Drama: GenReview Awards

Best Picture: Inglourious Basterds

Tarantino long ago promised a WWII-era film and he finally delivered. While there are plenty of the directors key trademarks, Inglourious Basterds proves to be thrilling and exciting. It may very well be one of his best films.

Best Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds

Again. Because he's a damn good writer and made WWII fresh and new, even if he had to twist a few of the facts.

Best Actor: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

There was no one better than Waltz this year. Call him a supporting actor, or just plain ol' actor, but Waltz delivered an amazing performance, playing a clever, heartless Nazi known as the Jew Hunter.

Best Production: Up In the Air

Jason Reitman managed to make a dramatic comedy seem less formulaic than the typical dramatic comedy. Sure, the beats are all there, but the film is funny and the story is engaging enough to separate it from the usual. It also is shot beautifully, so being easy on the eyes doesn't hurt.

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

The Hurt Locker was a great film, and while Inglourious Basterds did outshine the Iraq War drama, it does deserve some credit. Bigelow did a great job directing, and despite the argument that she won awards because she is a woman, it's hard to argue she didn't earn it.

Kick-Ass

Already there is controversy surrounding Kick-Ass, complaints about the excessive and sometimes brutal violence, about young Chloe Moretz's foul-mouthed character Hit Girl, and even possibly about the less-than-family-friendly superhero deconstruction. And because Kick-Ass is meant to drive this kind of conversation and disgust, I think it will work in its favor. Controversy sells, and I think most audiences will understand that Kick-Ass is doing something more with its violence than simply being gratuitous.

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, Kick-Ass comes from the creator of Wanted, and while I haven't it, the film failed to impress me as it did others (but from what I hear, the graphic novel featured a much darker and interesting story than its silver screen adaptation). Like Wanted, I haven't read Kick-Ass, but the violence and profanity wasn't toned down in Matthew Vaughn's adaptation, at least in any imaginable way. Kick-Ass sets out to deconstruct and mock some of the cliches that often plague superhero stories. The film is funny, examining a world where a few "ordinary" people try to become superheroes, resulting in some truly entertaining scenes. And the violence, as excessive as it can be, works because to be a hero, or more appropriately a vigilante, would require that level of violence. It's not gratuitous for the sake of being gratuitous. These people are sick, in the sense that they are damaged enough to dress up and hurt people, for the greater good or not.

As for Moretz's role, which is upsetting all manner of uptight, overprotective parent groups, she does a great job and sells the hard-edged little girl perfectly. Even Nicolas Cage, who hasn't had the best streak of late, does some wonderful things as Big Daddy. Those two, along with Aaron Johnson's Kick-Ass, make a great trio. The introduction of Hit Girl, Big Daddy's warehouse massacre, and the debut appearance of Kick-Ass are all excellent scenes to showcase each actors strength.

Kick-Ass may stir up some controversy, and some won't bother seeing it, but I can imagine, as was my experience in the theater, that the film will play well with crowds. It's fun and the lightness of the film will make it one easy to come back to.

Genre - Action (3.5)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (4)

Triangle

There is a shot in Triangle that perfectly sums up the film, yet is so damn good that I wouldn't dare ruin it for anyone. Sadly, it would work as an amazing selling point, but those who venture into Triangle will certainly know what I'm referring to once they see said scene. Luckily, there are others scenes and aspects to discuss, which will hopefully push people to see the film.

Triangle is written and directed by Christopher Smith, most likely "known" for his horror/comedy Severance. That film was a pleasure to watch and had fun with its slightly touched upon meta humor. The characters know enough about the ideas behind horror films (though never actually referenced, to avoid Scream comparisons, that it makes watching it so much fun; it keeps you guessing. But Triangle isn't like that, and while not an out-and-out horror film, it has its fair share of thrills, which tend to be more psychological than anything. Smith, and here I'll say *spoiler alert* for those hoping to go in blind, plays with the idea of time travel/time looping to move our main character through the story. It's cleverly done, and because it is complex and layered, Triangle has you unraveling the story after it's over.

