Reviews by lotr23

It may not be all that complicated (and one may complain about the fact that the title was plagiarized from Facebook), but there's no doubt that it's sweet, entertaining and occasionally very funny. One could easily classify it as a "chick flick," but that's unfair when you consider the fact that men will very easily enjoy this as much as women. The men in the audience were laughing rather than wallowing in restlessness, so there has to be something about Nancy Meyers' latest film that captured their attention as well.

To be entirely fair, the first 20 minutes or so of IT'S COMPLICATED are a little clumsily staged. The set-up of the characters and the story isn't the most effective. However, IF you were lucky enough to have seen the trailer (which does a terrific job of explaining what the film is about) then you won't care about the poor initial exposition, because you'll already know what the movie's all about. Thankfully, once we get past the bump of those opening scenes, the film moves along nicely, with hardly a dull moment to be found. There are several big laughs to be found in IT'S COMPLICATED, not the least of which come from its three best sequences. The first involves a doctor's visit to a hotel room, with the riotous punchline being a line by Meryl Streep's character, Jane, that references semen. The second involves several scenes in which the effects of pot-smoking are taken to places we've hardly ever seen explored in comedies. You would think that all of those dumb, laugh-free high school comedies would've exhausted all possible attempts at "weed jokes," but Meyers proves that prediction wrong. Finally, there's a scene involving a webcam that I will say NOTHING about because I'd hate to spoil the hilarity.

Aside from the effectiveness in the comedic department, the thing about IT'S COMPLICATED that truly won me over was its treatment during the last act of the emotional turmoils that can come as a result of divorce. As I had been watching the first half of the film, I got the impression that the movie would simply focus on the love triangle, and that it wouldn't explore the effects of the things that were happening on Jane's three "kids"... and I say "kids," because the three of them are actually adults in their 20s, and therein lies one of the strongest assets of this film. If these three had been actual CHILDREN, it would've been very easy to cinematically "manipulate" the emotional roughness of the situation, because the mere fact that they were kids would make the audience feel for them. But since they are mature adults who understand everything, the film is forced to have scenes in which the characters must have adult conversations about the dire effects of divorce. The brilliance of these final scenes towards the end of the film lies in the fact that the script recognizes that even people in their 20s can still feel emotionally affected as a result of having divorced parents, even if the divorce took place ten years ago. The fact that the performances by Meryl Streep and the three actors who play her two daughters and son are so great during these scenes makes it all work even better. While Meyers' hand at comedy is certainly adept, these scenes are indicative that if she tried her hand at full-on drama, the results probably wouldn't be bad in the least bit.

Apparently, Streep decided to have 2009 be the year in which she'd play characters who were awesome at cooking delicious stuff. While there's no doubt that her pitch-perfect performance in JULIE & JULIA is the one for which she deserves award recognition, you can't deny the strength of her work here, even if it's a performance she could've easily done in her sleep. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for her two co-stars. Alec Baldwin is a good actor, but he's miscast here. He did such great work at being a hot-tempered, "guy's guy" cop in 2006 in THE DEPARTED, but here, he doesn't fare as well at being the desperate ex-husband. On a similar line, Steve Martin constantly has this look on his face that seems like he's ready to burst into one of his more slapstick-y comedic roles rather than the overly serious character he's asked to play here. Despite the so-so performances from the two guys, there's no doubt that Streep and the actors playing her kids are wonderful, and the same can be said of the hilarious John Krasinski, who plays the fiance of one of Jane's daughters. Krasinski is a master of comedic reacting, which is no doubt the reason why he was picked as the character who "discovers" what's going on early in the film. There are several scenes in which he's got the tough task of matching wits with Streep, and he handles it remarkably well. And he's so cute. :)

IT'S COMPLICATED may not be a perfect film (or even above-average), but there's no doubt that it's the perfect film for Christmas Day, when I'm less in the mood for a challenging dramatic experience a la UP IN THE AIR and more in the mood for unabashed fun. There's so much funny material to be found here, and the fact that the last few scenes add a more serious, honest tone to the film's dramatic component makes it even better.

The consensus that UP IN THE AIR is, among other things, a particularly timely film becomes clear during its first few minutes, which depict reactions from several people who have just been fired from their jobs. It takes a while before we find out who it is that's doing the firing, but we soon discover that it's none other than George Clooney, who's sort of developed a reputation as the "cool, nice guy" of Hollywood over the last few years. That's far from what we can say of his Ryan Bingham, though. It's not just that this guy is the one in charge of firing people whose employers are too cowardly to give the news themselves. Ryan actually relishes the fact that, thanks to this job, he gets to travel constantly, never having to spend that much time in his hometown with his family, all the while working towards his goal of having traveled 10 million miles with American Airlines. But the reason why he wants to get all those miles isn't because he hopes to travel somewhere fun and exotic for free. He just likes the fact that so few people have accomplished that goal, and he looks forward to being part of that elite group. A wrench is thrown into Ryan's plans when his employer hires recent Cornell grad Natalie (Anna Kendrick), who proposes a new system that will allow them to fire people over a webcam chat. This means they won't have to travel to fire people anymore, which is great for the company in terms of reducing costs, but not so great in terms of preserving what is brilliantly described as Ryan's "cocoon of self-banishment."

