May December

Director: Todd Haynes 
Starring: Natalie Portman, Julianne Moore, Charles Melton, Cory Michael Smith, Elizabeth Yu, Gabriel Chung, Piper Curda, D.W. Moffett, Lawrence Arancio
Running Time: 117 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★) 

Part soapy melodrama, part psychological character study, Todd Haynes' gripping May December should have no business working as well as it does. And it already had a lot to overcome by being more than loosely based on the infamous case of Mary Kay Letourneau, the 36-year-old teacher who in 1996 initiated a sexual relationship with her sixth grade student, Vili Fualaau. Serving two separate prison sentences, she'd bare two of his children, eventually marrying him upon her release. Knowing that helps, but it isn't everything, as Haynes uses some of those details as his jumping off point. 

Walking a tightrope in tone, the filmmaker skillfully swings between scenes of high camp and human tragedy, with hardly a moment passing where you don't worry the entire endeavor will go as horribly wrong as the characters' lives. But while specializing in his own unique brand of cinematic discomfort, Haynes has a plan, infusing this over-the-top material with sincerity and harsh emotional truths, rarely losing sight of the surrounding sensationalism.

It's 2015 and actress Elizabeth Berry (Natalie Portman) arrives in Savannah, Georgia to research her upcoming role as Gracie Atherton-Yoo (Julianne Moore), a woman arrested in 1992 for having sex with her son's 13-year-old classmate Joe at the pet store she managed. Now decades after serving her jail time, this same boy is Gracie's husband (Charles Melton) and they're parents of graduating teen twins Charlie (Gabriel Chung) and Mary (Elizabeth Yu), and a college-aged daughter, Honor (Piper Curda). Elizabeth interviews the controversial couple, also meeting with Gracie's neighbors, exes and family, all of whom reveal more about her history and current standing within the community. 

Baking and selling cakes out of her home, Gracie's insulated herself from the past while Joe works an unfulfilling job as an X-ray technician, spending his free time rearing monarch butterflies. But despite her professionalism and gratitude, Elizabeth's presence unnerves Gracie, whose hospitality masks a frustrated annoyance. For Joe, the actress's questioning unearths painful feelings and memories, shining a disturbing light on the true nature of he and his wife's relationship. It's a revelation neither can handle, even as Elizabeth's obsessive commitment to the role makes her question everything she assumes to know about them and herself.

Believing she did nothing wrong and burying away whatever feelings of guilt or shame once existed, Gracie's compartmentalized her actions, too far entrenched in her own lies for any news article or strange looks in town to make a difference. Now occupying what seems like her own universe, the self-denial seems to have only grown stronger in the years since her arrest.

After awkwardly getting along with her unwanted guest at first, cracks in Gracie's personality emerge when Elizabeth starts gathering information from Gracie's ex-husband Tom (D.W. Moffett) and troubled son Georgie (Cory Michael Smith). Moore hits just the right notes here, cluing us in that enough is off with Gracie that even those unfamiliar with her crime can still spot the red flags. Composed one minute, crying the next, Moore gives these passive aggressive peeks into of the type of monster you'd typically associate with abusers. It's even evident in Gracie's interactions with her own daughter, who she subtly but cruelly denigrates.

Elizabeth's research opens the floodgates, poking holes in Gracie's carefully cultivated facade and putting her on alert. And Portman's performance is that much more impressive for what it holds back than reveals, particularly regarding Elizabeth's opinions about this entire situation. There's a detached objectivity at first, but as they talk, you see the changes in not only how Elizabeth views the part, but what it's doing to her. Of course, you also can't help but notice the meta layer to this, as audiences won't be able to resist projecting perceptions of Portman the movie star onto the character.

From all indications, Elizabeth's a moderately famous actress, though not necessarily respected, even by her own admission. With that void to fill, she takes this research very seriously, talking to all the right people, asking good questions and meticulously shadowing Gracie and Joe. It's through these interactions that certain details spill, with Gracie bending over backwards to spin her marriage to Joe as "true love." But as these lies grow, it provides Elizabeth with even more backstory for the part, potentially impairing her ability to approach the role without judgment.

Does Elizabeth despise or idolize Gracie? Is she repulsed by the couple's relationship or turned on by it? Is she she being manipulated or is she the manipulator? Could she be after Joe? Or maybe none of that's true and she's simply an extremely committed actress. Her speech to the high school drama class about morally ambiguous characters indicates as much. Portman's rarely been better in this performance within a performance, tying us in knots wondering where the actress begins and character ends. It's exemplified by her chilling monologue into the mirror and those four devastating words she utters in the last act that just might qualify as the line delivery of the year.

Charles Melton's Joe represses a hurt that bubbles to the surface the more he's reminded what really happened to him. Gracie's more his parent than spouse, and not just because of the age difference. Barely a functioning husband or father, he's a 13-year-old boy trapped in a man's body, unable to mature or move forward while sleeping next to his abuser for the better part of 23 years. Melton is shattering as this stunted adult crying on his own teen son's shoulder, offering up a different, eye-opening take on the long-term effects of sexual abuse, regardless of gender.

Hazily but beautifully shot by Christopher Blauvelt to resemble a mid-afternoon 80's TV miniseries, Marcelo Zarvos' haunting score (adapted from Michel LeGrand's music from 1971's The Go-Between) may as well be the fourth character, with rich, distinctive melodies that build atmospheric tension throughout. Fitting so well precisely because it doesn't, this clash only heightens the film's sense of uneasiness and dread. 

Actors playing actors can often come across as gimmicky, but Portman's intriguing, multi-layered turn proves a huge exception, easily representing her strongest work since Black Swan. It's also inseparable from Moore's take on a damaged, deluded character who faces renewed exposure after decades of protecting herself from the irreversible damage she's caused. With them, Haynes transforms a story that could have been the epitome of tabloid trash into an intensely watchable, thought provoking experience.           

Thor

Director: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba 
Running Time: 114 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Even if writing Thor off as a complete waste of time is probably something I should wait on doing until officially viewing The Green Lantern or Captain America: The First Avenger, the fact still remains that it's pretty underwhelming. It's yet another 2-hour commercial for Marvel Studios, who still seems more interested in promoting their other superhero properties than focusing on the task at hand. At this rate, considering the amount of time and effort they've spent promoting next year's The Avengers, that movie could turn out to be the second coming of The Dark Knight and no one outside its core fanbase would even care since it's been shamefully shoved down our throats for three years. They're at it again here, indulging in silly clues and distracting cameos. It's a big misstep, but hardly the worst of Thor's problems. Not when you have a sleep-inducing backstory for the protagonist, an overabundance of distracting CGI effects and a charisma deficient villain. Things get a little better once the story starts to play out and at least the most prominent role is well cast, but Marvel really needs to get its act together moving forward. As a mix of action-comedy and fantasy, Thor's somewhat original in its approach, but a disappointment just the same.

Most of the first hour is spent on Thor's origin story, and it's a drag. Information that could have easily been dispensed via voiceover or even a brief flashback over the opening credits feels like it's given nearly half the running length of the movie, in addition to those voiceovers and flashbacks. I understand the desire to give a detailed backstory so we care and it's commendable (it definitely worked for Christopher Nolan in Batman Begins), but the problem is that Thor's is silly. It's a weird and not entirely successful mix of mythology and comic books, with a Shakespearean style family feud thrown in for good measure. That the director is Shakespeare veteran Kenneth Branagh explains a lot, as does the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins as King Odin of Asgard, father to Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston). When the quick-tempered Thor stages an attack against Laufey, the Frost Giant King, breaking a long-standing peace agreement, Odin banishes his arrogant son to Earth. He's discovered in the New Mexico dessert by scientists Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). As he adjusts to life on Earth S.H.I.E.L.D agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is brought in to investigate, while back on Asgard Loki looks to benefit from his older brother's misfortune, scheming his way to the throne.

