I’ll probably be eating these words on Sunday, so don’t take it too seriously.I will also only be focusing on the big nominations – Best Picture, Best Actor, and the like.

Best Picture – The Artist is the shoo-in for this award. It is the most critically lauded, the most well-known, and the most unique. Picking it would not only be picking one of the best films of the last year (unlike, say, picking The Help or Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close), it will recognize a relative newcomer to the field, and it will show respect to the art of film. This last quality is what the Oscars are all about. Speaking of which, am I the only one who thinks Billy Crystal is going to milk the silent aspect for all it’s worth in the opening monologue?

Best Actor – Gary Oldman, who has frequently topped the list of “best actors who have never been nominated for an Oscar.” This is probably going to be a “we’re sorry” Oscar, rather than one that rewards Oldman’s specific performance. A lot of people will claim Clooney will win. This is a tempting choice, but Clooney has won before and been nominated many times. Oldman never has, and they love to award work just so people will not yell at them.

Best Actress – Many people assume that Meryl Streep is a given for this one. I’m not so sure. Why? Because the film itself (The Iron Lady) was a critical flop. Rewarding Streep would seem like giving the film as a whole merit it does not possess. Now, normally the performance is supposed to be considered separately, but that never happens. It reminds me of the situation with Chaplin. Robert Downey Jr’s performance was the best of the year, but the film itself was garbage, so he didn’t win. So who could upset Streep? I would love to see Rooney Mara take home the trophy, Michelle Williams will probably win. She has already won many awards for her performance and seems like an equally safe choice. AMPAS is always about patting classic Hollywood on the back. Rewarding a woman who portrays one of Hollywood’s biggest legends is just too tempting.

Best Director – Michel Hazanavicius.  I would love for Malick to win (I still have a bet going on as to whether or not Malick will even show up…he tends to avoid publicity) but Tree of Life was too challenging for many people to “get.” Scorsese and Allen will get their awards in separate categories (yes, I know Scorsese didn’t write Hugo, but any award for that film will seem like an award for him). It was also the direction of The Artist (and the two leads) that made the film work as well as it did.

Best Original Screenplay – Midnight in Paris. The Artist  is also nominated, but the strength of the film was in its execution, not its writing. Midnight is the smartest script of 2011, and Allen is also one of the most beloved Hollywood personalities. Besides, the other films nominated will either win another award (A Separation will win Best Foreign Film) or come from a genre AMPAS hates (like Bridesmaids).

Best Adapted Screenplay- I’m going with Hugo on this one. The theme of the Oscars this year is rewarding classic Hollywood. This is why The Artist has received so many nominations. Hugo, the most nominated film of the year, will be pushed out of most of the big categories by The Artist. This is simply a safe option that will reward Hugo and still leave room for The Artist to win without people complaining that AMPAS is ignoring Scorsese again.

Best Supporting Actor – Christopher Plummer, don’t ya think? He’s the favorite, he plays a gay character (something AMPAS loves), and it’s a good way for Hollywood to reward a vet. Like I said, this year is all about AMPAS patting classic Hollywood on the back.

Best Supporting Actress – Octavia Spencer is a tempting choice, but I think that Berenice Bejo will win. She’s been nominated for a lot of other acting awards, but usually has been pushed out by either Steep or Williams. In fact, classifying her performance as a “supporting” role is a way to make sure Bejo has a chance to finally get an award.

Best Animated Feature-This may be the first time a Pixar film has not been nominated, which means that the race is far more exciting. There have been some great films (like Coraline and The Triplets of Belleville) that have not won because Pixar crowds them out.  Rango will win, as it is one of the few that is a) not a sequel and b) is something that most people are aware of. This is one of the few categories where a majority of people will have seen the (mainstream studio) nominees. AMPAS has always been eager to please – that’s why this category exists in the first place.

Best Documentary – First off, why was Werner Herzog not nominated for Into the Abyss? That was a huge blunder. But in terms of the nominees, only two look interesting – If a Tree Falls (about the classified as a terrorist organization ELF) and Paradise Lost 3. And I believe Paradise Lost 3 is the most deserving. The series of films focuses on a string of horrific murders and the men who were convicted of the crime. But of course, they may have been innocent all along – and this documentary tells the story of their release. It is the most widely known subject, and the one that resonates the most with people. After all, there has been enough story here for three films. For the same reason Return of the King swept in 2003, this will win because AMPAS wants to reward the trilogy.

Now, onto the actual list. This will be long, and it is not in any particular order.

Why do I love movies?

Because of Peter Sellers explaining how something went wrong with the bomb.

Because of the Ice Dance scene.

Because of the Tea House Shootout in Hard Boiled.

Because women like Diane Kruger, Lily Cole, Sophia Loren, young Sharon Stone, and Paulette Goddard can be preserved forever.