More than being timely in terms of depicting the horrible effects that the economy has had in terms of the loss of jobs, UP IN THE AIR is a frequently brilliant character study. Nothing is as it may initially seem. As much as Ryan seems to be surrounded by people all the time, the truth is that what he does renders him incapable of ever making connections with people, as Natalie points out. When we first meet her, Natalie comes across as cold-hearted and over-educated, but we soon discover how incredibly sensitive she is, as she observes the way that Ryan carries himself. The only person that Ryan seems to have a shot at connecting with is Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent traveler, who tells him to "just think of me as yourself with a vagina," and she's definitely not kidding. However, as we eventually discover, things aren't exactly what they seem with Alex either.

The strength of UP IN THE AIR comes from the fact that it succeeds both in terms of having great one-liners (including a magnificent play on words when a stewardess asks Ryan if he wants to keep a can), and also in terms of having solid scenes that feature long conversations. The best scene in UP IN THE AIR takes place when the film's three main characters are all together in the same place for the first time. Ryan just listens intently, while Natalie vents her apprehensions about the future while Alex gives her an "older" woman's perspective. The exchange that the two women have in which they list their "requirements" for what they look for in a guy is wonderful and expertly delivered. They both concur that "a nice smile" is easily the most important of the requirements. I happen to agree with that. :)

Ryan's argument for wallowing in his "cocoon of self-banishment" is that he never wants to get married or have kids, because he just doesn't see the value in it. Natalie tries to counterargue by asking him how he'd feel about dying alone, to which Ryan responds that "we all die alone" no matter what. UP IN THE AIR delivers the message that, true as Ryan's response to Natalie's question may be, what counts most are obviously the moments BEFORE we die, and that there is no doubt that these moments are better spent in the company of others: "Try to think of the happiest moments in your life. I bet that all of them involved other people being present."

This film is also wise enough to point out a severe flaw of modern society that is contributing more and more to this problem of people being unable to make human connections: technology. Clearly, the most obvious example is Natalie's proposal of doing something as horrible as firing someone over a webcam chat... but (perhaps because of karma) she feels the sting of technology and its impersonal nature a little later in the movie, when her boyfriend breaks up with her over a text message (which leads to a fantastic scene that manages to be both funny and heart-breaking during which Natalie loudly breaks down at the airport). It makes no sense that something that is supposed to promote advancement in the field of human communication is actually creating a regression in terms of people's ability to express things to one another, but that is exactly what is happening, and UP IN THE AIR is wholly unafraid to criticize this.

Despite all the praising I've done, I have to confess that, while watching this film, I was occasionally assaulted by a feeling that the potential of this premise wasn't quite being fulfilled to its absolute maximum. UP IN THE AIR could've very easily been a masterpiece of a dramedy. Unfortunately, the film isn't without missteps. A set of scenes involving Ryan taking Alex to his old high school doesn't quite deliver the level of nostalgia that it should. A later sequence involving a supporting character who gets "cold feet" right before a wedding doesn't exert the emotional punch that it should, and its conclusive line ("Welcome home") feels like something taken out of a conventional, feel-good mainstream movie (or even Lifetime fare) rather than what we get from most of the other scenes in this film.

However, I think the main quibble that I have with the film is that it didn't focus even MORE than it did on the character of Natalie. If this film had worked as a character study of BOTH Ryan and Natalie, it would've been absolute bliss for me. It's probably because, no matter what people say about George Clooney's performance, my opinion is that Anna Kendrick is the star of this movie. She blindsides us by initially coming across as cold and calculating, yet eventually unveils her warmth and insecurities, and it's just impossible not to adore her. It's a shame that the subplot of her boyfriend dumping her wasn't given more development and that she didn't have any other love interests later in the film. While Clooney's performance is certainly excellent, I have to take objection to those who are calling it the best of his career, because it would almost seem like they're forgetting his equally brilliant leading turn in MICHAEL CLAYTON. As usual, Vera Farmiga lights up the screen, and I'm very glad that it doesn't look like she's going to be snubbed here like she was for THE DEPARTED. While I have my reservations about the "twist" that comes about at the end in terms of the Alex character, I can't be anything but pleased with Farmiga's performance.

This is the third film from Jason Reitman, a young director who's been on a roll since 2005. His two previous efforts, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and JUNO, are both amazing films. I gave an 8/10 to both, and they were on my top 10 lists for their respective years. The latter one was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 2007, and Reitman scored a directing nomination. What I find ironic is that rumor has it that UP IN THE AIR has a good shot at winning the 2009 Best Picture Oscar. I don't say it because I don't think the film is very good. It is. I say it because I think it's Reitman's "least good" movie (if that means anything). It lacks the biting satire of THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and the constantly creative dialogue of JUNO. But it's impossible to deny that its observations about human nature are anything short of extraordinary. While it may not be MY favorite film of 2009, it still has a chance at being in my top 10 list (depending on the movies I've yet to see), and there's no doubt that the film has three noteworthy performances, with Kendrick being the most impressive.

