REVIEW: Black Swan

Bitch be trippin'

There will be those who will be happy to see that The Wrestler was a one-off for director Darren Aronofsky and those who won't be. While Black Swan is thematically very similar to that film, the thing that separated it glaringly from the rest of his work and perhaps what won it so much approval, was the guy curbing his operatic instincts, curbing his defining characteristic of searching for that moment of transcendence by kicking the crap out of the boundaries we know to be acceptable excess. Personally, I loved that Aronofsky over The Wrestler incarnation and while I liked that film. It felt muzzled, a film made by a man consciously toning himself down, and I think its safe to say there's none of that in Black Swan.

Having said that I think Black Swan might be more fundamentally flawed then any film he has ever made. Its script employs a series of functioning stereotypes, a supporting cast all there to serve a point rather then be human beings and an uneven script that repeatedly hits all of its ideas on the head with a mallet. And yet, almost through sheer force of will, Aronosfky and star Natalie Portman combine to create something extraordinary, something exhilarating and moving and very occasionally reach a level of beauty that few films could even aspire to. Black Swan is not only more then a sum of its parts, it outright transcends them. And while it is tempting to call it a huge mess, one only hopes there could be more messes like this. Portman, who has given hints at being able to do this every now and again, has truly hit a career best and then some. Its a very sculpted performance, top to bottom a testament to control, ironic in more ways then one, in which she both captures the fragility of Nina Sayers and the burgeoning insanity with pure authenticity, something that if she hadn't would have left some of the more balls-out stylings of Mr. Aronofsky in a no fly zone. One thinks of the phrase 'go big or go home' in regards to Aronofsky here and that's certainly what he does.

And this both hurt and helped the film sequentially, from the outright electric way he captures the ballet, making it feel more exhilarating then the best action sequence and more profound then anything words could say. He just provided the art with all the advertising it needs for the next decade. And yet the same approach is applied to the build, a tripping hallucinatory sequence goes a couple of steps too far, and to the characterization. Barbara Hershey's mother character is the worst victim of this, the movie happy to play to the long dated stereotype of the obsessively clingy mother with thoroughly no dimensional at all. This cheapened the movie for me, Mila Kunis comes and goes, not bad but not al that memorable either, and while Vincent Cassel's European director is yet another appalling stereotype, he manages to at least do something a little more interesting with it. But it's thoroughly Portman's show, and when she and Aronofsky combine at the top of their game for the near wordless and extraordinary last fifteen minutes, the film puts you in a place where previous objection no longer matter, such is the beauty of what you're seeing. The film is flawed to the core, but there's something wonderful here too. But personally, I think something with this much capacity for greatness is easier to forgive, and its rare a film can say fuck you to its limitations in such a glorious, almost magical way.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Blue Valentine

Its kind of like if Jason Van Der Beek had grown up into Christian Bale

At the risk of sounding like the most contemptible dickhead, Blue Valentine is a poem. It's a dark envisioning of two entwined human beings who moment to moment are losing everything they once shared, in almost the most horrifying and heartbreaking slow-burn imaginable. But this about more then the loss of love, as one of the connotations of divorce is realizing one of the most defining choices you'll make in your entire life has been a mistake, and mistake you'll never be able to rectify. If life is about choices, then Blue Valentine is a regretful piece about the consequences of making the wrong ones for the best of reasons. At times it can be a little overt in communicating its message and in hammering home its impact, but ultimately it's a fascinating, rewarding dive into existentialist despair.

Many of the criticisms of the film seem to revolve around the notion that the film puts you in quarantine with these characters, into some horrible intimate space you can't escape from. And while its true that's exactly what the film does, I think its perhaps the most powerful aspect of the film. The fact it never allows you breathing space from the relationship is exactly the point and the film has no interest in exploring things objectively, or trying to intellectualize things. It's about putting you into that place where you can feel the emotions as they do, the frustration and the infatuation in equal parts. Like I said it treats its material as a poem, fascinated by the emotional rift emerging. Michelle Williams, who has somehow managed to go from Dawson's Creek to being one of the most consistently impressive and astounding actresses of her generation, gives another award worthy performance here, where everything is so horrifyingly internal and repressed, yet so visible. She is certainly the most wrenching aspect of Blue Valentine, reacting to Gosling's increasingly volatile presence with such unspoken heartbreak, and while she has no chance at the Oscar, it certainly would be deserving.

Gosling I found a a little more problematic. I think there's seeds of a fantastic performance, but the honest moments are too fleeting and I sense that occasionally Gosling's ferocious acting style lead to him being more involved in the mannerisms then the emotions, and in such an emotionally raw environment and opposite a performance as strong as Williams', there was more then one moment I caught him 'acting' so to speak. And this detracted from the film a little I think. Having said that I can imagine that many a viewer watching this would be blown away by what Gosling does, but I think the core of this film was a realist relationship depicted poetically and his performance served to hurt that ethos at times. Similarly the film's structure is designed for such maximum impact that it can feel a little overwrought at times, but that's all the negatives I want to bring up about a film his purely ambitious, a film this purely heart-wrenching and a film this emotionally honest. A brave work in any context for sure. Raw as fuck.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Morning Glory

In which I make it two paragraphs before mentioning the film I'm reviewing. But I'm aware of it so its cool.

I think Star Wars owes Harrison Ford a lot more then it lets on. The problem with movies that create these fantasy worlds and populate them with these arch, good vs evil stories is that the world and characters inevitability feel synthetic or slight, and there's no room to breathe. Put that up against the Lucas standard of dialogue and moralizing, than Ford's trademark douchebag Han Solo became the only character that wasn't extremely upstanding or extremely reprehensible, and thus the only option a viewer over 12 could get behind. Ford has the streamlined persona of an old-fashioned movie star, and that the sense that he's playing 'Harrison Ford' in every role he ever plays is part of his success.

