APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION: "MAN OF STEEL" MOVIE REVIEW

Let's talk about superheroes in the movies: They occupy five of the top ten opening weekends of all time. There are at least two released every summer whose budgets usually exceed $200 million. They are the cash cows for the major studios that release them. Everything is riding on these movies making their money back plus a lot more. The risk factor is astronomical, yet they are the closest thing to a safe bet (Moreso than adapted books: you may get Twilight or you may get Beautiful Creatures). They are almost never discussed critically among the best films of the year, but their proven box-office success permits the giddy film executives who acquire the rights to them to slate release dates for sequels years in advance. Mainstream film fads come and go, the vampire and zombie phenomena are on its last legs, the bros who popularized the bromances are trying to evolve, but for the high court of superheroes: Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, and the Avengers, there is no end in sight. So, why do we keep coming back to stories where we more or less know what's going to happen? Beyond the sensory intake, there is one thing that non-adapted stories cannot do for an audience: re-experiencing the origin story through various subjective stances. People cannot get enough of the average joe or bullied kid slipping on that mask and knotting the cape for the first time. The myths of ascendance into each hero's respective role are pretty much set in stone, so the real reason floods of people rush back for a franchise reboot is to witness a new director's aesthetic changes, and compare it to the last trilogy. That's kind of a nice thought, that we all believe in the Auteur theory, even if most of us are unaware of it. Unfortunately, for Man of Steel director Zack Snyder, his vision involved trying to replicate another successful superhero filmmaker, and along the way attempting to be someone else fueled him to overcompensate with carnage, which crushes the plot and audience empathy into ashes.

That second or third first time I discussed earlier? Well, this was my FIRST first time for a Superman movie, so my anticipation was pretty high, this was going to be the benchmark by which I judge all future Superman films (or past, apparently the first two films from the '70s are excellent). Even some early jeers from the Zack Snyder hater nation didn't faze me (I was kind of middle of the road on Snyder before this movie: Dawn of the Dead is gory fun, the part of me that thought 300 was a great movie died long ago, Watchmen is extremely heavy-handed and uneven in tone but I will contend that the revisionist-60's opening credits sequence is quite lovely).

The movie opens with Superman (Kal-El, given name) entering the world, as the world he's entering is crumbling to pieces. The planet Krypton looks like a haunted, super-sized Grand Canyon and its native people have exhausted its natural resources, and its doom is all but certain. Kal's birth is significant in that there hasn't been one on the planet in many years, and his father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) intends on protecting him from the vigilant General Zod (Michael Shannon), who is planning an overthrow of the government, by instilling the Kryptonian genetic code into his son and sending him to a distant planet. Jor is killed by Zod, but not before Kal is sent in a tiny pod with the future of the race embedded with him. As the prologue concluded with Krypton exploding and Zod off to space jail, I was engaged in the possibilities of what would transpire on Earth with an adult Kal, and my doubts about Snyder's visual approach for a story of this scale were, for the time, halted.

Fast forward 33 years later, and we see Kal aka Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), working on an oil rig, grizzled and built like a redwood, forced to squat a falling tower to save a couple ungrateful workers. The tonnage upon his back and the fact that he's engulfed in flames leave little mystery left to the height of his powers, he's indestructible.  This is the first of several no-nos that Snyder chooses in starting with fully-formed Superman and reverting to flashbacks to show his parents' (the perfectly cast Kevin Costner & Diane Lane) attempt to help him harness and hide his abilities from the world as he first starts to learn that he has them. Jumbled narrative, for movies that use it correctly, should propel the momentum of the plot forward (Pulp Fiction would not work as a chronological story), not hinder it. This is where some of the most striking, "God's Country" Malick-esque images of Kansas you may recognize from the trailer happen, so the flashbacks weren't a total misfire. The story would have functioned just as well, or perhaps better, starting with Clark as a kid, so throttling back and forth in time only serves to distance ourselves from the adult Cavill, and makes us care less about his "finding yourself" nomadic journey.He does finally discover his real history up in Alaska while working for an archaeological crew who ponder correctly that there's an otherworldly ship underneath a glacier. Among that crew is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Lois Lane (Amy Adams). It is in the ancient ship that Clark meets the specter of his real father who re-tells, through a granular module, the fallen history of Krypton. This isn't a huge dilemma, except we already know what happens to Krypton from the movie's inception, so it's only for Kal's purpose. The writer David Goyer, who co-penned the Dark Knight trilogy and his script here is by far the best that Snyder's worked with, needed to cut out either the prologue, or have Jor explain the backstory to Kal off-screen. Exposition is a necessary evil in most studio movies. It should always be limited to what's necessary, and should never be repeated as it is here.

The two Els travel to a desert planet for the obligatory training sequence. This is where the visual effects are best utilized, as Clark learns to fly straight, like a kid who's had his training wheels taken off, with astonishing velocity and power. Good thing this kid is modest because he truly knows now that he has no limits. Meanwhile, Zod is hightailing it to Earth after breaking free from the outer-limits pen, and intends to re-start the Kryptonian race after wiping out humans first. Once Clark dons the crimson and blue, the allegories between Superman and the most famous Savior in history are overbearing. From his messianic age of 33 to his father's sermon of destiny to the stained glass depiction that's directly behind Clark's head in one shot to Clark's cross-like body position as he floats in space before rocketing back to Earth, Snyder is all but drowning you in holy water. The likeness between Jesus and Superman is so deeply inherent in the myth itself, so you feel like Snyder either thinks we're dumb or he doesn't trust himself as a storyteller to get across what Superman means to the human race. Either way, it's a turnoff for the audience. However, unlike Christ, Clark is not a man. Jor predicts for Kal in the prologue that humans "will worship him". Not exactly. Kal/Clark has been too busy running away from humans after they inevitably are witness to one of his godly physical feats. (Even Lois is trying to hunt him down the whole movie after a peek at his abilities, which is why the meek attempt at a romance near the end feels forced.) His whole life has been repressing his emotions when facing antagonizers (which seems to be EVERY place for Clark) because he knows how easily he could waste them. There is nothing the film depicts that makes us believe Clark would want to save humanity, which seems like kind of the whole point of the story. Again, I haven't seen any of the previous incarnations of Superman, but I know that they include Clark Kent working in the Daily Planet and flirting with Lois and intermingling with co-workers. It's clear to me now that you can't remove that part of the story. How else will Clark have believable sympathy for people when they need his help? Of course he does end up saving them, because we need to cross the bridge to Superman 2 somehow.

Zod lands with his gang of turtle-shell armored Kryptons in Smallville, where Clark is reconnecting with Moms. The military has gotten the heads-up about the impending attack, and set up some artillery on Main Street, but of course get throttled by Zod's female No. 2 before Clark comes in to finish her off. This display of re-directing bullets and tossing of soldiers like they're shot puts results in downtown Smallville being levelled, and the wreckage is enough of a climax for two movies. It could have stopped here in Mid-America with Superman and Zod duking it out. Snyder could have saved his big guns for the sequel, but instead he withdraws an atomic bomb. Naturally, Zod escapes Clark long enough to set up a vacuum laser right on the coast of Metropolis, which proceeds to demolish skyscraper after skyscraper. Disaster porn would be a wrong way to describe this, because porn is implicitly supposed to be enjoyed. Snyder's evocation of the deadly attack on a major city is so clearly meant to be entertaining, but instead, you're coughing up dust like the citizens that he so purposefully shows screaming in the streets, and who must be occupying these falling buildings. By the time the laser has been shut down, and Superman and Zod tackle each other through whatever concrete and glass is left standing for the 100th 9/11 re-enactment, you're not just exhausted by the annihilation, you're imprisoned by it. You wonder why Supeman doesn't fly off into space to avoid more obliteration, I mean Zod would follow him wherever he goes. Zod's final extermination is so unoriginal and dumb, but you barely have the energy to scoff. The aftermath is almost worse in that there is no remorse, no sign of rebuilding and unifying as a city, which Christopher Nolan would always do with the chaos his villains laid down. From using the same screenwriter and composer to the dark tone, it's apparent Snyder wished to Nolan-ize his movie, but he lacks the sensibility that Nolan has to show the significance of the sacrifice that superheroes, and heroes in general, make. By all accounts, Snyder's Superman stopped Zod, but is he even important to the people he saved? Do they even know who he is? You have to give credit to Snyder for going all out, but it's clear after Man of Steel that his ambition is farther than his reach as an artist.

Cavill certainly looks the part and has leading-man charisma, but you never feel any moral dilemma with him. He never questions why he shouldn't save Earth, he's never too angry at Zod. It's not enough that he loves his mom, he never feels like a true patriot and defender of people. Conversely, Michael Shannon doesn't have a screw loose to wrap his grip around, which he really needs. He excels most at the mumbler with the distorted face (Boardwalk Empire, Take Shelter) or the loudmouth who has no filter (Revolutionary Road). He has nothing psychological to play with, so you're never really scared of the boundaries Zod will cross to get what he wants, his lack of craziness doesn't allow him to think out of the box the way memorable villains do. Other amazing actors might as well be stand-ins: Crowe does an Obi-Wan Kenobi impression the whole movie, Adams is the damsel-in-distress that Clark always has to save, Laurence Fishburne as Adams' boss is pulling people out of the rubble but you see too little of him to care that he's a good citizen. The underusing of big names seems to be Snyder saying, "Ah, I'll worry about the characters in the next one." Unfortunately, Snyder saved the wrong aspect of his first movie for the next one.

