The Front Runner

Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Vera Farmiga, J.K. Simmons, Alfred Molina, Sara Paxton, Mamoudou Athie, Kaitlyn Dever, Toby Huss, Molly Ephraim, Steve Zissis, Spencer Garrett, Ari Graynor, Bill Burr, Mike Judge, Kevin Pollack, Mark O' Brien
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Does it matter? That's the question at the center of Jason Reitman's The Front Runner, which details Senator Gary Hart's unsuccessful 1988 Presidential bid. At one point not only a lock for the nod, but seemingly the White House, all of Hart's political ambitions came crashing down in the span of merely three weeks. Young, good-looking, charismatic and full of fresh ideas, his campaign was derailed because he had an ex-marital affair. But that wasn't the story. The real story was that it was the first time anyone bothered to care. The media. The public. His colleagues. For the previous 200 years, politicians got free passes in their private lives, which remained just that: private. Hart's timing was terrible, his ascent having arrived on the precipice of a major sea change in our culture that's carried over into today: when news became entertainment.

Hart felt the wrath when character and trustworthiness in our public figures suddenly became an issue and the press realized they could make bank exposing it. In other words, he really stepped in it and the way he reacted, or rather didn't, circles back to that question of whether a public figure's private business should really matter, and whether that matters when he's a politician seeking the highest office in the land. It's a question we're still wrestling with and one Reitman thoroughly examines here with surprising insight and objectivity.

After losing the 1984 Democratic Presidential nomination to Walter Mondale, idealistic, rejuvenated Colorado Senator Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) returns four years later, entering the 1988 race, quickly becoming the front runner to earn the nomination that earlier alluded him. With wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever) in his corner, Hart seems to be the ideal family values candidate, telling it like it is and promising to put the people and country first. There's only one problem: his marriage. Or more specifically, an affair he's having with a Florida-based model named Donna Shaw (Sara Paxton), whose best friend tips off Miami Herald reporter Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis) about their secret excursions.

With Washington Post's A.J. Parker (Mamoudou Athie) also cornering Hart about his extracurricular activities in an interview, the senator becomes defensive as ever, lashing out at anyone daring to bring up his personal life. But he's in trouble, and despite loyal supporters like hard-nosed campaign manager (Bill Dixon) and scheduler Irene Kelly (Molly Ephraim) telling him otherwise, Hart stubbornly stays the course, even as the media has a field day exposing his transgressions. Unfortunately, the only course he's now headed on would seem to lead toward political infamy and embarassment rather than the White House.

Reitman's casting of Hugh Jackman as the embattled senator is meant to convey something that perhaps another actor in the role wouldn't. Despite what you may have seen or read about Hart or any of the paralells between him and Jackman as far as their likability, charisma, or ability to hold an audience, they're worlds apart. And if we're going strictly on appearance, they actually look nothing alike. The choice is clearly meant to idealize both Hart himself and his campaign, but it works. It's as if the producers asked themselves which actor would make the senator look ten times better than he actually was, which isn't to say he wasn't a strong candidate in reality. But in Jackman's shoes, he manages to seem even better and more trustworthy. How could you not vote for this guy? And that makes his eventual collapse all the more disappointing and symbolic.

While we expect Jackman would excel at playing a baby-kissing, family-oriented man of the people, what he best captures is Hart's hubris. His complete disbelief that anyone would want to talk about  his personal life instead of the issues or the country. He's also personally offended, demanding that what he does on his own time is off limits without exception. In one sense, his idealism is commendable, but it's also becoming increasingly unrealistic, shading him as an entitled egomaniac. It's the push and pull between the two sides of this man's character, or sometimes lack thereof, that make for such a compelling implosion.  His failure to grasp that nothing is off limits anymore and how that leads to his undoing is what makes the picture engaging, despite an opening half hour that lures us into thinking we're watching a dry political docudrama.

One of the best scenes occur between Jackman and J.K. Simmons' as Hart's campaign manager, who attempts to convince him that, morals and fairness aside, the coverage of the scandal is quickly eating away at everything he and his staffers have been working for. Of course, it falls on deaf ears as Hart continually refuses to acknowledge its existence and plows forward, rewriting his speeches while dismissing the allegations so flippantly that it gives a whole new inflexible meaning to the phrase "staying on topic."

There's never a moment of self-reflection, even when being followed and ambushed outside his D.C. residence, camera in his face while questions are being fired. Yet as unlikable as he is and how little remorse he seems to show, Hart still makes a valid point that if we used this criteria to judge our leaders we wouldn't have had a Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy, both of whom were serial womanizers in an era where their indiscretions were protected. Why should he be treated any differently? The answer's simple: he's entered a different era.

If Hart has a rough time adjusting to this paradigm shift, the media has just as difficult a time figuring out how to handle it. And it's here where some of the accusations that Reitman didn't dig deep enough or just grazed the surface of the story's implications don't hold water. He takes us inside these newsrooms showing how they struggle and debate the merits of covering this, and how. Some, like Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee (Alfred Molina), are all in, while trepidatious Post reporter A.J. Parker's guilt at exposing Hart is pitted against his equally strong moral sense of responsibility as a journalist.

In a cast loaded with valuable utility players, few make as strong an impression as Molly Ephraim as the fictional Irene Kelly, a political handler who now must handle the "other woman" in the scandal, Donna Shaw. In doing this, she realizes that aside from the young woman's naivete and poor judgment, she'll be a casualty. The senator will suffer the political fallout but the scandal will follow her wherever she goes after she's dragged through the mud by the media and Hart's team. She's not as strong as Vera Farmiga's more hardened Lee Hart,  putting on a tough public face to shield herself and daughter Andrea from the humiliation her husband's actions caused, only confirming what she suspected of him all along.

At its core, The Front Runner is a process picture, and while it won't anytime soon be confused with the likes of All The President's Men or Zodiac as far as how deep or skillfully it takes us into the newsroom, it makes for an effective snapshot of a little discussed turning point for American politics and in our culture. The true events dramatized in the former film heavily played into what would eventually take down Gary Hart. Post-Watergate, everyone in the press wanted to be crusaders, and found their perfect vehicle with this candidate, who didn't exactly do himself any favors with his actions, regardless of how much luckier his predecessors may have been. It's one thing to apologize, but it's another entirely to apologize for getting caught.

