Directed by: James Watkins.

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer and Liz White.

The Women in Black tells the story of a young lawyer who travels to the remote British countryside to sort out the affairs of the previous owner of Eels Marsh House. When he arrives in the town the locals are hostile and warn him not to go to the house. He obviously ignores them and soon he is thrown into a maze of terror as he uncovers the mystery behind Eel Marsh House, the history of the previous owners and the explanation to why local children have been dying mysteriously.

Unlike most people who only wanted to see this because “Harry Potter is in it,” I am actually a big fan of the stage play of The Women in Black, and was excited to see how Hammer (an iconic film company in the horror genre) would handle the chilling story and bring it to the big screen.

Well, the question of everyone’s mind is how Daniel Radcliffe did in his first post-Harry Potter performance, and despite him doing a good job and what he was given to do, his performance isn’t anything special. If anything he simply acts as an avatar for the audience, and moves the film from one scary set piece to another. Thinking back on his character, Arthur Kipps, I honestly can’t think of one defining feature, making him a fairly bland protagonist and one who you don’t feel all that much emotion for. This doesn’t mean that Radcliffe was bad, it was simple that he wasn’t given anything to do to show off his acting abilities. The only other characters who are even present long enough to make a difference are Mr. and Mrs. Daily, played by Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer. Ciaran Hinds is very good, playing a man who refuses to believe in superstition and is a bit of  an outcast compared to the paranoid, narrow-minded villagers. He plays an interesting character who tries to make Arthur think rationally and helps him in discovering the horror inside Eel Marsh House. Janet McTeer is…interesting. She plays a grief-stricken mother who is dealing with the loss of her child, and apparently can communicate in some form to her deceased son…yeah I’m not to sure what was going on there. My only problem with McTeer’s performance is that her character is so weird and bizarre that when she flips out and tries to create a tense, scary scene, it just comes off as silly. Everyone else in the film does a decent job, but nobody is on long enough to make much of a difference, except Liz White as The Women in Black, who is terrifying, but had little to do besides stand there.

The Good:

The plot may not be top-notch film writing, the acting may be mediocre and the scares may be cliché, but holy crap does this film lay heavy on atmosphere and cinematography. The entire movie is bleak, bare and grey. Fog is everywhere and the entire town just looks wet all the time. Once we see the inside of Eels Marsh House it gets even better. Shadows loom over the entire residence, mold grows everywhere and it feels very cold and haunting. Rust has taken over the terrifying old toys that rest in the nursery, and the empty, dusty rooms feel intimidating and horrifying. As far as horror movies go atmospherically wise, this one is the best I’ve seen in a while, granted, I would expect nothing less from Hammer. Gushing over the atmosphere aside, the most important thing this movie had to do was to be scary, and honestly, I think it succeeded quite well. There’s the usual jump scares with birds and loud noises and doors opening and such, but there are also some genuinely tense scenes that were very suspenseful. The film is scariest when inside Eels Marsh House, and very scene there you’re just waiting for something scary to happen, and when it does it does not disappoint. This horror film excels on its dark, gritty feel, intense moments of suspense and dread and effective scares that I’m not ashamed to admit had me sincerely freaked out.

The Bad:

Despite the film being effectively interesting and intense when inside Eels Marsh House, everything leading up to that is pretty dull and not all that interesting. As I mentioned before, Arthur Kipps isn’t that interesting of a character, making it feel like his sole purpose was to guide the audience through the haunted house ride, leading from one scary moment to another. Despite the settings being grand and elaborate, and they establish that the house in huge, you really only see one hallway and a couple of rooms. You could make a drinking game out of the amount of time Kipps walked down this one upstairs hallway, but you’d be passed out before the film was over. Most of the scares are practical, but too many were digital effects, and they really stood out and took me out of the film temporarily. Everything that happens out of the house isn’t particularly exciting, besides scenes involving fire and lye, and your just waiting for the story to take you back into the house, even though it makes no sense as to why Arthur would return after seeing all the scary crap in there. Last flaw I have is something I can’t really address, and that’s the ending. I don’t want to spoil it, but let’s just say the movie sort of derails and it ends with a bit of a trainwreck…

In Conclusion:

For those of you wondering how this compares to the stage play, all I can really say is that it’s different, but it’s good in its own right. It’s obviously in a completely different style than the play, but I’d say they did a really good screen adaptation that captures the general feel of the play while remaining unique and refreshing.

It’s always nice to see a haunted house movie that is effectively scary and really makes you tense up in your seat from suspense, and The Women in Black is definitely that. Though it’s not the most original movie out there, and the characters are not all that interesting, it’s still a damn scary and entertaining film, and definitely the best horror film I’ve seen all year…though that’s not saying much. If you can look past the flaws and allow the scenery and atmosphere to immerse you in its creepiness, you’re in for a fun, scary ride. Recommended.

7.5/10

http://ianthecool.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/director-talk-james-cameron/

Running time: 117 minutes

Written by: Joe Carnahan and Ian MacKenzie Jeffers

Based on: The novel “The Ghost Walker” by Ian MacKenzie Jeffers

Directed by: Joe Carnahan

Starring: Liam Neeson, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, and Dallas Roberts

2012 has been an odd year for movies already. Most movies released in the early months of the year are dismissed and forgotten almost has seen as they’re released. But this year has had a fair amount of films receiving pretty solid reviews. The first of these films was The Grey, a film which trailer looked fairly average. A lot of people were loving on the film though, and I realized that I should give the film a fair shot. Now that I have, I can safely say it’s better than the average January film, but is it as good as some critics are claiming?

The film revolves around John Ottway (Liam Neeson), a man who makes his living protecting an oil drilling team from wolves in Alaska. Ottway is distant and borderline depressed. He obsesses over his wife who, in some form or another, has left him. After a completed job, the team heads back home on plane, but are hit by a blizzard and the plane crashes. The few survivors are left in the mountain tops, forced to fend for themselves. But they’re not alone. They’re joined by a pack of ravenous wolves.

The story here is pretty straightforward, perhaps too straightforward. A group of guys are dropped in the mountains against some wolves and have to survive. It’s not a bad setup, but I found myself able to predict how things would turn out more or less. That said, the writing isn’t really focused on story as much as it is themes. The film looks at a lot of big issues, such as death, the relationship between killer and victim, survival, how people interact when in a desperate situation and even God. All of these were handled with intelligence and I was particularly impressed with how the film dealt with how people act when under tremendous pressure.

The cast here is pretty good. Liam Neeson is the clear standout, playing the most developed character. We see Neeson in a role with a lot of grief, but he also has to play a believable leader and something of a badass. His character is also interesting because unlike the others, it isn’t exactly clear what he’s fighting for or what he believes in. It’s also interesting to see Neeson in the role of someone missing a “lost” wife. It’s not exactly a secret that in real life, Liam Neeson’s wife died in a skiing accident. I’m sure this was a very personal role for Neeson and it looks almost like a form of therapy. At any rate, it’s a really good performance. The rest of the cast is pretty solid. Frank Grillo stands out, especially considering his character could have veered into cliche territory easily.