Ford has shown no real desire to explore this persona either. Whereas it could be argued that Tom Cruise only plays himself, for example, Cruise has shown a desire to explore all aspects of that construct, from the traditional heroic incarnations to the darker shadings. Ford has played the lovable asshole in every role he's ever played, except when he reached 50 and the dynamic switched to grouchy asshole. But it's all cut from the same remarkably specific cloth, and I doubt there's an actor in the last 75 years with his level of repute to have a career so complacent. It's not necessarily Ford's problem and as 2-d shticks go, I do enjoy this one. And its certainly the most enjoyable aspect of Morning Glory, a film that feels cliched in spite of its subject matter being one of the less explored aspects of the entertainment industry, at least in recent years. And that never ending soundtrack spike of soul music was pretty fucking annoying.

I guess may main problems lie with Rachel McAdams, who gives a performance that can never really escape the notion of trying too hard, with just way too many exasperated shrugs to communicate that she is in fact a bit of a ditz. I like McAdams in spite of her never really having done anything to warrant me too, and to be fair she's preferable to Diane Keaton, who as she always seems to these days gets away with too much mugging. It takes Ford's weary cynicism to make the thing start working in any capacity, bringing something better out of McAdams and an insufferably twee tone. I kind of enjoyed the film's ode to selling out too, in that the lesson of this movie is that making popular television is more important then making great television, in other words the anti-'Network'.

It's not terrible, and if this kind of thing is your kind of thing then a good time can definitely be had. And I much prefer this kind of feel good movie, that seems to be genuine and plays as moderately intelligent, then to the more standard fare. I think the word is allowable.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: The Green Hornet

Cool guys don't pay attention to explosions.

The Green Hornet is a mess. A mesh of ill-fitting ideas and styles, crippling inconsistencies and weak, predictable plotting. But what it did have is an infectious sense of goofy fun, that between the slacker energy of Rogen and the unique stylings of Gondry, make that sense of fun infectious and step by step you find yourself caring less and less about the things that are wrong with it, which is nigh on everything else. The scenes of ass-kicking somewhat pale in comparison to the scenes of hanging out and goofy misadventure though, and it succeeds much more as a comedy then a Superhero movie.

I get the sense though Rogen wanted to do something new with The Green Hornet, yet the only aspects that succeed are the familiar Rogen mainstays, the mismatched buddy pairing, the larger then life slacker persona shtick. The Green Hornet is sort of like a less hilarious Pineapple Express shoehorned into a superhero movie, with James Franco replaced by Jay Chou. Chou is taking a lot of shit for this film, and yes his mastery of the English language leaves much to be desired, but I felt he generally got the energy right, and I've seen pairings with less chemistry for sure. The two had a fairly unique vibe and Chou was at least capable of being funny. Fairing much worse are the supporting cast, from the hideously wasted Tom Wilkinson as Rogen's one-note cartoon of a father, to Cameron Diaz and Christophe Waltz. Diaz seems to be here because someone in the studio pointed how there was no gender with boobs at all in this movie, and thus her role is just forced in, serving no purpose except to wear tight clothing. But the use of Waltz is much more frustrating. Inglourious Basterds should be him about five years of villains in hollywood, and I feel he is good enough to give us a decent rogue's gallery. But this, well like Diaz the character serves no purpose, they just needed a villain on the poster. The character is two-dimensional and flat and Waltz just looks bored.

Much of the writing bothered me too, particularly for the more serious scenes where the dialogue was pretty risible. Wilkinson's dialogue was horrific, as was much of Waltz's. And outside of his own character, Rogen didn't seem to be able to write for anyone all that well. But the scenes between Rogen and Chou, and a couple of neat visual tricks by Gondry make this at least an enjoyable film, so if fails at everything else, it does entertain. A fun ride if you don't pay attention to where you're going. That's probably the nicest way to say it.

Rating: 6/10

Next Wednesday Instead Podcast: Episode 8 - Breaking The King's Speech in a 127 Hours

In which we talk at great length about Stephen Graham's accent and a little about Breaking Bad

REVIEW: Season Of The Witch

Beatniks (Nic Cage) Out To Make It Rich

OK we know what kind of Cage film this is. Its the kind that pays the rent on his three castles in Romania or whatever. Its the kind that makes bottom tens of the year lists and the kind that people bring up when they tell you how shit an actor Cage is. As a fan of the man's work, its the kind I have to nut up and charge on through, and the kind I have to give the haters their due for. The terrible writing, the awful supporting cast and suspicious looking CGI effects are all on the checklist, but oh well. The next Bad Lieutenant can't be too far round the corner right? Right? guys?

GUYS: Bangkok Dangerous sucked.

ME: So does your mum. The funny thing here is that I don't think Season Of The Witch is quite at the level of the worst Cage slumming. Dude's set himself such a low standard in recent years Season Of The Witch feels positively Shakespearean compared to The Wicker Man. Its still complete balls, but not quite the most balls a Cage film has ever been. Compliment much? Positives include a fairly cool opening Crusades montage, schlocky and amusing performances from Ron Perlman and Claire Foy as the titular witch. Foy in particular has a lot of fun in her paper thin EVIL role. Until of course the film turns her into a lame CGI monster. Shit I just spoiled Season Of The Witch. Like you'll see it anyway, fuckers. Foy wasn't mind-blowing or anything, but she was a fun, camp villainness, so why you've got to turn her into an I Am Legend monster with wings. Cage just looks bored and is here for dollar, and everyone else is pretty bland.

