut, sure to be in any conversation regarding the pinnacle of what the medium can do.

How it went from a rejected FX pilot, passed over for what my calculations tell me can only be Dirt - the paparazzi show starring Courteney Cox. To a low-rated, abbreviated and frankly mixed reviewed first year that stared cancellation in the face until an unexpected and incredibly unlikely Emmy win for Bryan Cranston (Also known as the most important Emmy win ever) bought it enough clout to be given a second year, where it really had to do or die. It did, ironing out problems and just getting insanely better every week. The critics responded and the viewers responded, and the rest as they say, is history. Breaking Bad earned every bit of praise it gets and every viewer it gets, because it has an unyielding desire to improve, a mandate to take risks and to never sit comfortably. It's the rarest of example of a show becoming incredible out of a sheer Darwinian need to survive, and to go from there to being the best show on television, well like I say, it's the most romantic story in television.

- But anyways, to business. Box-Cutter was perhaps in a better position to carry on momentum than last year's No Mas, because the soul-crushing cliffhanger at the end of season three informed most of what would and could happen in this episode. So in advance we knew the whole episode was ostensibly going to be about Gus' reaction to Jesse and Walt killing Gale, and on top of that we knew Gus wasn't going to kill either of them, both because he needs a chemist and because these two just won Emmy's and are the stars of the show. Is it suddenly going to be about Skinny Pete?

- No. So what they had to do was draw pathos and tension out of a story everyone knew the resolution of, even the characters to certain respect. And to that the episode had to make it seem neither obvious or rote. Plus there's the specter of the masterful third year finale hovering over, daring it to flub the landing to one of the best episodes in television history. Looked at in this way, Box-Cutter had quite an unenviable job, it had to be about giving us answers we already knew, yet the expectation level for it be amazing was going to be stratospheric. But it's this show we're talking about, so naturally it met both obligations nicely.

-Can I just take a minute to say how glad I am that Jesse killed Gale? Not in a sadist sense, well maybe a bit, but more in that moment was so dramatically perfect that copping out of it would have been some 'Lila Kills Doakes' type shit. I guess it was silly of me to assume these writers would do anything that lame.

- What I particularly liked was how much the episode was about waiting. Too many season openers deal with cliffhanger's as if they were something to be ticked off, a necessary evil to dispense with in the first 5 minutes before they can get to the story they want to tell for the year, but rather than make the ' Gus reacts to being beaten' scene a stumbling block, or even a cheap in your face moment, they make it the set-piece of the episode, one they make you wait for and anticipate, with Jesse and Walt sitting silently in the super-lab, waiting their fate. Some great reaction acting here from everyone involved, saying everything whilst saying nothing.

- If anything, Gus' lieutenant Victor was the protagonist of the episode's first half-hour, in both his anger reacting to Gale's death and his eagerness to show that he can cook the Meth recipe so Gus can kill Walt and Jesse. On paper, a minor character being a glorified extra for over a year and than suddenly getting lines and emotions is a telegraph that they're not long for this world. And sure enough that's how it played out, but I found myself not minding because of the execution. Victor's been around sporadically since season 2, and thus far has only been asked to play a one-note of emotionless, cold enforcer. But I think actor Jeremiah Bitsui stepped up here and adeptly handled the meatier material to the point where his death meant perhaps more than it would have at the start of the hour.

- It's often said that you can measure the strength of a TV show by the way it treats it's minor characters, as pawns to service the story or credible characters in their own right. And the fact that Gilligan can't even kill Victor, quite possibly the show's most inconsequential recurring character, and someone who's racked up an episode count of eight without many viewers noticing he was even there, without making it so it felt as if we were losing a human being. RIP Victor.

- And if you're gonna go, what a way to go. The Gus kills Victor set-piece is one of the most tense, bleak edge of your seat sequences the show has done. And believe me it has done many of them. From the minute Gus enters the lab, his familiar calm, unflappable demeanor just about containing the volcanic rage underneath. Every step he takes stings, and Gilligan knows he's got us here, so he makes everything last that little bit longer, we watch Gus' entire methodical process for slitting someone's throat. He gets changed into a hazmat suit, he washes his hands, he takes off his glasses. He doesn't respond to Walt's desperate/pathetic rantings. Everything without a word.

-Then the moment itself is still somehow surprising and horrific. Watching Gus, a man we've never seen commit an act of violence up to this point, approach the act in the same rational way he approaches everything else, not to mention the very clear message of murder by surrogacy he gives to Walt. That, make no mistake, he wishes he could be doing this to him ,was just awesome. Giancarlo Esposito is just about my favorite performance on the show at this point, in spite of how incredible everyone else, but this was a masterclass to be frank. Everything done with expression, yet everything being underplayed. Emmy's better pay attention.

- Kudos too to Aaron Paul, who by my estimation didn't get a line till around the forty minute mark, and did so much to show how killing Gale has affected him. More darkness seems to be on its way for poor Jesse Pinkman. The scene in the dinner, was almost as chilling. Seeing Jesse become this hardened man, almost unaffected by seeing a man garroted in front of him. It's like he's hit his limit for all the suffering he can take He was just so broken, so for the lack of a better word, dead. This character is going to be awesome this season.