If UP IN THE AIR has the effect of getting at least a few people to re-evaluate how much they're actually relishing their connections with others, then its message has certainly been transmitted effectively. As the script wisely points out, the thing that we should consider when we undertake ANYTHING (whether it's getting married or starting a new job or whatever) isn't the fact that this will all eventually end and that we're gonna die anyway. What we need to appreciate is everything that comes before it ends. As Ryan and so many others would mistakenly believe, it's NOT about the final destination. Experiences like watching a film of UP IN THE AIR's caliber do nothing but reinforce that philosophy, which I think people should try to adopt as a mantra for their lives. The film's final, hopeful note is appropriate. If someone like Ryan can accomplish this, there's no reason why the rest of us can't do it as well.

It seems like a simple and unremarkable title until we discover the type of message that the title character has to deliver in this film. The first half of THE MESSENGER focuses largely on the visits made by Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) and Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) to the houses of the families of fallen soldiers. The purpose of these visits is to give the tragic news of the death of a son, husband, etc. On plenty of occasions, we've seen in movies and TV shows that scene in which two soldiers get out of a car and start walking towards a front porch, and the audience already knows what's going to happen. It's surprising that it wasn't until now that a movie was finally made about something with so much potential for dramatic intensity.

If one reads that THE MESSENGER is all about these two soldiers going to houses of dead soldiers, one might think that the movie will not only be depressing but that it may also become frustratingly repetitive. Fortunately, that's not the case with THE MESSENGER because, surprising as it may seem, each visit to a family member's house is totally different. Each situation and each emotional response is at least a little different from the one that preceded it. What I appreciated about this is not just the fact that it makes the film effective in its depiction of emotional pain, but in that it portrays the diversity of America and the way in which war affects EVERYONE regardless of who they are.

Curiously, during its last act, THE MESSENGER veers off from its titular enterprise and starts focusing more on the reflections made by these two soldiers on their experiences when they were in the war zone. You would think that this segment of the film would be even better, but truth be told, it's not nearly as dramatically effective as the scenes that involved them visiting the particular houses. There's a moment in which they're both sitting on a couch, and Will opens up to Tony about how he truly feels about people seeing him as a "hero," but the moment carries far less emotional heft than it should. The problem is more due to the script than to the performances, though. Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson are both in top form. This is a much less showy role for Foster than the three he had in 2007 with 3:10 TO YUMA, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT and ALPHA DOG, but he's every bit as good at being subdued as he is at being over-the-top. Harrelson's performance here, combined with his unforgettably funny work in ZOMBIELAND, leaves no doubt in one's mind that the guy has had a great year.

While its final scenes don't work nearly as well as what came before them, the scenes in which the "messages" are delivered are certainly more than good enough to make this recommendable, particularly because two of the "recipients" are played by Steve Buscemi and Samantha Morton. The concept of having to cope with death is one we see extremely often in film, but the fact that it's given to us here in the context of a REAL, modern situation that we're all well aware of makes it have far more emotional potency, and for having these scenes be so believable and expertly rendered, the film deserves a lot of credit.

When I reviewed last year's TWILIGHT, I recognized how much of a thoroughly mediocre film it was, but I made a prediction. I said that, based on the way the first film ended, it seemed like the second installment had all the potential in the world to be a much better movie. I wasn't able to go see NEW MOON immediately when it came out in November because I was very busy, but as soon as I started seeing the reviews, I thought "Well, I guess my prediction was wrong." Now that I've finally seen NEW MOON... well, I suppose a lot of people will toss all kinds of rotten fruits at me for this, but I can't help feeling like this movie actually fulfills the expectations of improvement that I envisioned based on its predecessor's climax. That climax told us that Bella would be dealing with the dilemma of deciding whether or not to abandon life as a human and become a vampire so that she can be with Edward eternally. The examination of that dilemma is certainly more interesting than the excuse of a plot that they gave us in the first film, which is why I was looking forward to it, and that dilemma is exactly what plays out over the course of this second film's last few minutes.

The first film in the TWILIGHT saga essentially featured nothing but Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson going ga-ga over each other in a forest setting, with lots of lame atmospherics in the background. The biggest problems were, first, the fact that that sort of thing took up most of the film's running time, and second, that there was an inconsistency in terms of performances because, on the one hand, Stewart held her own (as she always does) despite the terrible dialogue, while Pattinson was... very bad. To be fair, we do see the same sort of thing play out in a few instances in NEW MOON, but what I was surprised and glad about was the fact that at least OTHER STUFF happened in this movie, as opposed to the first one. NEW MOON isn't all about Bella and Edward spewing corny romantic dialogue at one another. This film gives us much more of an opportunity to understand its main character (including her insecurities and the reason why she makes rash, "reckless" decisions sometimes).

Perhaps another reason why this film is better is the fact that, although Pattinson gives just as bad a performance here as he did in the first film (and just as bad as the one in LITTLE ASHES), he's not actually in this film as much. Instead, the film focuses more on the relationship between Bella and Jacob (Taylor Lautner), who is actually a werewolf (Bella just naturally attracts all these supernatural beings, apparently). Ultimately, I think what helps here is the fact that Stewart (once again) delivers a strong performance despite having to utter a few bad lines, and also, while Lautner may not be a bravura actor, he's no doubt better than Pattinson. His emotional responses don't feel nearly as artificial.