Smith does a fantastic job writing and directing, building tension slowly and keeping the majority of the thrills psychological, so it never delves too much into cliched slasher material. Due to the nature of the film, and as mentioned at the beginning of this review, there are some really incredible shots. Too bad this low-budget flick didn't see a wider release, but I'm sure it will find its audience on DVD. Triangle twists and turns, not waiting simply for the end to wow viewers. And once the final twist is revealed, it sends you reeling, trying to understand exactly what has happened and how.

The acting is good, yet the majority falls onto the shoulders of lead star Melissa George. She does a great job, filling a variety of roles and emotions. You can certainly admire just how much she had to do for this film and it really pays off. And her co-stars all do what they need to to make her plight more real, more gripping.

If the film has any faults, it's probably in the time shifts, though from my viewpoint everything worked out well. I haven't figured everything out yet, so I'll keep the possibility open. But this is a little horror flick that subverts the usual fare, which was welcome enough. I thoroughly enjoyed Triangle and hope that it will find an audience further down the line.

Genre - Horror (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (3)

Directing (4)

Hot Tub Time Machine

Do we need to thank Snakes on a Plane for Hot Tub Time Machine existing? It seems ridiculous to ask, yet SOAP grew from Internet buzz and love, the title grabbing attention before we even knew what the movie was about (well, kinda...I mean, it didn't take much brainpower to figure it out). Hot Tub Time Machine also grabbed peoples attention, yet the film wasn't overhyped or talked about to death months before its release like SOAP. Did it all work out? For the most part, I would say it did.

The premise was simple and the film embraced what it was from the start, which made the whole thing easier to swallow. Hot Tub Time Machine, as a title, conveys exactly the kind of movie it is. There is a time machine in the form of a hot tub, and our characters go back through time in it. And because it is a comedy, the fun can move forward without slowing, trying to make sense of its plot, which is rather thin and exists only for the jokes. And there are plenty of them.

Delving into the writing, we get a solid mixture of crude humor and 80s references, which was a nice balance, maintained nicely the whole way through. The script moves at its own, crazy little pace, as it moves from point to point without slowing, some hitting the larger "plot," others just for fun. Hot Tub Time Machine handles its time traveling fine, as it never really gets into the science of it, which is smart. The coked out explanation of the time travel is summed up nicely by Craig Robinson's character. And because his face is covered in the fine, white powder, you can accept what he has to say because it really isn't all that important how the time travel functions. It's a device, just go with it, and watch Primer if you want the real deal.

The cast all rocked their parts, and I really enjoyed Craig Robinson and John Cusack, who proved he can still be quite funny. Rob Corddry and Clark Duke also kept the funny going, and this odd mixture managed to make the film funny throughout. Plus the blend of old and new really made the movie a lot more interesting than jam packing it with actors we see in every major comedy these days.

Hot Tub Time Machine won't appeal to everyone, but those looking to turn of their brains and enjoy some quality comedy will be in luck. Now expect to see more Internet sensations finding their way to the big screen, and if they all manage to be as successful as Hot Tub Time Machine, we should be all right.

Genre - Comedy (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

Alice In Wonderland

Tim Burton has never been a filmmaker that has had me excited when a new film of his is about to be released. For some, Burton is an off-the-wall filmmaker, with traces of artsy, independent flair to get them feeling like they're experiencing something just profound enough. Not too much though. Others recognize the artist in him, the one with the touches of gothic style, who isn't so much a fake, but rather a filmmaker that has sold out. That's how I tend to view Burton, realizing his potential and knowing how great an artist he can be. Just look to Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood for shining examples.

But with Alice in Wonderland, Burton has made a film that is too similarly tied to his abysmal Charlie and the Chocolate Factory than his earlier classics. Which is a shame, because Alice could have been his ticket back to "artistic" success. Instead, anyone who saw the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland will essentially see the same film, only with an older Alice, darker images, and unnecessary 3D effects. The script offers nothing new to keep those familiar with the story interested, except maybe the inclusion Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky. And to have Alice, now much older than when she first visited Wonderland, forget everything she knew about that world by blaming it on a dream only serves to make the film that much more like the Disney version. All this would be less egregious if Alice could simply recall the only dream she has ever had (the one about her first trip to Wonderland), instead of failing to recognize a single thing about Wonderland the moment she arrives.