Eddie The Eagle

Director: Dexter Fletcher
Starring: Taron Egerton, Hugh Jackman, Christopher Walken, Iris Berben, Mark Benton, Keith Allen, Jo Hartley, Jim Broadbent
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Besides being at the center of an inspiring underdog story that seems tailor made for the big screen, the qualities possessed by British Olympic ski jumper Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards will be familiar to anyone who's ever seen an underdog sports movie. A person who's so singularly focused on achieving the impossible that they're not taken seriously in the slightest. They either have a lot of guts or are really dense, and through much of Dexter Fletcher's deliriously entertaining biopic Eddie The Eagle, our title character is confronted by naysayers informing him it's the latter. Whether that be a parent, his teammates or coaches, the one thing they can all agree on is that he's a lost cause. And while much of that is realistically warranted and grounded in concern for his safety, more of it has to do with how he looks and acts. Viewers who think they know how it's all going to pan out are completely right, mainly because it did actually happen and the scenario represents one of the most reliable and predictable movie formulas around. But when it's executed well, it's also really effective, and this is one of those great reminders of that.

As a young boy growing up in Great Britain in the 1970's, Eddie Edwards (Taron Egerton) always dreamed of one day competing in the Olympics. Awkward and hardly much of an natural athlete, he practiced various events in the backyard and around the house, frequently encouraged by his supportive mother, Janette (Jo Harley) while his hard-nosed father, Terry (Keith Allen) dismisses his Olympic dreams as a time waster. After succeeding as a skier as a teen, he sets his sights on the Winter Games, eventually taking an interest in ski jumping.

With Great Britain having gone decades without a ski jumping team and the British Olympic Committee determined to keep him out, Eddie begins training in Germany, where he meets former American ski jumping champion turned alcoholic snow groomer, Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman). Still bitter from his acrimonious exit from the sport, he initially refuses Eddie's pleas to train him, dismissing him, as an unteachable klutz. But Eddie's tenacity and the verbal abuse he takes from the more experienced Norwegian jumpers causes Bronson to take him under his wing, attempting the impossible in helping him qualify for the 1988 Winter Olympics. But what might be the bigger challenge is him being taken seriously once he gets there.

Even during a time when amateurs like Eddie could actually qualify for the Olympics, what he accomplished was pretty newsworthy. Then again, the sports movie template is built on true stories exactly like this, so while the amount of truth always varies, it all really comes down to the execution. This has a lot going for it, including some excellent early practice scenes establishing the young, awkward Eddie's Olympic fanaticism, seeking inspiration from books like "Moments of Glory" and "My Life in Ski Jumping," the latter being the memoir of Bronson's former, estranged coach, Warren Sharp (Christopher Walken). Once we get to the actual competition, the action scenes are well staged by Fletcher, at times even inducing a sense of dread as we look down through the eyes of this clueless rookie who's talked himself into believing he can jump from 40 to 70 and then eventually 90 feet.

More often than not, Bronson's job seems to be stopping this kid from killing himself, reluctantly and against his better judgment evolving into a coach and mentor. It's only upon realizing that with a lot work, he may actually have a shot. Sure to be overlooked, Mark Margeson's throwback musical score stands as one of the year's big achievements in marrying a film's era with its story and thematic content. Somehow sounding like a blissfully bizarre cross between Vangelis' Chariots Fire, Hans Zimmer's Days of Thunder and the theme from The Greatest American Hero, it's so steeped in the scores of that era that many will probably assume it was lifted from an 80's sports movie. That extra touch goes a surprisingly long way here, as it's tough to imagine certain scenes working as well without it in the background, or even in some more obvious moments, the foreground.

Disguised enough behind crooked eyeglasses and oversized clothes to bare a striking physical resemblance to the film's real life inspiration, Taron Egerton makes Eddie endearing, gutsy and likable, portraying him in the best tradition of screen sports underdogs. In the too few instances when the material calls for him to get serious, he proves capable of that as well. Playing a fictional composite of the real-life Eddie's various coaches, it isn't a backhanded compliment to say Hugh Jackman gives one of his more charismatic recent performances as Bronson Peary.

Effortlessly owning every scene he's in, it was a good move to cast Jackman and an even better one to completely ignore reality in favor of letting him help create this character whose relationship with the protagonist drives the story. He also has the film's best musical moment, when Bronson takes to the slopes to show his pupil and a shocked Norwegian ski team how it's done. Like most sports movies, it's usually as much about the mentor as his student and Bronson still has some demons to deal with concerning how his career ended, permanently damaging his relationship with his ex-coach. Of course redemption can only come through coaching Eddie.

Possibly the strongest aspect of the entire film is the fleeting acknowledgment, even made by Bronson himself, that this kid is in danger of becoming a joke, viewed as nothing more than a circus sideshow act to be laughed at by fans and the ratings-seeking media.  If he fails to deliver then his 15 minutes are up, and Olympic history won't look kindly on him, if at all. Briefly, the script explores this fascinating idea before safely retreating to comfortable confines of its formula. That's fine, but you can't help but think it's a reminder that as immersive as these sports movies are, there is a creative glass ceiling in place that very few have been able to shatter.

It's slightly disappointing when the screenplay leans more heavily on the comedic elements than the interesting implications of Eddie's popularity, but this just isn't that type of movie. That much is clear with the casting of Christopher Walken as Bronson's legendary Olympic coach. On one hand, his presence in any film is always a welcome event, but accompanying it is this undeniable expectation of weirdness. Surprisingly, there isn't too much of that here and he does a fine job in his one major dramatic scene, adding to rather than distracting from the movie's inspirational climax.

It's hard to find a genuine crowd pleaser that goes down as easy as this, and regardless of how many details or facts were adjusted along the way, whatever was done worked in terms of providing maximum entertainment value. Fitting comfortably in the wheelhouse of similarly themed sports films like The Rookie, Miracle, Remember The Titans, Invincible, Cool Runnings and the more recent McFarland, USA, Eddie The Eagle may even be a cut above a few of those, managing to get more little things right.