 I know it seems like I've been trashing the movie this whole time, but up until the Metropolis fiasco, I was not hating it. In retrospect, I'm giving it some leniency because I really like the myth itself, and the spectacle of Supeman being super, when he's not smashing into buildings and killing innocent people, and Clark finally having a reason to care about people by starting work at the Daily Planet (which is somehow the only building still standing) at the film's conclusion was enough for me to go see the sequel. But I'm not exactly counting down the clock until it's released (and with the news from Comic-Con that the sequel is going to be essentially Superman vs. Batman, my interest is waning at light speed). As a franchise filmmaker, it is your job to make us want to see the sequel, not force us to go see it because you didn't give us enough of what we deserved. The Superman package is a sleek, shiny fast vehicle, and with the right driver, I believe it can provide sensational thrills. Time to hand the keys over, Zack.

2.5 out of 4

@arm2001

SEEING THE LIGHT: "ENLIGHTENED" Series Review

The opening moments of Enlightened show a woman with hellfire in her eyes ready to reign chaos against her superior. Her name is Amy Jellicoe (Laura Dern), and as she storms through the hallways of Abaddonn Industries (cosmetics conglomerate, think Amway) with make-up streaking down her face and a contempt that is downright flammable, the first impression of her is she's self-destructive and unstable. After discovering she's not getting a promotion she thinks she deserves from her boss, who she's been engaging in an affair with, she causes a scene in the elevator lobby so manic that only some kind of intervention can follow. Abaddonn sends her to a rehab clinic in Hawaii called Open Air insisting her job will be waiting for her when she gets back. Amy experiences an overwhelming sense of calm along the pristine beaches, and is driven to make some big changes in her life. But upon her return home, she discovers almost nothing is as she left it. She may have been enlightened as to the mistakes she made, but moving forward, her desire to return to normalcy at her job and her new found purpose in the world mesh together like a square peg in a round hole.

The external appearance of the new Amy is enough to know that things aren't going to continue as they were as if someone had hit a pause button while she was away. She's let her wavy hair down and chooses bright, flowy sun dresses, which alienate her from the grey mass of three-piece suits and hair gel in the building. Her first thud of truth comes when she discovers that her former assistant, Krista (Sarah Burns), has been promoted to her job and taken her office. Krista is friendly, but seems ever aware of Amy's unpredictability, and tries to keep her distance as much as possible. This unavailability of "openings" on her former high-level floor causes her to be relocated to a new department of Abaddonn called Cogentiva. It's like a giant glass chamber run by a dorky surfer dude named Dougie (Timm Sharp) and littered with techie weirdos and misfits, and one introverted computer-whiz Tyler (Mike White, show creator) that, like Amy, was relocated from a different department, and they become buddies.The metaphor of the good-looking people lounging in their large workspaces while the outcasts are crowded in a basement punching numbers all day is not subtle, but it's organic in how it ties to Amy's ultimate singular focus of being an "agent of change."

The internal struggle for Amy throughout the show is coming to grips with the fact that she no longer is one of the cool kids, and maybe never was. Her only outlet to her former work circle is Krista, who is too nice to tell her directly what she and everyone else in the office is thinking, that she's a ticking time-bomb bound to explode again. It's not only her infamous public meltdown that is blockading her from winning her old cronies back, it's her total lack of awareness of others' lack of comfort around her, and her preaching against the unethical environmental practices that Abaddonn is participating in. Every encounter with Krista is clear to the audience that this is a one-way relationship, that Amy is rather unenlightened to how people are reacting to her. Even when she catches Krista red-handed ditching her at lunch, or after she ruins Krista's baby shower by launching into a feminist work collaborative pitch, Amy still marches up to her old office the next day as if they're best buds. Eventually she learns that her new work dungeon actually serves a crucial purpose, its giant hard drives are monitoring everyone's work productivity. She recruits Tyler to help her hack into some executives' computers, and hatches a plan to take the company down for its harm to the environment. Her mission is admirable, but she's doing it for the wrong reasons. There are many shots of Krista and the old crew smiling and laughing at a business lunch while Amy passes by with a desperate sense of wanting to belong. Her takedown of Abaddonn is a reverse on the old adage: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.

Her desire for the former status quo in the workplace makes sense when we see Amy's life outside of Abaddonn's glass walls. She's still in love with her separated husband Levi (a never-better Luke Wilson), and is urging him to go to rehab as his substance abuse problem is worsening. We see how Levi got this way, and how Amy got so bad before rehab, in flashbacks showing they had a devastating miscarriage and their beloved dog died, which fueled both their dire needs to escape reality. Amy, while in rehab, lost her apartment and now is living with her shut-in mother Helen (Diane Ladd, also Dern's real-life mom). Amy attempts to crack Helen's tough exterior with outwardly showy love, but the mending of their dark past,which includes a family member's suicide, is often too tall a task for Helen to reciprocate in. The best episodes of the show are when we step away from Amy because it's refreshing to get a perspective of someone who doesn't take life's bruisings and rough-ups with such resilience. We get to see Tyler's first awkward attempt at a adult relationship with a gentle co-worker (Molly Shannon), and Helen's daily struggle with past letdowns while Amy's at work, in respective episodes dedicated to them. In the finest half-hour TV episode so far this year, Levi arrives at the same rehab clinic that transformed Amy, but being sober does not sit well with him, nor do the team-building exercises he's encouraged to participate in. He sneaks off one night with a couple of rich, spoiled kids down the beach to party at a hotel. They booze and snort, and they gabble about what suckers the other rehabbers are for buying into the gospel. But as the night creeps into the wee hours, the youthful rebels show their true colors as heartless and lost. Christopher Abbott, the recently departed Girls cast member, is one of the wildlings and after getting sick in a toilet, reveals he's "such a piece of shit. I don't even wanna wake up tomorrow. There's so much I hate, and so little I love." It's the kind of monologue that's immediately relatable even if you haven't gone off the deep end with drugs or booze. It beautifully encapsulates the identity crisis that almost every young person experiences (or knows someone that goes through it), that which is the question Why is life worth living? For Levi, it's a wake-up call that he's been lying to himself for years about why he's stoned all the time, and it's clear to him now that if he has Amy on his side, he doesn't need extra supplements to make him feel something.

It's not really a spoiler to say that Amy executes her operation because this show is so much more about the little interactions between characters than plot. Creator Mike White clearly originates from the quiet, nerdy outcast crowd the most, but you sense from his writing that he's a seasoned vet of observing human behavior. He nails the nature of the suits, the surfer dudes, the spoiled assholes, the free spirits, the soon-to-be mothers so genuinely, and yet doesn't judge them for how they treat each other. He's created a completely justified world when it comes to behavior toward other social groups, even the corrupt president of Abaddonn seems to be more level-headed than Amy in some scenes. Dern is the glue that holds it all together, simultaneously fierce yet fragile, endearing yet frustrating, has purpose and yet is still wayward. We so want for her to get back on her feet, and yet it is impossible not to root against her sometimes. White and Dern seem like a mismatched pair creatively speaking but really they are perfect for each other. White's idiosyncratic writing voice and Dern's unabashed earnestness and melancholy, not to mention peculiar body type for a lead actress, was the perfect remedy to concoct this flawed heroine.

Alas, Enlightened is no more, it wasn't picked up for a third season. Despite the protests of many super-fan celebrities on Twitter, the show never got traction with a regular audience. I can only speculate that in the cruel landscape of female-protagonist shows, it was in a no-man's land, between the straight comedies (Parks & Recreation, Veep) and the action/procedural programs (Homeland, The Good Wife). But, what about Nurse Jackie & The Big C? Aren't they similar in tone and still on the air? I guess it's appropriate with Amy's current position on the social hierarchy that Enlightened remains the kid that just never fit in. The last episode worked as a series finale though, with Amy dazed after getting fired for exposing the company. Sure, a few executives are going down, but the skyscraper will still stand, Abaddonn is too big to fail. She's left asking herself, "What was it all for?" Uncertainty surrounds every aspect of her life going forward from here. One thing's for certain, I enjoyed going down the rabbit hole with her.

-Rex

Season 2 of Enlightened is available on HBO On Demand. You really can start watching here without going back to Season 1, you get a sense of what's going on after a couple episodes.