Oh except Stephen Graham of course. Who has an American accent. In 13th century, black death stricken europe. Despite Graham being English. And everyone else being english. And America not existing yet. WHAT THE FUCK. Somebody made this choice, because that cartoon Al Capone doesn't come out of Graham naturally. Somebody said, I think this 13th century peasant should be an American, but played by an English actor. If it was Graham, then somebody said yes to a moronic idea. Yes maybe his natural scouse would have been distracting, but do a generic english one. If you can't do that, well you can't do an American either so what's the FUCKING PROBLEM. All I can assume is that nobody gave a shit, including Graham. Surely the most ridiculous thing in cinema ever.

GUYS: Dude what the fuck you just talked ten lines about an accent. That's half the review. Show some critical integrity. Drive Angry is going to suck.

ME: The film is pretty much a generic road movie, in which cast members die in order of famousness, This portion of the film is just generic and bad, but Perlman and Foy provide moments of passable. Its in its final fifteen minutes that it turns into the comedy of awful you kind of dream it will be, from plague infected kung-fu monks to Foy turning into I Am Legend to the lamest showdown and laughable moment of phoned in Cage sincerity you ever did see. It canonballs into terrible, and there's not much left to say. Except maybe that Drive Angry is going to be awesome.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: The Next Three Days

It's a dificult life on the inside.

" This year, they went with the outsiders." This is maybe a misquote, but on the night Paul Haggis won his Oscars for Crash in early 2007, he said something very much to that effect. Haggis is many things bad and good, but what you can't call him is an outsider, at least creatively. He has one of the most mainstream voices in film history and his flirtations with subject matter that was edgy forty years ago only adds to this feeling. He's not an untalented man, but any allusion to the idea that he sees himself as a maverick artist is what really made people hate him out of principle. And boy do we hate him. After winning an Oscar (because you can't very well give it to a film about pretty boys fucking each other in the mountains can you?) Particularly as a writer/director, you are supposed to be golden. But an instant and ferocious backlash rose up, against Crash and Haggis himself, destroying the legacy of that film to the point where a mere five years later no-one can admit to liking it and retain credibility, and Haggis well he's making thrillers that make twenty million and fuck off right out of here.

And I'm going to say that, maybe we over-reacted a little bit. Crash is self-indulgent, its smug and its as trite as hell. It's what a mainstream writer writes when trying to write something REAL. But have we destroyed a promising populist film-maker's career based on one moment of obscene unwarranted praise. Last time I checked lots of you think Million Dollar Baby is awesome right. His superior follow-up In The Valley Of Elah came and went almost un-noticed, almost on principal, and now The Next Three Days is coming and going with even less people noticing. Haggis can do mainstream well, and as long as he isn't telling me what he thinks about the world, he can have some interesting things to say. The Next Three Days is a tightly executed thriller, that races along well, contains good performances from Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks and is the kind of film that cinemas could do more of. Genuinely exciting thrillers.

Its maybe a little long, but this Haggis is one I can get behind, one that lowers his expectations to tell an affecting and coherent story. Its never going to be the best film ever, but its solid to good filmmaking that deserves more recognition then none at all. But then as they say it comes back around, and perhaps now karma is making him pay. Or very angry bloggers have claimed their first film-maker victim. One or the other.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: The King's Speech

Firth about to drop some sick beats.

Not too many people are going to criticise The King's Speech, and nor should they. But I submit that the King's Speech is the best kind of pedestrian film-making that is possible, that lets the subject matter do the work for it and allows its sheen and gloss to make you think a hollow experience is a meaningful one. If Oscar-bait were a movie genre, it would be as cliched as the worst romantic comedy, right down to the cynical ways it repeatedly forces tension into the central relationship for no other reason then because. The King's Speech would be as white-bread if it were made in 1935 as if it were made now, and I think it was in a way very awkward film how it broached royalty and the character, a little too respectful to do anything of real value. Yet Oscar-bait is a genre that will last forever because despite all that. You've got the performances. As you always do, standing there almost nullifying any criticisms you can have about these things. Oh well.

And its because I think this film has its problems that I think all the actors are deserving of all their awards attention and more. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush both pretty much elevate their material with their presence, and while this is hardly a stretch for either - It seems Firth has played the stiff upper lip with a secret sensitive side for his entire career - and Rush well he's just playing the most likeable mentor in the world, a dude almost angelic in his busting of chops and ability to empathize with Firth and become a surrogate father figure. The role is basically are more layered Alfred The Butler, but Rush seems to somehow exceed being excellent in it. He's both funny and capable of great pathos and despite the story not being about him at all, I'd say he walks away with it. Its one of those performances of such warmth that only great actors can give, because otherwise it would just appear insipid. Firth is typically great, and although his work is less impressive then in last year's A Single Man, if he wins an Oscar I'll be fine with it. The movie also uses Helena Bonham Carter as a secret weapon, sure she's the supportive wife when she needs to be, but by bringing her in every now and again to K.O a joke , it makes this the most hilarious rendition of the Qieen Mother on celluloid, and another moment of awesomeness for Ms, HBC. Shout out too to Guy Pearce in a marginalized role.