What makes NEW MOON a solid film is not just the fact that it deals with Bella's dilemma of whether to become a vampire or not, but that it actually has scenes that generate suspense, which is far from what happened in the first film. The first film's "final showdown" was a thoroughly lame fight sequence between Edward and the vampire who tried to take Bella from him, whereas here the "final showdown" doesn't have as much action per se, and it's more of a dialogue-based, very intense sequence with several people in a room, all pondering how to handle their inability to read Bella's mind and the prospect of having her become one of them. Sorry, but even if the dialogue isn't 100% perfect, I prefer this a thousand times more than the poorly-edited climax of the first film, in which bad special effects came one after the other.

The other aspect that I appreciated is that the "love triangle" that was supposedly going to be the centerpiece of the film isn't as much of a love triangle as you might think. It's always completely clear that Bella is in love with Edward, and this isn't a spoiler. Jacob just operates as an important part in how Bella adjusts to her new life once Edward leaves and of the difficulties she has in doing so. That's a lot more interesting than if they had just done a straight-up love triangle plot, and I appreciate the unconventionality of not allowing the film's final moments to turn into a predictable battle sequence between both guys. Instead, it's more of a heated interaction between all three characters that concludes realistically, and the film's final (abrupt) moment is very effective in creating a hook for the next film.

With all that said, though, the dialogue is still mostly just as hokey as it was in the first film and the acting by the supporting characters is definitely on the poor side. Both Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner deserve a better secondary cast, and well, Robert Pattinson should probably take acting lessons before they start filming the third film. Speaking of the third film, though, I must admit that now that I feel like there has been an improvement with this second one, I'm particularly excited about the next one, especially because it will be helmed by David Slade, who was in charge of the fantastic HARD CANDY and the surprisingly good 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. If the pattern of improvement continues, there may even be a possiblity that Slade could accomplish something great, as much as the "haters" will think of this as impossible. I don't consider myself a "Twihard" or a "hater", but I try to be objective in recognizing the good and the bad and not dismissing a sequel simply because its predecessor was sub-par. NEW MOON may have its faults, but I was engrossed throughout its entire running time, and once again, it left me excited to find out what's coming in the saga's next entry.

I'm beyond confused by those who have said that, despite being a visual masterpiece, James Cameron's AVATAR is lacking in the story/plot department. Making that statement about this film is like having a a massive truck sitting right in front of you and claiming that all you see is open air. Here's what the truth is: AVATAR is a monumental masterpiece in every sense of the word. It is a supreme triumph of cinematic technology, an enormously fun piece of mainstream entertainment, and an expertly-realized work of social commentary. Not since Peter Jackson submerged us in Middle Earth have I felt so entranced by a cinematic location, and not since Gollum have 100% CGI characters been so convincing, emotionally affecting and impressively well-crafted.

I'm rarely impressed by achievements in the special effects department, because I just happen to be the type of person who is more biased to appreciate solid dialogue and acting. But even the least visually perceptive person won't be able to avoid being enthralled by Pandora and its inhabitants. This place is way too spectacular. I should also state here that I didn't watch the film in 3D (but you can bet I will when I go see it again in a few days), yet I was still thoroughly amazed by the visual experience of AVATAR.

There must be something wrong with those who failed to see that AVATAR does, indeed, have a more-than-solid, complex plot. Then again, the subliminal undertones in AVATAR's plot are precisely geared towards examining the things that are wrong with a lot of people who live in today's world, so perhaps it makes sense. Most mainstream films will envy the depth reached by AVATAR in its thematic examinations. This movie deals with (1) lack of awareness for environmental concerns, (2) close-mindedness towards other cultures, (3) the sneering evil that can come from greed and from engagement in military combat, and (4) faith and spirituality. If you've seen the trailer and you think it's unlikely that a movie with "blue aliens" can possibly cover all that ground, go experience it. Notice how I said "go experience it," and not just "go see it." AVATAR is a 2-hour-and-40-minute experience that is teeming with intelligent social commentary. One may feel discouraged by the film's conclusion in terms of where it "places" humans, but there's no ignoring the accuracy of the observations made by the film.

If everything I said in the last paragraph seems boring, have no fear, because the unrelenting brilliance of AVATAR isn't limited to expensive visual effects and deep subject matter, but rather, it uses those two elements to provide for what is without a doubt one of the best pieces of mainstream entertainment of the decade. AVATAR features a final battle sequence that wows to no end and puts to shame the poorly-edited, loud and annoying bullshit that the makers of TRANSFORMERS tried to pass off as entertaining action sequences. If you think a battle in which one side wields firearms and the other wields crossbows doesn't have a shot at lasting more than a few seconds or at being remotely interesting, wait till you see this.