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

GIRLS MEETS WORLD: "GIRLS" Season 2 Review

"Almost getting it kind of together"

That was the tagline for the promo poster for the second season of Girls. The it in that sentence took on very different meanings for the young group of New Yorkers this year: careers, ambitions, relationships, mental stability, plans for the future. The kind of, though, says everything. The (rare) happy endings we witness for most of the Brooklynites at the end of the season 2 finale are all temporary solutions to the larger issue at hand: they are rejecting full-on adulthood. The ticking clock for getting discovered as an artist, or figuring out what you want in a partner, or being at the peak of your physical attractiveness are eating away at these girls. Change, as we've seen throughout the season, has been ultimately detrimental to each of these characters. At first, they thought the changes were beneficial, but it ultimately led to emotional and  physical (some self-induced) hardships. These girls are so used to being coddled after being knocked down that they are unable to start anew again, and instead want to go in reverse. Change is what they're now fighting, and they fight it by falling back on old habits and flings (Shoshanna excluded). The last segment of the finale was portrayed as romantic, but it's only romantic in the sense that it makes everyone happy in the short-term, because short-term is the only way they're capable of looking at the world, these aren't real answers to their problems. They want to stay in neutral, but the downward slope to the real world is becoming steeper. To watch the characters battle against that perpetual creep is what elevated Girls to another level of entertainment this year.

Showrunner/director/writer Lena Dunham's choices with her main character Hannah Horvath (Dunham again) illustrate both her bravery as an artist, and the torture, not of being one, but choosing to be one. Much of the conversation that revolves around the show is Hannah's constant nudity. People more outwardly forward with their thoughts might say that she's overdoing it, given she has a soft, pudgy body. I'd be lying if I said I was delighted every time Dunham strips down, but I respect the decision, not just because it's a very noticeable way to show she disapproves of the unwritten rule that only skinny girls should be allowed to bare their bodies on camera, but it fits perfectly within the psyche of the character. Hannah's insecurities and mental growing pains, which we witnessed a lot of this season, cripple her immensely, but her comfort with her own body is one area where she doesn't lack confidence, she's been a little overweight all her life, but she doesn't let that sour her sexual appetite, which allows her to bed what some detractors might say guys out of her league. While she was able to cut loose for a few episodes after she severed ties with an increasingly stalker-ish Adam, the opportunity of an e-book couldn't have come at a worse time emotionally, with her childhood OCD rearing its head again and the scarring of Marnie sleeping with Elijah, which also resulted in her being roommate-less. The tipping point for Hannah is in "One Man's Trash", where she accidentally starts a dream-like weekend affair with a handsome, affluent man (Patrick Wilson) in his gorgeous brownstone home. After soaking in all his amenities and the joy of being with an adult man for once, she realizes she might rather be successful and happy than pursue her dream of being a writer and remaining somewhat miserable. She has been so possessed by this idea that she needs to struggle and be poor and get into some wild shit for her writing to mean anything (that's her argument to her parents as to why they should keep paying her rent). So, with her new epiphany floating in the back of her skull, and her increasingly fragile mental state, she essentially wastes away in her apartment while her book deadline passes. If there's one golden rule for writers, especially how hard it is to make it in any type of writing career, it's that you don't miss deadlines when you get your shot, it's like career suicide. In the final shot of the season, Adam comes to her rescue, but her undoing of her first real job may prove that she's beyond saving.

At times,  it's hard to believe that Marnie (Allison Williams) has such awful luck with men and landing jobs. She's gorgeous, bubbly, fun, and seemingly responsible for a young adult, especially compared to her three compadres. And yet it's like she's running in place when it comes to career advancement and finding the right partner. Staying with Charlie for too long was what put her in a rut, which she's still trying to climb out of. When she finally broke it off, she so desperately wanted a different type of guy that she went too far the other way, first by drunkenly half-screwing Hannah's gay roommate and as a result distancing herself further from her best friend, and then ending up with Booth Jonathan (Jorma Taccone), a bizarre but reputable conceptual artist. Even after some incredibly awkward sex (I'll get back to that in a bit) and some blatant hints that he's not jiving on being a couple, Marnie still sticks around until it blows up in her face because anyone that's not Charlie feels like a step in the right direction. She's still tied to Charlie because they have the same group of friends, but her only interest in him is the unspoken competition that exes have with each other, sizing up the other's success and how well they're coping post-breakup, but poor Charlie is not playing the exes game, he's still simply head-over-heels for Marnie. She knows this too, so when she sees him with his new cute hipster girlfriend, she knows how to lead him on just to make herself feel like she has some control. And again, when she discovers he's made a killing starting up a new website company inspired by her, while she's stuck waitressing in a "magician's assistant" uniform, she tries to prove her worth in front of all the people that look to Charlie as a superior that she too has the ability to strike it big by rendering her own excruciatingly bad version of Kanye's "Stronger". It's hard to feel bad for her with the way she treats Charlie, but her sense of frustration is justified, she knows what we know, that she's kind of got the whole package. And she's certainly sympathetic in her desperate cry for attention with the impromptu karaoke. It's only after Charlie knocks her down a peg with his performance criticism that she gives in to his advances, because like what she was going for with Booth, being associated with success is easier than trying to gain some on her own. And Charlie has gained some masculinity with his small fortune, but that will only satisfy Marnie for so long. Alas, we will never witness how the Marnie/Charlie saga will end (the actor who plays Charlie, Christopher Abbott, abruptly quit the show recently), but however they resolve Marnie's sudden single-ness, I think it's better for the progression of her character.

While Hannah and Marnie's high points and pitfalls run very parallel, Jessa (Jemima Kirke) and Shoshanna (Zosia Mamet) are each clearly paving their own paths. Sometimes these girls make it very difficult to like them, and none more so than Jessa in Season 1. The arrogance and superiority with which she carried herself because of her European adventures was gag-inducing at times. Her unapologetic non-conformism is both inspiring and irritating to the other girls, but her role as the road-weary hipster is crucial in one way or another to their own world-views. We get to witness how she turned out the way she did when she brings Hannah back home to her flower-child dad and step-mom. It turns out the whole pick-up-and-go-to-another-city-without-telling-anyone routine is hereditary, as her dad was absent for most of her childhood. When she confronts him and weeps about never having a role model, it's apparent that whenever she shot down Marnie or Hannah sometimes as having a cookie-cutter life, that's what she actually was always yearning for. Between this scene and the acid-tongued marriage-ending fireballs she spits at her man-boy husband Thomas-John, I think it's safe to say Kirke is the most naturally gifted actress of the quartet. Wherever Jessa ventured off to after leaving the sweet, succinct note for Hannah, I suspect she'll have to travel a little further before she decides she wants a new way of living. Shoshanna is the bizarro Jessa. She is a 14 year old Valley girl stuck in a twenty-something's body, and her current sexual awakenings are what Hannah and Marnie went through about ten years ago, Jessa longer than that probably. Ray (Alex Karpovsky) is the stepping stone she utilized to get to that point. Who knows if she ever really liked him? But he's the first guy that ever really treated her like a grown-up, and she was completely clueless as to what kind of guy she would like to date. Throughout the season, his constant pessimism wore her down, which led to her romp with a doorman. Her role as the blissfully naive friend might be diminished by next season as she's finally realizing she's a catch.

As empowering as this show is in its representation of post-grad girls, it also hosts two of the more complex young male characters on television. Adam (Adam Driver) is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Before Hannah broke up with him, I thought that was a major step forward for her after the way Adam treated her in Season 1. But it turns out Hannah cast something of a spell on him, and the break-up is an epiphany as to how dependent he was on her company, and how lonely he was before she came along. When he starts dating Natalia, in many ways the polar opposite of Hannah, he kind of morphs into a modest, charming suitor and to see him have a social life removed completely from Hannah made me appreciate his character a lot more. But as it became more apparent that he has won the lottery with Natalia, the shadow of Hannah clearly still haunts him, and, in one of the truly shocking scenes in recent tv history, he violates Natalia in a hmm... irreparable manner. He shows his true colors here, setting up a trial run of his demeaning sexual taste that Hannah was game for, and understandably Natalia is not receptive. Driver's performance in this scene is something of a revelation, both monstrous and pitiful. After this purposeful destruction of a healthy relationship, it would seem that the closing image of season 2 with Adam and Hannah back together is appropriate because they deserve each other and also because the writers blatantly want these two to be the next great tv romance. I don't know, I think they're both infinitely more interesting when they have completely independent story lines. Ray, on the other hand, is clearly on the path to maybe exclusively independent story lines next season. Certainly, the least brushed-over character from season 1, we learn that he's considerably older than the rest of the group, and thinks of himself as a loser. He comes off as an arty-academic type who's anti-establishment, but that's just his own self-justification of why he's a broke thirty-something coffee house manager. He's embarrassed to tell Shoshanna that he's basically homeless without her, and he weeps for himself on a bench in Staten Island, but he also is paralyzed by fear and never really tries to solve his increasing self-pity. He chooses instead to deride other peoples' lifestyles, thus pushing Shoshanna further and further away. The foundation of their dating was based on him deflowering her, and her innocence was appealing to him because he felt he had a sense of influence in all walks of life as her first. But once that wool covering her eyes slipped off, there was no concealing his massive lack of ambition and general disregard for New Yorkers closer to Shoshanna's age. As Shoshanna tells him, "I can't be the only thing you like."