The scenes on Earth work much better than those on Asgard, if only because there are some decent comic moments with Thor trying to get used to life in 21st century America and Hemsworth's performance, while not as spectacular as everyone's been claiming, is solid. He looks the part and has surprisingly decent comic timing so it's difficult coming up with alternative actor choices that could have worked any better. Hemsworth (known primarily for his brief role as Captain Kirk's father in 2009's Star Trek) does what he can with the material he's given, even if there's no escaping the fact that a lot of the lighter Earth-bound scenes contrast in tone to the mythological fantasy nonsense it's interspersed with. Hiddleston's Loki comes off as more of a whiner with daddy issues than any kind of serious threat and the intended love connection between Thor and Portman's Jane falls flat and feels thrown together and underdeveloped. If they really wanted to go in that direction it would have been better to eliminate Skarsgard and Denning's characters to narrow the focus on Jane, but considering Denning delivers the film's best one-liners, she may have been indispensable. Given how much she's improved as an actress over the past few years, it's a shame to see Portman take on such a thankless role, but a relief that it likely would have been just as forgettable in anyone else's hands.

On the plus side, he involvement of S.H.I.E.L.D.(Avengers plug #1) Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson wasn't quite as distracting as I expected, but still kind of insulting when you realize we haven't been made to care about Thor to begin with.  As for the inevitable Samuel L. Jackson cameo (Avengers plug #2) as Nick Fury, it at least takes place after the film, avoiding the nightmare that occurred at the end of The Incredible Hulk a couple of years ago when a huge, showboating cameo in the final scene nearly upstaged the entire picture, pissing on the title character for the sake of promoting you know what. But there is a cameo during this film from an Oscar nominated actor (Avengers plug #3) that I won't reveal, but that I had to check what character he was and why he was there probably doesn't bode well for the impact it had, at least for more casual viewers who actually want to see a movie about Thor.

Over the closing credits there's actually a message (Avengers plug #4) reminding viewers to "See Thor in The Avengers." Thanks for the heads up. I'm willing to bet most of the people reading this review (and many others) don't even know what The Avengers is. If Marvel really wanted to promote that film a good start would have been to make this one as good as possible so we'd actually look forward to seeing Thor in it. This does some things right, but there's this inescapable feeling of it being just a teaser for something else, which isn't okay since that's what trailers are for. All movies are made to make money, but I shouldn't be able to tell that while watching them and those decisions shouldn't adversely affect the product on screen. The downside in the entertainment industry to the economic crisis is that everyone's playing it safe, not looking how they can creatively improve the movie they're working on, but promote the next one they haven't gotten to yet. And that, despite some inspired direction by Branagh, is the main problem with Thor. It feels like it exists to generate revenue for the studio rather than excitement for audiences watching it.

Your Highness

Director: David Gordon Green
Starring: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel, Toby Jones, Justin Theroux, Damian Lewis, Rasmus Hardiker
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★ (out of ★★★★) 

Your Highness is a colossal misfire made with somewhat admirable intentions. How disappointing it is would largely depend on your perspective going in. Looking at the cast and director it's difficult to imagine this failing but given this approach to the material I'm starting to wonder how it could have worked with ANY cast or director. It at least appears David Gordon Green set out to make a medieval impossible quest action adventure stoner comedy and that seven words are needed to describe the genre to which it belongs was probably the first sign of trouble. The real problem is the comedy. If this had just been a throwback fantasy along the lines of Willow or even The Princess Bride it would have worked and for a while it looks like that's the vibe Green's going for. Unfortunately, that's trumped by his insistence that juvenile sex jokes and profanity you'd overhear in a grade school cafeteria are hilarious because they're taking place within a medieval context. They're not, and it detracts from what little does work, resulting in a mostly unfunny mess. And that you can actually tell talented people were involved in the making of it just oddly makes it worse.

Thadeous (Danny McBride) and Fabious (James Franco) are sons of King Tallious, with Fabious having proven himself the more valiant and successful, earning his title as the rightful heir to the throne. Thadeous, on the other hand, is a lazy screw-up who spends most of his days womanizing, drinking and getting high as he watches in envy his brother claim all the glory. Fabious returns from his latest successful quest with the beautiful Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), whom he rescued from the clutches of the evil Leezar (Justin Theroux) and plans to marry. Crashing the wedding, Leezar steals he back planning to impregnate her with a dragon so he can finally take over the kingdom. With the help of his brother Fabious mounts a quest to get her back and take possession of a magic compass that will lead them to the fabled Sword of Unicorn, the only weapon capable slaying Leezar. Along the way they encounter Isabel (Natalie Portman), a warrior princess also seeking revenge against the wizard for her own reasons, but they'll have no choice but to trust her if they want any chance at successfully completing this quest.  

This should have just been a straightforward fantasy with some light comedy. Hardly any of the crude jokes supply laughs and seem to come at the worst moments, completely taking you out of a story, which in truth, had some potential. The special effects are surprising impressive, some action sequences are good, Steve Jablonsky's score is perfect and it's hard to find fault in the plot which pays homage to the type of fantasy quest movies you'd see in the 1980's. Had Green copied that approach, he wouldn't have had anything terribly original, but at least it would have been welcome entertainment in a forgotten, under-appreciated genre . Throw on top of that a few actors any director would dream to have at their disposal and it becomes even more puzzling he squanders it all for the sake of having them curse and make lewd sex and masturbation jokes that aren't only unfunny and ruin the well choreographed action sequences, but about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head. Pineapple Express and it definitely isn't Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which seems to have had some kind of twisted influence on this project, though I'm still trying to figure out exactly how since it lacks even a fraction of that film's clever, subversive humor. Everything is broad and juvenile.

Some of the actors fare better than others, but they're all victims of material that does them few favors. James Franco looks like he'd rather be hosting the Oscars and given what he has to work with here I can't say I blame him. Danny McBride does exactly what's asked of him and what few do better in acting like a boarish, profanity spewing loser and while I can't say the performance is at all to blame for any the film's faults, I still wish he had a better outlet for his comedic talent than this. It's almost hard to believe Natalie Portman and Zooey Deschanel's paths have never crossed on screen until now and it should feel like a big deal. Instead, Zooey's an afterthought, looking bored and lifeless, not aided by the fact her character's barely given a line of dialogue. Portman makes much more of an impression and it wouldn't be off base to say she gives the film's most entertaining performance, as faint as that praise seems. At least she gets a few laughs and is right at home as a kick-ass warrior princess but unfortunately she doesn't show up until nearly an hour in and at times the wait feels excruciating.

The scariest thought rushing through my head while watching Your Highness was that there would have been a time where I would have laughed uncontrollably and forgiven all its flaws. While that time has clearly passed it would still be unfair of me to criticize anyone else who found enjoyment in it since there's a great deal of potential in the idea, even if Green abandons it in favor of aiming dirty jokes at an audience too young to see it anyway. But I don't think he "sold out," A film this bad could only be made by someone who believed completely in what they were doing. It just came out all wrong. A better idea might be to get the entire cast back together in a couple of years and re-shoot this as the epic dramatic fantasy it's crying out to be. It's nearly a guarantee that version would come out better, or at least supply more laughs.

No Strings Attached

Director: Ivan Reitman
Starring: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Greta Gerwig, Cary Elwes, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Kline, Lake Bell, Olivia Thirlby, Ludacris
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

If you're counting, No Strings Attached is the second of about 75 Natalie Portman movies released within the past three months. But that's okay. While most other actors or actresses' careers would greatly suffer from such overexposure (see Jude Law circa '04), Portman's an exception. I'm not sure it's possible for her to be overexposed given how much goodwill she's built up with moviegoers who seem to feel she can do no wrong. In my mind though, she actually needs to clock in all this work to justify the massive hype that's surrounded her for years. That's why taking a formulaic romantic comedy like this doesn't feel like a step down, if only because it's something different and presents the opportunity for her to stretch in a way she hasn't previously. Unlike others, it's advisable for her to "sell out" a little.

It's a credit to Portman that my expectations for what would normally be a fluffy, throwaway chick flick were somewhat high going in. Mostly, I was curious if she'd be able to strike while the iron's hot and capitalize on her recent Black Swan Oscar win, showing she's finally turned a corner and evolved into the multi-faceted actress her fans have often incorrectly asserted she's been throughout her career. Based on the evidence here, she's at least on her way. Natalie has a spark to her in this I've never seen. And she's actually funny. In fact, I was so taken by her she almost tricked me into thinking the movie works. It doesn't. At least not completely. Parts of it do and there are these little moments that are really smart and nail what it's like to be single in your late twenties-early thirties. But it starts off on the wrong foot and has a tough time recovering after that, as the script tries to jam in to many characters and do too much when it only really needs to focus on one thing.