- I liked seeing Gale building the meth super-lab in the cold open but, to be honest that scene felt a little on the nose. Even if I liked that in terms of principles, Gale was a better chemist than Walt. Because for him the chemistry truly came first.

- If I did have a problem with the episode, it was with the Skylar stuff. Now to be clear, I both love Skylar the character and Anna Gunn's terrific performance, but her search for Walt just felt like it was there to give her something to do in the first episode, and while Gunn played it well, particularly the scene where she Broke into Walt's apartment, it felt a little arbitrary. I did like how the show weaved the rest of the cast into little vignettes throughout the episode. Saul's scenes in particular will bring people joy, in which he hires himself a bodyguard that is just exactly the kind of bodyguard Saul would hire, and scans his office for bugs.

- The Hank and Marie stuff was fucking brutal, to say the least. I get the feeling given Hank's level of popularity, it's going to leave quite a few people miffed to watch Hank be so utterly incapacited that he can't even shit by himself, in a harrowing scene in which Marie has to attend to this need, but for me it's going to give Dean Norris and in particularly Betsy Brandt's Marie, the show's most underused character up this point, something to different and new to do with their characters.

- Overall the episode felt a lot like the season 2 episode 'Grilled' in which Tuco held Walt and Jesse hostage in an enclosed space and we weren't sure what he was going to do with them. It was a similar deal here, only the approach to it shows how much this show has grown. While that episode was purely about tension with nothing really going on underneath, and its villain a lunatic who could do anything at any moment, here there was so much subtext, so much that every character, Walt, Jesse, Mike, Victor and Gus were communicating without verbalizing. It's just such a rich show these days.

- I wouldn't say it's quite up there with the best of the show, but it's a fantastic opener, containing one of the best sequences the show has ever done. And I'm ridiculously excited to see where it goes from here.

Rating: 8/10

2011 Emmy Nomination Reaction

And so it was that Community became the Buffy The Vampire Slayer of it's generation. A show too daring and unique for the awards bodies of the time, yet sure to be treasured long after everyone who thinks Modern Family is the best show on TV has died, although to be fair that's probably only about 10 years. The total blanking of Community for the second year in a row is an abomination, whether you think its the best show or not its certainly in the top six, but that apart this was actually a set of nominations that I liked more than disliked. Parks and Recreation's series nomination, Louie C.K's acting nomination and the embrace of Justified were all good things, and on average I'm more happy than sad. Let's do this.

BEST DRAMA:

Mad Men

Dexter

Friday Night Lights

The Good Wife

Boardwalk Empire

Game Of Thrones

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 6/6 - I'm awesome

5 out of 6 of these shows are deserving, so you have to be happy about that. I'm not quite sure what Dexter has to do not to get nominated here, considering just how limp this past season was, but with Emmy finally acknowledging Friday Night Lights and the deserving presence of Game Of Thrones here, you can only bitch so much. Mad Men is still a lock to win this though I would have thought.

Snubs:

Justified - Because come on. The second best dramatic show on television last year isn't nominated , despite the embrace of its actors, which makes the lazy, ill-informed Dexter nomination extra irritating.

Terriers, Rubicon - Not here because they got cancelled, but both would have been worthy nominees

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA:

Michael C. Hall, Dexter

Jon Hamm, Mad Men

Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Hugh Laurie, House

Timothy Olyphant, Justified

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very Good

OLYPHANT. Fuck yeah. Many people didn't think would happen including me, but its nice for an awards body to pleasantly surprise you every once in a while isn't it? Incidentally, with the absence of three time winner Bryan Cranston, one would think it's finally going to be Jon Hamm's year, especially when he's got The Suitcase and all. It has to be right? Otherwise nominations are sort of as you were, and while Buscemi is a first timer, this is not in the least surprising.

Snubs:

Sean Bean, Game Of Thrones - It wasn't my favorite performance on the show, but towards the end there Bean pulled out some very impressive stuff. You could make the argument.

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA:

Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Kathy Bates, Harry's Law

Mariska Hargitay, SVU

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

Mireille Enos, The Killing

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 4/6 - I'm pretty good

I'd like to think this would be Moss' year what with The Suitcase and all, but through and through this is going to be Margulies. Women in drama tend to dominate procedurals as opposed to the serialized cable dramas, which exclusively focus on Men. Hence Hargitay and Bates and even Margulies. But considering how weak this category has been in the past, at least there's good performances here.

Snubs:

Katey Sagal, Sons of Anarchy - A weaker year for Sons, but that doesn't diminish Sagal's performance which is still better than at least three of the nominated actresses as far as I'm concerned. But it looks like its never to be.