Sam Worthington has sure made a name for himself this year, with his turn in TERMINATOR: SALVATION, and now here, though his starring role in AVATAR is certainly what I hope will carry him into projects that are every bit as great as this. He has an extremely tough job as the main character, with a lot of different considerations to balance at the same time, and he handles himself remarkably well. Huge props to Zoe Saldana for acting in two sci-fi films this year, both of which put together easily qualify as some of the most fun I've had in a movie theater this entire year. The magnificent Sigourney Weaver is a pure delight to watch; she has some lines that could've easily tempted her to go over the top, but she doesn't lose believability for a second. I cried for her character. When an actor or actress accomplishes something like that, he/she can't go without accolades. Giovanni Ribisi and Stephen Lang BOTH avoid the trap of becoming cookie-cutter villains, something that is incredibly difficult in this sort of film. In fact, I don't think I could've ever envisioned Ribisi in the role of a greedy capitalist and I'm surprised by how easy it was to believe the character. The biggest surprise, though, comes from Michelle Rodriguez, who starts out as your standard, badass military gal, yet eventually turns into the heroine everyone cheers for. I cried for her, too.

I have no problem waiting another 12 years if this is what we can expect from Cameron. TITANIC was one of the most ravishing, entertaining pieces of melodrama I've ever seen, and AVATAR is one of the most amazingly well-concocted entries to the science fiction genre to ever grace the multiplex screens. It's a genre that is mostly recognized in the technical categories at award ceremonies and rarely ever in the main categories. AVATAR is immensely worthy of recognition in both. The technical prowess, emotional depth and unabashed entertainment are all of the highest imaginable caliber. I reserve perfect scores for films that do more than just move me - I give them to movies that totally rattle me and pierce my soul. That's what this film did to me. I can't wait to experience it in 3D.

Why is it that some of us work ourselves to death in the monotony of reading, studying and paper-writing for years, while others seem to find a way to lead a relaxed existence without needing to do any of that stuff? I look at people who have managed to live more than comfortably thanks to the fact that they have connections or simply because they've been hardcore go-getters since they were very young, and thus managed a way to find an income no matter what, and it's hard not to be a bit jealous that they managed to pull that off without having to subject themselves to the arduous boredom of studying, even if some of them worked hard at other things they did. This ranting that I just did is pertinent here because it relates to one of the two elements that are treated in Lone Scherfig's AN EDUCATION: the dilemma as to whether to advance yourself academically in order to ostensibly get a better life for yourself or to simply "wing it" and try to get by doing other things. Without a doubt, this is the strongest aspect of the film's storyline.

Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is preparing for her A-level exams, as she hopes to read history at Oxford University. She's the intellectual star at her school: she answers all of her teacher's questions correctly, gets constant A+'s, and even drops French phrases in conversation. The ONLY problem is that her Latin isn't quite up to speed, which might be an issue when she takes her exams. Her paranoid father, Jack (Alfred Molina), stresses the importance of her being able to do well so that she can go to Oxford. Jenny definitely seems more than smart enough, so for the audience, it doesn't seem like it'll be too hard for her to just push herself and do well on her Latin... that is, until Jenny meets David (Peter Sarsgaard), who is several years older than her, yet he enthralls her immediately. She starts going out on dates with him and is exposed to a whole new world of sophisticated parties, great music and movies, drinking and smoking. This is certainly a lot more fun than reading and studying and essay-writing, she thinks. Asked where he went to college, David responds that he went to "the university of life," yet look at how well he's doing for himself. And David is so suave that he even beguiles Jenny's parents into letting her date him. Her parents even start thinking that maybe Jenny doesn't need to go to Oxford at all. The great, fun life with David sure seems tempting. Is it too good to be true?

As I mentioned, the storyline of AN EDUCATION is divided into two elements. The one that concerns Jenny's dilemma of having to decide between academia and bohemia is brilliant. The film's dialogue depicting the conflicting priorities and the possible consequences of choosing one path over another is expertly rendered. Two particular scenes, one in which Jenny argues with her teacher and another in which she does the same with her school principal, are truly great. Unfortunately, the romantic aspect of AN EDUCATION isn't as solid; quite frankly, there are times at which it feels soap-operatic. The secret that is revealed later in the film about David feels way too much like something taken out of daytime programming, and even worse *SPOILER WARNING* is the scene towards the end when Jenny meets David's wife, who automatically "knows" everything way too easily. This sort of thing, in my opinion, is quasi cheating in the cinematic world. *END SPOILERS* Another problem is that there are several occasions in which the film's ponderous score becomes too intrusive. It's a shame because there are a handful of scenes in which we can't avoid being dazzled by the quality of newcomer Mulligan's performance, yet when the score is added to sort of "reinforce" her reactions to things, it feels unnecessary. Jenny's facial expressions are more than enough for us to understand the difficulties she's dealing with.

This is the kind of situation in which the "less is more" mantra applies perfectly. If AN EDUCATION had focused strictly on Jenny's weighing of her two possible life choices, or if the romantic element had been handled better, this would indeed be the Oscar-worthy film that it's being hailed to be. Thankfully, once the romantic aspect of the film is put to bed, the film actually still has several minutes left in its running time, and it wisely chooses to dedicate them to its stronger plot line. This is very much the reason why the film is still worth the watch, along with the fact that Carey Mulligan is a pure delight as the main character, with Alfred Molina giving a perfectly paranoid performance as Jenny's father, and Emma Thompson an expertly deadpan one as the school principal.