Emma (Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher) are childhood friends from camp who keep bumping into each other every few years. They reconnect again as adults when Emma is a resident at a local hospital and aspiring screenwriter Adam works as an assistant on a Glee-like TV show. When his father, famous former sitcom star Alvin Franklin (Kevin Kline), steals his girlfriend a drunk Adam goes through his cell phone looking for any one night stand he can find before waking up naked in Emma's apartment which she shares with three roommates. Both agree to an arrangement where they meet and have casual sex with no strings attached. As long as they're clear on the rules and it can't lead to anything more, then no one gets hurt. Interestingly, Adam is the one interested in taking things to the next level while the fiercely independent Emma is terrified of anything even slightly resembling a relationship and says she doesn't believe in love. The more Adam tries the more she pushes him away. If you've seen any romantic comedy you know where this is going, and more or less exactly how long it'll take to get there. Longer than it should.

The film makes its first mistake early in how it presents the "friendship" between its two lead characters. Needlessly skipping through time with three flashback sequences in a span of only a few minutes, they meet up, lose touch, meet up again, lose touch then finally meet up again for the story to start. As a result they seem more like acquaintances than friends, occasionally bumping into each other every five years or so. When they do sleep together and begin their arrangement we hardly care since they're essentially strangers. The opening minutes would have been better spent with one brief flashback sequence establishing them as friends since childhood so when they do hook up as adults it means more and the stakes are higher. It's a clumsy decision that seems minor on the surface but it affects the rest of the narrative, preventing me from fully engaging in the premise. It'll be interesting to see if the upcoming Friends With Benefits with Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis makes the same crucial error. This takes a page out of the book of the recent, very similar Love and Other Drugs in that we have a jaded, cynical lead female character afraid to take the plunge into a relationship, a popular plot device lately and a reversal from the days when movies taught us that only guys can't commit. And like Love and Other Drugs, it tries to shoehorn an R-rated sex romp into a fluffy rom-com, though this doesn't have that film's heavy, depressing sub-plot and the tone doesn't fluctuate as wildly.

Looking as relaxed and comfortable on screen as she ever has, Portman knows the kind of movie she's in and isn't asked to do anything too crazy, which suits her just fine. A far cry from the manic pixie twerp she played in Garden State, Emma is a confident, intelligent woman realistically struggling with doubts and insecurities and Portman brings a certain warmth and sophisticated humor to the role. It won't go down as a great performance per se since she isn't asked to do anything incredibly taxing, but it may be more important than that in showcasing a different side to her as a performer we haven't seen. Who knew she could not only star in goofy chick flicks with Ashton Kutcher and actually enhance the material? As for Kutcher, the recent Sheen surrogate is like a bump on a log in this, failing to transmit even so much as a trace of charisma. A male model could have stood in for him and it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference in the film's overall quality, and that's coming from someone who doesn't actively dislike him as an actor and was curious how he'd fare opposite her. It still takes two to create chemistry and there's only so much Portman can do without any help. The decision to focus on both characters rather than take a point of view and present the far more interesting Emma as the true lead is a mistake, so we're left with a bunch of your typical supporting story threads, slightly more entertaining than usual due to the talent involved. Kevin Kline is funny as the philandering TV dad while the delightful Greta Gerwig and Mindy Kaling, both of whom could easily be headlining their own movies instead of supporting Portman, get a few moments as the underwritten friends jammed in for comic relief. Lake Bell plays Adam's boss, or the "other woman" brought in at the eleventh hour to cause a relationship rift, but bonus points for casting her against type as a socially inept geek. In an even weirder bit of casting, a nearly unrecognizable Cary Elwes shows up every now and again as a doctor whose function to the story is ridiculously unclear. His appearances are so randomly pointless they're almost a distraction, as if an entire sub-plot involving him was left on the cutting room floor, maybe next to the foot he sawed off the last time he played a physician.

Lost in all the hoopla surrounding the odd Portman/Kutcher pairing is the fact that this was directed by Ivan Reitman. Whether this bit of information was downplayed to salvage his reputation or not is irrelevant since it isn't that bad, thanks mostly to a glowing Natalie Portman, who gives this character a life far more interesting than the one supplied by the script. Despite its "R" rating this project was supposedly much edgier when it made the rounds in pre-production so I'm curious if concessions were made to appeal to a broader audience once the two stars jumped on board. You can feel a less formulaic rom-com struggling to break through, most notably when the two characters go on a miniature golf date that leads to the film's funniest moment. Then everything settles back into a predictably mainstream groove, dragging to its wimpy finish. No Strings Attached may be a slight misfire, but it's a brilliant career move for Portman, who shows her range and deserves credit for trying to challenge herself with a part you'd think would be outside her comfort zone.

Burning Questions From The Oscars

Why does the Red Carpet pre-show seem to feel longer each year? (despite me only catching 10 minutes of it)

Did the opening montage finally confirm it was a good idea to go to 10 nominees?

Or at least that they mostly picked the right movies?

Inception is getting pretty popular to spoof on awards shows isn't it?

Did that opening spoof confirm that this is Franco's show and Hathaway's just along for the ride?

Is there a cooler guy on the planet than James Franco?

Am I the only one relieved that Hathaway and Franco are still considered "young" by today's TV demographic standards?

Was Tom Hanks' Oscar history lesson supposed to be an ugly foreshadowing of what would occur later with The King's Speech?

Did I breath a sigh of relief when Alice in Wonderland took Art Direction instead of The King's Speech?

Did I ever think I'd breath a sigh of relief when Alice Wonderland won anything?

Wally Pfistser for Inception?!

Did anyone see that one coming?

Did you know this makes Pfister the first graduate of my high school to win an Academy Award?

Would you have had to attend my high school to grasp how big an accomplishment that actually is?

How awesome was it that Kirk Douglas milked the announcement of the winner for as long as humanly possible?

Should we insert the obligatory Sally Field "You Like Me, You really like me!" joke in here for Melissa Leo's win?

Should we be thrilled it at least went to someone we know for sure wanted and appreciated it?

Did they regret giving it to her after she dropped the f bomb?

Does this mean we can now officially "CONSIDER" her an Oscar winner?

Will I ever get Animated Short right?

Was there any doubt that Sorkin would (justifiably) win adapted screenplay?

And isn't it the best script to win in a long, long time?

Wasn't it cool he mentioned Network?

Who would have guessed he's a fast talker?

Did anyone else think that Nolan possibly had a shot at Screenplay after Inception shockingly won cinematography? (Yeah, me neither)

Is anyone else tired of hosts singing at the Oscars (no matter how well they do it)?

Didn't Franco look scary as a woman?

Did he look as scary as Russell Brand does clean shaven?

Wasn't Franco's Charlie Sheen joke pretty funny?

Wouldn't any Sheen joke be funny at this point?

Can we give Christian Bale's beard get a separate award for its performance over the past two months?

Wasn't the orchestra's take on The Fighter music kind of catchy?

Doesn't "Academy Award Winner Trent Reznor" sound great?

Have I ever been happier to get a prediction wrong?

Was I wrong in kind of hoping TRON: Legacy would win SOMETHING, even if it's just in sound?

Who would have thought that at any point in the night Inception would be leading in Oscar wins?

Was I thrilled that almost an hour and a half into this that The King's Speech only had one win?

Wasn't it cruel of them to get my hopes up like that?

Shouldn't Kevin Spacey host the Oscars already?

As brief as they were, weren't you glad they went back to performing the Original Song nominees again?

Especially when one of them is performed by Mandy Moore?

And doesn't that beat last year's interpretive dance routine for... The Hurt Locker?

Wasn't that the truth when Gyllenhaal said that shorts were the toughest category to predict on your ballots?

Did you have your fingers crossed for an Exit Through The Gift Shop win like I did?

Seriously, shouldn't it have been nominated for Best Picture? 

Doesn't it suck that we'll never know what Oprah would have done had Banksy showed up?

Where was James Franco the entire show?

Did the Henley rowing sequence alone confirm The Social Network should win Best Editing?

Hasn't Jennifer Hudson lost way too much weight?

Nothing against Florence but why didn't Dido perform "If I Rise?"

Wasn't Paltrow's vocal performance underwhelming?

Didn't Hathwaway sound better?