Because of Peter Lorre’s speech at the end of M.

Because Brazil explains my world view more than any other work of art has been able to could.

Because of Samuel L Jackson’s bible quoting in Pulp Fiction.

Because films can provide an outlet for the misfits and outsiders of the world to form a community.

Because of the ending of The Holy Mountain.

Because someone like Sam Peckinpah, who would never find employment in any other field, managed to become one of the most important artists in the medium.

Because of the globe dance in The Great Dictator.

Because of “Rosebud.”

Because of the characters dancing the Madison in A Band Apart.

Because of the Joker’s pencil trick.

Because of all the glorious black and white World War II films my Dad showed me growing up.

Because of the window peeping scene in Animal House.

Because Groucho Marx is one of the finest wordsmiths in history – but books would never have been able to capture that.

Because films usher most people through puberty, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Because the MPAA ratings system gave me a convenient way to track my adolescence.

Because the name on the grave where the money is buried is Arch Stanton.

Because of watching B-movies like Omega Cop with my college roommates while drinking beer, and quoting the film to annoy each other for days afterwards.

Because they helped my Mom get one of her first jobs (she was a projectionist when Star Wars first opened).

Because of Lucabrazzi sleeping with the fishes.

Because “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this any more!”

Because of the glorious animation in Pink Floyd: The Wall, which compliments some of the greatest rock songs ever written.

Because pretty much all of Double Indemnity.

Because of the opening theme to Django.

Because of the feeling I get when I find a rare DVD for cheap at a used book store.

Because I have seen the growth of Pixar into the most consistently good, imaginative studio in history.

Because of the Hare Krishna zombie in Dawn of the Dead.

Because of Count Orlock rising from his grave.

Because of Ash’s confession scene in Alien.

Because of Goodfellas and how it shows the rise and fall of a man who gets everything, but loses his soul.

Because of Harry Dean Stanton lip syncing to Roy Orbison.

Because of being so disappointed when Monty Python and the Holy Grail ended.

Because of Wilt Stillman’s scripts.

Because of Mozart’s laugh in Amadeus.

Because of Robocop’s gun.

Because being scared out of my wits the first time I saw The Birds as a kid.

Because of seeing The Room after a Tommy Wiseau Q & A and watching the spoons being flung at the screen.

Because of those countless hours reading “Corona’s Coming Attractions” in my early teens.

Because, for the rest of my life, no matter what happens, films will give me something new to discover, a quick way to expand my perception, and something to talk about at dinner parties.

The trailer for the work made the film seem as though it was going to be a sexual thriller, a la Basic Instinct, and would feature Freud as some sort of Greek chorus. It is not that. The film is actually mostly about people talking about their ideas about how the human mind works – and these people just so happened to change the world with their ideas. Watching their conversations unfold, as boring as that sounds, ends up being almost a fly on the wall documentary about some of the most fascinating people in the twentieth century.

The film is about a Russian mental patient named Sabina Spielrein (Kiera Knightley) who actually aspires to be a psychiatrist herself. She comes to the attention of Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), one of the earliest psychoanalysts, and he treats her. They develop a deep emotional bond, and begin a torrid affair.  Jung seeks Sigmund Freud’s (Viggo Mortensen) advice on the matter and both men use the case in order to further develop their own theories.

Cronenberg has often managed to get the best possible performance out of the actors he’s worked with – like Peter Weller in Naked Lunch, Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers, Viggo Mortensen in A History of Violence, and even Jeff Goblum in The Fly. A Dangerous Method continues this trend with Kiera Knightley. Many will claim that her performance is over the top, and that is true. But that is also part of the point. She is playing a mental patient, and in that regard she does very well, from her hysterical fits to the realization that she is a genius and one of best femme fatales in some time. Oscar worthy? Apparently not, but then again, very few actors have been nominated for their role in Cronenberg films.

That will be the basic thing that people remember. But A Dangerous Method gets under the skin in another way. Cronenberg has long explored the themes of the collective unconscious and sexuality in his works. In fact, that is why they are so good – they are unapologetically frank in examining just how bizarre human behavior can be. Freud and Jung took a similar approach, in seeing how human behavior was pre-determined in ways that people still cannot fully understand.  It’s actually surprising that Cronenberg had not directed this movie earlier – it fits right into his body of work.

Of course, many segments of the film are not the usual Cronenberg slate of horrors. Most of the film is closer to My Dinner with Andre – it’s two people talking. That sounds boring, but the film never is. The conversation that the characters have contain the sort of lines – equally enlightening and exciting – that most films never get to in a single scene. For one, the conversation is not a burden. Cronenberg is happy just to let his men talk. That was the right move; it is that conversation that has impacted the world far more than any plot any writer can creator.