The film's title will deceive people as they start watching the movie and they see this impressively smart girl doing so well at her academic endeavors. As it ultimately turns out, Jenny gets an education of a different kind, and one of the film's great strengths is in its ability to ultimately deliver the message that even if you learn a really harsh, seemingly destructive lesson, you still might be able to move forward and learn other things. I have to admit that AN EDUCATION's resolution makes me feel good about the choices I've personally made in terms of the pursuit of academic advancement, but it also made me think about how I've had to sort of reconcile that with what I've learned outside the classroom. Even if Jenny made mistakes or was naive at certain points, it's hard not to be happy about the path that she ends up following, and there's no doubt that she's now in a better spot than she was at the start of the film. While I can't argue that AN EDUCATION is a masterpiece, if you can walk out of a movie telling yourself "I'm so glad that she's gonna be okay," then there's no doubt that the filmmakers have done something right.

The initially devastating yet ultimately uplifting PRECIOUS is a solid dramatic piece with A+ performances across the board. At first, the audience may be unsure how to feel about the apparently stoic, blank expression on our title character's face, but once a few minutes have passed, they will feel more than sympathy for this victim of horribly tragic life circumstances (this is precisely the kind of movie that anyone who "thinks they have it bad" should watch as soon as possible). Similarly, we may be deceived by the film's initially dark tone and eventually discover that this is a particularly hopeful and inspirational motion picture.

Clareece "Precious" Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) physically goes to school and sits in the classroom, but her mind is elsewhere. She pictures herself going off on a romantic adventure with her attractive male teacher. The fact that she's severely overweight doesn't make it too easy for us to notice what the school principal figures out: Precious is pregnant with her second child. As we find out, the pregnancies haven't come as a result of Precious being sexually depraved, but because she's been raped by her own father. Life at home is hell for Precious. Her mother, Mary (Mo'Nique), isn't concerned about the fact that her daughter was raped; she's actually angry and jealous that her boyfriend preferred Precious over her: "Motherhood is about sacrifice - I should've aborted your motherfucking ass." It'd be too heart-wrenching to even start discussing the physical attacks that Mary exerts on her daughter.

Luckily for Precious, her school principal refers her to an alternative education program where she can hopefully get her GED: "I don't know what an alternative school is... but I like it", Precious says. She decides to partake in the program, which is led by the kind-hearted Ms. Rain (Paula Patton), who advises Precious to "push" herself so that she can learn to read and write. Soon, our title character starts communicating her feelings to her teacher through the journals they have to write for class. There's no doubt that there's hope for Precious to get ahead in life despite the fact that she has faced some of the roughest imaginable situations.

There's no arguing the superior quality that went into the directing and acting in this film. However, there is one aspect towards which it's easy to have mixed feelings. The film has two ways of conveying what is on our protagonist's mind. The first of these is the voiceover device, which works PERFECTLY and it's used at all the correct times. The other one is a series of scenes in which we see what Precious "wishes" were happening (like walking on the red carpet with people cheering for her). Unfortunately, this technique is overused and, even worse, it's often distracting. One of them features Precious and her mother speaking Italian to one another, and the moment just feels misplaced. Yes, this film is meant to be hopeful (as I said) but the amount of these dream sequences is excessive and too much of a distraction.

This film is a tour de force of acting. The unknown Gabourey Sidibe is relentlessly perfect: we witness the dire situation that Precious is in, and we can't wait for something to happen that makes Precious smile, and it's impossible not to smile with her when she does. If an Oscar nomination doesn't go Sidibe's way, the Academy has no shame. The most interesting thing about Mo'Nique's much-talked about performance (as what may be the most evil mother in cinema) is the fact that the true greatness of her acting doesn't come from the early, abusive scenes; it comes in the final 10 minutes, when everything that Mary has kept bottled inside for years finally comes out. In these last 10 minutes, Mo'Nique is simply staggering. She stutters and raises her voice at all the right times. We forget that she's acting. I don't mean to take away from what Sidibe accomplishes in the title role, but Mo'Nique is simply incredible. Actually, if these two ladies weren't such stand-outs, I'd even say that Paula Patton and Mariah Carey (who is virtually unrecognizable here) would deserve recognition because their performances are also pitch-perfect.

While there's no doubt that PRECIOUS is award-worthy in the acting department, I have doubts about whether it deserves anything beyond that. Now that the Best Picture category has been expanded to 10, chances are it'll get in, but when it comes down to it, as far as storytelling is concerned, PRECIOUS doesn't break new ground. Aside from the fantastic performances and the great voiceovers, this is a conventional "victimized underdog rises above the hardship" story, complete with the final moment in which the underdog is finally able to stand up to the abuser and walk away. However, it's still absolutely worth seeing for its emotional potency and message of hope.

There's something wrong with ORPHAN. Actually, there are several things wrong with ORPHAN, none of which have anything to do with Vera Farmiga, who's too good of an actress to be stuck in a mediocre project like this. Unfortunately, though, this film essentially consists of nothing but Farmiga running around desperately trying to be believed by people who trust a weird kid's incredulous stories more than hers.