The most noticeable improvement from Season 1 to 2 is the craft of Dunham's directing. The beautifully composed images, from Hannah's profile as her OCD creeps in to the knockoff of the iconic Manhattan shot with Ray on a bench looking out at the skyline with the stray dog, propelled the show to feel cinematic. Many of these episodes could be short films by themselves, and that is hopefully the allure to fellow promising filmmakers with unique voices to come to television. In addition, Dunham's camera is always reminding us that NYC is a main character as well. The impatience these girls possess when it comes to their dreams is directly related to the city they live in. The weight of making it in the Big Apple is constantly resting squarely on their shoulders, and each day that passes they feel their knees buckle a little more. After all, no one moves to NYC to just squeak by, there are a lot cheaper places to make just enough money. The best thing the show has going for it is its genuine portrayal of young adults trying to find their place in the world, particularly those pursuing a career in the arts. We all know these girls, those who have a staggering amount of self-interest. But, as Marnie says, "I'm on a journey, and it's my journey". They aren't going to be this way forever.

The show's calling card may be its sex scenes, none of which are glamorous. In fact, quite the opposite: they're grueling, uncomfortable, messy. But that's life, rarely does anything go exactly the way we envisioned it. And with each sticky, awkward romp or failed job opportunity comes a little wisdom for next time. After all, getting it together is always a work in progress.

-Rex

"Girls" Season 2 is available on HBO VOD

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

OSCARS REACTION: MACFARLANE, MUSICALS, AND THE IMPOSSIBLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE KODAK THEATER CROWD

I have to admit: in the days leading up to last Sunday's Oscar ceremony, I thought Seth MacFarlane was going to kill it as the host. He's a god in the TV world, and his celebrity-bashing that made him famous on Family Guy might do for the Oscars what Ricky Gervais did for the Golden Globes was my thought process. But, now in retrospect, MacFarlane was doomed before the curtain even rose.

To my knowledge, MacFarlane has hosted three television events prior to the Oscars (so not that much experience), the most recent of which was an SNL hosting gig, which I have to believe was a huge factor in him getting hired (the biggest factor was his box-office success in Ted). I thought he was fine as host in a week of bad sketches. And he also was the MC for two Comedy Central roasts, where he was very successful both times. The roasts are the perfect forum for him: he can be vulgar and brutal, and is usually the most famous person there. But the Oscars are a whole different beast: to be face-to-face with the A-listers he thrashes from week to week and not be hidden behind one of his animated characters was a new challenge for MacFarlane, and it turns out they weren't so receptive to his shtick. I don't know what the host selection process is, but I have to think the powers-that-be get some feedback from the hot-shots, the actors and directors who fill up the first twenty rows, on what they liked, didn't like, and what they would like to see done differently. If the Academy wanted safe, septuagenarian comedy, they could have gotten Billy Crystal to host for the second straight year. We all know he's more than available. But I think they wanted to spice it up this year, get a young rising star with a new brand of comedy. What they didn't realize is that they were hiring human MacFarlane, but what they wanted was voice actor MacFarlane. The stereotyping and profanity is fine when it's coming out of a cartoon dog or baby or CGI teddy bear, as evidenced by Ted's (voiced by MacFarlane) successful cameo as presenter, but real-life Seth did not sit well with this crowd. I think it's important, though, to note that often viewers at home associate the success of the show with how the audience in the theatre is reacting. I think Seth knew that there weren't many Animation Domination fans in the Kodak Theatre crowd, and he tried valiantly for their approval, but the only way he was going to shine was to be young slightly edgier Billy Crystal which I don't think he's got the stage chops to do that even if he wanted to. Further reason why this stint was a pre-fail in many people's eyes.

There was an abundance of lashing out at MacFarlane on Monday morning in the press. Some pop-culture journalists who I respect called him the worst Oscars host ever. Offensive, Sexist, Racist, Failure were among the comments. Without putting too many words in their mouths, most of these people find Seth's TV shows to be an abomination, so there was going to be no pleasing these writers no matter what. But worst host ever? Pump the brakes, guys. I don't expect to see a worse Oscar host than James Franco while I have a breath in my body. If MacFarlane's a "failure", then I don't even know what Franco is. I personally think MacFarlane was the best host in 4 years (Hugh Jackman), and that's not to say that he was even great. I'm a Family Guy lifer so it's partly a matter of taste, but I thought the jokes were (for the most part) solid. He incorporated his Star Trek-geekdom into the show by chatting with Shatner from the future, who tells him he got terrible reviews for hosting and shows him the mistakes he made. These involve a song about movies-with-boobs in them, and a makeout session with Sally Field. They're mediocre skits, but he acknowledged they're bad, and follows up by asking Shatner how he can improve his reviews, and then does old song-and-dance numbers with the likes of Channing Tatum, Charlize Theron, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Daniel Radcliffe. It was a clever, self-aware bit. I think MacFarlane's pretty sharp, clearly he foresaw the bad reviews ahead, and alternately gave the crowd some broad sketches which he assumed they would hate, followed by some non-fancy choreographed show-tunes which he knew they would love, and got one of his warmest applauses of the night from it. It really wasn't an opening monologue, but rather a meta-examination of the absurdity of the expectations of hosting and the unsophisticated taste of the audience. It was a strong start, but as the show went on, the thing that bothered me was Seth's reaction to the crowd's reaction to his jokes. Whenever there were groans or indifferent murmurs, Seth either broke character and smiled and gave a "Hey, I'm just saying what's on the teleprompter" look or he addressed the crowd with a "Oh, come on lighten up" bashful response. I would have liked to see him take more ownership of his jokes. When getting negative feedback, he should have just smirked and said something like, "I liked that one", and moved on. You might not get a warm response this way I understand, but the way he did it was just digging for more laughs, which he got, but they felt more obligatory and not reactionary. I think the audience might have respected him more if he stood his ground. He got rattled a little bit, which is understandable of course. The "racist" joke that got the most flack was one about Daniel Day-Lewis taking his role as Abe Lincoln so seriously that he tried to free Don Cheadle when he saw him on the movie lot. Let's state some facts: DDL is a Method actor, Cheadle is black, black people used to be enslaved, Lincoln freed the slaves. That's all this joke is pointing out, how is that offensive or racist? I would be shocked if Cheadle or if any black actor for that matter was upset about that one. The one about Quvenzhane Wallis being only 10 years away from being courted by George Clooney was way more a shot at Clooney than the kid, and when you have it as good as George, you're free game at an awards show 100% of the time. I will concede that the other sexist joke about Jessica Chastain's character being a metaphor for women not being able to let anything go fell flat on its face, and would be in bad taste at any gala. And the post-Best Picture song-and-dance was not great either.

Overall though, Seth was Seth. He's not a warm, fuzzy guy. He's like the guy you meet at a bar through a buddy and is friendly at first, but talks shit about you while you're getting the next round for the table. But make no mistake, he's popular for his douchiness. With his very limited hosting resume, I think he performed about as well as he could with the writing he had. It is the definition of a thankless job. The closest thing I've seen to a great host is Steve Martin (solo). He's got that timeless quality to him where he still feels relevant no matter what. Last time he hosted, his monologal approach was the-faux-perils-of-being-a-movie-star-even-though-im-not-a-movie-star-anymore, and it worked really well. Chris Rock and Jon Stewart were also very good. Two hosts has not worked both times I've seen it, Martin/Baldwin (Baldwin would be good solo though) and Franco/Hathaway (worst show ever), but many people thought Tina Fey and Amy Poehler might break that bad streak, and would do it after killing it at the Golden Globes in January. Fey announced this week there's no way she would do it, good move Tina. Why would anyone want to host the Oscars? The risk of doing poorly so outweighs the reward (of being asked back?). Hathaway has recovered, but she still has nightmares I'm sure. It's still kind of following Franco around, and may for a while. MacFarlane also announced there's no way, even with the miniscule chance he'd be asked back, that he'd do it again. He tackled that white whale, got back to shore barely, and to everyone who digs his comedy, that's good enough for us. So we will wait through the sludge that are the releases the first three months of the year hoping next Oscars will be better like always, while Seth MacFarlane goes back to scuba-diving through his swimming pool full of cash, and (hopefully) the Academy turns on Adult Swim and learns to laugh at itself. Overall Show Grade: B-

Other Thoughts:

Presenters: I think presenters are the most underrated factor in a show's success. It's not about who you get, because you're going to get big names, but what they do while they're up there. The effect is cumulative, but it adds up to the overall viewing enjoyment if you get one failed comedy bit after another. First, there was some incredibly awkward and elongated Paul Rudd/Melissa McCarthy improv followed by the Avenger men (Robert Downer Jr. as presenter = zero laughs always) teasing each other about embarrassing moments on set. Oh, and let's not forget...