But one can't begin so scathing and then comprehensively praise, so in the face of the tornado of positive praise, here I go. The King's Speech is deeply formulaic, to the point where it became noticeable. If it were dealing with less worthy subject matter, this would pounced on and devoured, but no, its importance gets it a pass. It may be an instance of execution overcoming intent, and the final product has painted over enough of the cracks to get by, and it certainly has a strong as balls ending, owing an hefty assist to Beethoven, but I don't know. It felt much more bare bones then it needed to be, and while I fully accept the need to dicuss duty in films about the royals, I tire of their lionization, of the acension of duty as a value rather then the subject, and I felt it was too easy to make David the villain merely because he didn't share the same values. Oh well. Its still an exemplary showcase for great acting, and has more then one moment of rousing awesomeness. I'm just not sure it warrants the adoration it demands. Or maybe I shouldn't write these reviews on my phone as I run from the police. Who knows.

Rating: 7/10

REVIEW: Its Kind Of A Funny Story

Everyone goes a little mad sometimes.

Its Kind Of A Funny A Story feels like the sort of film that bred like a virus in about 2004, but numbers have dwindled of late. Featuring a skinny white teen protagonist, preferably rich but at least middle class, contending with emotional alienation/mental problems only to be redeemed by a manic pixie dream girl from the other side of the tracks. Some good came off these films but often they were way too self-indulgent to amount to anything much. It's kind Of A Funny story is a bit more laidback then these films are usually, and wisely it pushes the focus from the teen lead to the adult supporting cast, becoming a sort of an emo One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

Maybe I've had enough time off from privileged whining to find it endearing again, but for its familiarity and faults, the film is a kind of charming experience. Mostly because of an excellent performance from Zach Galifianakis but also because its its a film that doesn't insist on itself too much ,a couple of photo montages and fantasy sequences aside, and seems content in being a small story about a guy learning to get over himself. Which is a story that we don't see that often, particularly in indie teen movies, but I found it to be a nice touch. And its a testament to Keir Gilchrist's performance that I didn't want to throttle the guy. But back to Galifianakas, who I much prefer in roles like this then his bigger, broader mainstream comic persona. Specific persona's like that grow tired quickly, as Jack Black and Will Ferrell will testify to, but Galifianakis seems to show a desire to actually be an actor, not above taking supporting parts, cameos, or even a regular role on a TV show. His career shows an almost inspiring lack of ego, and while the big hits I grow weary off a little, as downplayed mental patient Bobby he gets to shine the most. Still funny, but its the dramatic stuff where he adds to the film rather then seek attention, a la Jim Carrey in dramatic roles. And this is my favourite performance he has given yet. An interesting development.

What brings it down is the day to day of it, the parents who don't get him, the Emma Roberts character, who is the thinnest sketch of a manic pixie dream girl and that relationship has drastically less depth then the one between Gilchrist and Galifianakis, which I guess could be a cool thing. But ultimately just too many indie by numbers happening in ways I've seen them happen before. And to be anything more then a 'yeah its alright' film something has to pop, but the greatest compliment I have is I enjoyed how laid back it was.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: 127 Hours

So guess what I did this week...

I think everyone remembers where they were when they first heard the story of Aron Ralston. Sort of the survivalist equivalent of the JFK assassination. It's certainly something you never forget. A tale of the most horrifying proportions, you almost couldn't imagine anything worse then getting trapped on a boulder for six days in the desert, with options of either cutting off your arm or being found in a couple of years just a skeleton in hiking gear. Yet also a tale of the most awesome proportions, about a human being who was simply too much of a badass to be defeated by something as feeble as certain death. And if you are going to point to an instance of the human spirit triumphing over all else because fuck that, this wouldn't be the worst example to bring up.

Whether it would make a great film though is a different question. By its very nature, the film can't go anywhere and while a great performance was almost inevitable. How does the story of a man trapped under a rock last 90 minutes? Suspicion arose further for me when Danny Boyle's name became attached, because while he is a brilliant director, he's not one for restraint. I thought it would hinge of whether Boyle could bench the hyper-kinetic visual style for a film and just let the horror of the situation sell itself.

Couldn't be more wrong.

I'm tempted to say that this is actually Boyle's most visually adventurous, balls out iteration of his expressionism on Red Bull shtick. And it worked perfectly. 127 Hours is one of the most striking films you'll see all year, said on January 6th, but it doesn't sacrifice the story to make this happen. Ralston's story is told and then some, thanks to some career best work from James Franco, whose renaissance from wooden as Keanu Reeves Harry Osborn and star of Annapolis to actor so consistently awesome, daring and unpredictable that he's definitely got to be considered one of the most interesting actors going, but he does something new here. He delivers a performance that just carries the thing so wonderfully, in turns stoic, pathetic, badass and heart-breaking. Even hilarious in one particular scene. After this, Franco has to enter the conversation to be considered as one of the best actors of his generation, something the inevitable and deserved Oscar nomination that will come off the back of this film will help no end.

As for Boyle, there are perhaps a couple of occasions that his style went too far down Oliver Stone way, but why it worked so well is because it made the experience so visceral, so brutal and so uncompromising. You hear, see and feel everything. And there was me thinking this could only be done right if you verited this bitch. That's why he's Danny Boyle I suppose. A unique piece of film-making to be sure.

Rating: 8/10

Next Wednesday Instead Podcast: Episode 7 - 2010, The Year Of The Squeally Pig Boy

2010 in review, podcast style

REVIEW: The Way Back

Because it's a shithole, OK.

Peter Weir is not a director many would think to site amongst their favourite directors, at least anyone I know, but dude has been Oscar nominated six times. Six times. I reckon that's more then David Fincher, Christopher Nolan and Danny Boyle combined. And in a way that makes sense, Weir tells human stories, often unburdened by overly intrusive visual style or any embellishments that go beyond just telling the story. This can be seen as a failing or an attribute in equal measure, but for me it depends on the story in question. But its kind of encouraging that a film-maker that goes to great lengths to be invisible in his work can get so well acknowledged. Because he's made some great films for exactly that reason.