Isn't it surreal in all the wrong ways having to see Dennis Hopper in the "In Memorium" tribute montage?

Will I be wondering how voters can sleep at night knowing they gave Fincher's Oscar to Tom Hooper?

Seriously, Tom Hooper?

Does this mean Fincher will have to wait decades to be rewarded for a lesser film?


Wasn't it nice that they had Jeff Bridges actually say something about the actress's performances and substantial clips were shown?

Wow, how different does Jennifer Lawrence look from the character she played?

Doesn't Michelle Williams eerily resemble Mia Farrow with that haircut?

Did I just accidentally give Hollywood another remake idea?

Is Williams the only actress in that category you can legitimately say will be back soon as a nominee and mean it?

Safe for me to say it's unlikely Portman will be returning to that podium again as anything other than a presenter?

That said, didn't she still really deserve this?

Should she also receive an honorary Oscar for her work as an uncredited script consultant on The Social Network?

How sad is it that a win for an actress I don't even care for is my favorite of the night?

Now that she's officially won does this mean my complicated, bi-polar love/hate feelings for her come to an end?

Or at least temporarily subside until Your Highness is released?

How great is it that they referenced Franco's General Hospital stint twice during the night?

Wouldn't it have been even greater if they showed clips?

Isn't it ironic that the two big winners from The King's Speech both gave incredibly boring speeches?

Should anyone not named Alanis Morisette ever ask a question that begins with the phrase "Isn't it ironic...?"

Did you recognize the music Spielberg came out to as John Williams' incredible Jurassic Park score?

Can you believe that score wasn't even nominated in '93?!

After this show can we even really be surprised by that?

How great was it for Spielberg to apologize in advance for The King's Speech winning?

But isn't he right that losing just might be the best thing for The Social Network?

Was there a need to play dialogue from The King's Speech over all the other contenders?

Could they have been any more obvious?

Is it fair to say Hathaway and Franco won't be asked back next year?

Didn't Hathaway seem to be trying too hard all night?

Should this be a lesson to producers that doing mean impersonations of actresses on Saturday Night Live doesn't necessarily qualify someone to host the Academy Awards?

Or play Catwoman?

Would my ideal alternate ending of the show be a Social Network Best Picture win followed by that kids' choir covering Radiohead's "Creep?"

Does it even makes sense to hire "younger, hipper" hosts if a film like The King's Speech will just end up dominating?

Wouldn't it make more sense to recruit "younger, hipper" Academy members instead?

All things considered, didn't the show at least move faster than usual?

Don't I say that every year?

Am I kind of glad this whole thing's over?

Oscar Predictions

Let me preface these by saying that I want to be wrong when it comes to the categories of Picture and Actor. With any luck this is just me being overly pessimistic, hoping for the best but planning for the worst. Hopefully I fall to the floor in shock when Tom Hanks or Jack Nicholson or whoever it is this year opens the envelope announcing The Social Network as Best Picture while Fincher, Sorkin, Eisenberg and company storm the stage to collect what's theirs. But as I've previously stated, it's fine if that doesn't occur and for all my complaints about The Academy Awards at least they'll never be The Grammys. Even when the Academy's actual selections are questionable, it's always an intelligent (if sometimes boring) adult-oriented show that at least attempts to nominate and reward quality work. I'd rather they go in this direction and come off as stuffy, pretentious snobs than sell-out and nominate the latest Twilight movie or Justin Beiber's concert film. And consider it a relief the show's producers sensibly reach for ratings with their choices of hosts and presenters, figuring out ways to freshen up the telecast each year, while at least trying to fix what doesn't work. With that in mind...  

Best Picture

"127 Hours"
"Black Swan"

"The Fighter"
"Inception"
"The Kids Are All Right"
"The King's Speech"
"The Social Network"
"Toy Story 3"
"True Grit"
"Winter's Bone"

Analysis: The Social Network is inspiring also. When it ended I couldn't wait to overcome the odds and start my own web site, screw my friends out of millions (no, BILLIONS) of dollars, train to compete in rowing races and awkwardly offend every female I come in contact with. In all seriousness, that's exactly what most voters were thinking when they marked their ballots...for The King's Speech. Of course, the big joke there is that The Social Network was never meant to be inspiring, at least in the way that more conventional drama is. And for the record, I didn't think The King's Speech was really that inspiring at all and I was more moved (not superficially inspired) by The Social Network. But hey, that's just me. Should something crazy happen The Fighter and Black Swan would be next in line, and in that order. Outside of that, no other film stands a chance, especially not The Kids Are All Right and Winter's Bone, and not even Inception or True Grit.  It's a two-horse race, with a Social Network victory still very possible, though unlikely. Expect The King's Speech to be joining Dances With Wolves, Crash, Slumdog Millionaire and The Hurt Locker in the $5 DVD bin shortly. None are bad films, only undeserving of going down in the annals of film history as one of the best. The Social Network is. Plus, it's actually fun to watch. What more could you ask for?

Will Win: How Green Was My Valle...I mean, The King's Speech
Should Win: Give me a break. 
Could Win: Please!  
Snubbed: Nothing really. Everyone will always have a different list of what they felt the ten best films of the year were. All things considered, they did a respectable job not leaving anything out.

Best Director

Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"
David Fincher, "The Social Network"
Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"
David O. Russell, "The Fighter"
Joel and Ethan Coen, "True Grit"

Tom Hooper seems like a nice enough guy, which is why it would be a shame if he had to bare the burden of possibly being one of the most undeserving Best Director Oscar recipients in history. It's bad enough he could beat Fincher, but throw in Aronofsky, Russell and the Coens and it almost makes you glad Chistopher Nolan wasn't nominated just so he doesn't have to experience the embarrassment. But I'm cautiously hopeful that won't happen. The King's Speech was well directed for sure but anyone claiming it couldn't have been directed as well (or much better) by Hooper's competitors, or more than a dozen other random filmmakers, need their head examined and I think the Academy will see that. Fincher has a better chance at winning this than his movie does of winning Best Picture, but unfortunately not by much. I think he'll pull it out though. More than any other recent year, this one presents the greatest chance of there being a split between Picture and Director. If that happens I'll take it since anything would be better than The King's Speech dominating every category all night long. One request: If Fincher loses just please let it be to Aronofsky, the only filmmaker close to being in his league and deserving on the grounds of being able to squeeze such a high quality performance out of Portman.

Will Win: FINCHER
Should Win: FINCHER
Could Win: Tom Hopper
Snubbed: Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Best Actor

Javier Bardem, "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges, "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"
Colin Firth, "The King's Speech"
James Franco, "127 Hours"

Analysis: I'm not exactly sure what planet we're on where Colin Firth is being trumpeted as being long "overdue" for an Oscar. Firth could probably get in line with about 50 award-less actors and wouldn't be at the front. He's a superb actor, but it's difficult to envision anyone thinking him not possessing a gold statue is a horrifying injustice that needs to be corrected immediately. But this is the Academy and sometimes there's just no rhyme or reason to what they do. You could say his win is really a make-up for an even better performance he gave last year that was snubbed in A Single Man, which not enough people saw for him to be rewarded. So, Eisenberg never really had a chance here as it was decided in voters' minds Firth would win before his film was even released or they saw his performance. The controversy surrounding how "true-to-life" his unlikable Mark Zuckerberg is won't help either. Plus, Firth brilliantly plays a character with a handicap who overcomes the odds. So go ahead and just hand him the Oscar right now. It's a great performance, but Eisenberg's is better, if not so much for what he does chooses to do, but what he doesn't. He'll lose due entirely to politics, as is often the case with these races. Bardem, Bridges and Franco-- thanks for coming. And given how busy Franco's been lately an Oscar would probably just be an unneeded distraction.

Will Win: Colin Firth
Should Win: Jesse Eisenberg
Could win: Jesse Eisenberg
Snubbed: I don't know. DiCaprio maybe? Clooney? Gosling?  Not exactly a banner year in this category.