Kristen Stewart: When Seth introduced the next presenters as Harry Potter and girl vampire, my stomach turned over. Flashbacks of three years ago of a painful attempt at getting through reading a teleprompter danced around in my head. Sure enough, the nightmare was unfolding again. Clearing her throat, tearing at her unwashed (probably) hair, spacing out when it's her cue. Watching K-Stew on stage is utterly painful. Academy, just because she's a movie star doesn't mean she has to present. She's obviously mortified, we're covering our eyes, stop it. And, in a post-Twilight world, is Stewart still a movie star? Maybe I'm being harsh, but I just don't see the appeal. She was great in Adventureland in a supporting turn. But I really don't think she has the chops as a leading lady (for an actually good flick). I didn't have many shares to begin with, but I'm selling my K-Stew stock.

MVP: Channing Tatum. Whether he's hoisting Charlize around (and looking like he could take her home in a millisecond), or playing embarrassed, as the only great presenter, about getting waxed for the first time for Magic Mike, Tatum's undeniable likability was a cornerstone of the evening and his admirers grow by the boatload. Also, he's a decent actor and keeps improving. This dude has massive potential. BUY, BUY, BUY. (Oh, I forgot about Christopher Plummer being another fantastic presenter. Buy his stock too, it may be expiring soon...)

Musicals: Another thing Seth got blame for was the show's extensive run time. Pundits say it was his monologue that pushed the time over. Well, what about the half-hour modern musical tribute? Was that really necessary? If we're going to honor musicals, shouldn't it be classics like Singin in the Rain or West Side Story? Why do we need to pay tribute to Chicago and Dreamgirls (not great movies, good musicals at best)? They came out ten years ago, if they are going to have any kind of legacy, it has not been firmly cemented and we don't need to be reminded of them yet. That said, Jennifer Hudson's performance was a nice reminder that the most talented female artist title is still up for grabs, and her Dreamgirls co-star might get her crown stolen if she's not careful. All I have to say about the Les Mis song is, parents, if you really want to punish your naughty kid, sit him in front of a TV and put on a loop Russell Crowe singing until they've learned their lesson. Trust me, it will work. Finally, exactly zero people wanted to see Streisand sing a 40-year old song. (I did enjoy the "Goldfinger" singer though, admittedly.) There Academy, I cut down an hour of your show. You're back on schedule.

Michelle Obama: This kind of irked me. The First Lady presented the Best Picture award from the White House, but I have no idea why. This seemed like an excuse for the Hollywood community to remind everyone in case we didn't know that they all voted for this elegant gal to live in the White House for 4 more years. Did she even see Argo? I strongly suspect not. Look, we get it Hollywood, Michelle is a hip, cool First Lady and overall awesome human being, and we understand you're all Democrats. Why don't you let her go back to doing her bangs, and let Nicholson, the greatest Oscars celebrity ever, present the most important award?

The Winners: I went 15 for 24 with my Oscar predictions. The short films were complete guesses and I missed all of them. I got 7 of the 8 major awards (film, acting, directing, writing). The one I missed was Ang Lee winning for Best Director. I have to say, I think this is a major travesty. Life of Pi is spectacular visually(and got awarded justly for visual effects and cinematography), and is the second-best 3D experience I've had (behind Prometheus). But in a largely artificial world with mediocre acting at best, I don't see what is impressive about the direction. I thought Spielberg was going to win, but I was rooting for David O. Russell. The bigger travesty was the omissions from this category: Paul Thomas Anderson, Kathryn Bigelow, and Ben Affleck (who would've been a lock if he was nominated.) I liked that Tarantino pointed out the great work of his fellow writers this year, it was a well-deserved golden man for him, he really should have four or five of those by now. Jennifer Lawrence's fall actually helped her gain some fans because she was such a good sport about it, she continues to seem really normal for an actress, as opposed to Jessica Chastain who is SERIOUS about her career and everything that goes with the responsibility of being a movie star. I think if she had won and fallen, she might have broken down, but Lawrence shook it off quickly and now it's no big deal. Props to Hugh Jackman for his belated rescue off the stairs, very chivalrous, liked the gesture. DDL continues to astonish with his selection of words, we should keep giving him awards if only because he's like a poet laureate of acceptance speeches. And lastly, Affleck got redeemed when he won as producer for the Best Picture Argo. He talked about the canon of his career, how he was just a kid when he won for Good Will Hunting, struggling during the Bennifer/Gigli years, and how directing became a second wind for him. You can't help but feel good for the guy, he was down and out by all accounts, and now he's a great director, and seems to be a loving family man. Great Hollywood story. Argo's BP win over Lincoln, who many probably thought to be the favorite a couple months ago, is telling. There's no story Hollywood loves more than a movie about itself.

-Rex

Thanks for reading. Oscar night's my favorite Sunday of the year. It was really fun making predictions. Can't wait for next year's ceremony.

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

LAST MINUTE ADJUSTMENTS TO OSCAR PICKS

Just a couple hours away from the Oscar ceremony and I thought I'd give my final predictions as the landscape has changed these past few weeks with the pre-Oscar awards shows. The biggest surprise is that Argo has swept EVERY Best picture category, and is the overwhelming favorite tonight, which I previously thought was Lincoln. Ben Affleck would be the favorite for Best Director as he too has swept every directing award but is not nominated for an Oscar, so tonight's race should be interesting since we haven't seen any of the nominees win anything so far. So, here are my final picks for all 24 categories, plus a few upsets. The acronyms in parentheses show what awards my picks have already won:

GG-Golden Globe
SAG-Screen Actors Guild
BAFTA- British Academy Awards
CC-Critic's Choice
WGA-Writer's Guild
PGA-Producer's Guild

Best Picture
Winner:Argo (GG, SAG, BAFTA, PGA, CC)
Chance for upset: Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook

Best Director
Winner: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Chance for upset: David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook; Ang Lee, Life of Pi

Best Actor
Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln (GG, SAG, BAFTA, CC)
Chance for upset: None

Best Actress
Winner: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook (GG comedy, SAG, CC)
Chance for upset: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour (BAFTA); Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty (GG drama)

Best Supporting Actor
Winner: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained (GG, BAFTA)
Chance for upset: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln (SAG); Robert DeNiro, Silver Linings Playbook

Best Supporting Actress
Winner: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables (GG, SAG, CC, BAFTA)
Chance for upset: None

Best Adapted Screenplay
Winner: Chris Terrio, Argo (WGA)
Chance for upset: Tony Kushner, Lincoln (CC)

Best Original Screenplay
Winner: Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained (GG, CC, BAFTA)
Chance at upset: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty (WGA); Michael Haneke, Amour

Best Animated Film
Winner: Wreck-It Ralph
Chance for upset: Brave

Best Foreign Film
Winner: Amour

Best Cinematography
Winner: Life of Pi

Best Editing:
Winner: Argo

Best Production Design:
Winner: Anna Karenina

Best Costume Design
Winner: Anna Karenina

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:
Winner: The Hobbit

Best Original Score:
Winner: Life of Pi

Best Original Song
Winner: Skyfall

Best Sound Mixing
Winner: Argo

Best Sound Editing
Winner: Argo

Best Visual Effects
Winner: Life of Pi

Best Documentary, Feature
Winner: Searching for Sugar Man

Best Documentary, Short Subject
Winner: Kings Point

Best Short Film, Animated
Winner: Head Over Heels

Best Short Film, Live Action
Winner: Henry

Enjoy the show everybody! I'll have a piece tomorrow to talk about winner, and the overall show. I hope Seth MacFarlane does as well as I think he's going to do.

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001. I'll be tweeting throughout the show.

-Rex

TV RECAP: THE AMERICANS "GREGORY"

SPOILERS FOLLOW

It's hard to judge a show three episodes after its inception, but I can say I like the direction The Americans is heading in. Its darkest episode airing last night, we saw Philip and Elizabeth dealing with the aftermath of their partner Robert's death, who died in the pilot. It turns out he has a wife and kid that he never told them about. After a clever diversion set up by a gang of Russia-friendly Americans led by Gregory (Derek Luke), they get Robert's wife Joyce and her kid to a secure location.

Gregory the character is obviously a one-and-done sort of guy, but he was a clever tool, a measuring stick of sorts to judge what Philip and Elizabeth each think of their "marriage." Gregory and Elizabeth have been lovers for years, but Elizabeth tells him she's breaking it off because she wants to make her marriage with Philip, which was never real in the first place, work. To rattle his cage, once in the hideaway, Gregory reveals his and Elizabeth's past, imploring Philip to let her go and give her a chance at real love with him. Philip is an interesting character, in that he's way more in love with Elizabeth than vice versa and he also appears to be somewhat sensitive, even while being a extremely competent and sometimes intimidating spy.

The heart-to-heart in the kitchen at the end with Elizabeth and Philip is the best acting scene in the series yet. While it's painful for Philip to hear that she never felt that spark with him in the beginning, he can be hopeful that she's feeling it now. As for poor Joyce, I had a very bad feeling once E & P turned her and her kid over to Margo Martindale (pictured). Clearly, the KGB doesn't take any chances with family members who may even have a slight hint of sensitive information, and Joyce, probably innocent, was killed while Robert's heir is sent back to Russia to live with his grandparents.

I'm excited to see how this real marriage keeps blooming since they both seem to keep sleeping with people for information. And I'm guessing, sooner or later, our couple is going to run into the Russian woman now working for their neighbor, the Fed.

