TSA Security

South Park's episode, "The Entity" from November of 2001 proved to be quite prophetic. TSA is completely and totally out of line. Mr. Garrison questions the efficiency of the airlines and rightfully points out that they asked the government for a bailout so they wouldn't have to fire employees, and after being granted the bailout, the airlines fired the employees anyway. In another sequence, Kenny is discovered to be carrying nailclippers and is shot on sight.

Our newest reign of terror from TSA is the nude scanner which takes pictures of you underneath your clothes in order to prevent another threat like the underwear bomber from last Christmas. The fact of the matter is that it is proven that the underwear bomber's powder explosive wouldn't have been picked up by the nude scanner, so why do we have them? TSA promises that they will usher in much better security than we already have and that they will not harm us.

Let's think about this for a moment. The nude scanner was said to pick up guns, knives, and other dangerous materials passengers were concealing (including a syringe), but wouldn't these materials be picked up by the metal detector? We are given the option to opt out of the nude scan, but if we do, we are given a more 'personalized' examination of our bodies. Which is worse- having nude pictures taken of you and stored on archives or being felt up in a manner that goes beyond what the police would do if you were arrested? As a matter of fact, I seem to remember one officer molesting a woman in the movie "Crash," but what he did in that movie seems normal compared to what TSA does nowadays.

My mother recently went through TSA. A female TSA employee directed her to go through the nude scan. My mother declined. The agent then made her stand at the other end of the metal detector as her bags were for around a half hour while they got the necessary employees to give her an examination. This eventually led to the employee making her stand with both legs spread and her arms pointed outward for ten minutes while the employee lectured her on how these scans weren't a big deal. TSA claims that they do not discriminate against people who decline to take the nude scan.

Where do we draw the line? It is clear in this instance that TSA is way out of line. As a matter of fact, I would like to be given the exact numbers of how many people were caught solely because of the technology that they seem to be constantly developing. For instance, After metal detectors were installed, we had the metal detecting wands. After the wands, we had to take off our shoes. After our shoes, we were given intrusive pat downs. After the pat downs, we are told that we have to have nude photos taken of us. Where are the numbers that show the numbers for the nude scans above the pat downs? The pat downs above the shoe removal?

I'm strongly against forcing people into situations where they would be uncomfortable. I don't understand how airlines have more intrusive scans and security measures than most government buildings. Regardless, the solution to these problems is never to react after the fact but to pre-empt the threats. Why don't we convert these resources to doing research on people before they even reach the airport? How many of those that we have caught would have been easier to catch if one had simply looked into their lives slightly? Yes, it takes time and effort, but so does having one man look over hundreds of nude pictures every minute with respect to different clothing, body sizes, etc. If the threats are as horrifying as we are led to believe (one blogger who is quite pro-TSA wrote that one in 10.8 million who fly would be subject to a terrorist effort. Those numbers seems quite good for us), then why do we keep endorsing past efforts rather than looking into the future?

Let's face it- it's only a matter of time until TSA has to answer to the sum of a class action lawsuit that would make the producers of Inception squeamish. I can hardly think of a jury in the US that would be dissuaded from finding for the plaintiffs because like it or not, we've all been exposed to horror stories about innocent people being unlawfully searched in the name of liberty. All it takes is for someone who is much more qualified than I to explain how these scans and searches are unnecessary. Or, better yet, we could make an alternative to flying. Then the TSA employees who blindly corral thousands of people into machines daily and follow routines that seem out of line (such as feeling children in their crotches while their parents have to watch) will have to answer to pissed off people for future work. I remember how embarrassed I was when I had my first physical examination; I can only imagine how mortified I would be if I had been flying at that age.

This is not about people wanting to get through security faster but about sheer logic. If our nude scanners wouldn't have prevented what we claim they would have prevented and aren't more efficient than what we already have in place, then they are a waste of time, money, and pride. I would be embarrassed if I was a TSA employee and required to feel up other people and/or look at nude pictures of them. I would quit my job on the spot if asked to do something that intrusive. That people still work those jobs baffles me.

Oscar Predictions

Supporting Actor- Christian Bale (The Fighter). He's the front-runner, and his best competition in this category is Geoffrey Rush for The King's Speech.

Supporting Actress- Amy Adams (The Fighter). This is the most difficult category for me to predict. Gambling rules state that if there are two front-runners, you go for the least likely, but the least likely is very hard to say. Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit and Melissa Leo for The Fighter I believe are the two front runners which leaves the other three less likely. Helena Bonham Carter did an excellent job in The King's Speech, but she managed to be overshadowed by the other two actors. Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom was well-reviewed but not watched by many which may include Academy voters. In this case, Weaver is the least likely, but she may be so unlikely that she's beyond everyone's radar.

Adapted Screenplay- The Social Network. The dialogue is perfect, and Aaron Sorkin created The West Wing.

Original Screenplay- The King's Speech. The best competition in this category according to the Academy is The Fighter because of its nomination for Director whereas Inception, The Kids Are All Right, and Another Year did not receive that honor.

Original Score- The Social Network. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross are very far in the front despite my belief that an 'adapted' score should be in here (Black Swan).

Original Song- 127 Hours. Country Strong was the frontrunner at one point, but the movie was badly reviewed, and the winner last year was Crazy Heart, another movie about country music. The next place would be Toy Story 3, but I'm not a Randy Newman fan. It's a far cry because A.R. Rahman won previously for Slumdog Millionaire, but the song (Jai Ho) has become an anthem for joy.

Animated Film- Toy Story 3.

Art Direction- Alice in Wonderland. Tim Burton films usually win in this category.

Cinematography- The King's Speech, but on second though, I think it will be a Deakins year for True Grit. He's been nominated more than a few times and has never won.

Costume Design- Alice in Wonderland.

Makeup- The Wolfman.

Sound Editing- Inception.

Sound Mixing- The King's Speech because of the quiet environments and use of dialogue. The Social Network could pull an upset as well as True Grit, but Inception is probably the frontrunner. Given its lack of necessary nominations (including Director and Editing), it will either sweep its categories or only win one or two.

Visual Effects- Inception. I would bet my college fund on it (which is currently $13.88).

Documentary- Restrepo. Exit Through the Gift Shop has debates over its authenticity, and the creators are silent about such claims. The Academy most likely won't go for it, but the only other documentary on everyone's radar is Inside Job. I'm betting on Restrepo.

Documentary Short Subject- Killing in the Name for its subject material.

Film Editing- The King's Speech. I can't remember a movie that won Picture but not Editing in the past, but I can name a movie that won Picture without capturing Screenlay (that would be Million Dollar Baby, losing Adapted to Sideways).

Foreign Language Film- Biutiful because of its recognition of Javier Bardem for Actor. Dogtooth is simply too controversial for a win.

Animated Short Film- Day & Night.

Live Action Short Film- based on trailers, Na We We. I really have no clue nor the opportunity to see the nominees, so this is a mostly blind guess.

Directing- David Fincher for The Social Network. He does many brilliant things with the film despite the fact that I appreciated it more than liked it.

Best Actress- Natalie Portman. She runs the show with Black Swan and has no other real competition except for Annette Bening. Those are enough reasons, but I will add that Portman was robbed for a win for Closer.