On a technical level, The Grey is excellent. The cinematography is great, capturing both the beauty and desolation of the landscape. I also have to praise the sound design. I don’t normally notice sound so much, but wow, it really had an effect here. Whether it be the harsh winds, the breath of the men, or the sound of wolves howling, the sound stuck with me. The combination of visual and auditory forces makes you really feel like you’re in that world. The music is also good, and the film is edited in a way that lets the film take it’s time.

Some probably will assume The Grey is another Liam Neeson action vehicle, but that isn’t really the case at all. The film is a story of man trying to survive against nature. If anything, the film leans closer to horror than action. The scenes of the men fighting the wolves aren’t fun at all. They’re frightening as hell though. The film doesn’t focus too much on that either though. The Grey‘s focus is set on philosophical questions about the nature of death. I found this refreshing, and really admired the way writer Ian MacKenzie Jeffers and writer/director Joe Carnahan handled the material.

When I left the theater, I was pretty critical of The Grey. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. I have my problems here and there, but the film more or less rises above them. The cast is great, the writing strong, and the themes fascinating. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s vastly superior to the usual films released at this time of the year. Between this and Chronicle, it’s been an excellent first quarter. Bottom line, if you’re expecting a Liam Neeson action film, you’ll be disappointed. But if you want to see a smart film about survival and death, The Grey is the film for you.

Rating: A-

Running time: 83 minutes

Written by: Max Landis and Josh Tank

Directed by: Josh Tank

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, and Alex Russell

Movies that come out in the early months of the year usually aren’t very good. They either suck, or they just aren’t very memorable. Of course there are exceptions. One such exception came in 2008, with Cloverfield, a movie which took a basic story and used the “found footage” style to elevate the material. Flash forward to 2012 ad we have Chronicle, a film released in February with a basic story that uses the “found footage” style to elevate the material.

Chronicle revolves around three young men who stumble across a strange, potentially alien object which gives them super powers. Only instead of making costumes and fighting crime, the three do what most teens with super powers would do; they screw around. But one of the boys, Andrew (Dane DeHaan), comes from a troubled home with a dying mother and an alcoholic father. Coming from such a dark past, the power becomes more than he can handle.

They are two types of found footage films: ones that try to trick the audience into thinking it really happened, and ones that use the style to tell a good story. Usually the best ones fall into the latter half (Cloverfield) are the better ones. Fortunately, Chronicle isn’t trying to make the audience think it’s real. It uses the stye for storytelling performances. I also think it does some interesting things. It does some interesting things with the cinematography too. Instead of just sticking to one camera, the film switches between several. We see footage that Andrew shot, and footage that other characters shoot. I know some will have a problem with this, but I thought it was really cool.

The script here is really strong. The three characters talk and act like regular teens would, and all three are pretty well developed. I also love the way the film had them dealing with their powers. This film handled super powers better than almost any super hero film I can think of. It’s fun to just watch these characters have fun with their powers. They pull pranks, they fool around, they act like how I’d probably act if I had super powers. I also think the film did a good job switching over into more serious stuff during the end. And while the film does end on a showdown, it isn’t as cliche as you might think. In fact I really liked the way the climax played out.

This movie also has the best acting in any film of the “found footage” genre. That’s not to say we’re getting brilliant performances, but these are genuinely developed and interesting characters. Dane DeHaan really stands out as Andrew, the troubled of the three. Andrew is a lonely kid with a lot of problems. He isn’t very good at interacting with people and has a very troubled home life. DeHaan makes you really sympathize with this character. Even when he wouldn’t say it, you could see the pain on DeHaan’s face. When things start to go well for DeHaan, you feel insanely happy for him. It’s tragic because you know Andrew is going to go down a darker path and you feel sorry for him. The rest of the cast aren’t as well-developed as Andrew, but both are very likable and you have a good time with them.

This is director Josh Tank’s feature film debut, and I’m pretty impressed with his work here. I love the way he chooses to switch from camera to camera and the powers they have help explain how the camera is able to capture so much. Tank also crafts some really exciting action scenes. I especially liked the first few scenes where Andrew uses his powers to deliberately hurt someone. It makes sense to the character, moved the plot forward, and was, in a sick way, cathartic. The climax of the film manages to be awesome while (mostly) sticking with the “found footage” style. The film is also paced extremely well. Despite a very short run time, the film doesn’t feel rushed at all. I really like what Tank did here and I look forward to seeing what he moves on to next.

The film also attempts to deal with some deeper themes. It looks at people who are bullied, popularity,  and the nature of power and those who aren’t ready for it. In many ways, the film is about the characters learning the classic lesson, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. I don’t think the film does anything truly unique with these themes, nor do I think the film is as intelligent as it seems to think it is. But that said, I applaud the film for trying to do something smart.

Despite all my praise, I do have my share of problems. For one, despite the film being a more unique superhero film, it is pretty predictable. You know what road Andrew’s gonna go down and why, so it’s almost an exercise in inevitability. Some of the effects can also look a little wonky. The film also goes through a weird shift where the least developed character is put center stage and becomes the one who learns his lesson so to speak. That ends my problems, but I should mention some will be bothered with how the “found footage” style is used. I thought it was fine, but I understand where some people would be bothered.

Chronicle is better than I would have expected from any film to come out this early in 2012. It’s also set the bar for the other super hero films this year pretty high (not that the bar was low for The Dark Knight Rises, but you get my point). It’s not perfect, but it’s fun, exciting, dramatic, humorous, it hits all the marks you’d want for a superhero film.Chronicle is also an innovative film, for both the “found footage” genre and the super hero film genre. Strongly recommended.

Rating: A-

Running time: 117 minutes

Written by: David Guggenheim

Directed by: Daniel Espinosa

Starring: Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, Brendan Gleeson, and Vera Farmiga

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) works as a housekeeper for a CIA safe house. His been working the monotonous job for over a year and yearns to do something more. Things are shaken up when ex-agent Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) is taken in for interrogation. The house is then attacked by an unknown group. Matt has to make an important decision, and decides to take Frost out of the safe house and take him in. Things go wrong of course, and we get a story of action, violence, and blurred lines.

The film’s biggest weakness is easily the script. The story is very predictable. Within ten minutes, I knew exactly how the film would play out, plot point for plot point. I also feel like the characters needed more development. Weston and Frost never really bond the way the film thinks they do. I also hate the MacGuffin used in the story. Frost is trying to deliver a chip with important data on it. So many films have used the file/chip/disc with important data on it that it’s just tiring. It’s also an outdated story device since in this day and age. It’s so easy spread information that it’s unlikely you’ll have a single chip full of data. Also, I won’t spoil the film, but I will say what’s done at the end with the chip could have been done at any point in time during the film.

The cast here is a mixed bag. On one hand, the film had strong leads. Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds have good chemistry together and make up for the script’s lack of development. You really feel Ryan Reynolds frustration with both the monotony of his job and in him having to deal with Tobin Frost. Of course Denzel Washington is a total badass in this film. It’s not exactly a stretch for Denzel, but he’s good at it all the same. I have some issues with the supporting cast though. Vera Farmiga is a talented actress, but she isn’t given anything to do, and while I like Brendan Gleeson, he seems miscast and his accent was noticeable.