-Rex

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

NETFLIX INSTANT STREAM RECOMMENDATION: GRIZZLY MAN

The legendary German director Werner Herzog's 2005 documentary Grizzly Man tells the story of Timothy Treadwell, who for 10 straight summers lived by himself among wild grizzly bears on a wildlife plantation in Alaska. Treadwell garnered national attention for the outrageously intimate footage he shot on video of these bears, getting inches from their face and filming fights for food. Treadwell's love and compassion for these bears surpassed almost any human connection we can imagine. His obsession with every facet of their daily survival and existence is both weird (he talks to them like infants) and endearing.

Unfortunately, Treadwell also got in the news because the species he devoted so much time to ended up being his demise. Treadwell and his girlfriend were killed and eaten by one of these grizzlies at the end of a summer. There are candid interviews with people that were closest to him and others that knew him by reputation. One side feels compassion for Tim insisting this is the way he wanted to go, and other saying he got what he deserved because Tim trespassed on the bears' sacred land, a Native American credo going back centuries. We learn more about Tim through his family and ex-girlfriend. He was an aspiring actor but after he didn't get a lead part on Cheers, he became a severe alcoholic and drug addict, and almost lost his life. The footage of the bears also includes commentary from Treadwell kneeling down in front of the camera, and soon he uses it as a confessional tool.  You get the sense as he talks about his past that he was truly troubled, and that the bears were his salvation. He has rants about hating the human world and heartbreaking relationships with women. Like many former addicts, they need something else, something legal to be addicted to, for Treadwell it was the grizzlies, it was the adrenaline of putting your life in harm's way every day. He insists, if you freeze up, if they sense any fear from you, you're dead. There are a couple times where a bear is advancing on him, apparently with menace, and he kind of shoos them away with a lot of gusto and they just turn in the other direction.

The footage itself of the bears is incredible, there's one brawl between two bears that is ferocious and illustrates what kind of danger Treadwell was surrounding himself with every day. The director Herzog comes across the last tape from Treadwell's camera. As he and his girlfriend were being attacked, the lens cap was on but the sound was rolling. He listens to it with headphones, and is shaken, and tells Treadwell's ex-girlfriend to destroy it. We are told the bear attacked Treadwell first, and the girlfriend was hitting it with a pan trying to make it stop, and as he's dying, he implores his girlfriend to run. Even before death, he wished these animals no harm. It's a beautiful and fascinating documentary.

Available on Netflix Instant Stream

-Rex

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

MOVIE REVIEW: WARNING: "SIDE EFFECTS" MAY CAUSE PURE CINEMATIC BLISS

It takes a special director to blend multiple genres in one narrative, and pull the rug from under us when it comes to character expectations all while keeping our undivided attention as an audience. Luckily for us, Steven Soderbergh is one of those special directors, and he performs these feats in spectacular fashion in his new (and possibly last) film, Side Effects.

We meet Emily (Rooney Mara), a young New Yorker whose husband Martin (Channing Tatum) is being released from prison after 5 years for insider trading. She is depressed, and even her husband's return home can't repair her weakening state of mind. She attempts suicide by crashing her car into a parking garage wall, but fails. She starts seeing a psychiatrist Dr. Banks (Jude Law), who has a keen interest in helping her, and prescribes her a new antidepressant called Ablixa. At first, the pill is effective: Emily's joyful, energetic, she has passionate sex with her husband. It all turns sour as the drug causes her to sleepwalk, and eventually leads her to murder in her unconscious state. She is imprisoned, and Dr. Banks comes under fire as the person who may be responsible for this unintentional tragedy. But as his life starts falling apart, both at home and at work, Dr. Banks becomes something of a pseudo-detective and finds the incident is not everything that it seems.

This story is particularly fascinating, being that it starts out as a meditation on depression in the modern age and a world where everyone is on some kind of pill and the big-business pharmaceutical companies are sitting on top of their mountains of cash, and it turns into a sexual conspiracy thriller, a la classics like Double Indemnity & Dial M For Murder. It's interesting looking back on the film and realizing that none of the things you thought you knew in the first half hour are relevant in the big scope of the picture, it's all a facade. The structure of this screenplay is complex, and the fact that it transitions smoothly from a huge change in tone while also switching protagonists is credit to screenwriter Scott Z. Burns.

Jude Law, in his finest role to date, exemplifies a typical leading man in a Hitchcock film. A professional that is being framed or in a middle of a conspiracy, who isolates himself because no one will believe him, and whose obsession causes the rest of his life to spiral out of control. Dr. Banks is incredibly deft and intelligent and confident in his abilities to find information, and when you see him start to doubt himself, Law is fascinating to watch crumble. He is an absurdly charming actor, but to watch his character manipulate and deceive others to find the truth shows Law's greatest strengths as a performer. Also impressive is Vinessa Shaw as Dr. Banks' wife and voice of reason when he's hashing out his conspiracy theories, and Catherine Zeta Jones as Emily's icy former shrink, who plays an integral role in the final act. The leading lady steals the show though. Maybe I'm overblowing it, but I seriously think, with Side Effects, Rooney Mara sits alone atop the mountain of the greatest actresses of her generation (Carey Mulligan is very close behind, followed by Jennifer Lawrence). She is asked to wear so many faces in this movie: depressed, elated, sedated, zombified, manic, seductive, claustrophobic. Mara transcends the very definition of these emotions. She's not a showy actress, she has a low, often monotone voice. And that's what makes her ability so impressive. She's a subtextual performer, she speaks volumes without really doing that much physically. Nothing's on the surface, but the layers beneath are immensely affecting.

As with any Soderbergh film, the cinematography and camera work are a staple in setting a mood. Soderbergh shoots his movies himself (under the pseudonym Peter Andrews), and he paints Manhattan as grey and gloomy, much like the depression ads we see on TV with a rain cloud following over someone's head. The interiors are dark with bright exterior light pouring in behind shades and curtains, again probably how a depressed person views the world. He uses a shallow depth of field (background's fuzzy while performer's in foreground, vice versa) and often frames characters, mostly Emily, through small windows and employs close-ups to create a sense of being trapped, that their world is collapsing in on them. The music and editing go hand-in-hand here and create a consistent rhythm throughout the film. The score by Thomas Newman is fairy-taleish and lures us in like a lullaby, and then at times becomes haunting (during the murder) and fiendish (the aftermath of the murder).

Steven Soderbergh has announced this will be his last theatrically released film, as he's taking an indefinite leave of absence to work on other art forms such as painting and theatre, saying he's hit a wall artistically, and would need some sort of re-invention to return. I don't know what he means by that, but my feeling is he will return to cinema, he's only 50 years old, and when you're as good at something as Soderbergh is at directing, you don't give it up midway through your career. He's had a long varied career starting with sex, lies, and videotape (1989), which gave the Sundance Film Festival mainstream Hollywood significance, and he's since conquered many genres: the revenge con movie (The Limey), the ensemble heist movie (The Ocean's Trilogy), the satirical civil lawsuit comedy (The Informant!), the drug-trade epic (Traffic), the epidemic disease movie (Contagion), and, of course, the male stripper drama (Magic Mike). He is a wizard with the camera and with color palettes, and getting in and out with his films without leaving too much of a mess. With his last three films, he's arguably on the best streak of his career. Soderbergh is famous for going one for them, one for me, meaning he does a big Hollywood picture and with that check goes and makes a cheaper, more experimental film. I think he's been combining the best of both worlds in this most recent stretch, and it's a shame that we won't see any new stuff from him for the time being. The film industry needs artists like Steven Soderbergh. But as Dr. Banks says, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." If Soderbergh's addiction to telling great stories through the most accessible art medium is a good predictor, then he will be back eventually, and better than ever.

4 out of 4 stars

-Rex

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

MOVIE REVIEW: 3 THINGS I HATE ABOUT MOVIE 43 (BECAUSE 10 ISN'T WORTH MY TIME)

Let me preface by saying this might be the most difficult movie review I write, mostly because I don't consider "Movie 43" a movie. I'd consider it more a heap of dull, unfunny sketches, with lots of A-list actors, that is screaming to be considered funny. But, like the movie itself, I will begin on a high note and then scale down into the insurmountable crevasse that is the other 84 minutes of the film.

The film's opening vignette involves Kate Winslet's character eager to be going  on a first date with a rich, handsome businessman (Hugh Jackman). They arrive at the restaurant and are checking their coats when Jackman takes off his scarf... and there are a pair of testicles hanging from his neck. Winslet is of course horrified by this, but he acts like everything's fine, and so does everyone else in the restaurant. The comedy revolves around the behavior of the sack (Jackman feels a breeze and they shrink up into his neck, etc.) and Winslet's attempt at getting someone else to be shocked with her. It sounds infantile and grotesque, and it was. But I laughed, and laughed hard. I wasn't proud in that moment, I'd like to think I have some semblance of a refined taste in humor, but in the end, I guess anatomy where it doesn't belong can bring me to tears. The rest of the audience was in stitches too, so I forgave myself quickly. And, in retrospect, if the rest of the movie were cheap, visual gags that produced laughs like the first one did, I might have been somewhat satisfied. But no laughs followed. The one way in which the movie succeeds is putting the best (by far) skit first. The only reason I stayed the whole time (half the audience didn't) was hoping that one of these short skits would reach the level of the first one. No such luck, which leads to the 3 reasons (3 is all I need) I hate Movie 43:

1. I spent 9 dollars to see it. That could've gone toward a 12-pack... which is what I bought and consumed at a vigorous rate after seeing the movie to wash away the "entertainment" I just absorbed.