Setting aside the screenwriting, which is the source of most of my complaints, let us turn over to the technical side. As to Burton's directing, there isn't much to say other than it looks nice. But there isn't anything particularly stunning about his work, nor any scenes that stand above the rest. Which, and this does tie back to the script issue, is likely due to everything in the story happening so damned conveniently that emotional weight is devoid in nearly every scene. It's hard to get into a film when everything is predictable and easy. But back to the technical stuff, like the 3D. This film was converted after the film had been shot, and the difference is noticeable. Blurry images, simple depth-of-field, and other problems detract from the 3D doing anything useful. Then again, I'm not the worlds biggest 3D advocate.

We can touch on the acting, which really amounts to how Johnny Depp performed. His Mad Hatter was an interesting character, and he did much better with it than he did with Willy Wonka. I did see hints of a darker, meaner Hatter, but we never really quite get there. Everyone does decent work, but nobody is all that stunning. The most interesting characters were those that were animated, like the March Hare and the Dormouse.

I'm still waiting for Burton's return to form, and hopefully I won't have to wait too long for it. His earlier work was his best, and I don't think it's crazy to want more of that. So Alice might not be it, and it may not be anything more than average, but at least it isn't terrible. Just lose the blockbuster urge and return to simpler times. That's my advice.

Genre - Fantasy (2)

Screenplay (2)

Acting (2)

Production (2)

Directing (2)

The House Of The Devil

The House of the Devil had me excited, more to see if Ti West's experiment succeeded, and less about the actual film. And I use the term experiment loosely, because the film doesn't feel all that experimental, but has qualities that differentiate it from other films of its time. While West certainly succeeds with his experiment, he has also succeeded in crafting a highly enjoyable and terrifying film, which, above all else, is the most important aspect.

At this point, those unfamiliar with The House of the Devil will be wondering what this aforementioned experiment is. Ti West, writer and director of some horror films you've likely never heard of (I haven't), has created an authentic 1980s horror film. Now, I don't mean he imitated or copied or drew inspiration from 1980s horror films, but has actually created one nearly two decades after the 80s. From the camera angles, the grainy video quality, the credit font, the pacing, the score, and just about everything else, The House of the Devil is a pitch perfect 80s film. In fact, it's better than many of the films from the actual decade. So experiment may be an appropriate term, because The House of the Devil doesn't feel like a movie made in 2009, but feels like something that came from the era of Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The story concerns itself with satanic cults, and the depraved and awful things they can do to innocent people, especially young, virgin college girls. But the film is actually more about Samantha, a young woman who is meant to "babysit" some elderly woman, stuck alone in a huge house in the middle of nowhere. West uses this time to build tension, slowly, which lends itself to some truly stomach clenching moments. Instead of jump scares - though there are a few - West builds upon a growing sense of dread, having the audience fear for Samantha's life, whose only foul was being desperate.

The acting is consistently solid, and the performance by Tom Noonan is quite good. He has a presence, and while he may not seem, at first, to fit, his role may be more essential because of this. And while Noonan deserves much of the credit, West managed to write characters with unique voices that seemed to be layered enough to be interesting. His script has us caring what happens to Samantha and her friend Megan. That is not an easy task, probably because it is so rare in current horror films. The teens in present day horror are all mean-spirited and obnoxious, so their deaths don't mean as much to viewers as characters we care about.

The House of the Devil is tense in all the best ways. It is a horror film that doesn't rely on jump scare tactics or excessive gore to sell the fear. This is a beautifully crafted film that belongs to another decade, but audiences now will have the pleasure of seeing it in this era, before it has a chance to age and gain a cult following. The House of the Devil is a stylistic throwback that anyone who experienced horror films in the 80s should see, but so should horror fans of the present. It's truly worth it.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Shutter Island

It's wonderful to see a horror film treated with so much respect, especially by a director as well-known and prolific as Martin Scorsese. And make no mistake, Shutter Island is a horror film, and a well-made one at that, which likely explains the mixed critical reactions. The mystery and thriller aspects to Shutter Island combine with the horror elements, creating a unique blend, but the film's horror roots cannot be ignored, and I'm glad Scorsese didn't shy away.