January Jones, Mad Men - Personally I think this is a good thing, because in no way was Jones a lead performance and quite frankly the character was a bit of a mess this year, so. Well done Emmy for lazily nominating her anyway

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA:

John Slattery, Mad Men

Josh Charles, The Good Wife

Andre Braugher, Men Of A Certain age

Walton Goggins, Justified

Alan Cumming, The Good Wife

Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 3/6 - I'm OK I guess.

Despite Dinklage and the series nomination, I would imagine there's quite a few who are annoyed at Dinklage being the only actor nomination. But while I liked other actors on the show, I think Dinklage is really the only one who deserves to be here. He may even win the thing, which would be awesome. Personally I'm delighted about Goggins being here, as I thought he was going to be the great Justified performance that got ignored. But he was fucking awesome this year, and he's my choice for the winner. The love for The Good Wife should get Mad Men fans a bit worried, because the only reason Charles is here is because they really like that show.

Snubs:

Aiden Gillen/Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Game Of Thrones - Littlefinger and Jaime Lannister respectively, again both these performances are stronger than Charles' but, I think the show's turn may come in a couple of years.

Michael Pitt/Michael Shannon, Boardwalk Empire - But frankly, this is a much greater slice of bullshit because both Pitt and Shannon were exceptional on a show the awards body clearly liked and frankly I'd nominate these guys before I nominated the show itself. Kind of a major snub.

Arliss Howard, Rubicon - This was never happening, but he's so unbelievably awesome on this show that I'd be amiss not to mention it.

Chris Noth, The Good Wife - Pretty much everyone on this show got nominated except this guy. Probably still taking some Sex And The City 2 backlash.

Denis O' Hare, True Blood - terrible show, but this was an awesome performance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS DRAMA:

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Christina Baranski, The Good Wife

Margo Martindale, Justified

Kelly MacDonald, Boardwalk Empire

Michelle Forbes, The Killing

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good.

Well the Forbes nomination annoys me, because that was such a one note character, Panjabi and Baranski are both awesome, MacDonald does good work and Hendricks is always a deceptively subtle presence. But come on, how can this go to anyone but Martindale. She was a force of nature on Justified this year and this simply has to happen. Has to.

Snubs:

Emilia Clarke, Game Of Thrones - I'm less enamored with this performance than the rest of the internet but I think it certainly deserved a nomination.

Kiernan Shipka - Mad Men - Don Draper's daughter gave one of the best performances on the show last year, adults be damned and this simply would have been awesome.

BEST COMEDY SERIES:

The Big Bang Theory

The Office

Parks And Recreation

Modern Family

Glee

30 Rock

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good.

First of all the Parks and Recreation nomination is not only unexpected, but one of the best things Emmy has ever done, and could potentially save this show. But elsewhere? Meh is probably the best way to put it. I would nominate Modern Family, but Glee's presence here is embarrassing considering the critical backlash against it this year, The Office and 30 Rock are both once great shows here just because they're established. And then there's The Big Bang Theory. So that happened.

Snubs:

Community - Obviously

Louie - But I guess you can't be too down about this because at least Louie C.K got a nomination himself, and this was inconceivable.

Cougar Town - But this is because no-one can stomach filling in awards ballot with the name Cougar Town right? I mean people are gonna see that shit. Tis a shame.

United States Of Tara- I guess you could say this was too dramatic to belong here, but that's never stopped them before and this was awesome.

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY:

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Steve Carell, The Office

Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Johnny Galecki, The Bang Theory (WTF)

Louis C.K, Louie

Matt Le Blanc, Episodes

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 4/6 - I'm pretty good

First things first. Double nomination for The Big Bang Theory, and while I'd defend Parsons here in that he does give a legitimately great performance in the face of bad material, but Galecki plays the most inconsistent and badly written character on the show. They never have any idea what to do with him, and this is comfortably the dumbest nomination of the year. Elsewhere Louis C.K= best thing ever and I'm actually OK with LeBlanc even if I didn't like his show all that much. He was great on it. But what with it being Carell's last year on The Office and all, his win is a lock.

Snubs: Joel McHale, Community - Obviously.

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY:

Melissa McCarthy, Mike And Molly

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Martha Plimpton, Raising Hope

Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Laura Linney, The Big C

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good.

This is the category where Emmy usually succumbs to star-fucking, often giving nominations to the most famous instead of the best. But you know, there's literally like 20 eligible candidates here and you do the best with what you've got. Linney probably will win, I hope anyone but Linney or Falco wins. The Plimpton nomination is great.

Snubs:

Toni Collette, The United States Of Tara - This can only be because her show got cancelled, given that she has both won and been nominated consecutively. But this is the best performance by a shot, maybe accepting Poehler, so its utterly ridiculous she isn't nominated. Just ridiculous.

SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY:

Chris Colfer, Glee

Jon Cryer, Two And A Half Men

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Ed O' Neill, Modern Family

Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 4/6 - I'm pretty good

Lamest category ever, bar none. In their rush to nominate every cast member off of modern Family they've not only ignored all the great performances from Community, Parks and Rec and a thousand other shows, they've even thrown mainstay nominee Neil Patrick Harris to the wolves. So incredibly lazy, boring and childish and Emmy is going to make people turn on Modern Family. They still found room for Jon Cryer though. That Charlie Sheen pity will go a long way.