2. It's 95 minutes long and feels longer than The Hobbit.

3. The offensiveness. Not just the content, which ranges from the bullying of a girl getting her first period to a street paved with fecal matter to an animated dog masturbating to a photo album of his owner, but more importantly the offensiveness of its lack of comedy. Its shocking images and gutter palette of language, violence, and nudity are so in-your-face demanding a chuckle, and none of it is enjoyable. Even more offensive yet is why so many great actors would sign up for such a train-wreck of a project. There's roughly 15 A-listers in the cast, and the budget was around 6 million, so I know it's not for the paycheck. I'm baffled. I don't know if the filmmakers were going for actual comedy, or for camp (so-bad-it's-good), but either way they failed miserably.

My brother and I saw it together, and we can usually hash out some interesting discussion points after a viewing, but after going through the Jackman/Winslet bit and laughing again, the car ride home was silent. I think it was an unspoken agreement that to bring up the rest of the film would be a waste of oxygen. And perhaps reviewing it here is a waste of my finger muscles, but at least I've warned the rest of you. If you don't mind spending 9-11 bucks to see the first ten minutes, then by all means go have a good laugh, otherwise steer clear.

0.5 out of 4 stars

Thanks for reading. Hopefully more cheerful reviews to come!

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

-Rex

BOOK REVIEW: THE SUNDANCE KIDS

The Sundance Film Festival continues to be one of the most popular havens for upcoming American independent filmmakers, and "The Sundance Kids" by James Mottram explores its significance on mainstream cinema from 1989-mid 2000s. More specifically, it elaborates on how an abundance of prominent directors got their start in Hollywood due to some affiliation with the festival. These directors include Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, David O. Russell, Wes Anderson, Alexander Payne, Richard Linklater, Spike Jonze, Sofia Coppola, Bryan Singer, and Kimberly Peirce. Not too shabby a list, eh? Several of these I would consider the current greatest filmmakers, and many of the finest films of 2012 were made by people in this group.

The book starts with the creation of the festival by Robert Redford, and the struggle of early years until Soderbergh's sex, lies, & videotape premiered at Sundance, and became an international sensation. It gives the backstory on each director, and the struggles they had to go through with each of their films. Mottram also delves into similar throughlines of theme and character in their filmography during the aforementioned time period. There are candid snippets of interviews with the filmmakers, and also mentions of older films that were huge influences while in pre-production.

The book is heavily laden with plot descriptions, so someone who's not a film geek like me, may lose interest if it's a movie they haven't heard of. Mottram analyzes the films really well, and I feel like I learned a lot about movies that I've even seen several times. I finished it knowing a lot more about each director's personal taste in film and artistic aspirations. And perhaps, most exciting, a sizable list of new films to check out.

-Rex

Follow me on Twiiter @arm2001

REX'S TOP 10 FILMS OF 2012

I mentioned my top ten films of the year yesterday when making my Oscar picks, but I'll go a little further in depth with each one now. Let's run down the list:

Honorable Mention:

21 Jump Street, The Hunger Games, Prometheus, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Ted, Celeste & Jesse Forever, The Perks of Being A Wallflower, Seven Psychopaths, Skyfall, Flight, Cabin in the Woods, Bernie, The Hobbit, The Impossible

10. Moonrise Kingdom- Wes Anderson films are the purest form of escapism one can experience in the theater. Take a look at his filmography and you'll find an array of unhappy adults, as if they never accepted that they grew up. He turned the tables this time, and shows two young runaway lovebirds Suzie and Sam (Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman) on a resort island in New England that are eager to be done with childhood, and start a life together. The scenes with the kids are extremely believable and tender, and take you back to those first stirrings of puppy love. Hayward, in particular, is quite impressive for a first-time performer. Had the role been written for 16 or 17 year-olds instead of 11, I think her maturity and composure would still have gotten her the part, which is perfect for her character, who is smarter than everyone thinks she is. Whether it's the production design, the quirky dialogue, or the foreign pop music, there's something for everyone to love in a Wes Anderson movie. This is his best since Rushmore.

9. Argo- And just like that, Ben Affleck is now a first-rate director. Talk about a comeback. He showed competence and moments of greatness in his first two directorial efforts, Gone Baby Gone and The Town, but Argo is elevated to another level. With a tightly wound script by Chris Terrio, Affleck is superb at presenting the chaos in Iran, and creating unbelievable suspense as Affleck's Tony Mendez tries to navigate this stranded group of Americans back to home soil. There's also an abundance of funny and surprisingly relevant, given it takes place in the '70s, insights about the Hollywood industry. I can't wait for Affleck's next product, and given his recent Critic's Choice Award &, as of last night, Golden Globe trophies for Best Director, his Oscar snub is becoming more glaring than ever.

8. The Dark Knight Rises- Like a younger sibling who can never possibly step out of the older brother's looming shadow, Rises' legacy may always be defined by comparison to the slightly better, universally rejoiced prelude The Dark Knight. But I thought it was a fitting conclusion to likely the best superhero franchise we'll ever see. With vibrant performances from newcomers Anne Hathaway and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and some poignant subtext about the gaping social classes, Rises is a smart, polished action movie, and on the technical side, it's as good as movies get. Some spectacular examples include the collapse of Heinz Field, the Bat Bike chase scene, and the bare-knuckle brawl between Batman and Bane (one of the best scenes of the trilogy). Director Christopher Nolan continues to toe the line between high art and commercial entertainment better than anybody in the business.

7. Magic Mike- When the trailer for Magic Mike came out last summer accompanied by Rihanna's "We Found Love" with glimpses of Channing Tatum stripping and an unknown actress as the love interest, I assumed it was going to be another terrible Tatum rom-com along the lines of Step Up or Dear John. But when I saw Steven Soderbergh, a great director, was at the helm, it made me curious. I assumed Soderbergh took on what looked like a chick flick so he could fund one of his smaller, experimental films. But then reviews started coming in, and they were mostly favorable. So I decided to give it a shot, and needless to say with its inclusion on this list, it's the most surprising movie of the year. I really enjoyed it. Yes, there's some guys in thongs, but the movie doesn't revolve around the job. It's a means to an end for these guys, and it makes them local celebrities of sorts. It's really about making it big, and creating the illusion that you've made it big. There is some really creative camera-work in the strip club scenes and later in a drug-induced romp. I discussed yesterday about, at times, we need a second opinion so we can know we possess some conscious idea of what we just witnessed. My prime example of last year was seeing Magic Mike and turning to my friend and asking, "Am I crazy or was McConaughey great in that movie?" The opinion was confirmed, and he alone is reason to see it. I don't think Tatum's a great actor yet, but he's getting better. He's shown he has range with 21 Jump Street, and in this movie, he shows he can carry a movie with his charisma. And yeah, he's a really good dancer.

6. Looper- This is one of the more enjoyable sci-fi movies I've seen in years. A wholly original concept about a killer's future self coming back to the future to kill his wife's future killer. Not at all confusing, right? Rian Johnson, whose previous Brick was a great throwback to the hard-boiled noir of 40's detective stories, lets his influences shine here. One can pick out references to Star Wars and Blade Runner, but the futuristic cityscape he paints feels grounded in a blue-collar reality, and this post-apoc society boasts a lineup of electric supporting characters. A nearly unreconizable Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in Bruce Willis makeup) commands the screen, along with a career-best Emily Blunt and villainous Jeff Daniels. This film had a modest budget, and it should be used as a model for how to create a cool, violent action movie without a major studio footing the bill.

5. Silver Linings Playbook- SLP is being described as a rom-com, but this is no ordinary rom-com. The story revolves around mental illness, sports obsessions, disillusion about exes, Hemingway novels, and a dance competition. Sound conventional? It's a really heartwarming experience, and I didn't feel better emotionally walking out of any other movie this year. This is the best acting ensemble of the year, featuring a terrific supporting turn from a long dormant Robert DeNiro. Bradley Cooper's manic compulsions are funny and heartbreaking, and Jennifer Lawrence was the best actor in any movie in 2012. I'm really happy about David O. Russell's Oscar nomination, because the free-flowing and bipolar camera movements was a character by itself, and that stems from the direction.