Best Actor- Colin Firth. A respectable nominee last year, he's now the frontrunner.

Best Picture- The King's Speech because of its gathering storm of publicity after The Social Network.

127 Hours - **** out of ****

"127 Hours" is a movie that wouldn't work if lesser hands were involved. The story is deceptively simple, but what we are left with is a thrilling, suspenseful, and thought-provoking look into humanity. And what insights it gives us! This movie isn't entertainment- it's a gift. Perhaps it's not a gift that you think you want, but in the end, you will want it.

Aron Rolston (James Franco) is an adventurer who often takes off for long weekends just to get high on himself. He knows most of the landscape like the back of his hand, but what he makes us see he doesn't want anyone else to see. It's not like we're privileged- we're just the audience. Not answering the phone when family calls, Aron takes off in the dark for the adventure that would change his life forever. That last line gives me indigestion, but it is true. Aron becomes trapped by a boulder for 127 hours.

Before you start quoting cliches, I should mention that this is a true story, and as the real Aron Rolston states, the closest to a documentary about what happened as can exist. Yes, that changes things dramatically.

Aron goes through all the stages of grief in different ways. Like a computer, he begins talking to his camcorder in order to document why he is trapped and what he'd need to get out. Gradually, his layers are stripped and we are allowed to see the real Aron during a brilliant scene where he states that the boulder had been waiting for him his entire life.

I may have mentioned the majority of the plot, but this is a journey. It's not about where it's ultimately going as the movie assumes you've heard the story or read the book beforehand but instead gives us insight into Rolston's psyche as layers are torn down. There's a wonderful comedic scene where Aron interviews himself with canned audience reactions and a triumphant finale which involves a couch, but none of this would work if there was not a perfect actor to take the lead. That actor is James Franco.

James Franco is Aron Rolston. I have no hesitation in typing those words. He embodies the man and channels everything directly through the screen as if it weren't there. Rolston is a loner, confident, and in no need of help from anyone. It's unclear what made him this way but what is clear is that he doesn't entirely love himself. These things crash down around him as he believes that he will die in this place.

Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy wrote the screenplay with Boyle directing after his Oscar-winning work in "Slumdog Millionaire." The final result makes a brilliant use of splitting the screen in three ways so we can see how things happen that are meaningful. Crowds of people ignoring each other on the left, a cheering basketball game crowd on the right, and Aron in shadow in the middle is one of the opening examples. If you stopped during every one of these, you could write your own story on how they relate to the movie's story.

"127 Hours" very well may turn into necessary viewing and reading for film students. This is a wonderful film that shows us humanity in its weakest and most triumphant.

Rated R for language and some disturbing violent content/bloody images.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

Michael Clayton - **** out of ****

"Michael Clayton" is one of the most fascinating movies I've ever watched. The stripped-down thriller is filled with engrossing scenes not because of what is happening but instead why they are happening. It features many different layers that can be analyzed separately but ultimately belong together.

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a fixer who self-advertises as a janitor. He is a lawyer but is said to specialize in wills and trusts. Clayton previously wished to get out of the business and open a restaurant, but the financial investment fell through due to his gambling and other unforeseen circumstances. Someone wishes him dead. The explanation may seem simple, but it's really much scarier than you could imagine.

Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) is a trial lawyer within the same firm. Edens defends U-North, a company that made a bad insecticide that caused many animals on a farm to die and become deformed. Edens goes off of his medication and falls in love with the young plaintiff. Clayton is alerted that Edens has become a problem after he strips down naked in a deposition and runs through the parking lot wearing only his socks.

Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) from U-North steps in to manage the situation with knowledge from a leadership standpoint but none from what she feels she needs to be. There's nothing sexy or seductive in the character. She spends much of one scene rehearsing the answers to an interview in her underwear, but this isn't used to show her bearing much of herself or even that she has something to hide; instead, we see that Karen Crowder is, by her nature, plain and normal.

On that line, we should come back to Anna, Edens' love interest. He gives a monologue about two Lithuanian prostitutes performing oral sex on him, but he intentionally ruins it to make it last. When he sees Anna, he believes a light goes off in his mind that suddenly makes everything crystal clear in his life. Anna is what completes him. We meet her in a few scenes, and by a standpoint, there isn't anything physically special about her. She isn't overweight, nor is she supermodel skinny. Her hair is blond, but it isn't a standout shade. I could go on, but the point is that by our eyes, Anna is a background texture, one that we couldn't notice if we tried. Karen doesn't look the same, but she exhibits the same quality of plainness. The difference is that someone sees Anna for more than she is and for more than she thinks she is. Karen Crowder wants so badly to be the villain that her tragic flaw is that she doesn't know how to be.

You can probably catch on and see what I'm talking about when I mention layers. This rich layer cake of a movie keeps you with it throughout as we explore these people and their decisions. This is a movie that could have been created years and years ago and been a classic today. I can only hope that it will have that fate years from now.

Rated R for Language Including Some Sexual Dialogue.
Buy it here.

Black Swan - **** out of ****

"Black Swan" is a devilishly energetic, angelically over-the-top, passionately driven, beautifully choreographed melodramatic masterpiece. The music, rearranged by Clint Mansell, fuels the sheer excitement and intensity of this nightmare tragedy while Natalie Portman is gorgeous and unforgettable in one of the greatest screen performances I have ever watched. The rest of the cast and crew secure this as the year's most daring film and quite possibly the best. The White Swan soars above traditional Hollywood simplicity while The Black Swan gives two middle fingers to cinematic cowardice all while refusing a safety net. "Black Swan" is in a class all by itself because of how perfectly it juxtaposes beauty with violence, sex with horror, good with evil, character with thrills, reality with fantasy, and humanity with perfection. It also creates a hybrid of genres while bending your mind. The only word I could mutter as I left the theater was 'wow.' This examination of dedication to the arts and overcoming your nature is a warning to those who fall too deeply into a performance. It's anything but dismissible.

Darren Aronofsky often does movies that serve as warnings. "Requiem for a Dream" showed the dangers of drug addiction using both legal and illegal drugs and how they destroyed four lives. "The Wrestler" analyzed what a comeback is as well as the cost involved to regain lost fame. "Pi," however, seems to be the most like "Black Swan" because they both analyze the price of perfection. "Pi" attached it to a logical medium, but "Black Swan" takes place in a New York City ballet company. Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a very sweet, awkward girl living with her mother. She is fragile in her life as she seems to have no real friends but is perfect in technique for ballet. The only person who ever calls her cell phone is her mother, and the other ballerinas in the company mock her. After director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassell) casts off the former prima ballerina in the company, Beth (Winona Ryder), for reasons explained but unreliable, Thomas announces that a new, fresh face will be the lead in their upcoming production of Swan Lake. The catch is that the lead will have to play both the frail White Swan but also her evil twin, the sexy, manipulative Black Swan. As you are most likely aware, Nina is perfect for the White Swan but lacks the raw sexuality needed for the Black Swan.

The movie goes into an interesting direction at this point. It becomes a psychological thriller with an unreliable witness as Nina begins to discover her inner Black Swan. Nina lands the role before meeting Lily (Mila Kunis), but she discovers that Lily is the incarnate for the Black Swan. Nina doesn't strive to be like Lily in obvious ways such as dressing or talking like her but instead has a core change; she masturbates, experiments with a drug, has anonymous sex in a bathroom stall, and becomes disgusted at her room, dressed in pink and white with stuffed animals. In light of becoming the Black Swan, she casts off her baggage as the White and shifts into something evil.