Whether it's the performances, the direction, the soundtrack or the skiing scenes, there are are many moments where you think it will take flight like it's protagonist, ascending to upper echelon of sports movies occupied by the likes of Rocky, Rudy or The Karate Kid. The story was certainly ripe for it and there's an artfulness in Fletcher's filmmaking that suggests that if the writers took things a little more seriously, it could have gotten there. And while that's an ironic criticism given its subject, I'm not completely sure this would be as enjoyable if it did. So what we're left with is a solid, inspiring mainstream sports movie that can be recommended with unqualified praise to basically anyone. And that counts for a lot.

Prisoners

 

Director:  Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano, Dylan Minnette
Running Time: 153 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Prisoners is one of those thrillers where you can't really reveal anything. The plot is so full of twists and turns that even a basic description risks revealing too much. It's common knowledge that when children are abducted the chances of finding them greatly decreases with each passing minute. This film is about what happens during those passing minutes to the victims' families, the detective assigned to the case and the primary suspect. Having him in custody is merely the start of this strange, twisted journey that doesn't qualify as the run-of-the-mill mainstream suspense thriller or police procedural it was advertised as. Some will claim it does, and that director Denis Villeneuve, writer Aaron Guzikowski and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins are just doing a really good job hiding it. And if they are, more power to them. But I'd argue Prisoners does bend quite a few rules, keeping you on the edge of your seat for two and a half hours without a clue what could happen from one minute to the next. And yet it never overstays its welcome since those involved seem to know exactly what they're doing, as an overwhelming sense of competence engulfs the project, making it impossible to not be swept along for the ride. 

When Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family attend Thanksgiving dinner with their neighbors, the Birches, both families' young daughters, Anna and Joy, go out for a walk. They don't return. The only clue is an old RV parked on the street belonging to a mentally disabled young man named Alex Jones (Paul Dano), who has an IQ of a ten-year-old and lives with his aunt, Holly (Melissa Leo). He's clearly the prime suspect, but when the detective in charge of the case, David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), brings him in for questioning, it's discovered they don't have nearly enough to hold him. That's when an enraged Dover decides to take the law into his own hands and deal with Alex himself. Things start to get ugly as Loki suddenly has three equally difficult jobs in finding the abductor, locating the girls and managing an out of control Dover, who's hell bent on finding his daughter his way, without the authorities' help. With hardly any support from his superiors, Loki must piece together a series of bizarre clues and evidence, just as another suspect emerges who's somehow even creepier than Alex. Minutes turn to hours and then to days, and with that comes the increased chance this will turn from an abduction case to a murder investigation, and the search will soon be for bodies.

What's atypical here is that the main suspect's guilt is in legitimate doubt for nearly entire length of the picture, to the point that your suspicion of Alex literally wavers from one scene to the next. At first, Dover seems like an irrational hothead so worked up by his daughter's abduction that he's willing to go after the only person who emerges as a believable suspect. While that's at least partially true, he discovers a few pieces of seemingly irrefutable evidence that causes him to (somewhat justifiably) fly off the deep end at the news of his release from custody. Dover may not be an easy character to like, but he's an easier one to root for because it's impossible not to feel for a father put in that situation. If nothing else, you have to respect his consistency even when his methods are flawed. And there's also the very real possibility he's right and that the police squandered the one lead they had..Jackman's an actor known for his natural charm and charisma but it's completely buried here to the point of invisibility. In its place is the pure anger and intensity of a man who will stop at nothing to find his daughter, no matter how much his vigilantism is frowned upon by his overmedicated wife Grace (Maria Bello) and Joy's parents, Franklin and Nancy (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis). You've never seen Jackman like this as the role is a complete 180 from most of what he's tackled before, challenging our perceptions of what we thought him capable of in a leading role.

Gyllenhaal is in full Zodiac mode as Detective Loki, with the key exception being that he's playing as actual cop this time around and the character has a much harder, experienced edge to him. It definitely deserves its place in the "Glylenhaal of Fame" of performances right alongside his work in Zodiac, Donnie Darko and Source Code. Loki's definitely the hero of the story, rarely misstepping in the face of seemingly impossible odds and tangled webs of circumstantial clues. Just as we doubt Alex's involvement, of equal doubt is whether this detective can even crack the case. While much of that uncertainty comes from the twisty plot, credit should also be extended to Paul Dano's unnerving performance as Alex, which fluctuates so wildly between pure creepiness and an almost childlike innocence that we begin to seriously second guess our understanding of the character's motivations. Has he really been falsely accused or is this a superbly calculated performance within a performance? An almost entirely mute Dano never tips his hand too far in either direction with Alex's behavior, all while spending three quarters of the film under physical assault and abuse.

Cold and calculating in both tone and execution, this almost feels like a more mainstream B-side to David Fincher's Zodiac or Se7en. This is especially noticeable in the rain-drenched, darkened setting, which Roger Deakins lights to make as much of a character as any of the actual characters inhabiting it. What starts as a relatively simple case evolves into something increasingly complex and morally ambiguous. That the title "prisoners" could reasonably refer to any number of characters speaks to the script's ingenuity. But more importantly, the the movie speaks to every parent's worst nightmare in capturing the horror of a child abduction in middle class suburbia. Then it goes ten steps further, concluding with a chilling, unshakeable final shot befitting the strongest thriller of the year. Endings are always tough, but this one absolutely nails it, combing just the right mixture of ambiguity and closure. The only worry in revisiting the film is that the revelations are so surprising you'd wonder how multiple viewings could impact the appreciation of how well it narratively holds together. Luckily though, despite carrying a lot of plot, Prisoners gets all the other small, important details right that most thrillers of recent years haven't even bothered with.

Les Misérables

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As someone who's usually not a fan of musicals and was completely unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's Les Misérables on stage or screen, here presents that rare opportunity for me to go into a movie cold. Knowing so little about it, preconceived notions tend to disappear, or at least fade as far into the background as possible. But it still turned out to be a more fulfilling and entertaining experience than my few expectations had prepared me for. It's also a bizarre one, as certain creative and technical decisions are made by Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper that will likely raise the eyebrows of even those who care little about these sorts of things. Arguments could go on all day as to whether they enhance or detract from the material, but at the end it may not even matter. Since all fans will remember is whether it remains true to the source, Hooper's preaching to the choir here. Everyone else will likely be more divided, but it's pretty cut and dry what works and what doesn't, as one section of the story clearly surpasses the other. At the top of the list of successes is the inspired casting, followed closely by a sensational opening hour that sets in motion a chain events that spans nearly twenty years and claims more than a few victims. As the running time wears on and the characters start dropping like flies, it's almost too easy to revert to the joke that this should have been titled Les MISERABLE. Few will debate the film starts losing steam after the opening sixty minutes, but there's still a lot to recommend in a story so expansive that there's genuine doubt all the characters could die of old age before the final credits roll.