The other thing I really dug about the film was the action. The action scenes here are pretty awesome. I can’t say they’re revolutionary, but they’re gritty and dark, and there’s a lot of them. I never got sick of the action either, I was constantly entertained. Part of it is because I’m a huge fan of action films like this. Ones where the main character is an adult and badass. Where the action is gritty and violent. Where you see characters kill, and be killed. We live in an era where a lot of the action films we get are fantastical adventures with super powers, costumes, giant robots, stuff like that. I’m not against all movies like that, but I also like action films which are a bit grittier.

Safe House has a lot of problems sure, but I like it all the same. I suppose it’s something of a guilty pleasure. It’s not well-written, deep, or insightful, but I enjoyed it all the same. Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds both do solid work, and the action is exciting and brutal. Yeah, it’s flawed, but I like it, and if you’re into action films, check it out.

Rating: B-

Directed by: Josh Trank.

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan and Michael Kelly.

Chronicle tells the story of a teenage loner named Andrew (Dane DeHaan), who discovers a hole in the middle of a field with his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) and friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan), which contains a mystical MacGuffin which gives them all the power of telekinesis, which they use to fool around, fly, gain popularity (in Andrew’s case) and inevitably be consumed by its power and turn to destructive means. The entire movie is presented in the “found-footage-shaky-cam” style of film making, a style that has almost become a cliché at this point, but I would lying if I said there haven’t been some damn good films using this technique…mainly Cloverfield. The main reason I feel this “style” doesn’t work for everyone is the fact that there is nothing more annoying than for an intense scene to be ruined by whoever is holding the camera having a seizure and giving the audience an instant headache. But sometimes movies use this “trick” to their advantage and can make some fairly scary scenes, making the audience feel like they are in the movie, which (in theory) is pretty damn cool.

The last movie that I saw that used this “style” was The Devil Inside, and though I didn’t have time to review it, here’s a quick recap: It’s shit.

Now, back to Chronicle, the acting is pretty impressive, considering they are given the challenging of acting to mainly after effects, and have to deal with the “style” in which it’s filmed. Dane DeHaan plays a great protagonist, and you really feel bad for his character Andrew, as he has to deal with bullies, his abusive alcoholic father and dying mother, and you feel so bad for him that you almost don’t blame him for the actions that he later succumbs to. Alex Russell and Michael B. Jordan are also great, and though they are not in the film as much as Andrew, and the sub plots that they create with their characters aren’t all that interesting, the scenes in which it is just the three of them messing around with their powers or just sitting there talking, your immersed in the story and almost feel like you’re there with them, just hanging out and having fun with superpowers. Michael Kelly, who plays Andrew’s abusive father, is really great at playing just a complete asshole of a character, and here he is top notch. I despised his father so much, that I was actually mad at his character’s resolution, but this wouldn’t have been possible if not for Kelly’s effective performance.

The Good:

Despite my flaws with this “style” of film making, I must admit this movie did a damn good job at making it feel sincere. Towards the end of the move (minor spoiler) there is a climactic “battle,” and the ways that they come up with to show it without actually having one person filming is incredible, and it moves so fast and is done so well that it feels authentic. The movie is only 84 minutes long, but it doesn’t feel short at all. Not because it is boring, but because it is so full of events, action and drama that it never has time for dull scenes that would have dragged it along. Also, unlike most movies in this “style,” it has an actual ending. Most movies like this just cop out and show something hitting the camera and then BANG! the end. The Devil Inside for example has one of (if not the) worst endings I’ve ever seen, and I was happy to see that this movie has a well executed conclusion and a real ending, not just the camera turning off. Everyone wants superpowers, and everyone has thought out what they would do if they had those powers, and this movie demonstrates this to the max. There were so many cool and creative things that they did in this movie that I was almost mad that I hadn’t thought of them myself. There is so much entertainment to be found in just the three boys fooling around with their powers that it could have taken up an entire movie, but when it did turn to drama, I didn’t even mind because it was done in such a creative and believable way. The jaw-dropping action scenes, the clever dialogue, good characters and creative camera tricks keep this movie interesting throughout, and it has a satisfying (yet slightly depressing) ending that leaves you wanting more.

The Bad:

My biggest flaw with this film is only a matter of opinion, and not really something that is the fault of the film itself, but I can’t say it without spoiling a big plot point, but let’s just say I was a little disappointed with the exit of one of the characters. I’ll leave it at that. As for plot development, Andrew’s character went through a lot, and he has a well thought out arc, but unfortunately that can’t be said for Matt and Steve, and not that there was anything wrong with them, but they just weren’t anywhere near as diverse or interesting as Andrew.  Other than that the only flaws are minor nitpicks. When the characters first learn their ability to fly, it initially looks awesome, but can look pretty ridiculous at times and sometime a little cheesy. There were also some plot points which I didn’t think made a whole lot of sense, such as why more people hadn’t found the “thing” that gave them their powers, as Steve even mentions at one point that a group of people were looking at it, yet they never seemed to bring it up again. Also one of the conflicts in the movie is Andrew becoming popular, only for him to puke on a girl at a party and immediately be a social outcast again. I’m not saying that puking on a girl isn’t bad, but I’m pretty sure the entire school wouldn’t turn on him just because he was sick while drunk. But who knows, maybe the kids there were just that cruel. But these flaws I will happily look over as the movie did so much good that it’s really easy to forget the bad.

In Conclusion:

As far as I’m concerned, Chronicle has reinvented not only “found footage” movies, but superhero movies as well. There is rumour of  a possible sequel, and though I find this film ties everything together nicely, I would love to revisit this concept. Chronicle really is one of most creative films I’ve seen in a while, taking a fairly simple concept and creating something borderline genius. Minor flaws hold this film back from perfection, but it’s still a damn good film that I would recommend to not only superhero fans, but just movies fans in general, as this movie could easily be seen as the next stage in the evolution of film making. It’s not perfect, but it proves that the “found footage” style of film making isn’t limited to the horror genre, and can be used creatively to create thrilling, dramatic, and just all round great films. Highly recommended.

8.5/10

So that’s it. Just wanted to explain the relatively slow output lately. Hope everyone’s been enjoying the new year and we hope to bring you more content to.

The tumblr site.

Release date: December 25th, 2011

Running time: 129 minutes

Written by: Eric Roth

Based on: The novel of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer

Directed by: Stephen Daldry

Starring: Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and Max von Sydow

The Oscar nominations brought a lot of interesting surprises. From the Drive snubs to the Terrence Mallick Best Director nomination, there was a lot of surprises, both good and bad. One of the biggest shocks was the Best Picture nomination for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The film was rocking a 40 something on Rotten Tomatoes, and was generally bashed by critics. But because it was nominated, I felt obliged to see it.

The film revolves around a young boy named Oskar (Thomas Horn). Oskar is a bright kid, but he has some problems. He’s a very neurotic child who needs to make sense of everything. After his father (Tom Hanks) dies in the 9/11 attacks, Oskar is devastated. He can’t make sense of the event, and his relationship with his mother (Sandra Bullock) is strained. One day, Oskar goes through his father’s closet and stumbles across an envelope addressed to “Black”. Inside the envelope, Oskar finds a key. Convinced his father left the key for him, Oskar goes through the phone back and finds everyone with the last name Black. He begins a quest to meet them all and find the lock the key fits.