Snubs:

Entire cast of community - Obviously

Nick Offerman - Parks And Recreation - This is atrocious. What is surely the funniest performance on TV has yet to be nominated. Just utterly ridiculous. There are no words.

Neil Patrick Harris, Jason Segel - How I Met Your Mother - You can make your case for both, but the Harris non-nomination is pretty shocking.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY:

Jane Lynch, Glee

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

Kristin Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Betty White, Hot In Cleveland

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good

OK, Wiig is here because of Bridesmaids, White is here because Old people are ridiculous and sometimes that's funny Krakowski is here because voters are lazy, Julie Bowen, who gives a bad, grating performance on Modern Family as far as I'm concerned just happens to be on a show they've gone nuts for.and arguably Jane Lynch, who's character was an inconsistent wreck on Glee this year. So I guess I'm behind Vergara then. Who I both want and think will win.

Snubs:

Alison Brie, Community - Obviously

Aubrey Plaza - Parks and Rec, but if Nick Offerman can't then she can't.

Busy Phillipps - Cougar Town - Curse of the name strikes again.

REVIEW: Tree Of Life

This is the film that average Joe does not want to win the Oscar and he's gonna get all pissed when it beats Thor.

I think my greatest comeuppance as a reviewer is always going to be expressionism. I have for as long as I've lived detested art for art's sake, found poetry less valuable than a novel, photography of less value than cinema. I've always felt if art is about communicating, then its most complete form is always going to be the story, where the technicality and artistry of creating come together to serve an end, rather than they simply being the end. It's a personal bias, but I've found it to be a pretty steadfast one, so when I say I'm the worst person to review Tree Of Life, you know that I mean it. I think as a consequence of this I've never seen an expressionistic film I've connected with, I've seen ones I admire or can appreciate maybe, but never connect with. I've found the problem with expressionistic cinema is that it draws attention to the how, it is concerned with communicating emotion, and does so without the need to 'go anywhere' whatever that means, hence the many inevitable accusations of slow and boring. Accusations that the seven people who walked out of my screening would surely submit toward the Tree Of Life

Now I don't mind slow and boring, as its come to be known, but what I do hate is aimless. The difference between having something to say and having nothing to say. And art film has too often been the refuge of film-makers who have nothing to say, and who use expressionism as a means to conceal this, Gus Van Sant's Elephant and almost every Sofia Coppola film I would site here, and too often people don't call bullshit on these films and thus people begin to hate the entire idea of the art film. Much as I did for a while, because it felt that there was simply too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Suffice to say, Tree Of Life has something to say, and my initial response to it was that somehow it's both a travesty and a masterpiece. Some of the worst stuff you'll see all year is in this movie, scenes that feel like someone's walked up to most ridiculous, stereotypical and pretentious film student and said 'here's 60 million dollars, do what you will'. But then there's also aspects that are so sublime, so ingeniously and subtly handled that it doesn't feel an overstatement to say it's amongst the best stuff I've seen in a cinema in my life. I think what's happened here is that a genius has been allowed to self-indulge with no checks, and as a consequence he's produced both the best and worst that he's capable of producing.

I found a lot of the film's first third to be close to intolerable. A voice-over in which characters would wax broadly philosophical was painful, and it seems to use the death of a child too easily to create an impact, as apposed to exploring the consequences of it. I found pretty much everything involving Sean Penn to be pretty awful to be honest, just him looking lost against tall modern buildings and nature-scapes. Imagery so cliched that at the point Penn started walking through a weird looking rock formation in a suit I laughed, and make no apologies for it. It was incredibly lame. And just when I thought I was in for an almighty train-wreck we abandon all our characters for a 40 minute sojourn into how the universe was created. Now at first I was wowed by the imagery. It looked incredibly beautiful, shot with such a sense of wonder and skill it was a treat for the senses. And then it kept going, to the point where I honestly couldn't make a distinction between a high school science video except a fat effects budget and classical music. I'm sure it's all a metaphor about how beautiful life is if only we cared to look and how furiously it has to work to even come into being, but this was such an incredibly pretentious sequence I was waxing pretty furious even before the horrible voice-over come back and made me just want to leave.

I was so excited that I was going to get to be the guy to call Tree Of Life a piece of shit and mean it, how hipster awesome I would be, but then the film returned focus on its central family, like any other, and promptly became incredible. The story of a boy's childhood was being told with the same sense of reverence we had seen devoted to the universe's creation, the same sense of awe and wonder, the same sense of beauty. But whereas the scale of creation is something Malick simply can't say anything about with authority. He knew this family, he knew the exact emotions and experiences and he knew exactly how to express them. So watching this intimate, tiny story being told with such clarity and vision by means of expressionism was simply incredible, and amongst the best stuff ever put on film. It just rang so true, because when you're a child, you don't rationalize, you don't reason, and everything is taken in through a whirl of emotion and I think no film has truly captured what it is to be a small child quite like Tree Of Life. It had the detail the opening did not, it was no longer speculating or suppositing. This entire sequence, which I reckon was the film's bulkiest, was so beautiful I quickly found myself losing my anger and reservations toward it.