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island is an altogether different beast from previous works. Sure, the location is similar, but the tone is darker, the tension higher, and genre twisted. I say genre twisted, because Lehane is a writer with mystery backgrounds, which is prevalent in Shutter Island, but certainly not limited to. The film is no different, and perhaps more atmospheric than the novel it was adapted from. Scorsese embraces the horror, the paranoia, and audiences are treated to a glimpse into a genre they usually hold in disdain. This is a horror movie that takes it's time with the characters, lets the mood build and culminate in a final, game-changing twist. By the time of the big reveal, we've come to know these characters, whether they're wholly truthful or not.

As I've already mentioned, Scorsese treats Shutter Island with respect, framing scenes much like those of horror films, utilizing shadows, paranoia, jump scares, loud noises, and the score to create tension and fear. Combine that with the setting - a mental institution - and the apparent brutality of the doctors and their procedures, and you definitely have the workings of a horror flick...or thriller if you will. Shutter Island is a beauty, and whether you enjoy the story or not, it's hard to argue the film isn't gorgeous. Scorcese is a talented director, and Shutter Island proves this.

His cast is wonderful, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Mark Ruffalo to Ben Kingsley. Each of them brings their character to life, and I argue Kingsley does the most terrific job. I don't usually fawn over Kingsley's work, but he captivated me every time he was on screen, and I wanted more of him. But everyone does a fantastic job, especially in light of the twist ending, when you realize there is more to each character than you would have thought. And while the role is limited, Jackie Earle Hayley plays wonderful creeps, and his performance as a deeply trouble and violent patient resonated long after he appeared.

Shutter Island exceeded my expectations, which I'm glad to report. For a Lehane adaptation, it ranks close with Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone, and stretches far beyond Clint Eastwood's Mystic River. Judge for yourself, but this is a film worth seeing.

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Food, Inc.

I love watching films that make my blood boil. I love it even more when those films happens to be documentaries. There is just something about real situations, however skewed an issue may be presented, that gets to me. Michael Moore is a figure whose work can be polarizing, yet each topic he's investigated has resinated with me. Health care, gun control, the Bush administration's incompetence. Food, Inc. is no different. This is a film that examines the current state of our food industry, how food is "made" and how the animals, and the crops we grow, are treated and mass-produced. And I'll be damned if it didn't get me angry.

For the record, I'm an unapologetic lover of all things meat, someone who has never given the briefest thought to vegetarianism and will suck down the flesh of animals until the day I die. But that doesn't mean I want those animals, with the flesh I so cravingly want, treated poorly. Wrangling chickens, throwing them into tiny crates, kicking them, this is not how a living being should be treated. The same goes for cows and pigs. Food, Inc. delves into the world of livestock "farming," showing just how broken the system is. It's no wonder we know so little about the food we buy, with the companies working so hard to hide it from us. Robert Kenner, the man behind Food, Inc. does everything he can to expose the industry for all its faults, hoping a more transparent system will emerge.

The film itself, which not only covers how animals are "made" into food, but also examines the wild and crazy world of corn, is well-structured and beautifully shot. Interviews are done with farmers who provide their animals to the big name companies, figures far more sympathetic than you might believe. There are also interviews with farmers doing things the old-fashioned way, what with grass-fed beef and outdoors and dignity. Viewers are treated to a glimpse of how things used to be, how things can be, if only we work to change how things are done now. Kenner lets the words and images of the people he interviews say it all, relying less on showmanship and entertainment.

Food, Inc. may not inspire an instantaneous change in viewers, but it should cause some critical thinking. There is hope for a new system, one with less hormones and cruelty and corn, but it is up to the consumers of the world to demand that change. Let Food, Inc. get under your skin, let it anger you, because that is exactly what is needed.

Genre - Documentary (4)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (-)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

In The Loop

In Burn After Reading, at the films finale, we discover that everything preceding it was a smorgasbord of chaos. The film is essentially one big joke, the end being the punch line. Some audiences were put off by this, while others appreciated what the Coen's were trying to say. I, for one, thought the film was excellent, and felt the ending lifted my spirits towards the movie, as opposed to leaving me feeling cheated. In the Loop is not Burn After Reading by any means, but the two do share a theme of political chaos, which lends each a certain hilarity that, I think, some will understand and others won't, which is a shame.