The first thing I should address is the 9/11 factor. I know a lot of people don’t want to see a film that deals with the event directly. It’s just too painful a wound. I understand that and see why people avoid films like this. Personally, I can handle just about any issue as long as it’s handled respectfully (United 93). So was this the respectful way to do it? I don’t think so. There’s something very uncomfortable about using 9/11 as a springboard for what is essentially a treasure hunt. There are scenes which revolve more around adapting to what happened and trying to move on. I found these few scenes far more respectful and compelling than the little boy’s adventure. Had the film focused more on the family trying to heal and rebuild, it likely would have resulted in a much better film.

Even if you ignore the 9/11 aspect, Oskar’s journey still isn’t very interesting. I didn’t much care about Oskar bettering himself, nor was I remotely curious as to where the key fit. It’s also really easy to predict which people will make a dramatic impact in Oskar’s life based on the cast list. Things do get a little better when Max von Sydow shows up because his character his pretty interesting. That said, there’s a “twist” with his character that I saw coming 100 hundreds yards away. There are some moments though, particularly a great scene between Oskar and his mom. Though speaking of the end, the ending really pissed me off. I won’t spoil it, I’ll just say that the film tries to have it both ways, so to speak, and it completely fails.

From a directorial  standpoint, Stephen Daldry tries way too hard. The style is overbearing and becomes frustrating to watch. The editing is especially bad. I also felt the film had a tendency to be really manipulative.  I found this especially odd considering the issue the film deals with. 9/11 generates strong emotions on it’s own, you don’t need overdone trickery to get the audience to feel something.

It doesn’t help that the protagonist is completely unlikable. You may think it’s cruel that I’m disliking a kid with mental issues and a dead father, but man he was annoying. I don’t really blame actor Thomas Horn though, in fact he seemed decent. The cast is actually what saves the film, to a degree anyway. Tom Hanks is a likable dad, Max von Sydow is intriguing, and Sandra Bullock is great as the grieving mother. The cast does it’s best to keep the film afloat.

A solid cast and some strong moments do save Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close from being a complete failure, but make no mistake, this is a bad film. Overdone direction, an annoying protagonist, poor writing, an uninteresting story, and borderline offensive treatment of a touchy issue make Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close an obnoxious mess. Only see this if you insist on seeing Best Picture nominees.

Ranking: D

Best Picture

The Artist – Thomas Langmann

The Descendants – Jim Burke, Jim Taylor and Alexander Payne

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – Scott Rudin

The Help – Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan

Hugo – Graham King, Martin Scorsese and Johnny Depp

Midnight in Paris – Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum

Moneyball – Michael De Luca, Rachel Horowitz, and Brad Pitt

The Tree of Life – Dede Gardner, Sarah Green, Grant Hill and Bill Pohlad

War Horse – Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy

Nominee Thoughts: Going from top to bottom, I love Hugo, Midnight in Paris, and The Artist. Those films really spoke to me. I also really like The Descendants. As for Tree of Life, I don’t think it’s one of the year’s best, but it’s such an ambitious film that doesn’t try to cater to anyone that I respect the choice. The Help is enjoyable enough, but doesn’t have the weight or craftsmanship to justify it’s nomination. I thought Moneyball was pretty boring, and War Horse just silly. The most surprising nominee is Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, which I thought was an obnoxious mess and I think the Academy should be embarrassed for even nominating it.

Likely Winner: Best Picture seems to have come down to either The Artist or The Descendants. Personally, I’m thinking The Artist is gonna take this. It’s got a lot of the major awards going in, a bunch of other Oscar nominations, and it’s a movie about movies. Plus it’s a silent film and black and white, so that gives it an “artsy” advantage. It’s biggest weakness may be how similar the subject matter is with fellow nominee Hugo, which could siphon votes from The Artist. Still, I’ve got a good feeling about this one.

The Dark Horse: Hugo is another film people love which is about movies, not to mention it has more Oscar nominations than any other film this year. Plus, it’s directed by Martin Scorsese, so that will help too. Like I said, it and The Artist may split votes, but still. The other nominees don’t seem to have as big a chance. I suppose it’s possible Midnight in Paris could take it, but that seems extremely unlikely. And despite the director nomination for Terrence Mallick, The Tree of Life feels like it’s here more out of respect than out of it actually having a shot at winning.

Notable Omissions: I’m gonna echo most other people and say Drive, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two. Any of these films would have been deserving winners, but instead their not even nominated. The Potter snub is especially insulting considering just what an accomplishment the series has been for the last few years. What’s the point of expanding the number of nominees if you’re just going to nominate more Oscar bait like War Horse or Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close?

Who I Think Should Win: My favourite film of the year was Drive, and like I said, the three big snubs would have been deserving winners. But of the films nominated, I think I’d be most happy to see The Artist win. However, I like all three of the big contenders and would be happy to see any of them walk away with the statue. Tough call, but come Oscar night, I’ll likely be rooting for The Artist.

Best Director

Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris

Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist

Terrence Malick – The Tree of Life

Alexander Payne – The Descendants

Martin Scorsese – Hugo

Nominee Thoughts: This is actually a pretty awesome batch of nominees. All these guys did a great job. Woody Allen created a wonderfully romantic Paris, Michel Hazanavicius captured the feel of a Hollywood silent film, Terrence Mallick made a visual wonder, Alexander Payne brought an immense level of realism, and Martin Scorsese’s love of movies oozes through every shot in Hugo.

Likely Winner: This is one of those years where I expect a split between Best Picture and Best Director. I’m thinking Best Director will go to Martin Scorsese this year. Michel Hazanavicius is a relatively new filmmaker who’s previous claim to fame was a series of silly James Bond spoofs. Scorsese on the other hand is an old master and one of the most important filmmakers in history. Despite such a pedigree, he’s only won one Oscar. The Academy may want to change that, especially considering Hugo is a testament to the power of film which leads in nomination count this year.

The Darkhorse: I can see Alexander Payne taking this. The Descendants isn’t driven by it’s direction as much as Hugo, but if it takes Best Picture, the Academy may want to honour Payne as well. Also, while Payne isn’t exactly “overdue”, he is a director with a history of credible films (About Schmidt, Sideways). I also haven’t counted Michel Hazanavicius out quite yet. I don’t expect him to win, but I wouldn’t be shocked if he did.

Notable Omissions: Pretty obvious, David Yates for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two, David Fincher for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and especially Nicolas Winding Refn for Drive.

Who I Think Should Win: The Artist is my favourite film of the nominees, so pretty much by default I’m rooting for Michel Hazanavicius. I really admire what Hazanavicius did with that film and he’s quickly become one of my director’s to watch. That said, I’m a huge Scorsese fan, and I’d be more than happy to see him walk away with it. Hell, any of these directors could win and I’d be happy.