But is this a film that I am going to retroactively add to my “best films of the year” list? No, because the film suffers from one gigantic flaw – its narrative structure. To put it bluntly, the film at times plays as though only about half of the script was shot, with characters making reference to events and scenes that the audience never sees. Now, what is left is superbly written dialogue and there are never any plot holes. But the jumpy narrative actually misses many opportunities to give more people information about these figures. Usually I hate when films turn into education slides, but here, I feel that the opportunity was missed to a certain degree. How many people can talk about Jung and his theories to any great degree? Cronenberg is speaking to the converts to a certain degree.

So, the film may not be as good as Cronenberg’s other works. But that is ultimately meaningless – for one, few films in the previous decade were as good as A History of Violence. For another, narrative lapses in a film as brave as this almost become irrelevant  – what is important as that a filmmaker like Cronenberg finally found a way to make a film about two men who have long influenced his ideas and art. A Dangerous Method sets out to teach people about Jung and Freud, and how they were more than just the punchline of sexual dysfunction jokes. Cronenberg is the best director to tell the story, and he tells it without falling into the thriller cliches that the trailer tried to insert into the piece

And yes, you get to see Kiera Knightley naked. I can’t believe how many times I’ve had to play that card in order to get people to see great films, but whatever works.

That is a weak lead off, I know.  But then, what can I say that people have not heard? I already feel like the guy who shows up to the night club at 3:30, reviewing this film. But it is still a movie that needs to be responded to. There were some logical lapses that the film has about its own world. But then again, it is so captivating that its flaws can be easily overlooked.

The film takes place some time in the 1980s. An illiterate teenager named Precious (Gabourey Sidibe) lives in Harlem with her psychotic mother (Mo’Nique, who really needs to get read of that silly apostrophe. Oh well, she won an Oscar for this movie, so I doubt she cares about bizarre punctuation choices her parents made). Precious has also had a child, the result of a rape her father committed. She’s pregnant again (via the same method) and is understandably a wreck. At the beginning of the film, she is transferred to an alternate school where the teacher actually fosters Precious’ desire for a better life. But Precious’ mother constantly berates  her (physically and verbally) and seems to think it is more important for the family to get the welfare check than for Precious to get an education. At these times, Precious mentally retreats into….some sort of fantasy world in which Precious is a super model dating famous actors.

The movie is exquisitely done, I will grant it that. It is also one of the most emotionally affecting movies I have seen. In fact, some of the moments of Precious’ fantasy world are downright creative. I particularly enjoyed the scene in which Precious imagines herself and her mother in an Italian neorealism film that is on TV, following an argument about Precious’ cooking. The dialogue from the film is replaced with the speech from their argument, and it becomes quite bizarre to watch (the film is apparently Two Women, directed by the legendary Vittorio De Sica. There’s a link worth exploring between this film and Italian neorealism, but that’s something for another day).

Actually, those fantasy moments are the best part of the film, and actually help the film evolve beyond a Lifetime movie. Most of the film is the typical formula – Precious in school, Precious at home dealing with her mother, Precious talking to a social worker and narrating about her own private hell. But then, every so often, the film cuts away to these brief interludes of Precious working as a super model and being admired by everyone she meets. At first, these interludes bothered me because none of them seemingly meant anything. But then, I accepted them more as Precious spoke about her wishes and her life. An illiterate woman like her would probably not be able to sustain complex fantasies for very long. But they were just as important to her as anyone’s  dreams would be.

You’ll note in the preceding paragraph that I referred to Lifetime movies. That is the biggest challenge I had about this film. Precious is a character seemed very unrealistic, and her situation seem so tailor-made that I could not help but think that she was created by an author just so he could put her through hell. I can’t really describe any of the other scenes because none of them stand out for any reason. Well, except for the scenes featuring Mo’Nique, but she is such a loathsome character who does such despicable things (like throwing Precious’ newborn baby) that giving them time almost feels like giving them too much publicity. Everything else is very standard, though – the only reason I remember some of the other characters is because celebrity musicians played them.

That artificiality was the same problem I had with The Help - it seemed equally as artificial in its approach. But then again, unlike that film, Precious is content just to show you the character and her world – it’s up to the audience to take away meaning. That’s how all art should be, but most directors today are content in their own pretentiousness. Precious director Lee Daniels managed to avoid it. Even those scenes I thought were not exactly groundbreaking they work, in the context of the film. That’s the most I can ask for – some people don’t even do that.

There’s really nothing more to say about it. The film sets out to create a portrait of a teenager on the brink of self-destruction, and it succeeds. It does not matter that the film does not seem very realistic; it’s too emotionally involving for that. In short, Precious is damn good, so go see it if you haven’t.