Opening in 1815, Les Misérables really tells two tales that eventually converge as one giant, sweeping one. The first involves convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who's released on parole by prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe), but manages to escape and start a new life for himself, eight years later becoming a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer in France. When one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired and forced to sell her hair and turn to prostitution to support her illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) Valjean steps in to become the girl's guardian. Now, years later and set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, Valjean is still being trailed by police inspector Javert while an adult Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) becomes the object of Marius Pontmercy's (Eddie Redmayne) affections, much to the dismay of his good friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks), who harbors a secret crush on him. As Javert draws closer to apprehending Valjean, the political turmoil escalates, putting all their lives in danger as a country's future hangs in the balance.          

The first hour of this film is so strong on every level possible that it was almost inevitable that the remainder of it wouldn't be able to keep pace. And Anne Hathaway's Oscar winning supporting performance as the dying Fantine is the major reason why. She has only maybe a little more than 10 minutes of screen time, but makes the most of each grueling moment, effectively selling her character's rapid descent into hopelessness.  Losing her hair and over twenty pounds, her gut-wrenching rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is without question the defining scene of the movie and it's a magic that isn't quite recaptured once Hathaway makes her exit. Was the role predestined, if not calculated, to win her the Oscar? Maybe, but who cares when she's this good.

It's also the best work Jackman's done in a while as a man on the run, shamed by his secret past as a criminal and racked by his own guilt. The decade plus cat-and-mouse game that unfolds between him and Javert is the film's greatest narrative asset, even when being overshadowed by other goings on in the third act. Russell Crowe himself would probably readily admit his singing isn't exactly the most polished in the cast, at times coming across as a strange hybrid of William Shatner's spoken word albums from the '60's and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Crowe's not a singer, but because he's such a formidable actor he's able to pull off absolute lunacy with confidence and conviction. Whether it was for the right reasons or not, I looked forward to every appearance he made. As the swindling, manipulative Thénardiers, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter feel as if they've just stepped off Tim Burton's set, embodying comedic goth creepiness as the innkeepers mistreating young Cosette and extorting her mother. Cohen is fantastic in the role, making "Master of the House," in which he sings about cheating the inn's patrons, the most raucous and purely enjoyable number in the film. If nothing else, the characters deserve credit for their surprising staying power, as few would guess these seemingly one-dimensional villains figure into the action as much and as long as they do.

Unfortunately, everything comes to a grinding halt once we get to the love triangle, which never seems to take off despite spirited efforts from all involved. Because the time jump is so sudden and jarring, it's difficult to immediately adjust to Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks as older versions of the child characters we got to know earlier. But they do well nonetheless. Seyfried, besides being a dead ringer to child counterpart Isabelle Allen in looks, is definitely the best singer in the cast, while Barks, who actually played Éponine on stage, sings and acts her heart out in a role that might not be quite as large as you expected. That her part almost went to Taylor Swift would be shocking if not for the fact that the content of this romantic sub-plot isn't entirely dissimilar to that of her hit songs. As for Redmayne, this marks the second time after My Week with Marilyn that he appears to be a spectator in his own movie as the young lovesick revolutionary. In some ways, Aaron Tveit, who plays his friend and charismatic leader of the movement, Enjolras, makes more of an impression. What saves this section is the music and the fact Hooper gets his act together in time for a strong, emotional finale focusing on the characters we want to see, even if most of them are dead by that point.

This isn't one of those movie musicals that directs itself or is in any way shot like a stage play directly transposed to the screen. Hooper's style is umistakenly "in your face" with weird dutch angles and extreme close-ups that could feel like an invasion of personal space for certain viewers. This is especially true of the Hathaway sequence, where the camera doesn't leave her face the entire time. At times it is too much and it's easy to see why many may not be on board with the approach or feel it's just a filmmaker showing off at the expense of the material. But for me, any bells and whistles were necessary since this was just never going to in my wheelhouse no matter what. The best that could be hoped for was to be sufficiently entertained and Les Mis did deliver that in spades It's never boring or uninteresting. Strangely, it sometimes suffers from the opposite problem, moving a mile a minute with hardly a moment to breathe and take it all in. But as far as problems go, that's a pretty good one to have.          

Burning Questions From The Academy Awards

Wow, they weren't kidding about changing the feel of the show were they?

Can Hugh Jackman consider it a success if the telecast runs longer than Viva Loughlin but shorter than Australia?

Not a question, but a statement: "It's Miley!"

No offense meant to him at all but when you see Judd Apatow with Leslie Mann do you think to yourself, "How did he get HER?"

And shouldn't that be inspiring to normal, funny guys everywhere?

Am I wrong to worry about his next film mixing even more dramatic elements (dying!) with the laughs?

How about the new set?

I know they were going for a more intimate feel but didn't that theater look a little crammed?

Were you worried Jackman wasn't joking when he said he was contractually obligated to mention Brad and Angelina during the show?

How hard must it have been to come up with a musical number for Frost/Nixon?

Isn't Anne Hathaway a good sport?

And who knew she was such a great singer?

But were you thinking that could be the only time she'd see the stage all night?

Did Jackman actually sing that he was going to "Frost your Nixon?"

Aren't you excited about Nicolas Cage's new thriller, Knowing (insert sounds of crickets chirping)?

Shouldn't they have just called it Next 2?

Wasn't it a great idea to have previous Oscar winners present the acting categories?

Didn't it seem like less of a good idea when you realized it would extend the show an extra 12 hours?

Whoopie Goldberg won an Oscar?

Can we have that back please?

After Penelope won did you throw all hope out the window that it would be a "night of upsets?"

Once again, how exactly is Milk an "original" screenplay?

And didn't Dustin Lance Black's speech further confirm that it's just a message movie?

Did you know how the night would go once Slumdog won best Adapted Screenplay?

Who would have guessed the camera would pan to Brad and Angelina when Aniston was presenting?