Best Actor

Demián Bichir – A Better Life as Carlos Galindo

George Clooney – The Descendants as Matt King

Jean Dujardin – The Artist as George Valentin

Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as George Smiley

Brad Pitt – Moneyball as Billy Beane

Nominee Thoughts: The only film I haven’t seen here is A Better Life, so I can’t talk about Demián Bichir’s performance. I’m sort of mixed on this batch of nominees. None of them were bad, but there are few I’d call award worthy. George Clooney does a good job playing a variation on his usual character but frankly, I thought he did a better job with similar material in Up in the Air. Brad Pitt was pretty good as Billy Beane, but that performance never struck me as award worthy. And as happy as I am to finally see Gary Oldman get nominated, his performance in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was nothing special. The only actor here who I feel really earned his nomination is Jean Dujardin, who really was excellent in The Artist.

Likely Winner: My money’s on George Clooney. Clooney plays a really likable character in an unfortunate situation, and he does do a pretty good job. He’s got a lot of positive buzz and awards already, and being one of the biggest movie stars in the world doesn’t hurt either. Not to mention the Academy has a history of awarding older actors who have paid their dues, so to speak.

The Dark Horse: While he may not have the star power Clooney does, Jean Dujardin has just as many awards for his role. Dujardin also pulls off quite a performance, creating a powerful character without the use of dialogue. Dujardin also has to pull off some dance numbers and physical bits. Brad Pitt also still has a dog in this race, and while it may be a long shot, him winning isn’t impossible. I don’t think the other two have any serious chances though. Gary Oldman doesn’t have enough buzz going for him, and the nomination for Demián Bichir took everyone by surprise.

Notable Omissions: Two of the most discussed have been Michael Shannon for Take Shelter and Michael Fassbender for Shame. I haven’t seen either film though, so I can’t judge. Though speaking of Fassbender, his work in A Dangerous Method was great and worthy of awards consideration. Between Drive and The Ides of March, Ryan Gosling delivered two of the year’s finest performances. Leonardo DiCaprio was great in J. Edgar, but the film’s been pretty much forgotten. Clive Owen gave one of the most heartfelt performances of the year, but nobody saw Trust. Joseph Gordon-Levitt also walked a fine line between comedy and tragedy in 50/50. Basically a lot of actors did a lot of great work last year, and a lot of it was ignored.

Who I Think Should Win: While none of the nominees were bad, Jean Dujardin is the only one that really struck me as award worthy. He allows you to sympathize with a character who’s less than perfect purely through his charm and passion. The fact that he does this all without speaking is a testament to just how good he is.

Best Actress

Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs as Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis – The Help as Aibileen Clarke

Rooney Mara – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as Lisbeth Salander

Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady as Margaret Thatcher

Michelle Williams – My Week with Marilyn as Marilyn Monroe

Nominee Thoughts: I haven’t seen Albert Nobbs or The Iron Lady, so I can’t offer my two cents on those. I will say that Viola Davis, Rooney Mara, and Michelle Williams were all very deserving of their nominations.

Likely Winner: I’m going with Glenn Close on this one. Her performance in Albert Nobbs has got a lot of positive buzz, but I think the reason for her win will have more to do with who she is. This is Glenn Close’s sixth Oscar nomination, and she’s never won. Given the amount of nominees and her age, it makes sense that the Academy would choose to honour her. After all, it could be her last chance.

The Dark Horse: Michelle Williams has a lot going for her. She’s young, sexy, she’s playing a real person, all things that normally lock an Oscar. Not to mention her performance is really damn good. In another year, I’d have called her the front runner. Viola Davis also has a pretty good shot since her role in The Help has built a lot of steam.

Notable Omissions: Jessica Chastain was excellent in The Debt, but that film was never taken seriously as an awards contender. Liana Liberato also delivered a very complicated performance in Trust, but again, nobody saw it.

Who I Think Should Win: Nobody transformed themselves to become their part quite like Rooney Mara did for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Her Lisbeth Salander is vulnerable and unstoppable, ruthless yet sympathetic, she’s an amazing character and Mara is so good in the role. That said, the other nominees (that I’ve seen) were also good, and wouldn’t be bad choices.

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh – My Week with Marilyn as Laurence Olivier

Jonah Hill – Moneyball as Peter Brand

Nick Nolte – Warrior as Paddy Conlon

Christopher Plummer – Beginners as Hal Fields

Max von Sydow – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as The Renter

Nominee Thoughts: Almost every year, I find myself really satisfied with the nominees in this category. Not this year. Again, it’s not that any of them are bad, but few of them leap out as award worthy. Plus there were so many great performances ignored. I was happy to see Jonah Hill take a bit of a risk with Moneyball, and he did a good job, but his work is nothing to write home about. Max von Sydow and Nick Nolte were both good in their roles, but award worthy? I don’t know about that. I don’t have a problem with Kenneth Branaugh’s nomination though, and Christopher Plummer was really good in Beginners.

Likely Winner: I’ll be shocked if Christopher Plummer doesn’t win. All the ingredients for a win are there. He’s a well respected actor, he’s older and probably doesn’t have too many films left in him, he’s playing a lovable gay man, and he’s got a lot of buzz. Not to mention he is really damn good in the role.

The Dark Horse: It almost feels silly to even consider a dark horse. If I had to name one, I’d say Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. No, it’s not that great a performance and no, it doesn’t have a lot of buzz, but it’s another case of a well respected elderly actor giving out what might be one of his last performances.

Notable Omissions: The big one on everyone’s lips is Albert Brooks from Drive, and I’m inclined to agree. I thought Brooks was a lock, and he definitely deserved to be nominated, hell he’d have been a fine winner. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti both were excellent in The Ides of March, Patton Oswalt created a very sympathetic character in a very unsympathetic film in Young Adult, Viggo Mortensen created more than just a caricature in A Dangerous Method, and Jesper Christensen was creepy as hell in The Debt. Finally, my favourite supporting performance of the year was Alan Rickman in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two, another film that was unanimously ignored this awards season.

Who I Think Should Win: Christopher Plummer, easily.

Best Supporting Actress

Bérénice Bejo – The Artist as Peppy Miller

Jessica Chastain – The Help as Celia Foote

Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids as Megan Price

Janet McTeer – Albert Nobbs as Hubert Page

Octavia Spencer – The Help as Minny Jackson

Nominee Thoughts: Melissa McCarthy getting nominated is ridiculous. She’s the typical overweight, foul-mouthed, stupid character we always see in comedies. She was funny sure, but so was Zack Galifanakis in The Hangover, but we didn’t give him an Oscar nomination. Also, of all the Jessica Chastain’s 2011 performances, you nominate her for The Help? She wasn’t bad, but she did much better work in other films. Bérénice Bejo and Octavia Spencer are both good choices though. And as I said, I haven’t seen Albert Nobbs.

Likely Winner: Nobody really pops as the clear winner here, but since I have to pick, I’m gonna say Octavia Spencer for The Help. People seem to really love her work in The Help, and this also seems like the only award the film has a genuine chance of winning.

The Dark Horse: Bérénice Bejo was fantastic in The Artist, I’d say she was just as good as Jean Dujardin. She’s just as charming, and says a lot with no dialogue. And while she doesn’t have as much buzz as Octavia Spencer, she does have her share of awards and praise going in.