It may seem like I'm giving away too many plot details, but like all great movies, "Black Swan" is all about the journey rather than the destination. We watch like observers in a zoo as Nina becomes something sexual but ugly. I felt pain for this shift because I genuinely liked and pitied the White Swan, but there is never regret in Nina's turnaround in her mind. She loves where she is going because she believes that it is the only way to achieve perfection.

There are so many levels to this film. First of all, Nina sees some bizarre images including her reflection acting differently than she, her face on other bodies, and the glare of her mother's paintings following her. Are these things real? We can assume not, but within the context other questions about what is real and imagined are raised. I've previously mentioned that Nina as our main character is an unreliable witness because what she sees and what takes place may not be the same, but writers Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, and John McLaughlin were brilliant in keeping this focus steady and unflinching. We never see the world according to anyone else, so the question of real and imaginary remains.

The film is a melodrama with excellent reason. Being personally unfamiliar with Tchaikovsky's score for Swan Lake, my sister pointed out to me that the themes as well as the emotional climax of the film were mostly taken directly from Swan Lake and rearranged to fit this different context. Clint Mansell simply does a wonderful job with these themes, making the soundtrack to the movie my favorite of the year as well as an all-time best on my list.

"Black Swan" keeps its energy high throughout the movie and has masterful pacing. When you leave the theater, you don't feel drained but instead energized. It's a wonderful feeling that is rarely felt during movies today, but the flick nails it admirably. It's my favorite movie of the year, and after some debate, it replaced "Inception" as my best of the year. It's bold, unflinching, and has some of the best and most realistic characters I've witnessed in my life. Movies like "Black Swan" (and this year's "Inception" to be fair) just aren't made very often, but when they fully and completely nail every single second, I can't watch them enough times. It's a great film- see it as much as you can.

Rated R for strong sexual content, disturbing violent images, language, and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

Top Ten of 2010

Before I make the list, I should tell you that the following critically acclaimed movies will not appear on the list because I have not had the pleasure of watching these:

127 Hours
The American
Another Year
The King's Speech
The Town
The Secret in Their Eyes
The Kids Are All Right
True Grit
I Am Love
Somewhere
Hereafter
Rabbit Hole
Secretariat

With those being listed, here are my choices for the top ten as of now. When everything is released on DVD, I will most likely update the list.

1. Black Swan
"Black Swan" is a devilishly energetic, angelically over-the-top, passionately driven, beautifully choreographed melodramatic masterpiece. The music by Clint Mansell fuels the sheer excitement and intensity of this nightmare tragedy while Natalie Portman is gorgeous and unforgettable in one of the greatest screen performances I have ever witnessed. The rest of the cast secures this as the year's most daring film and quite possibly the best. The White Swan soars above traditional Hollywood simplicity while The Black Swan gives two middle fingers to cinematic cowardice all while refusing a safety net. "Black Swan" is in a class all by itself because of how perfectly it juxtaposes beauty with violence, sex with horror, good with evil, character with thrills, reality with fantasy, and humanity with perfection. The only word I could mutter as I left the theater was 'wow.' This examination of dedication to the arts and overcoming your nature is a warning to those who fall too deeply into a performance. It's anything but dismissible.

2. Inception
A thoroughly engrossing sci-fi epic with several unique and unforgettable passages. The characters are all equally fascinating with a finale that is as tense as anything I've ever watched.

3. The Ghost Writer
It's an excellent thriller based on an excellent novel. It works on several levels, and the performances (mostly Ewan McGregor as The Unnamed Ghost) are memorable. The movie looks great, the score makes it sound great, and the feeling in the end isn't one of being duped but instead something that adds a whole new meaning to the previous context without taking away from it.

4. Leaves of Grass
A wonderful dark comedy with an engrossing performance by Edward Norton. There are many fascinating philosophical questions raised, and the plot is never compromised. It's entirely original, and I can't name a single movie like it.

5. Thee Social Network
Its base concept of how we as people living in an age of technology where nothing can possibly be real if we can't see it works. The movie runs on several noteworthy performances, especially Andrew Garfield. David Fincher makes a fine film overall.

6. The Girl Who Played With Fire
Noomi Rapace continues The Millennium Trilogy with power and substance. It's more of a thriller than the modern masterpiece that is "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," but it works extraordinarily well.

7. Winter's Bone
A very nice, toned-down drama about a girl who must locate her father (or his body), the film remains filled with hope despite its dark nature. Jennifer Lawrence is a notable newcomer as she fuels the entire movie with an unflinching performance. It's not something you may want to watch over and over again, but it's definitely worth at least one viewing.

8. Shutter Island
It's an incredibly engrossing film that shows a new edge to Martin Scorsese. Leonardo DiCaprio gives another fine performance in this wonderful thriller set on an isolated asylum, but the supporting cast is what ultimately makes the movie as wonderful as it is.

9. Toy Story 3
In the front-runner for Best Animated Feature, this story manages to be quite thrilling with a wonderful sense of humor. It works on many levels, but on sheer enjoyment, it's a great one of its kind. It falls short of last year's amazing winner, "Up," but I enjoyed myself.

10. Kick-Ass
Alright, this will most likely be getting the boot after I watch the unseen notables previously mentioned, but as a dark comedy, there isn't much that I could call bad. It has energy, proves that Chloe Moretz is an up-and-coming child actor, and it has a nice, juicy role for Nicolas Cage (who was channeling James Woods' Batman in his comedic performance).

Best Worst Movie - *** out of ****

"Troll 2" was such a spectacularly horrible film that it actually secured a cult following. The sheer frustration of everything involved in the production seemed to secure its status before it even started. The Italian director, Claudio Fragasso, spoke no English and could not communicate at all with the actors. The script, although its final title was "Troll 2," had absolutely no trolls in it but instead goblins. The original title was "Goblin," but the director, who wrote the script with Rossella Drudi (who I don't think I have to tell you didn't speak much English as well) did not understand the difference between trolls and goblins. The costumes, especially the awfully designed creatures, were something to be noticed. Everyone involved were honestly trying to make a good movie which makes it all the more tragic.

George Hardy is a genuinely nice, good man. Even ask his ex-wife; she has nothing bad to say about him. Just to see his enthusiasm when referring to "Troll 2" as 'The Worst Movie Ever Made' makes him seem all the more tragic when he realizes that he truly does want to be an actor, but because of "Troll 2," that dream will never happen. He's a hometown hero, and after going to the Upright Citizens Brigade in New York City, he has the feeling that he's something of a cult hero, which is partially true. He would later go to Comic Con and be completely ignored.

The director, Fragasso, would reveal his serious hubris because, to this day, he thinks he made an excellent film. When the other actors mention the comedic elements involved in filming (one actor had to stand in a pot for 14 hours in his own shoes), he calls them "dogs of actors, acting dogs" and talks about how they know nothing and are bad actors. He speaks English reportedly better in "Best Worst Movie" than he did during "Troll 2," but if it tells you anything, whenever he speaks, there are subtitles every time. He's insulted by the numerous questions about "Troll 2" about plot points that make no sense and walks out of a conference, snarling at the actors after they get applause.