One of the biggest problems across the board in ORPHAN is in terms of editing. The transitions from one scene to another (and very often within scenes as well) are sometimes awkward, sometimes senseless and very often choppy. This prevents the film from having a nice narrative fluidity, but the problem gets even worse during the climax, which lacks all the suspenseful excitement that it might've had if the reels were handled with more finesse.

There's some occasional so-bad-it's-good fun to be had with ORPHAN. It's because of that that I would feel better if the film didn't make the completely unnecessary mistake of going over the 2-hour mark. This story could've easily been told in 90 minutes (as it often happens with horror films) without losing any important elements; in fact, a shorter running time may have made it easier to digest this as disposable entertainment.

Before the film starts, there's a disclaimer that warns people about the fact that ORPHAN is just a movie and that couples looking to adopt shouldn't let it dissuade them from doing so. I know this will make me sound pretty rude, but if a couple that wants to adopt actually starts having doubts about doing so after watching this movie, then I'm not so sure they'd be the best parents in the world, because it's beyond me how anyone could swallow the spree of implausibilities and exaggerations that are thrown at us during this film. Sure, the final twist assuages the disbelief towards the title character's overly precocious personality, but Esther's adult-like behavior is far from being the only outlandish element of this film. Also, I "love" how obvious it is that the final twist is revealed right after a rather perverse scene in which Esther behaves WAY too much like an adult. At that point, if the twist weren't revealed, outrage from the moral right may have been inevitable.

ORPHAN would've been wise to do a better job with its final chase sequences and with the way it wraps everything up. What the film chooses to do with the fates of its two male characters makes little sense: we don't find out what ultimately happens to one of them, and the fate of the other one is surprising but in a way that keeps the story from being able to have closure. Even worse, the end credits are tainted (literally) with some corny and poorly-shot footage that is meant to "sum up" everything we supposedly needed to know about our title character.

Fortunately, the end of this year will see both Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard starring in films that look to be much better than this sporadically engaging but ultimately unsatisfying "thriller" of sorts. Honestly, if you're thinking of adopting a kid, all this movie suggests is that it's PROBABLY a good idea for you to see the child naked at some point after adopting him/her, so that you can make sure that he/she is, um... normal. Surely that's something that adopting couples could figure out without having to subject themselves to watching ORPHAN.

Before the release of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, this decade's horror films had offered us tons of blood and guts, but not so much in the way of scares. Don't get me wrong; gory films can be entertaining, but it just shocks me that a genre whose ostensible purpose is to scare has been more inclined towards grossing people out. I guess the majority of people get more of a thrill being grossed out than being terrified while on the edge of their seats. Not me. I was incredibly excited when I heard about PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. The premise is EXACTLY what I had often thought of as something that would be a fantastic idea for a truly frightening piece of cinema. While this film doesn't meet those expectations to the fullest and it doesn't revolutionize the horror genre either, the mere fact that something has been given to those of us who prefer subtle scares over gore can't go unappreciated. In 1999, we got the severely underrated THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (which is tied with 1978's HALLOWEEN as my favorite horror film of all time), which used the same "fake documentary" approach that we get with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, and while the latter film isn't as great as the former one, there's no doubt that it's often a very creepy piece of filmmaking.

Katie (Katie Featherston) is a college student who lives in a nice house with her boyfriend Micah (Micah Sloat). She thinks that she's been haunted by "something" since her childhood, as she's heard weird noises while she sleeps at night. However, since these weird things have only happened while she sleeps, she's never gotten much confirmation of what they are, or if maybe she's just having nightmares. This changes when Micah buys a video camera and leaves it on while the couple sleeps. The film lets us watch and hear through the lens of the camera while Katie and Micah are asleep, and we see a clock on the bottom of the screen which indicates the time. The weird noises come during the wee hours of the morning.

Katie and Micah start reviewing the tapes and realize that Katie's suspicions weren't nightmares at all. Katie's very scared, especially since she has felt that this is something that has been following her during her whole life. Micah's reaction is another story, though. He's your typical "guy's guy," who is not so much concerned about whether something dangerous is happening, but rather, he's more excited about capturing all this "awesome stuff" on camera. When a psychic visits to try to help them, Micah even asks "Is there something we can do to, like, make the stuff happen, so we can get it on tape?" But there's even worse news... the decision to have the camera record the evening's events apparently makes this "thing" become even more persistent, and so, the noises at night start to get worse and worse. Katie just gets even more apprehensive, while Micah (true to the tough guy persona) starts challenging this ghost/demon/whatever to come out and face him.