The thing is, Natural Born Killers is undoubtedly an important film and one that had an enormous impact on public discourse.  it is such a singular vision that no one in the Hollywood system would be willing to make it today. I doubt that even director Oliver Stone, Hollywood’s former bad boy, could make it without changing much of it around. The film also was simultaneously made at the right time while seemingly cognizant of the future. The early nineties was the great era of the media circus, with the O.J. trial, the Waco disaster, and the Rodney King beating (and L.A. riots) being broadcast around the world.

It was also released only seven years after from this little gem, which Stone undoubtedly saw when it was broadcast (and which undoubtedly inspired the interview scenes in the film).

Since Natural Born Killers was released, we have seen two school massacres that gained more coverage than wars, the DC beltway sniper, and 9/11. The same cast of characters was blamed each time. Indeed, Stone himself was accused of inspiring copy cat killers with this film. Natural Born Killers was a brave film for willingly discussing this shameful trend of pandering to the lowest common denominator. People complained about the violence in this film, but then, as Stone pointed out, why weren’t they willing to criticize the news for showing sensational bullshit in which ACTUAL people were killed, rather than just stuntmen wearing squibs?

But does the fact that it had something important to say make it a good film? I still have yet to answer my first question: who is right?

Part of this debate has to do with the figure of Oliver Stone himself. He, to put it mildly, uses his films to make the blood boil (certainly a worthy endeavor) but then goes beyond even McLuhan’s theories about reality and media and seems to think that his own works are important historical documents. I will use his JFK as an example. I disagree with every single thing the film says, but I cannot stop watching it. It’s  one of the best, most effective political thrillers I’ve seen. But Stone, in countless interviews before that release, stated this his film was truth. This was a lie – as history, JFK is some sort of sinister Orwellian construct. But as an example of film-making, it’s an absolute triumph.

Strange thing is, the exact opposite is true for Natural Born Killers. As a satire against media, violence, and society’s almost fetishistic obsession with seeing real blood, Natural Born Killers is an effective document that successfully pushes the boundaries as far as they can go. But as a film, it’s a mess, with one dimensional characters, editing that makes MTV look like an Ozu film, over the top performances, and a script that seems to believe focus is something for those intellectuals in the ivory tower.

The film is about Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory Knox (Juliette Lewis), a couple who go on a cross country killing spree. The media follows them, and they build up a cult following. They are eventually arrested, but this sensational journalist named Gale (Downey Jr) uses the opportunity to interview Mickey and build his career.

First, the film LOOKS fantastic. Stone incorporates every single film format that was in existence at the time. While many say this is disorienting, it actually makes the film quite poignant about over-saturation via media. The film feels like someone who is flipping through cable and seeing the different formats that were available – but every channel tells the same story of grotesque violence and people who have built a cult of personality around demented human beings.

It was a completely appropriate choice for the material, but it demonstrates where Stone’s mind was. So focused was he on the effect that he forgot the little things – like characterization. And plot.

For example, Mickey and Mallory Knox, the two leads that go on the killing spree and develop a huge cult of personality, are barely even characters at all. They are a hodge podge of every story about serial killers that came out during the eighties and nineties. They kill simply because that is what the film (and the message) requires them to do. That may be fine for a piece of propaganda, but as a film, we do not understand their motivation or their drive. Why kill like they do? And do not tell me the title is the only answer. Lewis and Harrelson (two talented actors) do the best with what they can.But they are not given nearly enough to be compelling characters. It would have been helpful if we could identify with Mickey and Mallory – maybe then we could understand the cult that builds around them or confront the dark desires in ourselves. But no, Stone apparently wants to say something without taking the time out to let the material speak for itself.

Every other character is the same sort of one dimensional joke. Tommy Lee Jones’ warden is a precursor to his performance as Two-Face, Robert Downey Jr is not a reporter with a past but only represents the sort of Geraldo Rivera type gossiper. The only one who manages to convey depth is Robert Downey Jr, as the creepy, abusive father to Mallory. But he is dispatched with before anything can be done with him.

That’s the most obvious problem, but the film has many others.  For one, the first half of the film may as well not exist in terms of what Stone wants to do. It’s pretty much Mickey and Mallory on drugs, looking for spirit quests. The scene with the Navajo is downright laughable, even though it’s meant to be a huge moment in the character arc. The film and its message do not start until halfway through the film. At that point, as I said, it’s effective because it delivers the same sort of sensory overload that is demanded by the media then and now. But it takes a lot time getting there.

But anyway, none of this answers my original question: is the film good? And yes, I suppose it is. It effectively makes its point. But Stone had such a great love for himself and his abilities that he didn’t feel the need to deliver a great story to go along with his poignant message. He was terribly, terribly wrong.