Margo Prey, who played Diana Waits in "Troll 2," the mother, spends her time with her aging mother. Margo has many warnings outside of her home, and the place seems to be a fortress. She complains of a high-pitched noise often (although none is picked up on camera) and compares "Troll 2" to "Casablanca." She refuses to go to any conventions, screenings, or meetings with anyone outside of her home. She still wishes to pursue an acting career, but according to IMDb, she hasn't appeared in a single role other than "Troll 2" and "Best Worst Movie."

By now, you're either wondering what "Best Worst Movie" is or have managed to figure it out on your own. For the record, "Best Worst Movie" is a documentary made to chronicle the future of those involved in making "Troll 2," what is often referred to as 'The Worst Movie of All Time.' I did see "Troll 2" before watching "Best Worst Movie," and I truly believe that to be an accurate description of the movie. Where the documentary falters is that the subject matter grows old, but there is a nice arc of fame, loss, and conclusion, even though "Troll 2" is no longer the worst-rated movie of all time on IMDb. Why should we take the infamy from it?

Not Rated.
Buy it here.
Buy "Troll 2" here.

Golden Globe Nominations and Predictions

For our purposes, I only predicted the movies of this year. The winner is marked with an asterisk (*) before the name, but please keep in mind that the winner isn't who I necessarily think SHOULD win but rather who I think will. I feel as though the Golden Globes almost nailed Drama with the exceptions of forgetting The Ghost Writer and Shutter Island but royally screwed up Comedy/Musical. What happened to well-reviewed films such as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? Edward Norton's performance in Leaves of Grass? I would take a Steve Carell/Tina Fey Comedy/Musical nomination for Date Night over joint nominations for The Tourist when most critics stated that the movie's biggest problem was the lack of chemistry between the two leads.

At a later date, I will write what I feel the nominations should be and which movies should receive acclaim. For now, enjoy!


Picture- Drama
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King’s Speech
Inception
*The Social Network

Picture- Comedy/Musical
Alice in Wonderland
Burlesque
*The Kids Are All Right
RED
The Tourist

Actor in Drama
Jesse Eisenberg- The Social Network
*Colin Firth- The King’s Speech
James Franco- 127 Hours
Ryan Gosling- Blue Valentine
Mark Wahlberg- The Fighter

Actress in Drama
Halle Berry- Frankie and Alice
Nicole Kidman- Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence- Winter’s Bone
*Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Michelle Williams- Blue Valentine

Actor in Musical/Comedy
Johnny Depp- The Tourist
*Johnny Depp- Alice in Wonderland
Paul Giamatti- Barney’s Version
Jake Gyllenhaal- Love and Other Drugs
Kevin Spacey- Casino Jack

Actress in Musical/Comedy
*Annette Bening- The Kids Are All Right
Anne Hathaway- Love and Other Drugs
Angelina Jolie- The Tourist
Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right
Emma Stone- Easy A

Supporting Actor
Christian Bale- The Fighter
Michael Douglas- Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
*Andrew Garfield- The Social Network
Jeremy Renner- The Town
Geoffrey Rush- The King’s Speech

Supporting Actress
Amy Adams- The Fighter
*Helena Bonham Carter- The King’s Speech
Mila Kunis- Black Swan
Melissa Leo- The Fighter
Jacki Weaver- Animal Kingdom

Director
Darren Aronofsky- Black Swan
*David Fincher- The Social Network
Tom Hooper- The King’s Speech
Christopher Nolan- Inception
David O. Russell- The Fighter

Screenplay
127 Hours- Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Inception- Christopher Nolan
The Kids Are All Right- Stuart Blumberg, Lisa Cholodenko
The King’s Speech- David Seidler
*The Social Network- Aaron Sorkin

Original Song
*Burlesque X2
Country Strong
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Tangled

Original Score
127 Hours- A.R. Rahman
Alice in Wonderland- Danny Elfman
Inception- Hans Zimmer
*The King’s Speech- Alexandre Desplat
The Social Network- Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross

Animated Film
Despicable Me
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Tangled
*Toy Story 3

Foreign Language Film
Biutiful (Mexico/Spain)
The Concert (France)
The Edge (Russia)
*I Am Love (Italy)
In a Better World (Denmark)

Morning Glory - ***+ out of ****

We all know the tired, old formula- Someone has to do a bad job with bad people, their romantic life begins to develop as their job does, they have a great opportunity, their job becomes their baby, and they decide to stay with the job and decide that they're in love. Although "Morning Glory" does use this formula, what makes it a step above most everything else is the fact that it is really, really funny and believable. The characters are well-drawn, the director wisely lets them interact, and the actors do a wonderful job of elevating the material. I highly recommend this movie because it is very enjoyable, not because it'll make you re-examine your life. No, it's not deep, but you'll have fun.

Let's start with the plot. Becky (Rachel McAdams) loses her job as a producer of a local early morning TV show and ends up only being hired by Morning Glory. Colleen (Diane Keaton) has been with the show for most of her life and has been through fourteen (I think) producers, so she pays no mind to Becky. Since she has to get the ratings up, Becky decides to hire Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford), a grumpy old man who thinks that people watch C-SPAN for fun. Becky begins to sensationalize the news, strapping the funny weatherman, Ernie (Matt Malloy), to a roller coaster, having him skydive, and various other things. Colleen and Mike hate each other, and Becky begins as their babysitter when neither will go to the other anchor's dressing room to talk. Oh, and Becky begins a romance with Adam (Patrick Wilson).

You can see where the story is going, so I'll just stop. I am tempted to mention some of the many funny parts to the story, but for the sake of not being an alternative to www.themoviespoiler.com, I will refrain. The thing about all of this is that not a single character becomes old or annoying. I was most impressed with Rachel McAdams and how her Becky was written. The character is on the borderline of a psychotic obsession with her work, but the way it's done is actually endearing. She talks too much and occasionally reveals too much about herself when she gets nervous. She feels like the sweet girl you knew in college who was always running somewhere to put her fingers in a dam on one end of campus. She isn't incompetent with relationships but rather has problems juggling both the romance and her work. She truly, honestly loves her work. After reading this over, I didn't make a convincing argument that her character is not a cliche, so I will just say that she has some lovely freakout scenes as well as a great first roundtable meeting.

Then we have the supporting cast. Diane Keaton's Colleen is self-centered, egotistical, and above everyone else. Harrison Ford's Mike is also self-centered, egotistical, and above everyone else. Neither of these characters feel like the other, so when they meet, argue, and bitch about who gets to say 'goodbye' last, you can tell that these personalities are too big for the studio. They're both dead-on and irresistibly vulgar. You wouldn't want to meet either (or perhaps you have in the past), but you understand where either is coming from. Sure, Mike ends up making the biggest change by the end, but it's very believable. Colleen changes what she does but not how she does it. We wouldn't have followed if either character did a 180 at the end, and their abrasiveness is what we look forward to the most.

I will say that the sets were very impressive. Actually, all the technical elements were well in-place. I liked the costumes because they were never distracting, the cinematography because it showed some interesting scenes, and the sets because they made the space look like a real Manhattan backstage. They're dirty, cramped, and not even decent to live in. To make it down the hallway where the food table is, everyone has to dodge each other, and that's what those spaces are really like. Major points for realism.