The Way Back, his first film since 2003's Master and Commander, is another apt example of everything Weir can do right as a film-maker, in that its simultaneously low-key and epic in that he doesn't let the soundtrack or the camera-work over-compensate, and just tells a mature story of human survival against the elements, in which the characters themselves take centre stage. And it works as a moving, almost minimalist story, that doesn't hit you over the head with the tragedy, rather letting its slowly creep up on you. Featuring some great performances, even leading man Jim Sturgess who previously I've had my doubts about, has had a very interesting 2010 and does good work here. One would expect Ed Harris do give a give a good performance, but its one of his better ones, exuding a wisdom combined with cynicism to lend some real weight to that oldest guy in prison stereotype. Colin Farrell, who seems to find his groove most when in supporting roles, gives a great performance as a sort of Russian street thug and Dragos Bucur lend s some depth to his comic relief character, But I think what I liked the most is how well the film fleshed out all of its characters, rather then just the ones played by famous actors.

Atonement's Saoirse Ronan gives another performance to suggest why she's the Oscar bait child actor of choice and Weir excels at making the environment feel like a character, from the bitter winters to the expansive deserts to the point where we almost feel the weight of every step the characters take as they trek through the wilderness. Its a little familiar, and other films about extraordinary survival will perhaps have some similar elements. But it's just a classy, eloquent example of film-making, something that Weir delivers almost every time out.

Rating: 7/10

REVIEW: Love And Other Drugs

Insert your joke about naked A-listers here.

I think Love And Other Drugs kind of won me over, with reservations. I was expecting a mash-up between formulaic romantic comedy and mawkish illness melodrama, and that's pretty much what I got I suppose, although things were executed a little more eloquently then I expected. Sure old man director Edward Zwick was a little bit Dad trying to break dance with the film's visual style. But the writing felt a little more world weary and a little less dough-eyed, and Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal were very good. Particularly Hathaway, who's nothing short of excellent and whose performance belongs in a better film.

Even though its only really half a romantic comedy, I think its still pretty much the best the genre had to offer this year. Both of its leads are funny, both of its leads have fairly well drawn characters and they had good chemistry together, feeling like an actual couple and not in that usual stick two attractive people in a room and surely sparks must fly approach that never works. Its romance is credible, so it makes the jokes a little funnier and the inevitable scenes of heart-pouring a little truer. I would say in the last third cliches start getting hit a little too hard, problems are created because its about time the couple get broken up artificially so we can get a great reunion scene at the end. But Gyllenhaal and Hathaway make watching these familiar beats more tolerable. Hathaway has quietly turned into one of the best actresses of her generation in the last couple of years or so, from Rachel Getting Married on down. She doesn't always make the best films but is always viable and charming in them. And Gyllenhaal, he's one of those people whose talent always exceeds what people expect on account of his looks, and this just pisses me off raw.

Love And Other Drugs is far from a perfect film. It seeps into melodrama a little too often, it can be a little aimless and its attempts at corporate satire in regards to the healthcare industry pretty much fall flat, but taken as a film about a relationship which I think it tried to be more then anything else, it succeeds because for ones in these damn romantic comedies, I was engaged in it. And that was a rare and pleasant feeling.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Gulliver's Travels

Yes, they called me President the... awesome. You're killing me Jack Black.

Now I haven't read the original Jonathan Swift Gulliver's Travels. But something tells me this isn't the most faithful adaptation, because the movie I just saw doesn't quite fit the description ' Satire of human nature' that Wikipedia tells me it is. Because I just saw a movie where a tiny person disappeared into Jack Black's ass crack and was never seen again. Seriously. Holy shit, 2010 has seen some terrible, terrible films but Gulliver's Travels has got to be up there with the best of them. A thoroughly reprehensible piece of shit, where a movie studio spent 150 million on a series of sight gags. But they're, like, really small and he's really, really big. Plus he's fat so that shit has DOUBLE MEANING. Jonathan Swift can take his satire of human nature and suck on that stuff. They saw the Avatar joke right?

Ergh. Jack Black is not an actor opposed to selling out. He seems to make one odious studio release after another, diluting his persona and appeal a little bit more each time, until we reach this. Where he has at the most hollow and anaesthetized version of himself he has yet to play. Its depressing, because I liked Jack Black once, and theoretically I still do. But this does not help me make my case. Call it his Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls. But what is done with Black is somehow less egregious then what is done with Jason Segel, stuck in a half straight-man, half nothing role that just dies on screen, and I refuse to blame Segel for that because I know how funny he can be. Its just this movie has worked very hard at casting funny people and trying its darndest to make them as plain as possible. A misguidedly game Emily Blunt turns up to be the punchbag for a few clueless princess jokes that would have felt tired when the original Shrek came out. I guess Chris O Dowd is the only one to emerge with any credibility, his villain being the only source of any half-chuckles the movie may bleed out of you.

But this is bullshit no mistake, insultingly sanitised with super broad and super obvious reference humour and existing only as a visual experiment, with a super thin and predictable story sketched in on a CGI lunch break. It's just for lack of a more fitting word, awful. It's the kind of film that speaks to the worst of modern film-making, particularly for kids. I can't imagine neither the dumbest kids nor the frattiest adults finding anything to enjoy in this almost pathetic excuse for a film.

Rating: 2/10

REVIEW: Tron Legacy

5 Reasons why Tron Legacy was destined to suck:

1) Tron is not the movie people remember it being.