Will the media ever let that go?

Doesn't it seem like WALL-E should be winning or at least nominated for more than just Best Animated Feature?

Especially in a year like THIS?

Was that the sound of Ben Lyons screaming giddily when Benjamin Button won Best Make-Up and Art Direction?

Speaking of Lyons screaming giddily, isn't Robert Pattinson kind of scary looking?

Is Joaquin Phoenix gonna kick Stiller's ass now or what?

In just a couple of years Phoenix goes from Oscar contender to punchline?

Does a major hottie always get to host the sci-tech awards?

And are they already lining Megan Fox up for next year?

How great was it to see Pineapple Express acknowledged (at least in some way)?

Did Seth Rogen lose some weight or what?

Have you ever seen so many musical numbers?

And now that musicals are back, is it okay if they go away for a little while again?

If they had to be on the show, weren't Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens at least incorporated into it in the most painless, least offensive way possible?

If someone where to beat Ledger could they at least take comfort in the fact that they'd still be a more deserving winner than Cuba Gooding Jr.?

Did Cuba had to clear his busy schedule for this?

Are we human or are we dancer? (not related to show, just felt like asking)

Didn't Kevin Kline's intro perfectly encapsulate what made Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight so special?

And how awesome was it that he referenced the memorable scene with the Joker sticking his head out the car window?

Did Michael Bay edit that action movie montage?

Who's idea was it to include Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in a montage celebrating achievements in special effects?

Were you hoping Christian Bale and Shane Hurlbut would present the Cinematography Oscar?

Wasn't that Jimmy Kimmel commercial with Tom Cruise hilarious?

Didn't the commercial breaks seem much shorter this year?

As the night progressed could The Dark Knight Best Picture and Director snubs have been more painfully obvious?

Didn't Jerry Lewis look pretty damn good considering every other week there seem to be rumors that he's dying?

Didn't it seem like Jim Carrey should have been presenting that award instead of Eddie Murphy?

Was it me or was John Legend really struggling through that song?

And considering how little time the Best Song nominees were given, didn't Peter Gabriel kind of have point not wanting to perform?

Were you hoping M.I.A. would show up?

So, should A.H. Rahman mail or hand deliver that Oscar to Bruce in Asbury Park?

Was it me or did Queen Latifah singing through the death montage not come off as tasteless as you thought it would?

Was there any doubt Paul Newman would rank highest on the applause-o-meter?

Even after Indy 4 is Spielberg still the most inspired choice to present Best Director?

After seeing Danny Boyle's reaction to his win did it make you forgive and forget all the Slumdog overexposure this past month?

Didn't the five previous winners presenting Best Actress give the moment a more personalized, less scripted feel?

And didn't Shirley MacLaine not only come across as sincere, but like she actually saw and respected Hathaway's performance?

Or is MacLaine a much better actress than we've given her credit for?

Wasn't this method a clever way to showcase (stroke the egos of) the presenters as well as the winners?

Can you believe that group that was up there?

Did you remember that Marion Cotillard won the Oscar last year?

And how about all the English she's learned since then?

Kate Winslet couldn't have possibly been surprised...right?

Wasn't De Niro's comment about Penn playing straight the line of the night?

Was anyone except Penn, his wife and Gus Van Sant NOT pulling for Mickey?

And if he hadn't mentioned him in the speech would there have been a riot?

Has Penn ever given a more eloquent speech in his life?

Didn't the Best Picture montage unintentionally highlight how much better the older films were?

Maybe just a little bit of a stretch juxtaposing Frost/Nixon with Citizen Kane?

Did you cringe thinking what Best Picture winners could possibly be interspersed with The Reader?

Were your worst fears realized when it ended up being The Graduate, American Beauty and Schindler's List?

Didn't that feel really awkward?

And does that give even more ammunition to haters of The Reader?

But didn't Frost/Nixon and Benjamin Button come off looking the best next to those classic films?

And is that a telling sign?

If Boyle winning didn't do it, when you saw those kids up there accepting the Best Picture Oscar did you then forgive and forget all the Slumdog overexposure this past month?

Am I thrilled that I nailed 20 out of 24 categories in my predictions?

Isn't it hilarious that despite all the changes the show still clocked in at 3 1/2 hours?

But didn't it at least FEEL shorter?

And couldn't you just not wait to flip over and hear Ben Lyons' analysis of the show?

Is Hugh Jackman the only host in recent years who didn't look nervous and actually seemed to be enjoying himself?

Wouldn't they be crazy not to ask him back next year?

Why did we even have comedians hosting it?

How many of those upcoming 2009 releases do you think will actually be competing for Oscars next year?

Remember this time last year when everyone thought Hamlet 2 would be the film to beat at this year's ceremony?

Didn't just that brief clip of Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds look pretty sick?

Did you crack up at their inclusion of Terminator Salvation?

Given who's in it, is it okay if I just go ahead and declare 500 Days of Summer my favorite film of 2009 already?

Shouldn't the producers get major props for actually changing things up and delivering a somewhat exciting show?

And can't you see it increasing interest in the films (well, one at least)?

Australia

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Bryan Brown, Brandon Walters, David Wenham
Running Time: 165 minutes
Rating: PG-13

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

Poor Baz Luhrmann. He had to know even before Australia was released into theaters critics and the mainstream media would have their knives sharpened, ready to attack. But someone has to make a movie like this and I don’t see any other filmmaker with enough guts to try. In 2001 Luhrman reintroduced us to the movie musical with Moulin Rouge! and Hollywood is still riding the wave of its success.Now, seven years later, he’s resurrecting another endangered genre, the old-fashioned studio epic, aiming to recapture the magic of such golden age classics as Gone With The Wind, Giant and The African Queen with their sweeping vistas and gargantuan stories. There’s even a mustache-twirling villain. You have to give him credit. The Oscar season wouldn’t feel complete without a big movie and this is BIG in every sense of the word. From its scope, to its story, to its ambition, and yes, even to its seemingly never-ending running time.