Perhaps I wanted Mike and Colleen to try to destroy one another more, but that's because I saw a rare opportunity with both characters. You don't come across well-written characters in a situation like they're in that often, so I would have loved to see more of their hostility and passive-aggressiveness. Of course, this runs the risk of turning a good story into something of an "Anchorman" imitator when it isn't appropriate.

I actually bought the romance. Of course, in movies like these, there always comes a time when the lead manages to screw up the relationship with their obsession with their job or the other demands that they change, but this one never quite reaches that point. There's only one brief scene where it seems like it's reached that climactic argument, but it's actually understated. The central focus is Morning Glory, and it was right of the movie to stick with that.

Sure, "Morning Glory" is pure formula, but this has something special about it. I highly doubt that you'll be moved at all, but it is heartwarming. In the end, you may not quite jump for joy, but you'll probably be glad that you spent your last two hours with this Rachel McAdams.

Rated PG-13 for some sexual content including dialogue, language, and brief drug references.

Check your local theater for showtimes.

Paranormal Activity 2 - ** out of ****

I guess you can't blame the first "Paranormal Activity" for it, but the bar was set too high for this mediocre pre-sequel. The long moments of unbearable suspense in the first movie are instead replaced by boredom when the audience seems to be more occupied with trying to guess the second when the next jolt will happen than getting to know the characters or understand exactly why this poor family is being traumatized by a demon. It's explained fairly well, and this becomes a nice tie-in to the first movie, but it's just not that scary.

The family this time is named Rey. Ali is the smart teenage daughter, Kristi is the mother, Dan is the skeptical father, and Hunter is the newborn boy being brought home right at the beginning. With the addition of the German Shepherd, Abby, everything is complete except to explain that Katie from the first movie is the sister of Kristi. After Hunter's arrival, the next footage is of a trashed house where the Reys take the video camera around to document where exactly everything was placed. Nothing was stolen, and Hunter's room is completely undisturbed. Unfortunately, this is where the eeriness capitalizes for the majority of the movie.

There is no speculation in our minds as to what is causing the doors to open and shut on their own, what's rattling the pots and pans, or what's been calling names and screaming. The first movie dealt with all that speculation. Instead of a possible secondary explanation, we get the women, Hispanic maid, dog, and baby who believe that something is happening, and the father who does not. As you may recognize, the events escalate until there is no possible explanation but for there to be a super-evil demon after the family.

I tend to grow weary of movies that just kind of prod along until it becomes time for them to present an original idea. Perhaps it's the motif of houses in general that grows thin. Think about the possibilities of a sequel being set in a dorm building/a hospital/an apartment complex/the workplace. You wouldn't have the problem of hearing the annoying questions from people in the theater about whether or not the characters have watched all of the footage of all of the rooms (there are six cameras total) prior to the next thing happening.

It may not be great or even that good, but it's still a better idea than "Saw 3D." If one more person asks me if I want to see it, and I have to respond that I wouldn't see a "Saw" movie in 2D...

Rated R for language and brief violent material.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

The Oscars- Early Theories

After Halloween weekend, we will officially be in Awards Season, where the studios' prestige films will be released in hopes of gaining award glory. There may be some that I'm currently overlooking, but here are some to consider:

Shutter Island- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (DiCaprio), Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Musical Score. This expertly crafted thriller is a wonderful showcase of the joined talent of Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese. Some theater-goers were left disappointed by the ending, but in a year of many so-so movies, perhaps the intelligence and craft of this picture will earn it love, despite its early release.

Inception- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (DiCaprio again), Supporting Actor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Supporting Actress (Ellen Page), Director, Original Screenplay, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Musical Score, Editing, and just about everything else. I'm currently naming this the year's best film because this juggernaut requires and demands multiple viewings, something that studios love. Sure, it made a ton of money and was a huge risk, but just about everyone who saw the movie loved it. Every element has been put in place perfectly. It's a masterpiece.

The Social Network- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (Jesse Eisenberg), Supporting Actor (Justin Timberlake, Andrew Garfield), Director, Adapted Screenplay, Editing. I do believe that this is one of the year's best films, but I left feeling somewhat underwhelmed. This will probably fade with time, but the rapid-fire dialogue and pacing of the funniest comedy imaginable (no, it is not a comedy- it just has the pacing of one) make this fascinating portrait of a man no one wants but everyone seemingly needs is fascinating.

The Ghost Writer- Possible Awards- Picture, Actor (Ewan McGregor), Supporting Actor (Pierce Brosnan), Supporting Actress (Olivia Williams), Adapted Screenplay, Musical Score, Director. This thriller has been called absorbing, masterful, addictive, fascinating, and brilliant, and I found it to be a wonderful combination of those terms. Although it was a box office flop, the Academy would be mistaken to overlook this wonderful thriller with expertly crafted performances.

Those three are the only Best Picture-worthy films I have personally watched, but here are some possible nominations with titles to look out for.

Kick-Ass- Best Supporting Actress (Chloe Moretz, but it's probably not happening)
Let Me In- Best Actress (Chloe Moretz), Best Visual Effects
Leaves of Grass- Best Actor (Edward Norton)
Winter's Bone- Picture, Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Adapted Screenplay.
The American- Best Actor (George Clooney)
Waiting for Superman- Best Documentary
The Kids are All Right- Picture, Original Screenplay, Actress (Annette Bening, Julianne Moore), Supporting Actor (Mark Ruffalo)
Restrepo- Best Documentary
Black Swan- Best Picture, Original Screenplay, Original Score, Actress (Natalie Portman), Supporting Actress (Mila Kunis)
Hereafter- Best Actor (Matt Damon)
The King's Speech- Best Picture, Actor (Colin Firth), Actress (Helena Bonham Carter), Director, Original Screenplay

Of course, this is a simply preliminary list, and many of the films mentioned I have not seen. We should also consider the Razzie Awards which dis-honor the worst achievements of the year:

Life As We Know It- Worst Picture, Actress (Katherine Heigl), Screenplay
The Last Airbender- Picture, Screenplay, Director
The A-Team- Picture, various
Sex and the City 2- Picture, Actress x4, Screen Couple
Nightmare on Elm Street- various
Killers- Picture, Actor (Ashton Kutcher), Actress (Katherine Heigl), Screen Couple, various.

Frozen - **+ out of ****

"Frozen" is a movie that is very difficult to make effectively. In short, it's about three 20-somethings being stranded on a ski lift late Sunday night when the resort closes until the following Friday. I've heard it compared to the nail-biting "Open Water," but for our purposes, let's just assume you haven't watched anything like this before.

The trio (Kevin Zegers, Shawn Ashmore, and Emma Bell) can't seem to catch a break. After the aforementioned negligence, they discover that they have no real solution. Of course, no one hears them yell, and they aren't accounted for later (I'm sure you knew that as soon as I told you they were stuck on a ski lift). A storm is settling in, they're 50 feet above the ground, the wire that runs the ski lift is razor sharp, they're too far away to climb down a ladder, and wolves become notified of their presence. Yes, you read that correctly- wolves. I was able to buy that much, but if the movie went much farther (or was longer than 93 minutes), I would have expected ravenous buzzards carrying cobras to make an appearance.