The reason for this lack of output is obvious – I have very little to review. After coming out with my ten best of 2011 list (which a lot of you read – much obliged), the theatrical release calendar seemingly slowed to a halt. My local indie theater won’t be getting A Dangerous Method until later in the month (the film I had been looking forward to the most that I could not review in 2011) and the multiplex is the same desolate wasteland it has always been. Besides, even if I were to review whatever just got released, a lot of people would not notice or care. It’s possible to find those reviews anywhere. What I need either a really great film to watch or a really bad film to write about – and let’s be honest, the latter films are far funnier to read about.

So, let’s get my creative juices flowing again by looking at At Long Last Love. The title will not mean much to anyone – but the story behind it will. Back in the 1970s, director Peter Bogdanovich was riding high after The Last Picture Show. He became well known for deconstructing Hollywood’s past. So At Long Last Love – a tribute to 1930s Fred Astaire musicals – was seemingly completely normal. But something went terribly wrong. The film flopped to the point where Bogdanovich had to take out ads in paper’s all over the country – just to apologize to audiences. Although he had some successes later (notably with Mask – that film about Eric Stoltz under heavy makeup romancing a blind girl) his career never recovered. The film has not even been released on home video. But it has been released on Netflix Instant, which brings us to where we are today.

Is this film some sort of unsung masterpiece that everyone was wrong about? Short answer: AHAHAHAHA. Long answer: well, read the rest of the review.

The film involves four spoiled rich people meeting at a party. Michael Pritchard III (Burt Reynolds), falls in love with Brooke Carter (Cybil Shepherd) as a result of this meeting, as do Johnny Spanish (Duilio Del Prete) and Kitty O’Kelly (Madeline Kahn – I am making none of this casting up). Of course, these friends were already seeing their opposite partners – Michael was with Kitty, for example. The film focuses on their romances and their lives in the care free thirties – or at least, the thirties as imagined by Hollywood, without all that depressing Dust Bowl event.

And there is singing (which was recorded live on the set) and kick lines.

Now, before I absolutely gut the film, I do feel the need to clarify one thing. For a while, this film ended up on the “worst of all time” lists. At Long Last Love is not one of the worst films of all time – it’s not nearly ambitious enough in its execution. Watching the film, it seems as though Bogdanovich felt that something could go wrong, so tried to play it all as safe as possible. Oh sure, there are select MOMENTS where he failed and the film becomes a true camp masterpiece. But for the most part, Bogdanovich doesn’t let his actors really cut loose. In fact, some portions work BECAUSE of it – not many, but a few.

There, that is the only compliment I am going to give to this overlong, stupid, inane, pathetic waste of perfectly good celluloid. There are so many ways that the film does go wrong that it is hard to find a place to start. There is one obvious error that already had many of you laughing – the casting. I am being completely serious when I said Burt Reynolds was in this, tap dancing and singing Cole Porter. He embarrasses himself (as does the rest of the cast) but then, what did you expect? The casts’ strengths (and they are numerous) do not lie with their ability to perform music. I know, maybe the gag was that these actors were singing when it was not expected of them to ever sing. That was the cynical seventies shining through. And it doesn’t work – more effective would have been to have well established performers appear and sing hopelessly outdated songs. Could you imagine, say, Julie Andrews and David Bowie in this film, singing 1930s Broadway tunes? I can, and it would have made the point of escapism more clear.

I could go on and on about the cast’s lack of talent, but really, I am only getting started. This film almost begs to be a subject of a “Red Letter Media ” review in order to properly assess everything that is going on. To wit – the plot is non-existent (it is built around unrelated songs and never finds a way to make them seem like a part of a whole), the dialogue terrible, and the choreography bad (to the point where, I swear, Burt Reynolds trips over his own feet). The film just wants to be carried by its own gimmick of having modern people sing escapist songs from a dark era. Maybe Bogdanovich saw parallels between the thirties and the seventies. Or maybe he just likes Broadway. I wouldn’t know watching the film. If it’s a love letter, its one that suggests an imminent breakup. It seemingly fits into Bogdanovich’s obsession with the past and a deconstruction of same. But he doesn’t seem to know how to create the spectacle of a musical. It is more than just awkward dancing and sung whispers to other cast members. But At Long Last Love does not want to examine that spectacle.

What more can I say? As much as I wanted the film to be some sort of misunderstood masterpiece (especially since its been kept out of the public eye for 36 years), At Long Last Love is almost as wasteful and pathetic as its reputation would suggest. I tried to explain that it is not the worst film ever made, because Bogdanovich was a smart guy who seemed to know what he was doing. He was economical about the project. But the project was a mistake from day one.