Brad Pitt, who has recently been notching up an unfortunate record of being in great where films where someone else just blows him off the screen, Rinko Kikuchi in Babel, Casey Affleck in Jesse James and Christophe Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, faces no such problem here, giving a performance that not only will be Oscar nominated, but will deservedly be so. It's the best performance he's given since Fight Club, and certainly the most mature work he's ever done. Pitt is always someone who has been a better actor then his looks allow for, and one is getting the sense that his best work might be done in the next ten years, now that his looks are less of an all-consuming factor. Jessica Chastain isn't really asked to do much beyond look spiritual and ethereal, but that she does excellently, and Malick certainly gets great performances out of the kids. As I mentioned before, Penn's entire part is pretty embarrassing, so there's not really much to say about that.

Thinking about it though, I can only give this film a great review. Because while some of it is intolerable, and boy will there be people who want their money back who didn't know what they were getting into, the parts I liked were so impressive and perhaps the first time I've truly lost my shit for expressionism that I can't not tell people to go and see this film. There's some legitimate 10/10 material in Tree Of Life, there's just some 2/10 stuff as well. What it is, I think, is two incredibly specific films awkwardly fit together in a way that doesn't really work or make sense (yeah yeah, metaphors, fuck you) yet one of these films is amongst the best films I've ever seen. Like I said, someone let a genius cut loose, and it's produced the best and the worst of him. But if you have patience for it, the best is worth the wait.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Larry Crowne

Tom Hanks will kill all you motherfuckers, Hanx.

Larry Crowne simply wouldn't be here without Tom Hanks. It's the kind of film that only a man with two Oscars, infinite amounts of movie star credibility and who is literally disliked by no-one on earth can get into the cinemas. Not because it's awful necessarily, but because it's so biologically forgettable and so thoroughly unremarkable almost to the core, that without Hanks at the helm and a hefty assist from Julia Roberts this thing re-appears as a pilot on ABC Family in about 5 years. I like Tom Hanks. I like him a lot, but this movie is so utterly inoffensive that its most passionate supporter will only think its kind of OK.

The story, which follows Hanks as a superstore worker who upon being laid off, attends a community college and finds a new way of life/friendship group/love etc. It's set in the kind of world where everything is strictly karmic and Oprah-ish, and being a good person guarantees things will work out in the end, as long as you work for it. Everyone goes out of their way to help Larry, from a motorcycle gang to wealthy neighbors/black stereotypes (played by Cedric The Entertainer and Oscar nominee who has no career because she's black Taraji P. Henson) to the most obnoxious, irritating manic-pixie dream girl platonic friend of Hanks, played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Everyone in this universe gets what they deserve, and no-one's really a dick apart from Bryan Cranston, Robert's interim husband, who plays a character that's simultaneously the most interesting character in the film and the worst thing about the film. Playing a fallen academic/author, who is now unemployed and looking at porn all day. Why? Who cares, this movie is not interested in complexity. It's just interested in making Cranston's character into a hissable villain that we can't wait for Julia to get rid off. A truly epic fail of a character.

Now as far as positives go, Hanks can't not be likable. Its just who he is and what he does, and he gives the title character more then one moment of winning relatability. But actually I think my favorite thing about this film was Julia Roberts. While the romance itself is rushed, awkward and lame. Roberts playing the extremely bitchy, self-loathing teacher of the first act is something I found to be entertaining, as Roberts always seems to work more for me when she plays a bitch. I have no idea why, perhaps because she's got that I'm better then everyone demeanor down to a tee. Who knows, but I enjoyed her in this movie. Also Wilmer Valderrama is alive. And in Larry Crowne. Yay. I think I am more likely to forget everything about Larry Crowne more than any other film I've ever reviewed on here, simply because its so perfectly mediocre.

Rating: 5/10

Transformers 3: Dark Of The Moon

In which we drop the 'side' so our goldbrickin' asses don't get sued.

I think Shia La beouf's performance in Transformers 3D: The revenge of John Turturro's self-respect is something akin to performance art. While everyone else is clearly trying to get in and out without irrevocably embarrassing themselves, something nobody succeeds at but Alan Tudyk, La Beouf's is performance of indescribable and often inappropriate rage, in which he communicates his share reluctance to be here with a series of almost fourth wall breaking outbursts, that bear no resemblance to how a human being would react in any situation. Take for example, when the military commandeer his car and he just starts screaming and screaming and screaming and screaming. Its sort of like Nicolas Cage in Bad Lieutenant only awful instead of awesome.