Best Actress

Annette Bening, "The Kids Are All Right"
Nicole Kidman, "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence, "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams, "Blue Valentine"

So, let's talk about Portman. In my review of Black Swan I was really hard on her. Probably too hard, especially considering I loved the film and her performance, which lived up to all the hype and then some. My criticism of her as actress does actually come from a positive place. I just feel she never fully delivered on the promise she showed as a child in films like The Professional and Beautiful Girls in the early '90s. I expected a great career that never really materialized and its place came Star Wars prequels and other suspect choices with middle-of-the-road performances, so that's probably much of the basis for my disappointment. That said, me basically saying the movie is about her being a bad actress (she isn't) or comparing this to Sandra Bullock's victory last year (which I actually didn't have a huge problem with anyway) was a bit unfair. This work is clearly more substantial and her career trajectory far less embarrassing. And, believe it or not, no complaints from me that she's starring in movies like No Strings Attached and Thor because I always thought her biggest problem was that she needed to loosen up and try different roles like that. There's no question she deserves this, which is really saying something considering her competitors in this category, especially Lawrence who was incredible. Haven't seen Kidman or Williams yet but just knowing their previous work as actresses it wouldn't surprise me if either (or both) gave a better performance than Natalie. But they have no shot. This should be a lock, but prepare yourself just in case. No matter how ridiculous the character she played was, Bening is the only one here capable of matching Portman in a popularity contest, plus she's "overdue" (there's that word again).


Will Win: Natalie Portman
Should Win: Natalie Portman
Could Win: Annette Bening
Snubbed: Emma Stone (Easy A)

Best Supporting Actor

Christian Bale, "The Fighter"
John Hawkes,"Winter's Bone"
Jeremy Renner, "The Town"
Mark Ruffalo, "The Kids Are All Right"
Geoffrey Rush, "The King's Speech"

Analysis: In a category sometimes prone to upsets we have two frontrunners battling it out. The result of this will likely tell the tale of just how much momentum The King's Speech has because if longtime Academy favorite Geoffrey Rush can upset Bale here it could mean very bad news for The Social Network. It would signal early that the film will sweep clean across the board, possibly even adding Supporting Actress to its awards haul for the night. Just the fact that Rush even got in here with a nod and Andrew Garfield didn't is revealing (and alarming) enough in itself so that endorsement has to be factored in when trying to call a winner. But at least Rush is in the right category this time as opposed to 1996 when he won a Lead Actor Oscar for what was arguably a supporting performance in Shine. Now is probably a good time to mention that I haven't seen The Fighter, but we all know anyway the smart money's on Bale who underwent another astonishing physical transformation, this time dropping an alarming amount of weight to play crack addict/former boxer Dicky Eklund. Having won the Globe and the SAG already it's unlikely (though not impossible) that he'd lose. As great as it would be for Dustin from Eastbound and Down and Lennon from Lost to win an Oscar, I don't see it happening (this year at least) for the awesome John Hawkes, who would probably split my vote with Renner, whose performance is actually better than it's been getting credit for. But their nominations are reward enough, especially considering all the deserving actors left out. Someone who is actually overdue, Mark Ruffalo, finally gets nominated for something, but the role's just too lightweight to make an impact in this race.

Will Win: Christian Bale

Should Win: Having not yet seen Bale's performance, and based on what I've seen, I'd probably say Hawkes. 
Could Win: Geoffrey Rush (and it wouldn't be much of an upset either)
Snubbed: ANDREW GARFIELD- How is he not nominated? (The Social Network), Armie Hammer (The Social Network), Justin Timberlake (The Social Network), Vincent Cassel (Black Swan)

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams, "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter, "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld, "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver, "Animal Kingdom"

The only category where literally ANYONE can win. It's like this every year, or at least since Marisa Tomei's 1991 win for My Cousin Vinny. For whatever reason this race always seems to be full of drama and excitement, usually commencing in gasps of shock and awe in the auditorium when the winning name is read. This year is no exception as Melissa Leo was thought to have this thing all wrapped up until she went rogue, taking out some controversial Oscar campaign ads for herself. Yes they're kind of silly and the timing wasn't the best but if voters actually hold this against her they need a reality check because their job is to judge the performance on screen. Plus, what choice is she left with when the studio refuses to promote her? There aren't exactly lots of golden opportunities out there for character actresses pushing fifty so if anything she should at least be commended for putting herself out there. If this stunt ends up costing her (and it could), Hailee Steinfeld will be the spoiler, but confusion over why a lead performance is being placed in a supporting category could kill her chances outright. Of the nominees, Leo's co-star Amy Adams is an underdog but many still feel she gave the better performance. That the undeserving Bonham-Carter even made it in (and sadly has a great chance of winning) is a credit to only how ridiculously overpraised The King's Speech is. Jacki Weaver was tremendous as a motherly sociopath in the gripping, underseen Australian crime thriller Animal Kingdom, if only enough voters knew about the performance and the film. But even she still has a very good shot here. This one's wide open.

Will Win: Melissa Leo
Should Win: Pass...until I see all the nominees 
Could Win: Hailee Steinfeld 
Snubbed: Rooney Mara (The Social Network), Marion Cotillard (Inception), Mila Kunis (Black Swan) Greta Gerwig (Greenberg), Olivia Williams (The Ghost Writer), Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick-Ass)


OTHER CATEGORIES (WINNERS IN BOLD)

Best Animated Feature

"How to Train Your Dragon"
"The Illusionist"
"Toy Story 3"

Best Foreign-Language Film


"Biutiful" (Mexico)
"Dogtooth" (Greece)
"In a Better World" (Denmark)
"Incendies" (Canada)
"Outside the Law" (Algeria)

Best Original Screenplay

"Another Year," written by Mike Leigh
"The Fighter," written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson. Story by Keith Dorrington, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson
"Inception," written by Christopher Nolan
"The Kids Are All Right," written by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg
"The King's Speech," screenplay by David Seidler

Best Adapted Screenplay

"127 Hours," screenplay by Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
"The Social Network," screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
"Toy Story 3," screenplay by Michael Arndt. Story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich
"True Grit," written for the screen by Joel and Ethan Coen
"Winter's Bone," adapted for the screen by Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini

Best Original Score

"How to Train Your Dragon," John Powell
"Inception," Hans Zimmer
"The King's Speech," Alexandre Desplat
"127 Hours," A.R. Rahman
"The Social Network," Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

Best Original Song

"Coming Home" from "Country Strong," music and lyrics by Tom Douglas, Troy Verges and Hillary Lindsey
"I See the Light" from "Tangled," music by Alan Menken, lyrics by Glenn Slater
"If I Rise" from "127 Hours," music by A.R. Rahman and lyrics by Dido and Rollo Armstrong
"We Belong Together" from "Toy Story 3," music and lyrics by Randy Newman

Art direction

"Alice in Wonderland," production design: Robert Stromberg; set decoration: Karen O'Hara
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- Part 1," production design: Stuart Craig; set decoration: Stephenie McMillan
"Inception" production design: Guy Hendrix Dyas; set decoration: Larry Dias and Doug Mowat
"The King's Speech" production design: Eve Stewart; set decoration: Judy Farr
"True Grit" production design: Jess Gonchor; set decoration: Nancy Haigh

Cinematography

"Black Swan," Matthew Libatique
"Inception," Wally Pfister
"The King's Speech," Danny Cohen
"The Social Network," Jeff Cronenweth
"True Grit," Roger Deakins

Costume design

"Alice in Wonderland," Colleen Atwood
"I Am Love," Antonella Cannarozzi
"The King's Speech," Jenny Beavan
"The Tempest," Sandy Powell
"True Grit" Mary Zophres

Best Documentary (feature)


"Exit Through the Gift Shop," Banksy and Jaimie D'Cruz
"Gasland," Josh Fox and Trish Adlesic
"Inside Job," Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs
"Restrepo," Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
"Waste Land," Lucy Walker and Angus Aynsley

Best Documentary (short subject)

"Killing in the Name," nominees to be determined
"Poster Girl," nominees to be determined
"Strangers No More," Karen Goodman and Kirk Simon
"Sun Come Up," Jennifer Redfearn and Tim Metzger
"The Warriors of Qiugang," Ruby Yang and Thomas Lennon

Film editing

"Black Swan," Andrew Weisblum
"The Fighter," Pamela Martin
"The King's Speech," Tariq Anwar
"127 Hours," Jon Harris
"The Social Network," Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter

Makeup

"Barney's Version," Adrien Morot
"The Way Back," Edouard F. Henriques, Gregory Funk and Yolanda Toussieng
"The Wolfman," Rick Baker and Dave Elsey

Best short film (animated)