Tron is one of those films you see when you're about eight, maybe in the cinema, maybe with a bunch of your friends. You're taken by the look, the Neon red and blue's and pseudo motorbike chases. Jeff Bridges was affable and nerdy right, and it was fun. But its one of those times in movie history where everyone critiqued with their eyes and not their stomach, Avatar is another, and let a visually ground-breaking film get away with its storytelling short-comings. The original Tron is a fun movie, but emphatically nothing more.

2) Corporations repackaging their youth and selling it back to you, minus the soul

Thank you Edward Norton on the fight Club commentary. See the problem here, is that today's Fox and Disney suits were once children, and when they were kids they liked playing with Transformers, or watching Tron. But time passes and now they're all grown up, with a world to exploit. And in order to pay for that fourth Ducati Veyron, their childhood memories light up with dollar signs. ' Hey I liked Tron when I was a kid, we should remake it! Fuck yeah, kids will love that. Discs and shit. Fuck Yeah. Now where is my hair gel and cocaine ' But whereas the original Tron was made with nothing but love, and it showed, this is made with nothing but cynicism and thus it has no soul, no discernible identity or reason to exist. Its just another sci-fi chosen one narrative, where people talk way too much.

3) Garrett Hedlund is the poor man's Cam Gidanget

One has to wonder why the character of Sam is in Tron Legacy at all. The roles of villain and hero are both taken by Jeff Bridges, and its not like Sam is some devastatingly interesting character whose story had to be told. He's here because data showed that films with an attractive white male, aged 25-35 in its lead will make the money. Hedlund is a charisma vacuum, coming off like a self-satisfied douchebag only without the decency to be obnoxious. He's both unlikeable and bland, pretty much the worst combination an actor can have. He's a large reason why people believe this movie to be boring, because as far as I'm concerned, exposition scenes are as interesting as the actors in them. And Hedlund, well.

4) Tron Legacy's template: The Matrix Reloaded

The thing about mythology, and more importantly explaining mythology, is that it should be done on a need to know basis. At least in a damn action movie. Yet Tron Legacy spends about 45 minutes telling me a backstory that doesn't matter, motivations that are irrelevant and information that is superfluous. Nothing is worse then when simple films go on endlessly about how much they matter, and Tron Legacy is a simple movie. Like Reloaded, it becomes way too caught up in extolling exposition before, oh shit its the end of the movie. At least Reloaded had some brain-melting action. Not one scene of carnage was as impressive as the scenes of rinsage in Reloaded, and if they weren't enough to save that film, then this one is beyond fucked.

5) Aside from everything else, its just not very good.

Poor Jeff Bridges. Saddled against a naff script, a CGI face that looks like a pro evolution soccer character and dialogue that would make the architect squirm, he still manages to be good in this film. His bad guy is a little menacing, in spite of his face, and his good guy is like a stoner Obi Wan Kenobi. But Bridges isn't enough to save if from its dull, pointless self. I guess Michael Sheen turns up for a while to amuse/embarrass himself. High in the running for shallowest movie experience of 2010, if not quite the worst. Because you can't manufacture a sense of wonder in a board room. I'd call it a disappointment if I had any expectations for it. But I thought it would suck and it kind of did. What else do you want from me.

Rating: 4/10

REVIEW: Burlesque

Aguilera porn

When one goes to see a movie about strippers, glorified very classy strippers, but if you define stripping as taking your clothes off for a living then that's what Burlesque dancers are, one does not expect it to be so gay. I don't mean that as insult, and the camp aspect made this more tolerable then films of its kind that can't really move beyond the 'look at the boobies' school of film-making. Its just I feel sorry for all the pervs that churned out 9.75 to watch a film about strippers and got jack shit for their money. I mean they brought their raincoats and everything. Nothing quite like a public masturbation joke to round out 2010 is what I say.

So, Burlesque. First of all it should be said that Ms Aguilera has a very impressive voice, that is clearly established. No-one is doubting that. I kept thinking they were cheating it in some way but I read around thats not the case so, fair do's. The sequences involving her singing in any capacity are really the only thing it has going for it, because elsewhere its a painfully cliched hollywood rags to riches tale, that so nauseatingly simplifies everything it may as well be written by a 13 year old girl dreaming about how easy her path to stardom will be. But its escapism I suppose and even if its escapism not directly aimed at me, I guess I have to let some of that go. Its adequately made and they do their best to make Oscar winning actress Cher look like a real human being and not one of those masks people pull of their face in Mission Impossible. Stanley Tucci steals it by default, by being the only one who seems to know how to do his job, and even if his character is a massive stereotype, he's awesome enough to make you not care.

It's a glossy, empty bizzarely dated testament to hearing showbiz women roar, and quite frankly apologetic feminism only takes you so far. There's nothing for me here, and its not funny or legitimate enough to make me think it worth the effort, which its sadly not. Say if you're favorite film of all time is Love Actually and you thought Nine was mightily under-rated, or are just a sucker for celebrities with more fame then talent then this will be for you. Otherwise, just watch Chicago again and save yourself some money in these hatd times.

Rating: 4/10

NWI Awards: Best Leading Actress In Dramatic Television

A little sidenote: This category is was much, much more difficult to compile then it should have been. This industry is mad sexist when it involved to dramatic roles for women, but I managed to do it. And more importantly do it without including Anna Paquin for True Blood.

10) Emily Deschanel, Bones

I don't not to watch episodic cop shows, mostly because past about four episodes they become nauseating, but if I were to watch one on a regular basis, it would probably be Bones. Leads Deschanel and Buffy's David Boreanaz work well together, and it can be funny. But sister of Zooey gives an always interesting performance as borderline asperger's inflicted Temperance Brennan. (Show, why call your main character Temperance. Why?)

9) Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer

First of all this show has a stupid title, because it could mean the closer, as in one who is becoming closer to things, like solving cases. Or it could mean the closer, as in someone who closes cases. Either way, Sedgewick gives a good, if occasionally OTT performance at its centre. It gives it a little more identity then just another female lead cop show on TNT.

8) Jennifer Carpenter, Dexter

On a show where the supporting cast is a multi-ethnic conglomeration of blandness, Carpenter does well with what she's got, taking a character that is seemingly defined by whoever her boyfriend is at any given time, Carpenter has done some good work in a difficult role.

7) Karen Gillan, Doctor Who

A vital part of what for me has been by far and away the best year of Doctor Who, with much of the camp and maudlin melodrama Russell T Davies brought to proceedings gone, and replaced with a greater element of serialization and more formed characters. And Gillian's Amy Pond is probably the greatest example of that. A fun, winning performance.

6) Anna Torv, Fringe

Torv was rightly called on being the weakest element of Fringe back in the day. But in its superior third season, Torv was in her element, playing two versions of her character Olivia. The newer of which, heralding from the alta-universe, has began to steal the show on a regular basis, neither the straight-forward villain people expected nor the blank slate that the old character could be, Torv isnow quietly giving some of the most under-rated work on TV, and doing it twice over.

5) Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

This show is classified as a comedy in al the awards ceremonies, but Falco's performance is so inherently dramatic I have no interest in wasting a space that someone who's actually funny could have. Falco is very good on this oft frustrating show, as you'd expect. Not groundbreaking work perhaps, but hitting al the old beats fantastically.

4) Glenn Close, Damages

The inconsistent Damages did itself a huge favor when it landed Glenn Close at its centre, and over the years she's given a stellar performance in a show that, despite its A-list pedigree and reception, can be fucking awful at times. But Close is too good of an actress not to be extra-ordinary, so what are you going to do.

3) Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

The show that made melodrama cool again, and much it works largely thanks to the terrific performances of its two leads, Kyle Chandlerand Connie Britton. Unfortunately the male category was too competitive for me to fit Chandler in, but Britton does equally good work as his wife, neither a pushover or a shrew. The two default arechetypes for TV wives, even in well respected shows, she's complex but fundamentally a great person, and Britton brings that out wonderfully.

2) Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

At the centre of the very classy legal show The Good Wife, Marguiles gives an exceptionally intelligent performance. Not afraid to be showy when she has to be, nor appropriately quieter when the scene calls for it. Classy work on a classy show.

1) Eilsabeth Moss, Mad Men

Moss started out one of the weakest aspects of Mad Men. Particularly in the early years, when everyone was so awesome and she was so mousy and unimpactful, but in a year where so many characters fell from grace, Moss' Peggy came into her own, giving performance where the maturity forms in front of your eyes.

NWI Awards: Best Leading Actor In Dramatic Television

10) James Wolk, Lone Star

Yes this show only lasted two episodes and that barely seems enough to accredit it in this way, but damn if this isn't my own blog where I can say what I want and be coherent only if I choose to be. The most intriguing, arguably the only intriguing new network show of 2010, this tale of a con man living two lives was anchored by a very solid and engaging performance by Wolk at its centre. I think it would have only gotten better.

9) Idris Elba, Luther

As you could probably deduce from many of the selections on this list, I'm not the biggest fan of most of what British television does or the way it does it, despite being British and all, but whereas Luther was I think just an exceptionally smooth, elegant rendition of the same old thing. Having Stringer Bell himself at its centre lent it a weight and an intensity one rarely finds, mostly because Elba is awesome, and the kind of actor you'd watch in anything.

8) Hugh Laurie, House

The show is a dinosaur. A preachy, cowardly mess leaning on lame internet 'shipping' to give it even an illusion of freshness, but Laurie's performance refuses to let the show die. In a way there's a serious argument to be made that Laurie's work on this show is the best performance by anyone of the last twenty years or so. He doesn't get the richly written material of a Gandolfini or a Hamm, yet crafts a character every bit as layered and subtle. He's single handedly the comedy and the drama of the show, and he does both excellently. He's made a thousand crass moments seem poignant and has never dropped his game. Just saying.

7) Steve Zahn, Treme

The hell with all of you, I liked this performance. Zahn was a likeable, warm presence at the show's centre and in a way an embodiment of the show's high on life mission statement.

6) Timothy Olyphant, Justified

In a way its nice to have an action hero on TV. Great drama is synonymous with complex, morally ambiguous leading men, so in a way watching Olyphant be an epic badass every week was a nice antidote. And the performance is no less substantial, with the character bearing a soft-spoken cool, and a deceptively intelligent side that goes beyond the cowboy hat iconography.

5) Michael C Hall, Dexter

Like Hugh Laurie, Hall is the sole reason Dexter isn't entirely unwatchable at this point. Fighting against the writers urge to simplify things and never letting the darkness out of the character. It's long since past the time for me that Dexter was in the running to be a great show, but there's no denying the greatness of the performance.

4) Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

This is a difficult one, because I think Buscemi's performance is almost the most subversive thing about the show and its something that people have pointed to as one of the failings of it. But Buscemi's not a pillar of masculine rage like Tony Soprano or Walter White, or even a relic of an age of a stronger male identity like Don Draper. The way Buscemi plays it avoids these trappings and allows it to become something potentially more unique. Something this shows very much needs.