I say this because watching LaBeouf's contractually obligated coked-up presence in a franchise he clearly believes he's too good for trainwreck is about the only thing worth tuning in to this third film in what has to be considered one of the most godawful blockbuster franchises in movie history, a blemish on the CV of everyone concerned. But particularly John Turturro. Because fuck John Turturro man. Three of these films he's done now and each time it gets more embarrassing. I don't care if we're in a recession John, you were Barton Fink, and now there's entire generation that will define you as the lame comic relief in the Transformers franchise. While Turturro makes it a hat-trick, plenty of other talented fucks shamelessly mug their way to seven figure pay-checks. John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Ken Jeong, Patrick Dempsey and even Buzz Aldrin all show up. The Aldrin scene is particular is just a set yourself on fire moment. And why would Optimus Prime give a shit if Aldrin went to the moon. He's a fucking alien. He'll see your moon and raise you a galaxy. As for Rosie Huntington Whiteley, well she was hired for being hot, and that is really all Michael Bay wants from her, and that's all she has to offer, so its a deal that works out pretty well for everyone. Although I have to say I enjoyed her acting in the scene where RHW reverse psychologies the shit out of Megatron, you know the super evil, super intelligent alien being. Dude gets played like a fiddle by RHW. What a culmination of writing, acting and plausibility.

Michael Bay, bro, listen for a second, yeah. Sure you're technically proficient and can put together an action scene or two, but I swear you didn't used to direct movies like a 13 year old boy who's just discovered there's such a thing as boobs. You made The Rock and Bad Boys, movies which I unapolgetically like and I guess The Island isn't a total piece of shit. Point being that as ridiculous as it sounds to say, you're better then this shit. You're never going to be Terrence Malick, but you could be Walter Hill with more money. Just stop with this shit already. No more. Or winter is coming Mike, and it's coming for you. Also 2 hours and 45 minutes? What is this Tree Of Life, fuck this shit.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: Stake Land

Vampires, lets do this.

What with the lore of the vampire being consumed by chick-lit for a generation, you get the sense male vampire fans are pretty pissed off. Hence the noticeable reactionary theme of vampires becoming ugly, barely humanistic zombies, as if taunting female vampire fans with 'there, find something attractive about that'. Now I'm not particularly for this development, as depriving a vampire his intelligence is to me every bit castrating as depriving him of his violence. Personally my real problem is not with sensitive vampires, but of the notion of them falling head over heals for boring, every day girls. Something that's as inexcusably ridiculous as cheerleaders falling for nerds, but I suppose that's an egregiousness to logic that happens on a far more regular basis, so boys kind of have to can it.

But anyway, vampires. This vampire as zombie trend doesn't necessarily make for a bad movie, it just means it's going to have more in common with Dawn Of the Dead then Near Dark. And that's certainly the case here, where Stake Land is for all intents and purposes a post-apocalyptic zombie film, with the vampire thing being neither here nor there. And while it's certainly not a bad one, I think its indie credibility has perhaps scored it some better reviews then it deserves. There's a lot of cliche here, and while that's not definitively a bad thing, I feel I have seen better versions of Stake Land many times over. The characters are all kind of stock and pile for the genre, you have the gruffled anti-hero, the teenager, the pregnant woman, the black guy, the cult leader etc. I guess Kelly McGillis' nun was a nice touch but generally this all sort of unimaginative and certainly not any kind of genre re-invention. At times critics tend to be kind to something simply because it's lo-fi, and in this particular instance I imagine if you made exactly the same script with 30 million instead of 1, the reviews would be about a third as kind.

It's not a bad movie, rather an assured retread of familiar territory. Nick Damici makes for a solid lead, and Connor Paolo managing to not be obnoxious as a post-apocalyptic teen warrior is something of an achievement in and of itself, and McGillis brings some much needed warmth to proceedings. But I'd call Stake Land a fun diversion and nothing more, and it's way too insubstantial and slender to be called anything better then workmanlike. But of course, simply being workmanlike puts it in much better stead then the majority of horror movies so I guess I have to be happy with that.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Bridesmaids

Still, could have done without someone shitting in a sink. A fairly standard rule for any movie.

I've had a mixed response to Kristen Wiig in the past. I've seen her be both incredibly funny and incredibly annoying, although if I'm being brutally honest it probably skews more toward the latter for me. I've never much liked her on my few painful experiences with watching Saturday Night Live, and her varying movie roles have always been a hit and miss for me. And I have to say the trailer for Bridesmaids didn't do much for me either. Just looking like an excuse for Wiig to mug for the camera and do her best Jim Carrey impression. It looked like Melissa McCarthy was just going to exist to be a dartboard for a series of lazy fat jokes, it looked aimless. And yet. I fucking loved this movie.