"Day and Night," Teddy Newton
"The Gruffalo," Jakob Schuh and Max Lang
"Let's Pollute," Geefwee Boedoe
"The Lost Thing," Shaun Tan and Andrew Ruhemann
"Madagascar, carnet de voyage," Bastien Dubois

Best short film (live action)

"The Confession," Tanel Toom
"The Crush," Michael Creagh
"God of Love," Luke Matheny
"Na We We," Ivan Goldschmidt
"Wish 143," Ian Barnes and Samantha Waite

Sound editing

"Inception," Richard King
"Toy Story 3," Tom Myers and Michael Silvers
"Tron: Legacy," Gwendolyn Yates Whittle and Addison Teague
"True Grit," Skip Lievsay and Craig Berkey
"Unstoppable," Mark P. Stoeckinger

Sound mixing

"Inception," Lora Hirschberg, Gary A. Rizzo and Ed Novick
"The King's Speech," Paul Hamblin, Martin Jensen and John Midgley
"Salt," Jeffrey J. Haboush, Greg P. Russell, Scott Millan and William Sarokin
"The Social Network," Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick and Mark Weingarten
"True Grit," Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff and Peter F. Kurland

Visual effects

"Alice in Wonderland," Ken Ralston, David Schaub, Carey Villegas and Sean Phillips
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- Part 1," Tim Burke, John Richardson, Christian Manz and Nicolas Aithadi
"Hereafter," Michael Owens, Bryan Grill, Stephan Trojanski and Joe Farrell
"Inception," Paul Franklin, Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley and Peter Bebb
"Iron Man 2," Janek Sirrs, Ben Snow, Ged Wright and Daniel Sudick

Black Swan

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
Running Time: 108 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There's a scene in Black Swan where ballet director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) explains to star dancer Nina (Natalie Portman) why she just isn't right for the lead role of the Swan Queen in his production of Swan Lake. How her technique is flawless but she's too much of a perfectionist to let go. Too overly rehearsed and calculated. Concerned about hitting her mark each time instead of just giving in and freeing herself to the material. Sound like any actresses you know? Black Swan is 2 hours of director Darren Aronofsky trying to knock the acting out of Natalie Portman. He doesn't, but goes one better in converting all of her flaws as an actress into strengths, effectively rendering all her inadequacies irrelevant. She gives a performance that's technically perfect, which is kind of a cruel irony considering the movie's central theme.

This might be the first movie that exists entirely as a critique on an actress's style and method with even the central performance itself acting as a commentary on the person giving it. It also brings up the fascinating question of whether someone who isn't necessarily a great actor can give an Academy Award worthy performance. Of course, the answer is yes (Sandra Bullock won last year for crying out loud) since Oscars are supposed to be given for individual performances, not as career achievement plaques or quantifiable measurements of talent. And with a track record of wrecking Star Wars, playing a poor man's Zooey Deschanel in Garden State and straining as the world's most uncomfortable stripper in Closer, that news should come as a relief for Portman. She usually falters when asked to leave her comfort zone, but Aronofsky was wise not to let her and the result will probably be an Oscar she's earned. A bit of a backhanded compliment, but there's little worth discussing outside her work and it's definitely not for a lack of other things going on. She is the film and without her it wouldn't have just not been the same, it couldn't have been made.

From the second it starts it's obvious exactly where Black Swan is going, how's it's getting there and even when. This isn't a mystery and its moves are as carefully choreographed as the dance steps but it makes little difference given how much more is on Aronofsky's mind. What happens in the final act isn't necessarily surprising but how it's presented is shocking, as is how far awesomely over-the-top and committed the film is to its own genre-bending insanity. There's little to discuss in the way of plot other than that Nina, overwhelmed by pressure from Thomas, the company's slimy director with unusually sexual teaching methods, and her overbearing stage mother, Erica (Barbara Hershey), begins to physically and psychologically unravel when faced with the challenge of playing the lead in Swan Lake for a prestigious New York City ballet company.

Having gotten the innocent White Swan down pat, it's the more sensual, aggressive Black Swan Nina struggles to grasp. Her potential understudy, Lily (Mila Kunis) does very much grasp it and their rivalry slowly evolves into something more as Nina's grip on reality continues to slip away and she slowly descends into madness. Kunis' role is also clear from the get-go (and she plays it note perfectly) but I wonder why more people aren't talking about Cassel, who's so frighteningly sleazy and believable as this maniacal director who psychologically stretches Nina further than she ever expected to go. Everyone's so taken by Portman's work that his memorable supporting turn has gone unnoticed, likely because of its subtle effectiveness. Much like her character in the film, she probably wouldn't have been able to give the performance she does without him pushing her.

Describing this as a companion piece of sorts to The Wrestler (as Aronofsky has done in interviews) makes sense from the standpoint that both focus on how an artist's obsession with their craft can destroy them from the inside-out. Both require enormous dedication to technique and craft and it's fair to assume the amount of physical training Portman (who reportedly shed nearly twenty pounds from her already waifish frame) and Kunis underwent in preparation for their roles rival Mickey Rourke's for that film, minus the negative stigma attached. And it's also fair to assume there's as much (if not more) Portman in Nina as there was Rourke in Randy "The Ram," making the already uncomfortable scenes of her being sexually and verbally criticized even more uncomfortable knowing that Thomas could just as easily be talking about the actress, with her robotic frigidity called out for everyone to know about. Nina can't seem to channel the Black Swan and Portman wouldn't ever be able to tackle Kunis' role so it's odd seeing that basically acknowledged on screen and made part of the plot.

Just as The Wrestler wasn't "about" wrestling, neither is the Black Swan "about" ballet, but instead deeper themes, chiefly the futile, sometimes emotionally dangerous quest for perfectionism. But also how much people want from people who succeed and just when you think they're done they want more...and then MORE still. And just when they're gotten all they can they throw you away, as encapsulated by Thomas' treatment of his former Swan Queen and prima ballerina, Beth (Winona Ryder--of all people!), forced into retirement and driven to self-destruction and insanity.  The whole film could basically be viewed as a running commentary on not only Portman but the plight of Hollywood actresses in general, cruelly discarded once they've surpassed their point of perceived usefulness and marketability. As I watched I thought how hilarious it could have been to cast Lindsay Lohan opposite Portman in the Lily role, but Kunis deviously owns it so well and there's more than enough campy shock value elsewhere.

As I left the theater I overheard many elderly audience members talking about how little they cared for the film. Of course, they didn't. If anything was ever bound to cause a generational split it's this since older viewers looking for art aren't likely to embrace the crazy 70's style horror detour taken when Nina sprouts feathers, mutilates herself, and picks shards of glass out of her skin (and that's not to mention the masturbation and lesbian sex scene). Younger viewers looking for that kind of craziness may find themselves getting restless during the extended ballet sequences (though I was surprised just how absorbing and suspenseful they were). What both parties can definitely agree on is that there's enough Portman for everyone, even if you're not a fan.

Strangely, the performance just further confirms what I've suspected of her all along, only this time the one-dimensionality works in her favor like never before. But it still couldn't have been easy for her to put herself out there like this emotionally, inhabiting a character so uncomfortably close to how she's publicly perceived. We frequently praise actors and actresses for taking unexpected risks by leaving their comfort zone, but it's sometimes even more special when a performer is pushed to the limit within it, owning a role they seem destined to play. I'll probably never be a Natalie Portman fan and always fail to grasp everyone's fascination with her, but with Black Swan she's at least now earned my begrudging respect.

Brothers

Director: Jim Sheridan
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sam Shepard, Clifton Collins, Jr, Mare Winningham
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Over the past few years viewers have endured more than their fair share of films dealing directly or indirectly with the war in Afghanistan. With Brothers we have a first: Overseas torture mixed with soapy melodrama on the home front. But how sad it is it that I find this approach preferable to having more political propaganda pushed on me by Hollywood? The first and second hour of this film seem penned by different writers, the tone is all over the map, the casting is off and yet somehow the film comes together and works. And it works because the movie knows exactly what's it's trying to do and does it, foregoing cheap sentimentality. After a rough start where you're not exactly sure the direction things are going in, it makes a sharp left turn wherein two unbearably tense scenes and one frightening performance define the entire film. While I wouldn't be eager to partake in another viewing and it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, the script honestly explore its ideas without deteriorating into the love triangle it was advertised as.