Notable Omissions: Melissa Leo gave a great performance in Red State, but Red State getting nominated was never gonna happen. Anjelica Huston had a small, but great role in 50/50, but that film’s been completely ignored. Kiera Knightley stole the show from Fassbender and Mortensen in A Dangerous Method. But to me, the biggest snubs were Shailene Woodley for The Descendants and Evan Rachel Wood for The Ides of March. To me, these two ladies were neck and neck for Best Supporting Actress, and neither of them got nominated.

Who I Think Should Win: I loved Bérénice Bejo in The Artist. She was so funny, so charming, and the fact that she did it all without any dialogue really is amazing. Not to mention all the great dancing she did. I loved her and her character so much that I actually want to see Peppy Miller films.

Best Writing – Original Screenplay

The Artist – Michel Hazanavicius

Bridesmaids – Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo

Margin Call – J.C. Chandor

Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen

A Separation – Asghar Farhadi

Nominee Thoughts: Bridesmaids again?!!? Are you kidding me? Again, did The Hangover  a Screenplay nomination? Of course not, that be stupid. But for some reason, Bridesmaids gets in? Whatever. I haven’t seen Margin Call or A Seperation, but I’d really like to see both. As for The Artist and Midnight in Paris, both excellent choices.

Likely Winner: I’m going with Midnight in Paris. Midnight was a huge success for Woody Allen, but this seems like the only award it has a good chance at winning. Plus, this film depends on it’s script more than the other nominees, and Allen is easily the most prestigious of the nominees.

The Dark Horse: The only other nominee that really has a shot as The Artist. Working against it, the screenplay to the film is relatively straightforward and it’s more the direction, actors, etc. that make that movie what it is. But on the flip side, Allen has never shown much enthusiasm for the Oscars, so the Academy might give it to The Artist out of spite.

Notable Omissions: Will Reiser’s 50/50 had predictable elements, but it also walked the line between comedy and drama perfectly. Trust also had a great script, but no one saw it. Another Earth was a great blend of science fiction and human drama. They don’t get nominated, but god damn Bridesmaids does.

Who I Think Should Win: As much as I love The Artist, Midnight in Paris was arguably the best screenplay of the year. The dialogue, the pacing, the creative premise, the fun characters, Allen really delivered an excellent script. That said, if Michel Hazanavicius takes it for The Artist, I can’t say I’d be too upset.

Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants – Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash from The Descendants (novel) by Kaui Hart Hemmings

Hugo – John Logan from The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick

The Ides of March – George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon from Farragut North by Beau Willimon

Moneyball – Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin; Story by Stan Chervin from Moneyball by Michael Lewis

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré

Nominee Thoughts: I’m pleasantly surprised to see The Ides of March nominated. In all honestly, it deserved a lot better then it’s got. Hugo and The Descendants are also great choices, but Moneyball and Tinker Tailor really don’t belong here. Since both suffer from the same thing; being really damn boring.

Likely Winner: I’m pretty sure this will be The Descendants. Alexander Payne hit gold previously with Sideways, no reason he won’t again. It’s also worth mentioning that The Descendants is a film that’s really powered by it’s script.

The Dark Horse: Probably Moneyball, that script has already received some awards attention, plus it was co-written by Aaron Sorkin, who’s a really well respected writer. And even I have to admit there was some great dialogue in the film. I suppose Hugo has a shot too, but the script seems to be one of the elements not being praised endlessly about that film.

Notable Omissions: A Dangerous Method was fascinating examination of two of history’s most unique individuals, The Debt studied the theme of guilt very effectively, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two brought the series to a cathartic conclusion, and finally, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was a tightly paced thriller with excellent characters.

Who I Think Should Win: Of these, I’d say the best script was John Logan’s Hugo. It was just such a loving tribute to film, and the way the script balances that aspect with the more traditional adventure is excellent. After that, I really enjoyed The Ides of March.

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris – Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli

Chico and Rita – Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal

Kung Fu Panda 2 – Jennifer Yuh Nelson

Puss in Boots – Chris Miller

Rango – Gore Verbinski

Nominee Thoughts: The only one of these I’ve even seen is Rango, which I thought was awesome. I’d have lived to have seen Kung Fu Panda 2, but I never saw the first one…so yeah.

Likely Winner: Rango seems to have this one locked down.

The Dark Horse: Probably one of the foreign ones…I’ll go with Chico and Rita.

Notable Omissions: The obvious one is The Adventures of Tintin, but I didn’t really like Tintin, so I’m not exactly heartbroken. Oh, and Pixar wasn’t nominated this year. Probably because Cars 2 sucked, and kudos to the Academy for recognizing that.

Who I Think Should Win: RANGO!!!

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead (Belgium) in Dutch and French – Michaël R. Roskam

Footnote (Israel) in Hebrew – Joseph Cedar

In Darkness (Poland) in Polish – Agnieszka Holland

Monsieur Lazhar (Canada) in French – Philippe Falardeau

A Separation (Iran) in Persian – Asghar Farhadi

Nominee Thoughts: My theater doesn’t get foreign films, so I haven’t seen any of these.

Likely Winner: Critics seem to like A Seperation, and it also grabbed a screenplay nomination, so I’m guessing it’ll win.

The Dark Horse: In Darkness is about the holocaust, so it could take it.

Notable Omissions: I don’t know.

Who I Think Should Win: I dont know.

Best Documentary – Feature

Hell and Back Again – Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front – Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory – Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky

Pina – Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel

Undefeated – TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Richard Middlemas

Nominee Thoughts: Again, I haven’t seen any of these. Paradise Lost 3 is probably the one that interests me the most.

Likely Winner: I’m gonna say If A Tree Falls.

The Dark Horse: Um, Hell and Back Again I guess.

Notable Omissions: I don’t know.

Who I Think Should: I don’t know.

Best Documentary – Short Subject

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement – Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin

God Is the Bigger Elvis – Rebecca Cammisa and Julie Anderson

Incident in New Baghdad – James Spione

Saving Face – Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom – Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen

Nominee Thoughts: Haven’t seen any.

Likely Winner: Let’s go with Incident in New Baghdad.

The Dark Horse: Uh, I’ll say The Tsunami and Cherry Blossom.

Notable Omissions: I don’t know.

Who I Think Should Win: I don’t know.

Best Live Action Short Film

Pentecost – Peter McDonald and Eimear O’Kane

Raju – Max Zähle and Stefan Gieren

The Shore – Terry George and Oorlagh George

Time Freak – Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey

Tuba Atlantic – Hallvar Witzø

Nominee Thoughts: Again, I haven’t seen any of these, but I will say I want to see Tuba Atlantic.

Likely Winner: Tuba Atlantic.

The Dark Hose: Time Freak.

Notable Omissions: I don’t know.

Who I Think Should Win: I’m rooting for Tuba Atlantic based on it’s premise.

Best Animated Short Film

Dimanche – Patrick Doyon

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore – William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg

La Luna – Enrico Casarosa

A Morning Stroll – Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe

Wild Life – Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby

Nominee Thoughts: Okay, I promise this is the last award where I haven’t seen any of the nominations.

Likely Winner: The Fantastic Flying Books has won a bunch of awards, so I’m saying it.

The Dark Horse: La Luna because it’s Pixar.