First, my pick for the best film of the year:

The Tree of Life-This was the film that presented the most honest account of a man’s relationships and his developments throughout his life. The film is very fractured in its presentation, but that actually helps emphasize what the film is about. The Tree of Life is not about God’s view of man, but rather a recently deceased man trying to find the meaning of his (sometimes difficult) existence. The performances (particularly Brad Pitt’s) do help the material. But it is the philosophical aspects of the film that make it the best of the year. It is the best film of the year, because it will challenge all viewers to not only reflect on the film, but to reflect on their own lives.

The best films have always given audiences something to think about. The Tree of Life is the smartest film of the year, but never forgets that some aspects of human life can never be explained logically.

The rest of my list is presented alphabetically

13 Assassins – I am technically cheating by including this film. It was released throughout the world in 2010. However, it did not get a wide release into the U.S. until 2011. Besides, it is such a coup for Takeshi Miike that it needs to be mentioned. The film is the greatest Akira Kurosawa tribute ever crafted; it is a film that would fit right alongside a western action film, but is knowledgeable and respectful of Japanese history. Additionally, the film tries to move beyond the usual historical epic format and create the sort of Greek myth that has lasted for thousands of years with its personification of abstract beings and its black and white sense of good vs evil. Not to suggest that Miike has accomplished this feat, but it demonstrates the level of ambition he had over his usual B-grade gore films.

The Artist- I will post a more extensive review in the future, but know that this film is one that must be seen by everyone who claims that they like film. Not only is it a revealing portrait of the most tumultuous time in Hollywood history, it is a wonderful love letter to a format that has not only been forgotten by audiences, but is treated with downright scorn. Yes, it is a silent film (save for a few lines of dialogue at the end) but this is actually helps the film in many ways. Of course, this gimmick is not enough to recommend the film. Luckily, The Artist also has one of the most knowledgeable screenplays of the year as well as a great performance by lead actor Jean Dujardin. If I were ranking my films, The Artist would probably be my number two pick.

Drive- Drive is amongst the greatest French New Wave gangster films ever crafted, despite the fact that it features an American cast and was directed by a man from Denmark. Drive features an unnamed main character who may believe he is living inside of his own action film. He is violent and is driven only by an action hero sense of chivalry. Even the Hollywood style happy ending may be nothing more than a fantasy of the driver. Gosling, with his Steve McQueen-esque mystique, makes the film work. He is well on his way to becoming one of the greatest working actors today. At least one lady sued because this film was not “Hollywood” enough. They are missing the point; the film is a deconstruction of those people who have grown up on genre crap and want to be heroes themselves, no matter who they hurt in the process.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo- This is not as good as The Social Network, but this is still one of the best studio thrillers in quite some time. Rooney Mara (who deserves an Oscar for her portrayal of the mysterious Lisbeth Salander), Daniel Craig, and David Fincher manage to still surprise with a story that has become very well-known throughout the world. Indeed, David Fincher’s style actually acts as a commentary on the phenomenon; it makes snide jokes about the story and the fact that another foreign film is being remade for American audiences. Of course, it does not get bogged down with its joke. It is still as visceral as the novel and still as cruel in its examination of the sadistic men who exist solely to abuse women. But still, Fincher demonstrates the need for this remake to exist and how natural a pick he was to translate it to an American audience.

Hugo- A 3D children’s movie directed by Martin Scorsese seems like the set up to a lame joke. This film is not a joke. It is one of the most poignant reflections on Scorsese’s love for early cinema. Scorsese even manages to frame it from the sense of wonder the main characters have. This is correct – the making of a film should be seen as a magical event, especially at that young of an age. Hugo even manages to be more of a teaching aide than a simple entertaining yarn. I hope some kids will be inspired to seek out George Melies (cleverly played in this film by Ben Kingsley), or even read about the history of silent films, after seeing this work. And yes, the 3D is probably some of the best I have seen. In fact, the format actually helps the story be told. If only more filmmakers were willing to treat 3D as a serious tool rather than a way to inflate ticket prices. 

Melancholia-Some will complain about the snail’s pace of the film and the seemingly unrelated halves of the film. But it is also the most meditative work on the nature of human existence outside of The Tree of Life. But rather than one that examines the past, Melancholia looks at the present and actually makes the end of the world seem like a worthwhile action. Dunst’s performance of a woman who welcomes the apocalypse is seemingly a natural reaction to the modern life. Even a seemingly happy moment (her wedding) is one that is fraught with clichés and falsehoods to the point where screwing a man on the 14th hole of the golf course seems like a completely natural reaction. The looming threat of the planet is one that reflects on our Director Lars Von Trier is slowly growing on me; he has completed two great films within the past three years. Hopefully he will only continue to get better.