Just as Marine Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire) prepares to embark on another tour of duty overseas, his "black sheep" younger brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) is released from prison after serving time for armed robbery. Sam's wife and high school sweetheart, Grace (Natalie Portman) with whom he has two daughters (played by Bailee Madison and Taylor Grace Geare), can't stand Tommy's reckless behavior, nor can his disapproving father (Sam Shepard) who constantly belittles him for not measuring up to his big brother. Then word comes that Sam's helicopter was shot down and he died. In actuality, he's taken as a POW and is being tortured in a mountain village. Back home, the bond between Grace and Tommy grows over their mutual loss, at least until they receive the shocking news that Sam is alive. But he returns a shell of his former self, psychologically destroyed by his experience and carrying a secret that's eating away at him with guilt. Now he has to learn to how re-connect with his daughters and deal with the developing relationship between Grace and his brother.

The first hour is very off putting. It starts with the familiar story of the screw-up little brother getting out of prison, complete with one of those stereotypical military dads (played here by Sam Shephard) who loves one son and hates the other. Scenes of overseas combat and torture you'd expect to see in a film like Babel or The Hurt Locker are interspersed with a family soap opera back home that at first glance seems like it belongs on the Lifetime channel. But the second half irons this problem out and it at least becomes clear why this approach had to be used, even if part of me still thinks it may have been more effective to show less of it. It's obvious from the casting and the heavy emphasis on the infidelity plot point in the trailers that the primary goal was to pack as many females into the theater as possible to clean up at the box office.

Luckily, the trailers were a complete misrepresentation and the film ends up being more interested in how war can psychologically transform someone to a point where they're no longer recognizable to even those closest to them. Despite what the teasers indicate, not much occurs romantically between Tommy and Grace, but one of the more realistic details of the film is that the returning Sam senses "something" happened while he was gone. No one even has to say anything. He just knows. Whether it's from watching a lot of movies like this or just the fact that his wife's Natalie Portman, he's able to put two and two together. That's believable.

Coming home eerily resembling a zombie and with twenty pounds missing from his already slender frame, Tobey Maguire owns every scene he's in. He's like a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at the slightest provocation, making you believe that in a sense Sam really did die in Afghanistan, only to be replaced by this empty shell of a man. He's so scarred from his experience that intimate, emotional contact with anyone is impossible. He can't communicate with his wife anymore on any level and his daughters are scared to death of him, wondering aloud what's happened to their daddy. There's a scene at the dinner table during a birthday party that's just unbearable in the amount of suspense created. The tension mounts and builds for minutes until the situation just explodes and as impressive as Maguire is in it, young Bailee Madison as his daughter is right there to match him. I really liked how she outwardly shows affection to her father but behind her eyes you can see just how terrified she is of him.

You could argue all three actors are miscast, chosen for their star power with little consideration given to whether they were even right for the parts. This continues what's starting to become a popular trend these days in movies: Casting too young. The hiring of actors who for whatever reason (whether they're not old enough or don't act or look old enough) aren't credible in the more age experienced roles they're being asked to play. Maguire and Gyllenhaal were at least the RIGHT wrong actors for this because they're talented enough to fake it until they make it and are more than capable of meeting the challenges put in front of them with this story. Portman isn't. I know everyone thinks she's this great beauty who can do no wrong but for me she just continues her long streak of mere adequacy, done no favors here in a part that's all wrong for her.

Portman just isn't believable as a mother with two children that age, nor is she any more credible as a grieving widow struggling with feelings for her brother-in-law. When Grace opens up about her high school days in an intimate U2 themed fireside chat with Tommy, Portman can't hold up her end of the deal because she just isn't skilled enough at conveying the kind of person Grace would have been. Instead, I just kept picturing her face buried in books at the school library. If they had to cast in this age range a better choice for the part would have been someone like Katie Holmes, who would be more credible as a mother and we know from past films she at least shares the necessary chemistry with Maguire. Portman fails to ignite even the slightest spark with either actor. In her defense, she does get better as the film wears on and the focus shifts, or maybe I just eventually gave up and accepted how ill fit she was for the role. Luckily, Maguire and Gyllenhaal are so good in this that they carry Portman through so that she doesn't seriously harm the picture.

Gyllenhaal is actually less miscast than stretching out of his usual comfort zone with a darker character, which he pulls off. Even though Tommy's a black sheep you don't want to make him too much of a jerk and he does a great job walking that line. While Maguire isn't very believable either as a parent it hardly matters because his performance as a raging psychotic is so riveting that it holds all the loose ends together. Those who understandably forgot while he was wasting his time and talent making the Spider-Man films can be reminded how gifted an actor he really is here. I'm relieved it only took him only one film to get right back to business.

When it all finally comes to a head in one climactic final showdown there's legitimate doubt how it will end and whether everyone in this family will survive. I was surprised how thoughtful and restrained the ending was considering all that came before, but thankfully everything wasn't too nicely tied up in a bow for us either. Director Jim Sheridan (who's no stranger to family dramas) and writer David Benioff deserve credit for tackling the issue head on and not backing down. While watching Brothers I was reminded of 2008's Stop-Loss, which also dealt with the emotional trauma of soldiers trying to reaclimate themselves to normal life, but fell victim to its own political grandstanding. This pulls some strings and pushes a few buttons, but emotional grandstanding is just what this topic needed. Too many movies dealing with the after effects of war have played it safe, cautious of offending anyone or going too far over the top. Brothers deserves credit for at least having the guts to provoke a strong reaction.

From The Vault: Closer

Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2004

*** (out of ****)

"A heart is a fist covered in blood!"
- Larry

"Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off, but its better if you do."
-Alice

Released in December, 2004 Mike Nichols' Closer (based on Patrick Marber's acclaimed stage play) is likely one of the angriest films about sex and relationships you'll ever witness. It unfolds like a chess game, with each character carefully making their move to inflict pain on one other and, in an interesting twist, using the truth instead of lies to do it. The film, which garnered supporting acting Oscar nominations for Natalie Portman and Clive Owen, also has some of the most insanely quotable dialogue in recent memory. The first quote you see above is actually one of the tamer lines in the film, but merely transcribing can do no justice to the ferocity with which Clive Owen's character delivers it. Anyone familar with the band Panic at the Disco! will probably recognize the second quote above (which was spoken by Natalie Portman in the most memorable scene in the film) because they took it as names for two of their songs.

It's a powerful film, yet when it was over I couldn't help thinking the whole didn't quite equal the sum of its parts. It checks in at a brisk but emotionally draining 104 minutes, which actually works in its favor because I'm not too sure how much more of it I could have taken. If nothing else, it's worth seeing as an actor's showcase as there are some really interesting performances amidst some admiteddly bizarre casting decisions. You'll see some actors in roles unlike anything you've ever witnessed them in before. For all you Natalie Portman fans out there (and I know there are many), you'll be happy to know that you can tell anyone if they watch one starring her, this should be it. But they'll have to wipe the drool off themselves when it's over.

"Hello, stranger." Those are the first words to open Closer as a magenta-haired Alice (Natalie Portman) lies on a London street after being struck by a taxi cab. She looks up at Dan (a whiny, annoying Jude Law), an obituary writer comes to her rescue and accompanies her to the hospital. It's the beginning of a beautiful romance. Well, no actually it isn't. It's the beginning of an emotional nightmare for this couple and one other, as well as for the audience.

Flash forward a year later and Dan has written a book based on Alice's previous life as a stripper in New York called (ridiculously as one character points out), "The Aquarium." He goes to the loft of photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) to get his shot taken for the book jacket and not so innocent flirtation soon turns into something more. Maybe the best moment in the entire film occurs when Alice arrives at Anna's loft to meet Dan. I'm not going to spoil what happens in the scene, but the way it plays out is nothing like what you'd expect and Portman is amazing in it. However Anna, who spends most of this movie falsely believing she's on a moral ground higher than the rest of these characters, puts the skids on the relationship.