Of course the big question coming out of this is just how "EPIC" it is. The answer to that is a little tricky and it’s there where the one glaring flaw with the film comes into view. In terms of length and scope its definitely epic but there were many points where I felt it was trying very hard to evoke memories of those aforementioned classic films without ever actually becoming the real thing. Baz’s intentions are blatantly obvious, but that’s probably what he wanted and why he’s respected and even adored as a filmmaker by many. He wears his heart on his sleeve and for this to become the real thing he’d have to hold back and we all know this isn’t a director capable of subtlety. To his credit, he knows exactly the kind of movie he’s trying to make, offers no apologies for it and takes it as far over the top as it can possibly go. In the final act he manages to take it even further than that with a series of false endings that may test even the most patient of filmgoers.

As the movie entered its home stretch (one of many) I found almost laughing at the audacity of the picture, but I do mean that in a good way. Not just because the events that occur at the end were hysterically entertaining, but because I simply couldn’t believe he went all out like this. Is it too long? Well, I didn’t remember what year I entered the theater and was pretty sure I didn’t have a full beard when it started. But I was never bored. The whole thing is a sprawling, self-indulgent mess that should win an Oscar for LEAST Editing, yet I kind of loved it and the approach was definitely appropriate for the daunting material.

The year is 1939 and stuck-up English aristocrat Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) has arrived in Australia to take ownership of her late husband’s cattle station, Faraway Downs, where a half-caste Aboriginal boy named Nullah (Brandon Walters) is hiding out from authorities. He learns the way of the land from his grandfather, King George (David Gulpilil), who looks over him and the events in the film from the sidelines, acting as a sort of a Greek chorus for the viewer. Lady Sarah’s first order of business is dismissing the ranch’s abusive manager Neil Fletcher (David Wenham), unaware she must also soon contend with beef baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) who wants to corner all of the cattle market and add the land to his growing collection.

With the help of a rugged, quick-tempered man known only as the “Drover” (Hugh Jackman), she embarks on a journey to drive the cattle across the land to the town of Darwin where soldiers are stationed. Joining them is Nullah and the ranch’s drunk Teddy Roosevelt look alike, Kipling Flynn (Jack Thompson). This adventure comprises the old-school Western portion of the film, arguably the most exciting and visually impressive (especially a scene where they steer the cattle from the edge of a cliff). Despite complaints to the contrary I thought the CGI looked just fine.

From there it moves into romance territory as the class clash between prissy Lady Sarah and the Drover evolves into what we expect it to and the film makes social statements about The Stolen Generation, a shameful period in the country’s history where mixed-race aboriginal children were removed from their families and forcibly placed into white society. If I had to pick a section of the film that could have used some tightening or a trim this probably would have been it. The film then turns into a war epic with the bombing of Dover by Japanese forces and this section is so brief that if you blink you’ll miss it. Don’t blink though because it’s an incredible sequence that's already drawn mostly unfair comparisons to Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor. There’s a visual similarity but unlike that atrocity this is actually well directed and performed.

The heart and soul of Australia lies in newcomer Brandon Walters' performance as the young Aboriginal boy Nullah. Besides his energetic and engaging narration of the story, Walters just commands attention every time he’s onscreen and basically steals the movie from his more seasoned co-stars. It’s nearly impossible to believe this kid has never acted a day in his life and was just plucked from obscurity. If the film manages to get any nominations outside the obvious and deserving ones for Mandy Walker’s awe inspiring cinematography and Catherine Martin's impressive costume design it will belong to him.

As for Kidman, she might be the only actress working today that when I see her name on a film I’m instantly willing to pay up. I have to wonder how many more great performances she can give before everyone stops giving her a hard time and finally admits she’s one of the best we have. No one takes risks like she does. Ironically though the only Oscar she owns is for her role as Virginia Woolf in The Hours, easily one of her least interesting performances. She should have already earned hardware for her daring turns in Dogville and Birth, the latter of which was one of the best performances I’ve seen in a bad movie. Her turn as Lady Sarah does not rank among those mainly because the character isn’t as fully formed and more meant to stand in as a Scarlett O’ Hara type. But boy does she play it well. Naysayers who claim she’s incapable of facial expressions may want to pay attention to the first half hour of this film where she delivers a bunch of hysterical ones.

By casting Kidman as an uptight ice queen Baz cleverly plays on her celebrity reputation and as Lady Sarah’s guard starts to drop her performance loosens, kicking into high gear. Of course, as expected, everyone is blaming the film’s box office performance and critical reception on her as if no one else was involved at all in the making of it. What nonsense. The media was foaming at the mouth, waiting to bash this if only for the reason she was headlining it. You’d think by now the public would have finally gotten over the fact she was married to Tom Cruise, especially since he has a new wife for us to pick on. I think down the line people will eventually see how silly the Kidman hate is and she’ll eventually be remembered as one of the greats. As good as she is, however, it's actually Jackman who carries most of the film, bringing a lot of substance to what could have been a shallow, one-dimensional role. Well, it kind of still is a shallow, one-dimensional role but he manages to hide that really well. The performance is almost invisible in its effectiveness.
The supporting actors also turn in fine work and their characters were treated with more respect than I expected. Bryan Brown is pitch-perfect in an underwritten role as King Carney while David Wenham chews the scenery appropriately as the main stock villain, Fletcher. When his character starts to really fly off the rails in the final act he’s up for it and the results are a lot of fun. I appreciated the attention given to the Drover’s helper Magarri (well played by David Ngoombujarra) and the comedy involving the Thompson’s Kipling. Even Fletcher’s wife (Essie Davis) is brush stroked with a human dimension I found surprising. I could see the argument these characters are broad stereotypes but would that make them all that different from those in the films this is paying homage to? Some will have problems with the ending but when I like and care about the characters the last thing I want is for them to needlessly suffer for the sake of dark realism, especially in a fun Hollywood throwback like this.

It’s easy to understand why critics and audiences haven’t responded that favorably to the film, outside of a preconceived bias against the director and star. When this much time and effort is put into something there’s the tendency to expect a masterpiece and anything less is deemed unacceptable. Baz leaves it all up on the screen and drenches this irony-free outing in pure, unapologetic emotion, something we’re definitely not used to seeing these days.