One loses a glove, and there is an icky moment where that person realizes that they had left their hand on the metal bar and removes it (painfully, of course). You see quite a bit more gore than I would have wanted other than that (and I have a strong stomach, mind you), and that seems to be the movie's biggest flaw. There's enough suspense through several scenes that had no gore that it almost felt like a stretch to include blood and guts. I won't reveal any more about it because if I do, you could probably piece the entire movie together and be left without much of a ride.

The acting is very good. There are some nice tender moments, and I had enough knowledge of each character that I could distinguish one from the rest without resorting to assignment through 'the one in the red jacket,' 'the one with the goggles,' and 'the chick.' I thought I recognized all three actors, but after doing some www.imdb.com research, I realized that I've only been familiar with one, Keven Zegers ("Transamerica" and the remake of "Dawn of the Dead"). I later discovered that Shawn Ashmore played Iceman in the "X-Men" trilogy, and I'm not familiar with any of Emma Stone's work. Whatever. I hope these guys get great work in the future.

The writer/director, Adam Green ("Hatchet"), is able to do a lot with the simple setting and premise. Shot without special effects or green screen technology, I found many things to be effective without reaching. For instance, the camera occasionally looms around the skiers on the lift, there are intimate close-ups, and there are sometimes views from above or below. After an hour, you think that Green has used up every angle in the book, but the simplicity and logic of the camera shots keep you glued. Also, remember when I mentioned that there were no special effects? Well, I meant it- the actors really were 50 feet in the air. They even helped change the camera lenses between takes.

In short, the gore factor was a little too high for this medium, but the suspense and performances save it. I found this for $10 over the weekend. Check it out if it's your thing.

Rated R for some disturbing images and language.
Buy it here.

The Social Network - ***+ out of ****

Facebook annoys me. I really have no interest in learning about its creation because any more, having a Facebook account feels like a laborious chore, checking your 'Friends,' seeing if you were tagged in any embarrassing pictures, possibly having applications to deal with (I've met people that actually plan out their days around FarmVille), and updating your bio, interests, and all that. I rarely even use my Facebook account nowadays, so understandably, I was skeptical about David Fincher's movie. I was wrong to think that. "The Social Network" is absorbing, fascinating, and flows like hot chocolate. The aftertaste propelled me into deep thought-mode as I just can't get the movie out of my head.

Jesse Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, the credited founder of Facebook, but as the movie shows us, he didn't exactly come up with the idea all by himself. After a disastrous date with Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), she informs him that they're no longer dating and that he's an asshole after Mark makes some paranoid cracks at her and some digs about her attending BU while he's a Harvard man. As revenge, Mark gets drunk and writes some very bad things about her in his blog (although it's unclear how many people actually read it) which sparks him to create 'facemash,' a site dedicated to showing the pictures of two girls so you can pick the prettier one. The site generates 22,000 hits, crashing the Harvard server. Men are cheering Zuckerberg on while women hate him.

From this, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and 3/4 of Josh Pence) decide that they would like to make a social network called 'The Harvard Connection.' Zuckerberg agrees to help them so he can gain respect from his 'facemash' fiasco. Forty-two days later, Zuckerberg tells them that he's not too keen on the original idea that they set up and splits ways so he can continue to work on Facebook. Undoubtedly, Zuckerberg wouldn't have come up with Facebook had it not been for their offer.

In the meantime, Zuckerberg is aided by several other guys but most notably Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield with enough intensity to fuel his own movie). Eduardo invests enough money to get Facebook started but would eventually be muscled out of the company by Zuckerberg and his new friend, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake, excellent), the creator of Napster. Zuckerberg is basically seduced by Parker who makes few contributions to the company. He told Mark and Eduardo to drop the word 'the' from 'The Facebook' and just stick with 'Facebook.' Other than that, Parker seems to spend much of his time in the company putting Zuckerberg in contact with rich people who can help it expand.

Facebook becomes a hit. However, Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins get seriously pissed off and decide to sue Zuckerberg for their portion of the company. The story is told mostly as flashbacks during the deposition for those lawsuits.

David Fincher directs this material from Aaron Sorkin (the genius behind "The West Wing") as if they were made for each other. The dialogue draws you in, and the direction brings you closer. The performances are deeply layered, and it has the pacing and feel of a thriller like "Inception." The sets are so well-designed that I'm not sure how many people actually noticed them. We always accepted that they were where they said they were. It's really masterful stuff all around.

I won't reveal the final image, but I can say to you that it is one of the most poetic moments I've witnessed this year. It has something of a dull ache to its poignancy as you realize how isolated Zuckerberg really is from human contact. He always seems to be like a visitor to a foreign country, not bothering to ever interact effectively with people. I find the irony of the fact that the creator of the biggest social network of our time can't communicate with human beings to be a very bittersweet thought. Of course, this isn't something that the script created; it's based on actual accounts.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see how an un-tellable story can be made into a captivating movie that stays with you long after it's over. In case you're wondering, the half-star deduction was because I left wanting more of a dagger in society's shoulder. Perhaps that will change after the next viewing, but for now, I think I need to consider deleting my Facebook.

Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

Let Me In - *** out of ****

For English-speaking folk who are more afraid of subtitles than the supernatural, "Let Me In" will prove to be well-worth your ticket price. I know the Swedish original, "Let the Right One In," quite well, and because I feel that it is a perfect film, I was very skeptical when it was announced that Matt Reeves ("Cloverfield") would be writing and directing this American update.

The plot is virtually the same, but it is a movie that is more fun to discover on your own, so there will be minimal spoilers in this review. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee from "The Road") is a young boy turning 13 who is constantly bullied at school. His parents are separated, and he has this overwhelming feeling of loneliness in his life. His mother, who he lives with, only appears onscreen to alert him to dinner and remind him to pray before his meals. His father only exists in the form of a desperate phone call, and it becomes clear that neither really wants him.

This changes when he meets Abby (Chloe Grace-Moretz of "Kick-Ass"). Abby is intelligent way beyond her years, does not wear shoes in the snow, and seems to have a strange relationship with the man living with her (the great Richard Jenkins from "The Visitor" and "Burn After Reading"). Owen does not question these strange circumstances but instead sees Abby as a different version of himself, and they form a friendship although Abby immediately warns him, "We can't be friends."

At the same time as this, a bizarre series of murders seems to be plaguing their small town, and a police inspector (Elias Koteas from small parts in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Shutter Island") tries to make sense of everything. This key role wasn't quite emphasized well enough in this version, but his purpose within the plot is still there. He doesn't serve the same role of the audience as trying to figure out what's happening in this movie but instead is on his own while we figure everything out ahead of him.

That's about all you will get from me in the plot. The acting in this film is a revelation of child acting with Chloe Grace-Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee nailing dimensions of their characters that would be difficult for most adult actors. The pair are the foundation of the movie, and they both perform beyond admirably. I was most impressed by Miss Moretz. If you think about the dimensions of her character and what was required of her, you know that this was not a simple feat. I was reminded of Anna Paquin's (HBO's "True Blood") Oscar-winning role in "The Piano." Chloe has the most lines and must also show the greatest struggle and range of emotion.