An angry Dan decides to play a little prank on her. He poses as Anna in a dirty internet chat room and sets up a meeting with Larry (Clive Owen), a horny dermatologist who's in for the embarassment of his life when he shows up and the real Anna is there. The joke's on Dan however as Anna and Dr. Larry's mutual amusement at the situation leads to a relationship and eventually marriage. We flash forward again a little further to Anna's photo exhibit and the affair between Anna and Dan suddenly seems to be on again, in no small part due to Dan's needy, obsessive, stalkerish infatuation with her. It's here where the story becomes emotionally brutal and the characters hurt each other rather senselessly and pathetically. They hurt only with words, but those words are like a knife to the heart as Marber's dialogue jumps off the page and out of the mouths of these talented actors.

We're used to romantic dramas, especially those involving infidelity to follow the same general formula. A man or woman cheats and then spends most of the rest of the film lying about it or trying to cover it up. Then the significant other somehow finds out and everything explodes at the end. This screenplay does something very interesting by having the characters being completely open and honest about their heinous behavior, thus resulting in nearly every scene in the film exploding with conflict. The movie is extemely talky (as most adaptations of stage plays are) but it holds your interest because of the power of the dialogue and the conviction of the performances. It also raises the question that if you tell the truth, does that make what you've done any less worse? Sure, these characters are being honest with one another but they're doing it just to hurt one another and ease their guilty conscience.

You'll have fun ranking them on their levels of deplorability as you watch the film. Many consider Clive Owen's Dr. Larry to be the worst of the bunch because he seems to take way too much delight in hurling his hurtful but witty one-liners and, like Anna, has a false belief he's acting more responsibly than everyone else. I actually thought he was the most likable because unlike the rest of the chracters he at least had the self-respect to fight back even if his methods were questionable. Owen (who actually played Dan in the stage version) is known for playing dark, brooding characters, but here he starts out as kind of a hapless sap, who due to circumstances beyond his control is turned dark and brooding. It's a huge transformation but Owen pulls it off and it's no surprise to me he was also able to play the role of Dan on stage and Larry on screen. He's that versatile.

2004 was the year Jude Law was in just about every other movie and he's the weak link in this as he mopes from scene to scene adding nothing to the role of Dan. I realize this guy is supposed to be a loser and a coward, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers played nearly the exact same role a year later in Woody Allen's Match Point to far greater effect. Law just seemed to sleep walk through this. Julia Roberts is actually really, really good as Anna. That I believed Law's character would cheat on Alice with her (when on paper it would seem unfathomable) is a high compliment to Julia as an actress. There's also something really funny and exciting seeing an actress who's been known as "America's sweetheart" having to deliver the dirty, graphic lines she does in this movie. Here's an example of casting against type that actually works.

The most sympathy to be had is for Alice, in no small part due to the fact that Portman is playing her, which I'm sure Nichols knew. She gives a great performance , made all the more brave and admirable by the fact that, like Roberts, she is completely miscast. By the end though, our sympathy dwindles for her as we're given a hint she not only hasn't been straight with the other characters, but with us.

What's strange about the film is that it presents itself as a no holds barred look at sex, infidelity and relationships but there's absolutely no sex or nudity in the picture. The closest we get is the now relatively infamous scene at the strip club with Alice and Dr. Larry. This encounter should give Portman fans a heart attack and joins the list of reasons the pause button on a remote control was invented. It comes dangerously close to being offensive and expoitive but Portman's performance reigns it in. I read an interview with her saying she took this role to overcome her fears and prove to herself she could do something different like this. She did, but I'm not sure at what cost or whether that's the right reason to ever take a role. Supposedly a nude scene was filmed then taken out at her insistence. but trust me she comes close enough that it didn't really make a difference either way. From what we know about her and her previous film choices, this had to be an ordeal for her to shoot and I commend her bravery in doing it.

Since the movie was filmed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf?) we know at least an adequate job was done visually to make it look like it's an important film. I have to be honest though and say that by the end I'm not too sure what we accomplished. Everything seemed to go back to where it started off originally, despite Nichols' attempt to visually convey an amazing transformation of sorts (for Alice at least) at the end. That attempt, which really bookends the entire story, is set to Damien Rice's haunting and hypnotic song "The Blower's Daughter." I mention that not only because it's an integral part of the story because the music video for that song is the only special feature available on the DVD release of this film.

You'd figure if any film deserved an in depth analysis complete with commentaries and interviews it was this. How did Portman feel about doing that strip club scene and how did she approach it? What would director Nichols have to say about the deeper themes of the story and how he tried to convey them? You could go on all day. A film exploring as many issues as this deserved a double disc set. The movie may not be as important as Nichols intended it to be but there is a certain cruel irony in the film's title. When the story's over we feel no closer to the main characters than they do to one another, which is probably for the better.

V For Vendetta

Director: James McTeigue
Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry, John Hurt
Running Time: 132 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

Right from the first scene of V For Vendetta you know this is a different kind of film. It doesn't waste any time doing what it wants to do, grabs hold, and doesn't let go for 135 minutes. It's a movie so full of deep, interesting ideas and non-stop action it almost can't be contained within the entire running length. Most movies would wait an hour building the backstory until we meet the anti-hero. Here, we see V immediately and learn more about him in the first minute than we know about any superhero character throughout an entire franchise of films. He gives an incredible speech using words that just start with the letter "V" that has to be heard to be believed, and replayed to be completely processed. That he actually has deep, interesting conversations with people, makes breakfast, and enjoys watching movies. Oh, did I mention he likes to kill people? Well, he doesn't enjoy it exactly, but it's a necessary evil. As a general rule I like to stay away from political movies about bleak futures and oppressive governments (think 1984) because I always thought there was nothing left to say and the idea well had run dry. I was wrong.

Sometime in the not so distant future in England a lone vigilante known as V (Hugo Weaving) has his sights set on overthrowing a totalitarian government led by a Nazi-like dictator (John Hurt) and sets the destruction date for the fifth of November. He enlists the help of Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman), a news network intern who on a late night walk is attacked by government thugs known as "Fingermen", then saved and captured by V. At first an unwilling participant, she learns she's way too deep into this to turn back. The relationship that develops between her and the masked man, his history, and his motives for destroying the government build the framework for an emotionally complex tale that also happens to be pretty gory at times.

To be fair, the violence is completely necessary to drive home what's at stake. Before long V is the most controversial terrorist the government has ever encountered, and the most dangerous. Most movies would just rely on the fact they have a guy in a cool mask killing people and call it a day. After all, that alone would sell tickets. That it was written and produced by the Wachowski Brothers (The Matrix trilogy) gave me little hope it would be any different. The Matrix in my opinion was one of the most overrated movies of the past 25 years that hid behind the false claim it had big ideas to deliver cool special effects. That the last two movies ran out of gas was no surprise. There was nothing in the tank to begin with. It was all style and no substance. This is all style and substance.

At first we're not quite sure whether to root for V or not but the script is brilliant in the way it unfolds to tell us who the man is behind the mask and what he's fighting for. Before long, we're knee deep in an enormous government conspiracy and the movie tackles issues involving war, disease, terrorism, homosexuality and church sex scandals. The movie's political for sure (and believe me the politics fall on one side) but it never distracts from the revenge story at the core. There's talk that the political overtones of this movie were meant as a shot at the Bush administration, but Alan Moore's graphic novel from which this was based came out in 1989 so I think people have been reading a little too far into this. If you look hard enough it could probably represent any government.

When I watched this film I thought of movies like Sam Raimi's Spiderman, where the hero is fighting for essentially nothing. V was a person, had a reason for existence and it was taken away. He gets help from the only person who will listen and because of her own past she understands. She never gets to see what he looks like and neither do we. We know he was disfigured in a horrific fire and the cause of that fire is what fuels his rage. There's a great scene when she leaves him and he throws his mask in anger knowing he can never have her. The story takes a turn, effectively, into Beauty and The Beast territory.

Not only does Natalie Portman pull off a believable British accent, she gives a truly brave performance in easily the best role of her career (yes that includes Garden State). She deserves an Oscar nomination but won't get one since Academy members will get amnesia as usual when it comes to recognizing performances past November of this year. It's hard to even believe this is the same person who starred in the Star Wars trilogy, proving what happens when an actress is given great material to work with. A big deal has been made over the fact she had her head shaved in one take (and she pulls off the bald look surprisingly well), but what's more impressive is what the scene represents and the emotional punch it delivers. She goes from trapped to free, girl to woman, fearful to courageous, all in one scene. When she loses her hair she can finally let go and we realize what V is fighting for.