Under normal circumstances a film as big as this would seem to be a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination, which was probably a primary motivation behind behind making it. It won’t get one though. There are just too many issues with it and politics aren’t on its side, but I’ll admit it would be funny if the Academy just decided to go ahead and nominate it anyway in spite of the poor reviews because it has that "Oscar feel” to it. They did it last year with Atonement and ended up being right.
When the film ended I was more exhausted than elated and still not sure whether it was long because it needed to be or long just for the sake of being long. The Dark Knight was only 15 minutes shorter than this but it sure didn’t feel like it. Outside of that it’s difficult to name many specific things it did wrong. Baz is smart like that. He covered himself. He knows that overindulgence is never a criminal offense and, as a result, he gets away with an awful lot. I left with a feeling that I had seen something of importance and substance, not a frequent event in what’s been a considerably weak movie going year. The more I think back the more I realize how much I liked it, a small miracle considering my general distaste for period films.

An argument will be made that a movie as big as this can only be only be experienced on the big screen and to an extent that’s true but I’d like to offer up a case for DVD viewing. It can be grueling in a theater for that long and I think I would have enjoyed this more if I saw it in the comfort of my own home, but that’s just me. There’s no denying the theater atmosphere does add to the experience though and cinephiles will likely prefer it in that context. It’s definitely a movie for movie lovers. We need big films like this because without them the smaller ones would mean less. And I’m glad someone is out there still trying to make them. There may have been better films than Australia this year, but few had as much guts.

The Fountain

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn, Stephen McHattie, Mark Margolis, Sean Patrick Thomas, Ethan Suplee
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: PG-13

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

Darren Aronofsky will likely be accused of a lot of things during his career, but no one can ever accuse him of lacking ambition. With The Fountain he swings for the fences and attempts out to make the most thought provoking film of our time. He doesn't, but he comes dangerously close and leaves you thinking that one day he will. You're not likely to see a film in this or any other year that splits audiences and critics like this one. Going into The Fountain the worst thing you can do is prepare to take anything literally. Don't expect a beginning, a middle or an end. Don't expect a protagonist or an antagonist, or even a plot, as we have learned to commonly define one. More importantly, don't expect any easy answers, or really any answers at all. Instead, expect to be amazed and challenged.

Anyone interested in seeing this film (or even if you're not interested and happen to) should be warned: the first viewing will be very, very rough. It'll go slow and you'll have no idea what you're watching. When it's over you'll likely feel angry, frustrated and have little desire to watch it again. These are feelings you'll have to fight because this is a film that must be seen multiple times to effectively form an opinion on. After seeing it three times I came to the conclusion that I'd at least formed somewhat of an opinion, whether I was sure of it or not, and could at least attempt to write a review. Even now as I write this I'm not completely sure. With this film I don't think you ever can be, and that's the point.

It's not a matter of understanding it. There's nothing to understand. It's a matter of absorbing everything that's put in front of you. Aronofsky (who also co-wrote the script with Ari Handel) did something that few filmmakers today would even attempt: a movie about ideas and feelings that challenge you as a viewer. It's been called self-indulgent, pretentious psycho- babble by many critics. It isn't, but in another's hands it could have very well been. Aronofsky's intentions are too noble to qualify for that. Aside from being one of the most visually beautiful movies you'll ever see, the reason it succeeds is mostly due to the moving love story at the film's core and the performances of the leads. They have the near impossible task of selling all of this, and succeed.

There are three interlocking stories told in The Fountain. One takes place in 16th Century Spain, another in our 21st Century, and the third deep in space in the 26th Century. Arguably the most important of the three takes place in the present as drug researcher Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) is attempting to save his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz) from in inoperable brain tumor by performing tests on monkeys. As time continues to run out for her he becomes obsessed with a certain compound he believes will reverse his wife's brain tumor, even if it means blatantly breaking medical protocol and upsetting a close co-worker (Ellen Burstyn) to do it. Meanwhile, Izzi herself becomes obsessed with ancient Mayan myths about creation and death and is one chapter away from completing her book, appropriately titled "The Fountain."

This book makes up the second story in the film and tells of a Conquistador (also played by Jackman) in 16th Century Spain who's sent on a mission by Queen Isabella (also played by Weisz) to find the Tree of Life (which supposedly holds eternal life), the location of which is revealed on a hidden map. The third story thread of the film concerns a meditative astronaut named Tom (a bald Jackman) who travels in a spherical bubble toward a golden nebula in space and is haunted by visions of Izzi.

That's really all that can be revealed without spoiling anything and I've probably told too much. The stories do come together, but not in any literal way you'd expect them to and the last 10 minutes of the film are a visual wonder not unlike the infamous "stargate" sequence that closed 2001: A Space Odyssey. In fact, The Fountain shares so much in common with Kubrick's sci-fi masterpiece someone could reasonably accuse Aronofsky of ripping it off. You can definitely see the influence, but it's really just a starting point for the director to tell his own original story of love and mortality that spans through the ages. What it does have most in common with Kubrick's film is that it's just as inaccessible upon an initial viewing and as polarizing for audiences. It has to be. When you make a film as different as this and one that dazzles with deep metaphysical ideas instead of special effects there isn't going to be easy access for everyone.

Some parts of The Fountain work better than others It's most effective when it's in the present and dealing with Tommy's struggles to cure his wife, but that's where it should be most effective. The entire foundation of this movie (and all three stories in it) is built on their relationship and if that isn't portrayed just right then the movie collapses. It has great ideas and incredible visuals but the real power comes from the performances of Weisz and Jackman. Jackman is a reliable actor but I sometimes got the impression in his earlier performances that he was putting on a show and trying to entertain us. That's okay, but I was always curious how deep he could go as an actor if he were given a better role. Here he has it. Actually, he has three of them and does the finest work of his career.

Weisz's performance is likely to be overlooked simply because of the nature of the film she's in. It may be off-putting for some to see such a realistic portrayal of a cancer patient amidst a film that could be easily classified as surreal. In a way, she's our only connection to the humanity behind the film and Weisz bravely surrenders herself, never afraid to go to the sad and dark places the story demands. Ironically these two actors were not even supposed to be playing these roles. Originally Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were attached to star, but backed out due to script and production issues. In fact, the escalating budget and Pitt's departure caused the film to actually cease production in late 2002. Supposedly this film was a long, torturous journey for Aronofsky to get this made with his creative vision intact. It was worth it.