The chaos factor runs heavy throughout In the Loop's running time, and as everything becomes more and more tangled and confused, the more laughs there seem to be. The film portrays the political game as something so enormous and twisting, that is impossible to have everyone working within the system on the same page, saying the same things, doing what they are supposed to do. Which is likely fair, as governments, especially those of the featured Great Britain and United States, tend to be so sprawling in their reach that it's a wonder anything gets done properly at all. In the Loop doesn't follow so much a coherent story (though there is one), but instead follows characters caught in a machine, unable to escape, simply trying to survive. The politics are about war - whether going to or avoiding - yet every character in the film, all of them players in government or military, has their own opinion and thought of where their country stands. It's confusing and becomes much harder to follow the deeper it goes, but that is what makes the film so funny.

The writers, and there are a number of them, including director Armando Iannucci, do a brilliant job linking everything together, having the chaos build upon itself without it becoming too burdensome for the audience. The dialogue is quick and snappy, even when it is men and women screaming and swearing at each other. Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, and James Gandolfini each play their characters perfectly, some of them hapless idiots, other barking orders at anyone below their pay grade. While In the Loop is based off the British television series The Thick of It, the story seems to stand on its own, only a few characters crossing over, with most of the television cast playing different roles in the film.

Iannucci shot the film in a handheld, documentary style, with a considerable amount of improvisation by the actors, making the film feel more real. Again, this enhances the humor, if only because audiences can see the bits of truth about the inner-workings of government through this style.

This is a film definitely worth watching, a recommendation for those who find humor in politics, or in the everyday, chaotic bullshit of life. I'm glad the writers, who live and work in the U.K., spared no one in their skewering, giving both the U.S. and U.K. their dues. It's about time someone did.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

The Book of Eli

It seems as if there are more good ideas out there than good writing. You'd like to believe the two could go hand in hand, yet this isn't always (read: rarely) the case. Some writers are gifted with devising brilliant ideas, but when pen needs to be put to paper, there is a failure in communication. The brain does not supply the proper words, the words that would flesh a brilliant idea into a brilliant script, leaving a good idea ruined. The same goes for good writers, who know the craft inside and out, yet have trouble finding anything decent to write about. I don't know what the case was with The Book of Eli, but there was certainly a breakdown somewhere in there.

The Hughes Brothers latest film, their first since 2001's From Hell, starts out promising, but by the end credits, you can't help but feel a little disappointed. We meet the title character, Eli, played by the always great Denzel Washington, who is a loner, a man that keeps to himself and likes it that way. When post-apocalyptic thugs try and steal from him, though, he slices them to pieces without so much as breaking a sweat. It's an incredible sight to behold, especially if you are a fan of quick, brutal violence...and why shouldn't you be? Yeah, why not, movie watcher? So begins a great idea, having a man protect something as simple as a book, gifted with ninja fighting skills and seems invulnerable to bullets. But then they had to go and fuck it all up at the end, with one of the dullest, most stretched out twists cinema has ever seen. Shyamalan wouldn't have let that shit happen (ignore The Happening. Or The Village. Or Signs.). This was an idea that had promise, but was poorly executed.

For the most part, the writing works until the ending. We get some interesting hints as to why the "apocalypse" happened, and some cool fight scenes. There is a tonally odd, but entertaining, shootout near the films finale that had me hopeful, but that was actually the last of anything good about The Book of Eli. After that, we get mini-twists hard not to see coming, and a lot of empty, pointless filler. The actors do what they can, and are the best part of the movie as a whole. Washington does a solid job leading, and Gary Oldman is a wonderful villain, even when all the villain wants is a book. Mila Kunis isn't given a lot to do, but she performs admirably for what she is given.

So in the end, what you have is just another post-apocalyptic movie that promises more than it delivers. Not to say The Book of Eli is a complete waste of your time, but not something you need to rush to see. Or watch all but that last five or ten minutes and call it good. No, that's not an actual suggestion, but I wish the Hughes Brothers thought about that while filming, or editing, the film. But what are you going to do? Wait for the next post-apocalyptic movie to hit theaters. Sounds good to me.

Genre - Action (2.25)

Screenplay - 2

Acting - 3

Production - 2

Directing - 2