As scary as the evening scenes are, and as effective as the noises are at making the fear sometimes unbearable, the best aspect of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY involves an instance mid-way through the film when Katie gets up from the bed late at night, then stands there staring at Micah for almost two hours, while facing away from us. Like BLAIR WITCH, this film obviously recognizes the great success that can be had with NOT showing the scary things and just letting your imagination make you fear the worst, and as much as the steps and the creaking noises do a fantastic job at this, I was even more scared by the idea of not being able to see Katie's face during this particular moment and having no idea what was about to happen. Even better, there's a sort-of repetition of this instance towards the film's climax, which is more than intense.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY does make a quasi mistake, and it's a mistake that I had been fearing it would make weeks before I watched the film, when I saw what its title was. The film has more dialogue aimed at explaining the "paranormal phenomena" than it should. The scene during which the psychic first visits the house is, on the one hand, good in that it helps to establish the background of Katie's past and gives us tidbits on Katie and Micah's relationship, but on the other hand, the psychic's visit eventually descends into supernatural psychobabble that is unnecessary: when a horror movie opts for the approach of NOT "showing" the scary things, it should also try to do as little explaining as possible. It makes it more mysterious, and therefore, scarier. It's more effective to allow the viewers to witness these strange events without giving them much information, so that they'll feel in constant suspense as to what is happening.

What keeps PARANORMAL ACTIVITY from reaching the greatness of BLAIR WITCH is the fact that the sense of realism in the latter film is NEVER absent, largely because you believe that those characters are actually TRAPPED in the woods and have no way of getting out. While PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is filmed entirely inside the house, one doesn't necessarily feel like this couple is "trapped" in the house, because they could easily leave the house whenever they want. Yes, the film explains that this thing supposedly haunts Katie wherever she goes, but it may have been a good idea to SHOW us that: have Katie and Micah stay the night at a friends's house or a hotel, and have the same things happen during the night. Granted, you could argue that this is forgivable, given the fact that the movie was filmed on a meager budget, which probably means that they wouldn't have been able to afford a different set.

There's no doubt that this is a fantastic gift for those of us who've been waiting for a film like this. With only two months left in this decade, we finally got a horror movie that didn't feel the need to drench its reels with blood (last year's THE STRANGERS had the potential to accomplish this, but then things went horribly awry during its last act). Considering its premise, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY could've been absolutely frightening. It doesn't quite get there. It settles for just being very creepy... but that's something that I welcome heartily, seeing as the genre has been in such a hopeless state lately. It had been years since I had thought twice about turning the light off before going to bed.

In a certain way, it makes perfect sense that the sport that is showcased in WHIP IT involves skating, because skating is exactly what the film does during the majority of its first half: it skates right through plot exposition and character development without caring to give either of those two things the treatment that they deserve. I love the film's premise in that it's literally a reversal of the "geeky girl turns beauty queen" plot line, but the fact that the movie sprints through this transition so quickly in its first 15 minutes is almost insulting. If that were it, I wouldn't be so upset, but what we're exposed to in WHIP IT is a series of some of the worst, most annoying editing, in terms of the skating sequences, which are incredibly hard to follow and not fluid in the least bit. These sequences are composed of confusing gags in which girls fall or hit each other constantly, and there's literally nothing here that makes any of the competitions exciting to watch.

Now, the most confusing thing about WHIP IT is that, after it "skates" through plot/character development in its first half going straight into the annoyingly fast-paced skate sequences, it suddenly slows down towards the end, and there are some reasonably effective dramatic, dialogue-based moments that take place before the film's final showdown. This is disappointing because it's a sign of what could've been, if this same approach had been used during the film's beginning to get us to care about the characters. Honestly, if from its halfway point on, WHIP IT would've continued with its improvement in the dramatic department, I may have felt inclined to give it a higher rating, but as expected, the climax and everything related to the final competition descends into utter cliche. There's very little originality here.

I wish I could say that the movie has other virtues in terms of having interesting characters, but I'd be lying. Ellen Page is severely constrained here as the protagonist; the script literally prevents her from demonstrating the infinite range she displayed in both HARD CANDY and JUNO. Heck, she even had a meatier role in the forgettable SMART PEOPLE. I may have appreciated the romantic aspect of WHIP IT more if Page hadn't been paired with the lanky and gangly Landon Pigg, who shows nil acting ability. Drew Barrymore (who also directed) and Kristen Wiig have both had far better moments in the realm of comedy, and they bring very little of value here in terms of their performances. The usually great Marcia Gay Harden has to suffer through being the stereotypically demanding mother, complete with the scene at the end in which she "finally understands and accepts everything," while Daniel Stern is thoroughly unfunny as the dad. However, the most insufferably bad performances are given by Andrew Wilson as the girls' coach and by the still unfunny Jimmy Fallon as the "announcer" of sorts at the competitions. As if the competitions weren't annoying enough because of how poorly edited they are, Wilson and Fallon are like mosquitoes each time they intervene (they're bothersome, and they never go away). The only person who's somewhat refreshing to watch here is Alia Shawkat as the protagonist's best friend, though the sudden moment at the end in which she makes out with the restaurant boss makes no sense whatsoever.

When I reviewed BANDSLAM a couple of days ago, I discussed how it was actually possible for conventional films to still be entertaining and find some way to give freshness to their material. BANDSLAM knew just when to hold off on having too many musical sequences (and at least they were edited well) and it also knew when to hold off in terms of cliches. That's largely absent from WHIP IT. This film isn't a total disaster, but it's a failure of editing and storytelling. You know something's wrong when you're focused on wanting the movie to end rather than on rooting for your heroine to win in the final showdown. I hate doing this, because I realize that WHIP IT has all the best intentions in the world, but I refuse to give credit to a clearly half-assed piece of entertainment.