While it would have been very interesting to see Pitt and Blanchett in the roles, it's unlikely they could have done a better job. It just would have felt different, but not necessarily better or worse. After watching the film though, you'll likely find it difficult imagining anyone other than Jackman and Weisz playing these parts. Aronofsky initially resisted casting Weisz because he has a personal relationship with her and didn't want to appear to show favortism, or worse, have it destroy their relationship. I'm glad he changed his mind and hopefully we can see more corroborations with the two the in the future because it's a rare opportunity to see one of our most talented directors direct one of our best actresses. He also wrote in a small part as Tom's colleague for Ellen Burnstyn, whom he directed to a Best Actress nomination on his last film, 2000's incredible Requiem For A Dream. It's really a nothing role, but she adds some depth to it, making a case why good actresses should be cast in even the smallest parts.

On DVD and in the comfort of your own home is the worst possible way to watch this film, but unfortunately the only option available. Its mind-blowing visuals are meant to be experienced in a theater, preferably IMAX. I hope you have a big screen. While I was watching the film I wondered how the visuals could possibly look so good and real, until I and found out Aronofsky hardly used any computer-generated images, but instead real close-up photographic images. Unfortunately because the film was a commercial flop it will give clueless studio executives further encouragement to continue the ridiculous CGI route. I'd put any visual effects scene in this film up against anything in Spiderman 3, which was probably shot at five times the budget, and it would win. The visuals used here also very closely resemble those in Kubrick's 2001, which came out in 1968, and you don't hear anyone complaining that film looks even the slightest bit dated today.

Much like 2001, I can see this film enjoying an incredibly long shelf life and gaining fans as years go on. Some may complain Aronofsky's reach exceeds his grasp on this film and I could see their point as the film does try to do everything at once. It's a historical epic, a romance, a mystery, an action/adventure and a science fiction fantasy all compressed into 96 minutes. What a relief it is though to find a director who actually does reach for greatness and tries something different. Everyone may not love The Fountain, but they'll have to respect it.

The Prestige

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johansson, Michael Caine, Piper Perabo, Rebecca Hall, David Bowie, Andy Serkis
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

There are three steps to a magic trick: the pledge, the turn and the prestige. It's that third step that's most important because it's the reveal. It's the point where the audience's jaws are supposed to drop in amazement and suprise because they've been had.

Christopher Nolan's The Prestige goes to incredible lengths to make sure that we have been, but by the end I was instead left with the feeling I had witnessed one of the most ludicrous twist endings in years. Even worse, it took a lot of work to get there and was needlessly complicated. You get the feeling the movie almost has some kind of superiority complex and burning desire to prove it's more important and clever than it really is. I'm making it sound like this is a bad film which it's not at all, but I went in expecting a lot more. Maybe I'm guilty of inflated expectations. It's well made, incredibly acted and actually has more dramatic gravitas as a story than the other magician themed period piece of 2006, The Illusionist. It's a really good film that just ends up biting off a little more than it can chew.

The Prestige tells the story of two competing magicians and fierce rivals, Rupert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale). When the film opens we see Alfred convicted of Rupert's murder and sentenced to be hanged. The film then flashes back to show the origins of their relationship when both worked as magician's assistants and an error on Alfred's part caused the death of Rupert's wife, Julia (Piper Perabo) in a water tank trick. This leads to a bitter feud between the former friends as they spend nearly the entire length of the film trying to outdo one another by sabotaging and stealing each others tricks, writing false messages, physically harming one another and just generally ruining each other's personal and professional lives.

It's a story of what happens when obsession (mainly on Rupert's part) spirals out of control and insecurity masks all reasonable judgment. It's exciting and fun as your allegiance switches between both men at various points during the story. Rupert is a brilliant showman, but a terrible magician. Alfred is a brilliant magician, but a terrible showman. When Rupert gets wind of a new trick called "The Transported Man" in Alfred's act he's determined to find out how he does it. The secret to "The Transported Man" is really the secret to the entire movie.

At his disposal is Cutter (Michael Caine), one of the greatest trick engineers of the era. He also has his own assistant and lover Olivia (Scarlett Johansson) go undercover to work for Alfred and steal his secrets. How he has her approach Alfred about it and has her gain his trust is interesting and another one of the movie's many clever sleight of hand tricks. Things get complicated when Olivia falls for Alfred and her allegiance switches. Or does it? Nothing is ever what it seems in this film. There's also an interesting marriage of magic and science in the story with Rupert obsessing over a machine built by scientist Nikola Tesla (David Bowie in some inspired stunt casting) that he wants to incorporate into his act.

At times this is a very confusing motion picture with multiple timelines, various twists and unclear character motivations. It's also overlong, or at least feels overlong as it hurls toward the finale. In some ways it's more complicated than Nolan's own Memento. That film was told out of order, but it was just told backwards and didn't skip around. It was straightforward in it's complicatedness. This one seems to jump back and forth simply to hide information and make it look like there's more going on than meets the eye. There is, but not nearly as much as you think.

What makes this worth sticking around for is the battle of one upmanship that erupts between the two magicians and how the two lead performances from Bale and Jackman bring it to life. They're so fun to watch and look like they're having such a blast it makes you feel guilty to criticize anything about the film. The movie is basically a showcase for the two actors, particularly Bale, who's just one role away from an Academy Award at this point in his career. I think a lot of people will be surprised by Jackman's nuanced work here as well. Caine provides great support as expected, while Scarlett Johansson continues her streak of giving a merely adequate performance in a role with no depth. That she's managed to convince the world she's one of our most talented actresses is a bigger magic trick than anything you'll see in this film.

We are given some interesting behind the scenes glimpses into magic that wasn't present in The Illusionist, which was really just a well told love story with some supernatural elements. The ending to that film could have been easily telegraphed but at least it played fair. I'm not to sure this one does. For those of you who think the "twist ending" in this film is brilliant, I'd like to pose a question: How many screenwriters could just simply tack this ending on at any movie's conclusion to justify everything the main character does? It takes only one stroke of the pen. Have no worries if you didn't quite get it since one of the characters will explain it to you (and another character) in intricate detail upon it's silly reveal.

Oddly, everyone seems to be raving about this picture like it's the greatest mystery/suspense thriller they've ever seen (it's even recently cracked the imdb top 250). Nolan's one of our best directors but the screenplay could have backed him up a little more here. If you go into The Prestige expecting a great time you definitely won't walk away disappointed. If you expect a little more, you may find the film plays one trick too many.