Midnight in Paris-The delightful premise of the film is enough to be included in any best of list. What if a man could go back in time and meet some of his literary and artistic heroes? But Woody Allen does not fall into the trap others would have – simply pointing out the people and expecting audiences to be slack-jawed at the ride. Allen instead makes the journey seem almost familiar by the lead’s actions and the historical figures seem like elderly aunts and uncles rather than stuffy talkers who would quickly bore listeners. The film is expertly cast, and thankfully Allen keeps out of it – showing that his exquisite screenplays were the best things about his films. This is Allen’s best film since Bullets Over Broadway, and maybe his best one in a filmography that goes back almost fifty years.

The Skin I Live In-This is another film that I saw, but did not have the time to write the review. No matter; I am making up for that lapse here. The film is a very controversial, with a bizarre look at sex appeal and the depths of human trauma. The film is about a surgeon who, after his daughter is raped, performs a sex change operation on the rapist and makes him look like his dead wife…and starts a relationship with his patient. The film works partly because it is uncompromising – it is not subtle about the relationship between doctor and patient nor is it willing to shy away from the “squishier” details. It also works because of its psychological obsession with its characters. Although the situation is unique, it is not unheard of to hear about kidnap victims developing such a relationship with the men who torture them. The Skin I Live In is more honest about the human condition than it may seem at first glance.

Source Code- This film has almost been forgotten by most people when crafting their lists. I am not sure why. It is the best pure science fiction film of the year – a lofty philosophical work crafted as a B-grade thriller. In other words, it is exactly the sort of thing Phillip K Dick used to write.

I’m not sure why Stieg Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy has become the world-wide success that it has. I have read the books in the past year, I enjoyed them immensely, and believe they are well written and contain the sort of engaging characters that most hack authors struggle their entire lives to create. Yet I do not think that they are the sort of instant classics that their sales figures would imply. I have a feeling the reason is because it can delude American readers into thinking they are being multicultural. “Look” they will say “I’m reading a book – just like the ones they read in Sweden. Now, I’m going to shop at IKEA. I have such a broad world view!”

In fact, Larsson’s novel has more in common with the American grungy thrillers that people like David Fincher helped popularize. It is violent, dark, and strangely addictive despite its bizarre characters and depressing setting. So it feels like the material is coming full circle by becoming a Fincher directed film. And Fincher, in his adaptation, seems to know this. His take on the material seems so…accurate that it almost feels like a documentary. That was something not even the original Swedish trilogy could accomplish. Other directors may have been afraid to film the material, as adapting a critically lauded, widely seen foreign film is seen as sacrificing the sacred cow. Not Fincher – he fearlessly dives into his adaptation and is uncaring of what people may think about remaking a film. This version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is one of the best American studio films, to come out this year, mostly because it does not feel the need to ask our permission to exist.

If you don’t know the plot, well then, congratulations on waking up from that coma of yours. I try my best to cater to medical marvels; this next section will be for you. A journalist named Mikeal Bloomkvist (Daniel Craig) is hired by an old millionaire named  Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to solve the forty-year old mystery of his daughter’s disappearance. He is joined on his task by the enigmatic computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) who is dealing with her own problems.

When I reviewed the original Swedish film, I had not read any of the novels. I also expressed skepticism over Fincher’s remake. I did, however, write that the film “may not be a deep experience, but it is a very entertaining one.”  I would like to amend that statement for this review; namely, I would like to get rid of the first part of the sentence. The original Swedish version seemed to believe (not wrongly) that the story was still new to audiences. Thus, it was hung up on the narrative. This version seemingly assumes that people will know how the story ends, and thus feels a sort of freedom to experiment with the way to reveal the solution. The camera teases on important items in the film (in a way that only those who know what they are will get the joke), and even the characters have speeches that tease audience with outcomes (Vanger says that detectives should “always suspect the man who hired the detective” while chuckling to himself). This is how the film demonstrates its bravery. No shots from the original film are duplicated; Fincher demonstrates his unique vision in every scene. The result is, honestly, quite funny at times. Yes, all of the grit that was in the original books is still present and yes, the rape scene is just as hard to watch again. But the focus comes not in shocking the audience (as the original film had to do) but in demonstrating just what goes into such scenes to make them shocking.

Of course, narrative techniques are not why people go to this film. Let’s get onto the star attraction for many people the hot goth woman. This is not entirely unfounded; the character of Lisbeth Salander is what transcends the material above the typical John Grisham thrillers. So, let’s talk about Rooney Mara. At the risk of starting a flame war, I found her to be the superior Lisbeth. Noomi Rapace, in the original trilogy, never quite nailed Lisbeth’s internal conflict and her own bizarre view of herself. She was merely dressing and acting like Lisbeth Salander (although she did so very well). Mara actually BECOMES Lisbeth during the course of the film. She exudes confidence, but is screaming inside. Salander was fascinating because she was a genius, but was hiding a great deal of pain. She made it up by being as sexual aggressive as possible, but was still vulnerable. Mara captures this, and even manages to look as androgynous as Lisbeth is meant to look. There is no equivalent of Lisbeth in any other film. It was a challenge for any actress to play this role, but Mara conquered it. She’s already been nominated for several awards; I am not sure if it will lead to an Oscar nomination (mostly because Lisbeth is still a sadistic character), but she deserves it. Mara demonstrates that she is a confident enough actress to attack the role as Fincher attacked the film.