Notable Omissions: I don’t know.

Who I Think Should Win: I don’t know.

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tintin – John Williams

The Artist – Ludovic Bource

Hugo – Howard Shore

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Alberto Iglesias

War Horse – John Williams

Nominee Thoughts: Alright, back to a category I know about. Tintin, The Artist, and Hugo had pretty good scores. I don’t remember Tinker Tailor‘s at all. As for War Horse, I liked the score, but it did feel like John Williams was trying a little too hard.

Likely Winner: Being a silent film, The Artist has a really obvious score. It’ll be one of the easiest to notice, and that’s always helpful in this category, a trait shared by former winners like  Atonement and Babel. The music for The Artist is also quite distinct from the others, and it’s pretty catchy.

The Dark Horse: Some are probably thinking one of the Williams’ scores, but I think if anyone’s gonna spoil The Artist‘s fun, it’ll be Hugo. It’s from Howard Shore, who’s become a pretty respectable composer, and it’s also just really good. Not to mention The Artist may run into trouble for it’s use of the “Love Theme” from Vertigo, and I think the two Williams nominations will split the votes.

Notable Omissions: I thought the Best Score of the year was the Chemical Brothers work for Hanna. It was really different and really stuck with me. Cliff Martinez composed two of the best scores of the year with Drive and Contagion, and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross knocked it out of the park for the second year in a row with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Who I Think Should Win: I’ll be happy to see either The Artist or Hugo walk away with this. If I had to pick one, I’d probably say Ludovic Bource for The Artist.

Best Original Song

“Man or Muppet” from The Muppets – Bret McKenzie

“Real in Rio” from Rio – Sérgio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown and Siedah Garrett

Nominee Thoughts: Didn’t see The Muppets, don’t remember the song from Rio.

Likely Winner: Muppets in a landslide.

The Dark Horse: I suppose Rio by default.

Notable Omissions: People are saying that one from The Help, but I really don’t care.

Who I Think Should Win: The Muppets because I want Kermit to accept the award.

Best Sound Editing

Drive – Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Ren Klyce

Hugo – Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty

Transformers: Dark of the Moon – Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl

War Horse – Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom

Nominee Thoughts: And here we have Drive‘s only nomination…sigh. Oh, and the main difference between this and the other sound award is this one looks at the creation of the sounds itself. I saw all the nominees and…they all sounded fine I guess.

Likely Winner: A lot of the little sounds really stood out in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, so I’m gonna go with that.

The Dark Hose: This is Drive‘s only nomination, so the Academy may want to throw it a bone. Other then that, I wouldn’t be surprised if War Horse or Hugo won it. I doubt Transformers has a shot though since I don’t the Academy wants to give a film that bad anything.

Notable Omissions: I don’t know.

Who I Think Should Win: I’m probably not very qualified to talk about this, so I’ll say Drive just out of blind love for the film.

Best Sound Mixing

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Bo Persson

Hugo – Tom Fleischman and John Midgley

Moneyball – Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco and Ed Novick

Transformers: Dark of the Moon – Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Peter J. Devlin

War Horse – Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson and Stuart Wilson

Nominee Thoughts: This award looks at best overall sound. Well, they all sounded fine I guess.

Likely Winner: War Horse was probably the loudest film, so I’m going with it.

The Dark Horse: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo again.

Notable Omissions: Don’t care.

Who I Think Should Win: I probably noticed the sound in War Horse more, but I’m gonna say The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Best Art Direction

The Artist – Laurence Bennett and Robert Gould

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 – Stuart Craig and Stephanie McMillan

Hugo – Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo

Midnight in Paris – Anne Seibel and Hélène Dubreuil

War Horse – Rick Carter and Lee Sandales

Nominee Thoughts: These are all pretty good choices, the only one I may disagree with is War Horse. It recreated the time fine, but it didn’t stand out as anything special.

Likely Winner: I’m pretty confident this will go to Hugo. There’s a reason this film is racking in the tech nominations, and the art direction is one of it’s shining attributes. I think being a mix of period piece and sort of a fantasy will make this a win.

The Dark Horse: The Artist is a period piece too, and it’s also executed with a lot of style. Plus it’s in black and white, and I have a feeling that will help it even if it technically shouldn’t. Harry Potter still has a shot too. Especially considering it’s the last chance the series has to win any Oscars. Midnight in Paris and War Horse are also both period pieces so they’re not completely out yet.

Notable Omissions: Thor brought the incredible world of Asgard to the big screen and made it look cool, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows had an awesome steam punk take on Europe.

Who I Think Should Win: I think Hugo had the best art direction of the year, so it has my vote. I’d also be happy to see Harry Potter take it, and even The Artist.

Best Cinematography

The Artist – Guillaume Schiffman

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo – Jeff Cronenweth

Hugo – Robert Richardson

The Tree of Life – Emmanuel Lubezki

War Horse – Janusz Kamiński

Nominee Thoughts: All really well shot films. It was weird how the horse in War Horse is shot like how Michael Bay shoots women, but whatever.

Likely Winner: While I know not everyone “got” the film, you don’t need to be a genius to appreciate the cinematography in The Tree of Life. It’s an ambitiously shot film and this seems like the only award it has a legit shot of winning. It also helps that cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki has previously done great work for Children of Men and The New World, but has yet to actually win.

The Dark Horse: Robert Richardson’s work on Hugo was simply beautiful, and I love the way the camera whirls around. All these nominees do some to have a fairly good chance though. I haven’t ruled any of them out.

Notable Omissions: Eduardo Serra’s work on Harry Potter was gorgeously dark, Newton Thomas Sigel gave the incredibly slick Drive, and Steven Soderbergh gave Contagion a depressingly cold look, but all three of these films seem to have been left in the dust.

Who I Think Should Win: As great as The Tree of Life looks, I really want Hugo to take this. Mainly because the cinematography in Hugo always serves the story, while in Tree of Life it sometimes feel like it’s the other way around.

Best Makeup

Albert Nobbs – Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnson and Matthew W. Mungle

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 – Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin

The Iron Lady – Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland

Nominee Thoughts: I’ve only seen Potter, and the make up was good.

Likely Winner: Last year, I went with the more “classy” choice and it cost me, so I’m saying Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two.

The Dark Horse: The Iron Lady recreates a real person, so it’s got a good shot. Albert Nobbs could also take this one.

Notable Omissions: J. Edgar made it’s principle actors look convincingly older, but that film has been completely ignored by the Academy. Captain America made a dude covered in red paint look badass, and Contagion had to create bunch of deathly ill people.

Who I Think Should Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two.

Best Costume Design

Anonymous – Lisy Christl

The Artist – Mark Bridges

Hugo – Sandy Powell

Jane Eyre – Michael O’Connor

W.E. – Arianne Phillips

The Nominees: I haven’t seen Anonymous or W.E. (has anyone seen the latter?), but the other three all had good costume design.

Likely Winner: Jane Eyre is the kind of film that usually takes this.

The Dark Hose: I’ve heard some buzz about the costumes in W.E., so I suppose it could take it. I think most of these films have reasonable chances though, except for Anonymous.