I always thought I'd laugh, but I thought it would play out like a series of sketches and not really attempt to, you know, be a movie of any kind. But I think it's this aspect that was most impressive. There was a real effort to draw humor from narrative and character instead of leaning on Kristen Wiig being exaggerated. Which is not only great for the film but also for Wiig, who gives a performance that's not only hilarious but well-rounded and not just a series of ticks. It's the most impressed by Wiig I've ever been, and it deserves every bit of praise it gets. If Oscar wasn't terrified of comedy I'd say there's a real case for a nomination, but that's wishful thinking beyond the usual parameters of wishful thinking. Having said that, I think this film belongs to Melissa McCarthy, making what could have been a horrible one note character into just about the funniest performance I've seen in a cinema all year. There's another winning comedic turn by Rose Byrne, who continues to be as excellent in comedy as she is drab and bland in drama. As far as the men go, everyone will love Jon Hamm in this, but I was particularly impressed by Chris O' Dowd, given the straight man role of the movie and creating a really strong dynamic with Wiig.

The title is a bit of a misnomer though, as the film is very much about Wiig's character as opposed to an ensemble piece, and a couple of members of the Bridesmaids troop go underused and wasted, particularly The Office's Ellie Kemper. But this is a minor complaint in regards to a film that not only manages to be terrifically funny but also keep one foot in reality, and present characters that could conceivably exist in our dimension. Something studio comedies rarely are able to do. Just a fantastic movie, by any definition, not just a feminist one. And certainly one of the best comedies I've seen in a cinema in a long time.

Rating: 8/10

Emmy Predictions/Perfect World Nominations

Get it?

With the emmy nominations coming Thursday, it seemed high time to discuss, so below are both predictions and ideal ballots. Let the speculation commence.

Best Drama Predictions:

Mad Men

The Good Wife

Boardwalk Empire - Winner

Game Of Thrones

Dexter

Friday Night Lights

What I'd do:

Mad Men - Winner

Boardwalk Empire

Game Of Thrones

Justified

Rubicon

Treme

Best Actor:

Jon Hamm, Mad Men - winner

Hugh Laurie, House

Michael C Hall, Dexter

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Timothy Olyphant, Justified

What I'd Do:

Jon Hamm, Mad Men -winner

Timothy Olyphant, Justified

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights

Hugh Laurie, House

Best Actress Drama:

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men - Winner

Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Kyra Sedgewick, The Closer

Kathy Bates, Harry's Law

What I'd Do:

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men - Winner

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Juilianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Emmy Rossum, Shameless

Katey Sagal, Sons Of Anarchy

Best Supporting Actor In A Drama:

John Slattery, Mad Men

Michael Pitt, Boardwalk Empire

Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones- Winner

Alan Cumming, The Good Wife

Chris Noth, The Good Wife

Michael Shannon, Boardwalk Empire

What I'd Do:

Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones

Jared Harris, Mad Men

Wendell Pierce, Treme

Michael Shannon, Boardwalk Empire

Michael Cristofer, Rubicon

Walton Goggins, Justified - Winner

Best Supporting Actress in Drama:

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Kelly MacDonald, Boardwalk Empire

Margo Martindale, Justified

Emilia Clarke, Game Of Thrones

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife -Winner

Christine Baranski, The Good Wife

What I'd Do:

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Margo Martindale, Justified - Winner

Khandi Alexander, Treme

Kiernan Shipka, Mad Men

Best Comedy:

Modern Family- Winner

Glee

The Office

30 Rock

The Big Bang Theory

Community

What I'd do:

Community - Winner

Parks and Recreation

Louie

Cougar Town

Raising Hope

Modern Family

Best Actor in Comedy:

Steve Carell, The Office -Winner

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Matt Le Blanc, Episodes

Matthew Morrison, Glee

Joel McHale, Community

What I'd Do:

Louie C.K, Louie - Winner

Joel McHale, Community

Rob Lowe, Parks and Recreation

Steve Carell, The Office

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Matt LeBlanc, Episodes

Best Actress In A Comedy:

Laura Linney, The Big C - Winner

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Amy Poehler, Parks And Recreation

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Toni Collette, United States Of Tara

Melissa McCarthy, Mike And Molly

What I'd Do:

Toni Collette, United States Of Tara - Winner

Amy Poehler, Parks And Recreation

Mary Louise Parker, Weeds

Martha Plmpton, Raising Hope

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy:

Chris Colfer, Glee - winner

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Jon Cryer, Two And A Half Men

Danny Pudi, Community

What I'd Do:

Danny Pudi, Community

Chevy Chase, Community

Nick Offerman, Parks and Recreation - Winner

Chris Pratt, Parks and Recreation

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Garrett Dillahunt, Raising Hope

Best Supporting Actress Comedy:

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family - Winner

Jane Lynch, Glee

Kristin Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Betty White, Hot In Cleveland

Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Swootzie Kurtz, Mike And Molly

What I'd Do

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

Aubrey Plaza, Parks And Recreation

Alison Brie, Community

Merrit Weaver, Nurse Jackie

Mayim Bialik, The Big Bang Theory

Busy Philipps, Cougar Town - Winner

REVIEW: The Green Lantern

The most egregious waste of Tim Robbins. Man I miss when that guy was awesome.