The material is still pretty standard thriller material. The Agatha Christie like set up is not going to revolutionize the world. This is why I did not really talk about the plot; it’s been discussed and the flaws have been pointed out by many others.  What is special about The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo is in its presentation. Fincher is a superior craftsmen to the directors who worked on the original trilogy, and is not afraid to demonstrate why. This is one of the most consistently (and surprisingly) playful and entertaining films I have seen this year.

Now, because that’s the sort of pretentious sentence that is guaranteed to show up in the adverts, I should clarify. Not every child will LIKE Hugo – especially those children who demanded that a Shrek 4 be made. What Hugo will do is give some children a life long obsession with cinema.  Scorsese has crafted such a wonderful love letter to cinematic history that it is easy to see why it is being embraced by so many. Kids (in fact, anyone) who sees this may find themselves becoming interested in Harold Lloyd and the early French fantasy films. Only Scorsese could have accomplished what Hugo manages to do. It uses modern film technology to expose the glory of cinema’s past to a new audience.

The film takes place in 1920s Paris. A young boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), the son of a clock maker, lives in the train station. He evades the Closeau-esque Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) by fixing the clocks and staying in the basement. Hugo is also obsessed with fixing an automaton that his father discovered in a museum. One day, while trying to get parts, shop owner Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley) captures him and takes his notebook. Hugo asks Isabella (Chloe Grace Moretz),  Georges’ ward, for her help in getting it back. They find that the automaton is something from Georges’ past and try to solve the mystery of why he wants it buried.

OK, Let’s get this out of the way. Papa Georges is really French silent filmmaker Georges Melies (I know there are accents in his name but I cannot type them). This is not really a spoiler, as the film reveals his identify within the first half hour. Besides, the film follows history fairly closely; after WWI, Melies’ studio went bankrupt and he did open a toy store in a Parisian train station. He was disgraced and forgotten, even though he practically invented cinema as we know it today.

But one should not go to Hugo to get a history lesson. One should go to Hugo to learn about the feelings behind Melies and the knowledge that he was practically forgotten so shortly after his debut. One should also go to learn why films have been considered special to begin with (and why people like me exist). The film views silent films, and all films, as a special sort of escapism from the world that was considerably darker at the time that Charlie Chaplin make his films. Scorsese, who runs The Film Foundation, knows the power that the medium has over impressionable young minds. This film is the most honest and open about what cinema can do to us and why it is important for society.

Now is as good a time as any to mention that the film is in 3D. Despite my ambivalence about that format, I would encourage people to view Hugo in this way. Simply put, 3D is the newest wave of technology at the moment. Hugo is about how new technology and how that can inspire awe in society. Thumbing its nose at recent developments would have demonstrated that the filmmakers were hypocrites. Besides, there are some great moments that the 3D helps to provide. The scene with the floating drawings was particularly well done, and required the use of 3D to emphasize the primitive animation that the scene demonstrates.  James Cameron, in a rare moment of humility, said this was the best 3D he has ever seen. I agree with him – it is one of the few times that 3D was necessary for the story.

Of course, Hugo is not just noteworthy for having its heart in the right place. Everything about the film demonstrates why Scorsese has always been a master craftsman. The performances are all inspired (even Cohen’s comic relief character) and the film simply is the most evocative of the year with its winding gears and steam.  Even the children (one of whom was previously in the absolutely terrible The Boy in Striped Pajamas) give better performances than many adult actors would be unable to muster. Hugo’s breakdown after he is initially unable to fix the automaton deserves comparison to…well, to a similar scene that has Oscar winning actor Ben Kinglsey doing the same thing. True prodigies like Scrosese are able to make film making seem easy. Other directors would have made the making of Hugo seem like a Herculean task, which would have hurt the material immensely.

But the appeal of the film is at how it embraces the past and introduces film history in a way no school could. Martin Scorsese has done more than any American filmmaker to preserve older films and ensure that they are available to future generations. The problem is, as time goes by, younger generations become less and less interested in the films of the past.What Scorsese does with Hugo is show why that era is special and must be critically considered, even today. This review has been nothing more than an encouragement for people to watch early films, but then, Hugo is 120 minutes of the same. If it can inspire just one person to go back and watch the films of George Melies, then it will be the greatest work Scorsese has ever crafted.