Matt Reeves appeared to me to not be the one to effectively make this movie because I was disappointed in "Cloverfield." I guess when the advertising campaign made you more scared than the final product, you're bound feeling as if something is missing. He proves to be very competent here, allowing the dull yellows and greens to light the areas with the red blood serving as the finishing touch. The pacing of some scenes felt a little off, and the suspense was lacking in certain areas where the original made it unbearable. These problems aside, Reeves did a splendid job of working with child actors in very adult roles.

The computer graphics are slicker, and although they looked wonderful, I was anxiously awaiting the 'cat attack' scene from "Let the Right One In." Unfortunately, it was cut. Perhaps it does make more sense to cut it in this version, but because that was the cheesiest-looking effect from the original, I was looking forward to seeing it polished.

As of right now, you're probably thinking that I'm reviewing a different movie than the trailer you saw. I am not. "Let Me In" is chilling, scary, morbidly satisfying, and unafraid of stepping on shaky territory. That the movie on the whole was able to handle these things with such grace and ease truly surprised me. Yes, I would classify it as a horror film while the original was a dramatic thriller, but those who are not familiar with the story will go into this and experience a good movie. Whether it's a good horror movie, good drama, good thriller, or what-have-you is beyond the point. This hybrid works extremely well despite whatever doubts I have about it being made in the first place. Watch this version first, then find "Let the Right One In" on DVD. It's like seeing the movie before reading the novel so you aren't disappointed.

Rated R for strong bloody horror violence, language and a brief sexual situation.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

Avatar Special Edition 3D - **** out of ****

It's such a kick watching a megabudget movie done well, but what "Avatar" entails is one of the monumental films of the decade. Although I would have enjoyed seeing "Up in the Air," "Precious," or "Inglourious Basterds" win Best Picture (an honor that "The Hurt Locker" grasped), I still think this is a movie that needs to be seen. I was skeptical about seeing a perfect movie re-released into theaters less than a year later, this version feels even better than the previous one.

I do have to say, you know exactly where the movie is going within about 15 minutes. That's just something that you have to accept. It's really not the story that's the movie's strong point but the experience on the whole. In 3D, I felt that I was watching something that's basically required viewing, like "The Silence of the Lambs" or "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

As you can probably tell, I'm having some difficulty writing this review. Let's go with the story now. In 2154, a Marine who has lost the ability to use his legs gets an impossible opportunity- his twin brother, a scientist set for the avatar program, dies. The Marine, Jake Sully, starts the avatar program and basically answers our questions about it. He is briefed by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang, slime incarnate) that he is to take his brother's avatar and learn the culture of the Na'vi, a 12 foot-tall race of peace-loving people who live on Pandora, a planet unsustainable for us humans. He meets a fascinating local girl named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana, having a wonderful year with this and "Star Trek") and begins to learn and respect their spiritual love for the land. All of this hits the fan when a rich guy (Giovanni Ribisi) finds out that the mineral 'unobtainium' (it is what it sounds like) is located extensively below the Na'vi's Hometree, where they feel a deep connection. He could stand to make a ton of money by forcing them off their tree.

The lead, played by Sam Worthington, is quite a wonderful tight-rope act. He's fairly abrasive ("Kiss the darkest part of my lily white..."), he must act in both human form in a wheelchair and avatar form which in itself is a physical challenge, we have to root for him throughout the movie, and his character is developed at great length during action sequences. His sense of humor helps us root for him, and his bull-headed determination satisfies our curiosity of the world. It's a well-written character played by a very talented actor.

The rest of the film consists of intense action sequences, cutting edge CGI, supporting characters that could carry a movie of their own, and a big, blue (or green, rather) heart. There are several heartbreaking moments, but they work because you actually care about these people, not just the circumstances.

I have to mention the fact that it is in 3D. Often times, 3D is used to lure audiences because, well, it looks cool. In "Avatar," the 3D actually enhances the storytelling because it's not a gimmick here. You are able to see the world, the people, and the story play out in a very convincing way instead of having sticks, bullets, and water thrown at you throughout. It really makes the entire movie look even better mostly because of the lighting. Usually, 3D makes the colors more saturated and darker, but in the jungles of Pandora, you never have trouble telling what's happening.

If you haven't yet, you need to see this movie. It is on DVD now, but that's just the 2D version, and unless you have an awesome TV and Blu-Ray Player, you'll probably be underwhelmed. Well James Cameron, you've knocked another homerun. I can't wait to see it again.

Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language, and some smoking.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

Piranha 3D - *** out of ****

"Piranha 3D" is an event film for a select audience. Although the 3D was added as an afterthought (something I'm strongly against), this time it seems to have worked very well. Body parts fly across the screen, tequila puke flies into your face, and, as promised, killer piranhas flood the screen. Sometimes it seems muddled (especially when underwater), but when making an event film, you have to give people a reason to see this with an audience. I'm sure that if "Snakes on a Plane" was released this summer, it would go for the same idea, being released in 3D.

I think I'll just spit out the plot and get it over with- a believably extinct race of cannibalistic piranhas are freed from their cave when an earthquake causes a shift. In the meantime, it's Spring Break, and tons of horny frat boys and sorority girls chug whatever alcohol is present and disobey the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue, an often forgotten treat). Also, a sleazy, coke-snorting 'director' of an adult video series called 'Wild Wild Girls' (try to guess the reference) takes the sheriff's son along as a local who knows the area. And there, reader, is your excuse for piranha victims and female nudity.

I was very surprised at how much the movie got away with. Supposedly, 8-9 minutes of footage was cut to obtain an R rating, but it will no doubt show up on the Unrated DVD. People lose many limbs (including the ironic loss of a certain reproductive organ), there is sometimes naked girl-on-girl action (motorboting and kissing, if you were wondering), the body count is probably over 100, and the lake runs almost as red as the fountains in "Kill Bill: Volume 1."

And there you have it- a fun little escapist summer movie that may have some kind of moral in it, but I wasn't paying any attention. Maybe when the sheriff and Ving Rhames tell you to get out of the water because of an emergency, you should. Or wait for the Unrated DVD. Or don't see it at all. It's up to you.

Rated R for sequences of strong bloody violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.

Scream 3 - *** out of ****

With "Scream 4" filming at this time, perhaps I should try to get you up to speed about the first three. "Scream" was a refreshing breath of fresh air and a perfect example of a parody by showing you how the slasher genre is done while poking fun at the logical fallacies inherent in the genre. I would give it no less than ***+, and the only reason I hesitate to give it that extra half would be the fact that the movie feels a little dated. Perhaps this is because every slasher movie made since its release uses it as an example, but from the classic opening sequence to the smart finale, "Scream" is seriously fun, quite scary, and tongue-in-cheek hilarious.

"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.

And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.

Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.

"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'

"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.

Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.

Rendition - **** out of ****

"Rendition" is an unusually mindful and well-made thriller as well as a slap-in-the-face to senseless politicians more concerned about their jobs than what they know to be right and wrong. Although it does have a political message, it still has the elements of a memorable thriller. It opens with a mystery. An Egyptian man named Anwar El-Ibrahami (Omar Etwally, a talented newcomer) boards a flight back to America from South Africa but isn't shown to arrive back in the states. As a matter of fact, the record of him boarding the plane vanishes. His very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon, with determination), shows up at the airport with their 6 year-old son and assume that there is a mix-up. There is, and there isn't.

Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.

I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.

I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.

Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.

I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.

Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.

The Pianist - **** out of ****

"The Pianist" begins and ends with Frederick Chopin's 'Nocturne in C# Minor.' It is interrupted by many bombs, and as Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) runs to be with his family during the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland, the piece seems to be the perfect choice. Chopin was of polish ancestry, an expert pianist of the romantic era, and towards the end of his life couldn't afford many practical expenses, including his physician. The 'Nocturne' was published after Chopin's death, and the irony of Wladyslaw Szpilman performing it for Polish radio is that neither Chopin nor Szpilman knew their futures and fates during the period of composition and performance. While these factoids may or may not interest you or have any bearing on your interpretation of the film, I feel that in a movie about someone who only has his music and blind luck, what he is able to turn to in his darkest hours (but alas cannot quite do) is extremely important.

Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.

Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.

Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.

Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.

The Indiana Jones Quadrilogy - **** out of ****

The very first "Indiana Jones" movie I ever watched was actually "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wasn't allowed to watch the earlier three landmark movies as a kid because they were feared by my parents to be too violent and to cause nightmares. Perhaps that is true, but what I lost from not being able to enjoy these cinematic masterpieces is that of a hero. Oh-so typical of an idea, a fictional hero helps the evolving youth we were develop into what we are today. We need standards, ideas, and I still have such desires in my life. They truly just don't make movies like Speilberg did anymore.

"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" received a fairly lukewarm reception, only being liked by few, loved by even less, and the object of disappointment by everyone else. You have to understand the movie like I did, stepping into the franchise fresh and new. What Indiana Jones shows all of us is that you need not gain a 6-pack and be able to lift a small house to be an action hero; all you really need is intelligence and mild physical stamina. Yes, Harrison Ford is in great shape (you can tell by his shirtlessness throughout all four films), but what makes him just so irresistible and what gives me the desire to be him are the moments that are just human.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an action/adventure masterpiece. His female counterpart, Marion Ravenwood, is simply a wonderful creation. She can be described by many words such as intelligent, driven, bull-headed, and determined. Her sweet alto voice makes her occasional obligatory whining comedic and realistic at the same time (not an easy feat by any means). "Raiders" allows Speilberg to attack the Nazis, show us who an action hero really should be, thrill and excite us, and teach us a valuable lesson about dabbling where we shouldn't. The climactic scene where Indiana and Marion are tied to a pole while the Ark of the Covenant is opened is timeless, plain and simple. The pacing, music, and dialogue all work together to create this wonderful tapestry juxtaposing the supernatural, philosophy, logic, and pure horror. It's sensationally scary and altogether fascinating.

"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" keeps its focus on Asian and Indian culture. The tribal rituals shown are disturbing in their matter-of-fact flow by those performing aforementioned rituals. The heroine was something that seems like a cliche now, but at the time of its creation was entirely new and original. Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, Speilberg's wife) was a singer who unwillingly gets drawn into the messy, disgusting, creepy-crawly, and altogether un-feminine journey with Jones' young sidekick, Short Round. She and Jones fall for each other in scenes as delicate and choreographed as a classic ballet and as comedic as a Charlie Chaplin routine. You get the best of a sequel wherein you receive just want you want and are given more in the areas where you want more, put in the most elementary way possible. In the end, there is a child worker uprising, a long, heart-stopping mine cart chase, some PG-13 violence, and the looks of another sequel. This was my least-favorite of the four, but let's face it- it's still a head and shoulders above most anything else.

The final of the first three (and the last I watched) would be "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Adding Sean Connery into the mix, plenty of humor was added, letting the energy constantly stay high despite there not being many major chase scenes like the other three films have. Indiana Jones ventures to find the Holy Grail (yes, THAT Holy Grail) after his father (Connery) goes missing. I don't really know what I could possibly tell you about this movie except for the golden line, 'He chose...poorly.' The femme fatale is a nice addition, defying the formula and not turning Indiana Jones into the womanizer James Bond is. To be honest, in my opinion, Marion Ravenwood has yet to be topped as the female counterpart to a male hero (and this does include all Bond girls), so it was wise of Speilberg to let the chemistry of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery to exist rather than be undeveloped.

Perhaps there is a flaw in "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being released so many years later, and (minor spoiler) truth be told, I enjoyed the plot development about extraterrestrials. It may feel out of place, but if you think about it, Indiana Jones movies serve to balance good old-fashioned action/adventure with something supernatural. The first contained the Ark of the Covenant, the second had Asian/Indian tribal rituals, and the third followed The Bible, so what was there next? Aliens do seem to fit in (in my eyes at any rate), so why not? I advise you to just roll with it and not throw too much logic into the movie- it is a popcorn movie, not the action classic the originals were.

I say that the fourth is a popcorn movie and the first three are classics yet I give every movie four stars...why, oh why? The popcorn movie is an essential in our lives; this time of year, that's what we want to see. We want action, comedy, fun, and periods of illogic while the whole isn't composed solely of pieces that don't make sense. The movie does actually make sense in its storytelling, but I doubt the same characters would just happen to run into each other, things would happen as they do, and all that unnecessary crap. As movies go, I feel that the fourth doesn't rape Indiana Jones (in the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone) but instead place the hero in a context typical for a summer blockbuster. If the character names had been different and had some other developments, I'm sure the movie would have been one of my favorites of the year. Because it happened to fit into an Indiana Jones adventure made it even better for me.

My finale will basically just say that if Stephen Speilberg hadn't been a filmmaker, we would live in a very sad world today. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a movie I just re-visited tonight, and I would never change or update a single moment of it. "ET: The Extra Terrestrial" has already been updated, and although it is still a masterpiece, some of its charm of its time was lost in the translation. It was great for some of these old-school graphics to be updated for our further enjoyment, but I'd stop after that. "Saving Private Ryan" is an immortal film of unmentionable power and is something that is studied in film classes by those wishing to ever make a great movie. "Schindler's List" is Speilberg's only movie to win Best Picture (if I'm wrong, I will correct that statement immediately) and is a drama worth study by all, not just film students. "Jaws" is every bit as tense and horrifying as it was when it was created. "Jurassic Park" opened a whole new world of fantasy for teens and adults alike. "Munich" was an exceptional dramatic thriller with a profound political statement. I could go on to talk about "Minority Report," "Catch Me if You Can," "The Terminal," "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," "Amistad," and the "War of the Worlds" update, but the last few are the only ones that seemed to contain any flaws in filmmaking, as believed by a fraction of their viewers.

Indiana Jones serves to me as a beacon of hope, like that treasured toy everyone had as a kid. You were able to understand its creative function, but what you did with it was quite different. You could take your Matchbox Cars on trips across the world, picking up your friends, doing good, or just being awesome. Barbie could live her life as a glamorous woman with everything she could ever have and just be happy. Where Indiana Jones fits into this little rant is that the character as well as his journeys teach us many life lessons, but I can never settle for enough. As long as Speilberg is thinking and making movies, I want him to take me to another world, show me the one of the past, or critique the one of the present. I can never get enough of this guy.

Buy them here.

All 'Indiana Jones' movies are rated PG-13 for adventure violence, mild language, and the like.