There have been two Superhero films whose positive receptions have somewhat baffled me. I think both Iron Man and this year's Thor were so hacky and uninspired, so lacking in anything to say or even a perspective on the material. Just go through the motions fan-service projects, with the most basic and paper thin approach to characterization. This was kind of washed over in Iron Man by the casting of Robert Downey Jr, a man with enough charisma and talent to sell pretty much anything so I enjoyed that movie in spite of itself, but Thor...ergh, it just felt so devoid of any imagination, going through all the same superhero things in all the same superhero ways. It felt tired, and I felt tired watching it. But Green Lantern. Look, it's mostly I piece of shit. But at least it didn't feel quite so out of the factory pile as every marvel produced movie I've seen recently. What made it distinctive also made it terrible, but at least it was distinctive. And even if its a worse movie then Thor, which it is, I'd much rather watch this again in all its hilarious inadequacy then watch that meticulously OK piece of nothing.

But first thing's first. The Green Lantern is kind of a ridiculous Superhero. Conceptually I think its cool, and its good that it has a more complex mythology then 'dude puts on a costume and fights crime' but when you see an acid green, speed racer circuit created out of thin air by Ryan Reynolds in a CGI skin-tight suit, well it was kind of laughable really. The film didn't do a good job of showing the powers of The Green Lantern without making it feel juvenile and as a consequence it's hard to take the film's serious action sequences seriously because well, for the lack of better elocution, it just looked so stupid. Which is a shame, because I liked the essence of what it was trying to do. I was just a bad iteration of it. Ryan Reynolds was inevitably going to be a superhero at some point, and on paper this seemed like a perfect fit, douchey, smug asshole forced into responsibility? Every role Reynolds has ever played. And he tries his hardest to make this work, probably too hard almost. Blake Lively is chasm of soullessness, a person with so little personality its almost magnetic. Watching the depths of woodenness she sinks to is probably the most entertaining thing about The Green Lantern. Well except for Peter Saarsgard, Who I came out of this feeling incredibly sorry for. Not only did he get turned into the elephant man, but he also gave a weird, enjoyable performance that belongs in a much better film. His character here is like a lame Green Goblin redo, but he legitimately does something with it and I enjoyed the moments Saarsgard was on screen.

Of course he was a secondary villain to a giant, planet sized space monster that was clearly a fan of Lost's smoke monster, which is just a stupid fucking decision. Colossus type villains always suck because what's impressive about them is how big they are and that's it. Parallax is just a placeholder, something for Ryan Reynolds to fight at the end and not get in the way in the mean time and that blows. The Green Lantern is overblown, painfully cheesy, inconsistent and frankly awful. But it went for something, and the fact that it was capable of being this much of a mess makes it more valuable then the safe-playing mediocrity of marvel movies, because there's an alternate reality where everything it got wrong went right and its just the most awesome movie ever, it's just not this one.

Rating: 4/10

REVIEW: Bad Teacher

I know people have been all like, Diaz's hotness is washed up etc., but girl looks pretty fine.

Mainstream studio comedy has probably always been more good then bad. For jokes to get past the numerous rewrites and conference meetings they're going to have to pretty universally broad. You imagine what pitches well does better than what works as a story, and thus this is why every studio comedy, for adults or kids, ends up something like Bad Teacher. A concept you can some up in one line, enough famous names to put on the poster and material enough you can make a trailer out of. Everything else can be allowed to slide accordingly. And while this doesn't always mean these films are terrible, funny people can often be funny whatever the circumstances, it does mean that it rarely works as a movie, because everything is so intentionally slender even a ninety minute running time feels stretched.

And Bad Teacher is this problem incarnate. Its a one joke sketch extended to something that's supposed to resemble a story, and after the first couple of times they told that joke to you it becomes sort of like, yeah so she's a teacher and she does bad things because she's bad. Despite this, I didn't hate this movie. I feel like if I'd just read the script I would have found it to be awful, but unfortunately for my credibility I found most of the performances to be funny in spite of everything. Particularly Lucy Punch, playing Diaz's tightly wound teacher nemesis, managed to do a lot with a little and certainly stole this movie and hopefully will get some better movies off the back of this. Jason Segel in possibly the world's most superfluous and empty straight man role is just great, adding at least a semblance of reality in a lamely exaggerated universe. As for Timberlake, well I'm not convinced he's a good actor yet, or even that funny. But even if people seem to grade his performances kindly simply because he's Justin Timberlake, he does show a willingness to laugh at himself that is endearing I suppose.

But like all studio comedies, it's not really a movie. More an idea, and a series of scenes designed to cheaply amuse around that idea. Thankfully I enjoyed the cast enough that I didn't mind that I wasn't laughing all that much, or that everything was way too derivative and generic. Like many people have said, its an inferior version of Bad Santa, and I didn't even like that film all that much. But thanks to Punch and Segel and even Diaz, who is having fun here in a way I haven't seen for quite some time, and for an actress who's taken as many pay-cheque roles as she lately, this is good to see. It's a shame the film around these guys couldn't have been better.

Rating: 5/10