Notable Omissions: A bunch of super hero films got snubbed this year. Thor, Captain America, and X-Men: First Class all had great costume designs and in the case of Cap and X-Men had to replicate period clothing. Drive also deserved praise for the badass jacket, and other little details like the gloves.

Who I Think Should Win: The only film of the nominees where the clothes really popped was The Artist.

Best Film Editing

The Artist – Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius

The Descendants – Kevin Tent

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter

Hugo – Thelma Schoonmaker

Moneyball – Christopher Tellefsen

Nominee Thoughts: The Descendants being here suggests it has some good Best Picture chances because it doesn’t actually deserve a nomination here. Moneyball was extremely slow so I definitely don’t agree with it. I’m with the other choices though.

Likely Winner: Being the frontrunner for best picture, I’m going to say The Artist. Not to mention it’s really exciting, has some clever montages, and a really fast pace.

The Dark Horse: Despite it’s slow pace, Hugo could take it best on how the story shifts, and because Thelma Schoonmaker has a good history with the Academy.

Notable Omissions: Matthew Newman for Drive. Drive blends different genres, every scene is cut perfectly, and the film is paced well. What more could you ask for? Mark Day also did a great job with Harry Potter,  and so did Alexander Berner for The Debt.

Who I Think Should Win: Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter made a two hour and forty minute film constantly exciting with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The film never has a dull moment. I’d also be happy if The Artist or Hugo wins.

Best Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 – Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler and John Richardson

Hugo – Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann and Alex Henning

Real Steel – Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Danny Gordon Taylor and Swen Gillberg

Rise of the Planet of the Apes – Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White and Daniel Barrett

Transformers: Dark of the Moon – Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew E. Butler and John Frazier

Nominee Thoughts: I can’t really argue with any of these since they all did have good special effects.

Likely Winner: Rise of the Planet of the Apes effects are a breakthrough and unlike the other nominees, they use the effects to display intimate emotions. I’ll be shocked of Apes doesn’t win.

The Dark Horse: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two. The effects were great, and like I said, this is Potter‘s last kick at the can.

Notable Omissions: There’s a few, but these nominees all have great effects so I won’t bother.

Who I Think Should Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes really did have the best visual effects of the year. It definitely deserves this. That said, I wouldn’t exactly be disappointed if Harry Potter took it.

Running time: 100 minutes

Written by: Michel Hazanavicius

Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius

Starring: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, Uggie, John Goodman, and James Cromwell

A growing trend in film recently has been the use of 3D. With some exceptions, I’ve been pretty resistant to this trend. Movies are fine the way they are, think of all the classics that didn’t use 3D. Would they be better in 3D? Of course not. Besides, most films made in 3D are average quality at best. So what’s the point? Now is The Artist a 3D film? No, but the debate over whether or not 3D should be used is not at all unlike what happened when the “talkies” emerged in the early 1930s. Some believed it was the way of the future, The Artist tells the story of a man who didn’t.

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a successful silent film star at the height of his career. Through a chance encounter, he meets a girl named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), an aspiring actress. Valentin later finds himself working with her on a movie set, where he gives her some advice to be a star. What Valentin doesn’t know is that soon her star will burn brighter than his, as the “talkies” emerge and the film stars of the silent era fade away.

The Artist gained a lot of attention through the majority of the last year. The fact that it was a black and white silent film, it’s success at the Cannes film festival, and most recently, an impressive ten nominations from the Academy. Now all this led to a part of me being a tad resistant to the film. I’d be lying id I said I didn’t think, “A silent film that’s a tribute to silent films? How pretentious!” at least once. And yet within minutes, the film won me over completely. This is a film that’s deserved all the praise it’s got so far, and then some. Being a silent film isn’t just some cheap gimmick, it is required for The Artist. Had this been a “talkie”, it wouldn’t have worked nearly as well.

A big part of the film’s success lies in the performances from it’s two leads. Both Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo exhibit the charm, energy, and passion you’d think of when thinking of 1920′s and 30′s movie stars. From their excellent dance numbers to their intimate emotions, these two really nailed their parts. It’s even more impressive considering that these two had to pull all this off without words. But you feel it anyway. I was especially impressed with Dujardin. The movie really wants you to sympathize with George Valentin as we watch his fall from grace. This might have been difficult considering Valentin seems a bit egotistical and pompous, but we don’t care. Dujardin is so good you can’t help but like this him. The rest of the cast aren’t given nearly as much to do, but they’re all good too. I especially liked James Cromwell as Valentin’s chauffeur, sticking by him out of friendship, and John Goodman as a determined producer.

Another amazing thing about The Artist is how believable it is as a 30′s silent film. It’s shot, scored, and directed just like those old films. The main person to credit for this is director Michel Hazanavicius, who captures that old style of filmmaking phenomenally well.  The cinematography is also very good, and there’s some really cool angles used. The music from Ludovic Bource is also very good and is almost a character of the film in itself. And for all the controversy regarding the use of Bernard Herrmann’s “Love Theme” from Vertigo, I must say, I thought it was used pretty well.

This is a film that can also be appreciated for it’s individual scenes. For example, all the scenes that show the actual making of the films are great, and a lot of fun. I also love a scene involving Bejo and a coat rack, and all the bits with the dog Uggie were really amusing. Another great moment is a simple one involving Dujardin and a store window. It’s simple, and a bit obvious, but I still found it a very touching moment. Still, two scenes stand out as my favourites. One is a scene early on, that actually makes use of sound. It’s a masterfully done scene and it’s actually pretty scary. Then there’s the ending. I won’t say what happens, but I will say, I loved it.

Now the story itself here is pretty simple, but I think it works in the film’s favour. For one, it helps justify the film being silent in the first place. The story is so straightforward, you don’t need dialogue to tell it. But really, the story isn’t as important as what’s going on beneath the story. The Artist is a very powerful love letter to an older era of film. You can feel everyone’s passion for the era, and it’s not unlike what Scorsese did with the equally excellent Hugo. It doesn’t argue for film preservation quite like Hugo does, but both films are very similar in theme.

On a more general level, The Artist really about change, and this is where I really started to love it. The film basically says change must always came, we can either adapt to it and go on with our lives, or fight it and be left behind. But regardless of what we do, change will come. I also like how the film argues that while we should adapt, we still need to value the ways of old. I really love this message and I think anyone who goes through a type of shift will be able to relate to the film. Again, it’s a similar message to Hugo, as well as another great 2011 film, Midnight in Paris (now I really wanna marathon all three of these films).

So it’s probably pretty clear I love this film, the question is would I recommend it? Absolutely. I’m sure the fact that it’s a silent film is gonna turn some people off, but I urge that people go out and give this a chance. If you’re really intimidated by the fact that it’s silent, consider this. I saw the film with a buddy who tends to avoid silent and black and white films, and even he admitted it was a pretty good movie.

Few 2011 films left me feeling as good as The Artist. From it’s brisk pace, to the excellent performances, to the outstanding direction, The Artist delivered on all fronts. It’s unfortunate I didn’t wait on my awards on the site, because this would have definitely ranked highly. Come Oscar night, it seems Best Picture is gonna come down to either this or The Descendants. And as much as I liked The Descendants, The Artist definitely has my vote.

Rating: A+