3) Donal Logue, Terriers

Logue is not necessarily an actor that I had taken notice of before. I'd seen him in many things, but nothing ever really registered until this. Hank Dolworth plays like kind of a cross between The Dude and Philip Marlowe, capable of both coolly riffing and burning up the screen with intensity. Logue was the best thing about what turned out to be a very good show. If nothing else, this show should have bough Logue some pedigree.

2) Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad

The most important Emmy win in TV history was Cranston's for that first season of Breaking Bad. Without it I doubt the show gets a second season, and we lose what has become one of the best shows in history. And what a centre Cranston is to this world. He's done a lot of great work o this show, but I'm tempted to say that the monologue he has in 'Fly' is amongst the best work he's ever done. And that's a high frickin standard.

1) Jon Hamm, Mad Men

But Mad Men had 'The Suitcase'. And in that episode was Hamm doing the best work he's ever done. On Mad Men. With past ravings, I've probably made my position clear on what show I prefer but there's not point denying that Hamm was the best actor on TV in 2010. I don't think you can.

NWI Awards: Best Episodes Of 2010 - Justified: Long In The Tooth

I'm gonna take a stand.

Justified is a curious, if undoubtedly successful show. Blending the grand drama and adult content of a Breaking Bad with the procedural elements of a NCIS, I think more worked about it then didn't, particularly when it took serialization to heart toward the end of its season. But the episode that blew my mind more then any other was not only a stand alone, but narratively the most disposable episode. Nothing much is done with the lead character or the larger story. It doesn't even do much to expand on the world.

But in a way it did something else. It showed the potential of stand alone episodes within the modern TV dramatic landscape, where the only story worth telling is worth telling over 5 years. And to be clear, I love these shows. They are my lifeblood, but Long In The Tooth was such an entertaining, amusing and affecting hour of television that it does make one doubt ones staunchly serialized principles. A large part of that is the truly excellent performance at its centre by guest star Alan Ruck, who seems destined to be remembered as Cameron from Ferris Bueller forever. Its a character he played in some form for the rest of his career, until he became one of those faces you'd see often on TV playing the same kind of ineffectual role, regardless of whether they're talented or not. And Ruck, well he was always that acerbic, kind of spineless guy. But as Roland 'Rollie' Pike, dirty accountant/dentist, he is pretty much a revelation, discovering a not before seen toughness, but not losing that everyman charm. And when an actor does something you've never seen them do this fucking well, it makes you take notice.

Justified works best when its episodes protagonists are not those who don't traditionally belong in an Elmore Leonard universe, and Pike works wonderfully because he's both competent and in over his head, badass and vulnerable. Living his dream of being a dentist after stealing mob money, Rollie's cover is blown when he unloads on a particularly obnoxious customer, and the Elmore ensues. Combined with a sweet relationship he has with receptionist Mindy, well played by Michele Nordin, its a character story started and finished in 42 minutes, and succeeded in that in a way that no other show quite managed this year. It even throws in a couple of moments of Timothy Olyphant being a badass for good measure. Because after all, if you're not gonna use it then throw it away.

The problem with non-serialized shows is that quality doesn't stick, and a galling inconsistency is inevitable. It almost can't be avoided. And Justified suffered a little from that. But if you can get an hour of superlative television as good as Long In The Tooth, then its almost worth the trade. Also if you could re-invent an over the hill actor, that would be great too.

Rating: 8/10

NWI Awards: Best Episodes Of 2010 - Party Down: Steve Guttenberg's Birthday

And I don't even mention the fact that McLovin is in the episode, which he is.

Celebrities playing themselves in a manor that pokes fun at their image is a joke grown increasingly weary to me. It's beginning to feel more like a way for famous people to gain good PR then something that serves comedy in any useful way. For me that trick works best when the person playing themselves gives a performance of some kind rather then taking a few soft hits and coming off like a whole new person.

But it worked wonderfully in Steve Guttenberg's birthday, mostly perhaps because its not a series of cheap gags about how lame and outdated Guttenberg is, how he only made bad movies things like that, instead pointing out that us smart-ass cynics will never know an inch of the success Guttenberg had, and he acts as almost a hurricane of positivity to Party Down's regular cast of people who hate the world in one way another, and by making such a mockable celebrity a kind of zen like optimist interested in helping everyone he ever meets, reminding our cast, particularly failed actor Henry, that the dreams they've al given up on might be worth pursuing after all. It also very fucking funny, whilst similarly retaining the sadness that pervades the show and makes it the rich experience it is.

I think what makes this episode stand out against the rest though, and season two of Party Down set a very high standard indeed, is the two scenes where the caterers read Hard sci-fi (Techno-babble that purposefully avoids any kind of heart or humanity) enthusiast Roman's script aloud. In part because it lent a depth to Roman's character who spent most of the series believing he was too good for the world rather then the other way around, and for the way it contrasted the two readings, the first a sarcastic lifeless washout, and the second an unexpectedly intense, unexpectedly awesome scene, in which Henry being so good only lends more to the tragi-comic elements of the show. Adam Scott has always been an under-rated actor, but what he did in this episode has made me a fan for life, its a terrific performance in every sense of the word. Him screaming ' What do you know about Life!' as 'Slave girl' dies in his arms is simultaneously one of the funniest and saddest scenes of the year. To put it in the show's words, 9 times out of ten, if you've got the talent, you make it. But what about that one guy?

A lot of comedy revolves around people failing, but in the world of Party Down its explored in a very different way. It doesn't hide from the darker elements of seeing people dreaming of success and heading inevitably toward humdrum monotony, yet it the Steve Guttenberg's birthday frames this against someone whose got everything they want. If it wasn't so funny this would be the saddest show on TV. Perhaps it still is. Well, if it wasn't cancelled anyway. Genius.

Rating: 9/10