4. Zero Dark Thirty- The death of the most wanted man in the world is still fresh in our minds. We've heard stories and re-creations on History Channel of the raid on bin Laden's compound, but that doesn't compare to seeing it in motion. Beautifully realized by director Kathryn Bigelow, the last 40 minutes of the film are dedicated to the raid, and it had me at the edge of my seat, even with knowing well what the outcome would be. Everything before that involves what government officials had to sacrifice and compromise morally and emotionally to find bin Laden. Led by the spectacular Jessica Chastain, and memorable stints from Jason Clarke and Jennifer Ehle, the film moves from Chastain's induction into the CIA to her decade-long hunt for Osama. After Seal Team Six succeeds and returns to the base, the last shot involving Chastain's character is haunting and unforgettable, and represents how I think we all feel when we sometimes sleepwalk through life and then get a gut punch of a rude awakening, and finally get a grasp of what our lives have turned into. 

3. Django Unchained- A bold and provocative trip back in history that shows the cruelty of slavery in the South, and turns it on its head in this revenge exploitation joyride. I think it is clear that Tarantino has become his own biggest influence, and that's fine by me. With its eloquent dialogue, over-the-top violence, and post-modern soundtrack, Django sports all of the typical Tarantino tics, but that doesn't make it any less remarkable. QT is a master stylist, and he makes exactly the movie he sets out to, and the experience of going to a Tarantino film is unlike any other. All the actors are incredible, particularly Leonardo DiCaprio as a prissy, entitled slave owner who manages to come off as fairly sympathetic even though he lets a man get eaten by a dog. You can tell he was chomping at the bit to get as meaty a role as this. But Samuel L. Jackson's performance deserves some special recognition. I imagine a lot  of black actors who might have been offered this role would turn it down in fear of being criticized for taking on a house servant who turns on his fellow black man, but Jackson dives right in and it is a frightening effective go-around. There's a reason he's had a role, some very small, in every Tarantino movie since Pulp Fiction. QT knows how to bring his best out.

2. Lincoln- The last few Spielberg movies have been very Spielbergian, by that I mean sappy and a bit self-righteous. When I saw the trailer for Lincoln, I feared he was going to repeat that mistake, and with arguably the most important historical figure in American history. But luckily, Spielberg with the super-team of writer Tony Kushner, actors Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones, gorgeously brings to life Abraham Lincoln. It's incredibly inspiring, and grandiose in its House debates on the Amendment. And the big historic vote and the aftermath might have you wiping a few tears away. There are some moments where the glorification of Lincoln seem overbearing, but they also show his flaws as a family man, particularly with his wife and oldest son, and his ability to manipulate Democrats into voting for abolishment. Spielberg, Day-Lewis, Field, and Kushner all deserve to win Oscars, and the film itself is destined to win Best Picture.

1. The Master- There wasn't a film this year that was as challenging and strange as The Master. I've never been hypnotized, but I imagine my feelings while watching this extraordinary picture would be a comparable experience. The tale of a drifter who hooks up with a boisterous leader of a new religious movement, the film boasts some powerhouse acting moments. Joaquin Phoenix is explosive as the loose cannon Freddie, Philip Seymour Hoffman is incredibly animated and paranoid in his artificial divinity, and Amy Adams is quietly devastating as the master behind The Master. The film garnered some attention on its roadhouse tour showing in theatres in 70 mm format, which enhances the lighting and makes for a very quality picture crispness. I didn't get the opportunity to see it in that intended format, but I was no less blown away by the cinematography by Mihai Malaimare Jr. And try to get Jonny Greenwood's score out of your head as Amy Adams' eyes are turning black. Good luck. The real master here is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson. From Boogie Nights to Magnolia to There Will Be Blood, PTA has cemented himself as the most dynamic living auteur. He almost always draws comparison to Stanley Kubrick, and his peers clearly think the world of him. Ben Affleck, in his Golden Globe acceptance speech last night, compared PTA to Orson Welles. High praise yes, but worthy also. PTA will never shy toward the conventional, he will continue to push the envelope of cinema like the giants of the industry whose path he follows (Kubrick, Altman, Ford). The Master was left out of a lot of categories it deserved to be in, but I think 10, 20 years from now, this film, more than any other, will be the one that people are still talking about. It's aptly named, The Master, because it's a masterpiece.

Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoyed it. 2012, a great year for movies! Hope 2013 is half as good.

-Rex

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

OSCAR: Why can't we be on the same page?

The Oscar nominations were released this week, and like it usually happens, there were some head-scratchers. If you don't live in the vicinity of a theater that shows smaller indie or foreign films, you may not have even heard of two of the Best Picture nominees (Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild), nor its two directors that were nominated, taking it away from whom seemingly everyone thought were locks in that category, Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow. Some people may feel Leonardo DiCaprio's outlandish turn in Django Unchained was more deserving than his costar Christoph Waltz's more cordial and conniving performance, who was nominated. Personally, I was most disappointed in the lack of recognition for The Master, in my opinion the best film of the year. There even may be some people who are perfectly content with the nominations, who loved Life of Pi and Les Miserables, and think the Academy's picks were spot-on.

 But it got me thinking, why does it matter to me, and other film goers, if our favorite performances or films get jilted? Why is it so important that our favorite on that February Sunday ends up with that little golden man in their arms? Why are we surprised when strange, challenging films are left off the list? After all, the group who decides the nominees, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is a largely unseen committee of Hollywood industry people who have almost always strayed more toward the conventional, safe, uplifting material than daring, provocative and weird. I think, more than anything, we like to be agreed with. A validation of opinion from a peer or really anyone confirms to us that a. we're not crazy, and b. it cements the idea that we are knowledgeable moviegoers, that   we can process what we're watching and discuss it afterward in an intelligent fashion. People like feeling smart, right? This can be as simple and obvious as "Dude, Cuba Gooding Jr. was legendary in Jerry Maguire" or as complex as a 2 hour discussion about how mind-blowing the last sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey is. This obviously applies to a level of cinematic taste, because judging by the box office, there are millions of people who think the Transformers movies are ground-breaking (I am not one of them), and would feel validated after conversing with a fellow Michael Bay fan about how Shia LaBeouf is a believable crier. (Oscars don't mean much to these people).

Naturally, we would like the Academy, in charge of bestowing the most prestigious Hollywood award, to throw us a bone. However, it is unreasonable to believe that the Academy, whose tastes are that of white conservative senior citizens, is going to honor all of those who we, personally, think are most deserving. But every year, we let ourselves think, hope, pray that these guys and gals will grow some balls and nominate a Master or a David Lynch film or another bizarre but critically-lauded flick (maybe these are just me) for Best Picture. Like comparing athletes or looking back on our New Years personal goals, we like to quantify things, assigning a number to something or someone so we can measure its accomplishments. Daniel Day-Lewis is most likely going to win his third Best Actor Oscar this year, the most ever, for Lincoln. Would anyone think he's a mediocre actor if he never won an Oscar? Would his performance in There Will Be Blood be any less astounding? Probably not. Does anyone really believe Dances With Wolves is a better movie than Goodfellas because the former beat the latter in the Best Picture race? I can't imagine there are many. In the end, a film or actor's legacy isn't measured by how many gold statues it wins. Best by Oscar standards is something you can hold in your hand but doesn't guarantee a lifelong approval, the actual best are hermetically sealed because films have a lasting impact on our lives, and the greatest of films compel us to pass it on to new generations. Do the best films ever get recognized as Oscar Best? Yep (The Godfather, On The Waterfront, The Silence of the Lambs all won Best Picture). One can only hope, each year, that Best means the BEST.  But no matter, because every year nominations are announced, and I let myself get angered, surprised, disappointed all over again.

Here's who I think were the BEST of 2012. Had I been in charge of the Academy, here are the actual nominees accompanied by who I would have chosen as the nominees in the 8 major categories, as well as honorable mentions, and my picks for who will win. I haven't seen Amour, it may be well-deserving of its nominations, but I'm going to leave it out for this discussion:

*should win

BEST PICTURE (anywhere from 5 to 10 nominees; 9 this year)

Nominees:
Amour
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained 
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Who I'd replace:
The Master*, Moonrise Kingdom, Magic Mike, The Dark Knight Rises, Looper
for Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Les Miserables, Life of Pi

I'm releasing a more in-depth and ranked Top 10 List tomorrow, so I won't get into the replacements here but talk about the films I took out. I really didn't like Life of Pi, there are some spectacular visual sequences, but there are some gaping plot holes, plus some almost unwatchable acting in the flash-forward sequences. Beasts of the Southern Wild almost made the cut. For a first-time director, it's damn impressive. I guess some of the more fantastical elements involving the wooly mammoth creatures didn't jive with me right, but the two leads are great in it. Les Miserables obviously has great music, but the time lapses that one can get away with on the stage didn't translate to the big screen. A lot of the songs are in extreme close-ups, which seemed like lazy filmmaking (Anne Hathaway's song excluded), and a missed opportunity for some choreography or at least a glimpse of the production design.

Honorable Mention:
21 Jump Street, The Hunger Games, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Prometheus, Ted, Celeste and Jesse Forever, The Perks of Being A Wallflower, Seven Psychopaths, Skyfall, Flight, Cabin in the Woods, Bernie, The Hobbit, The Impossible

Will Win: Lincoln

You can argue that all of Spielberg's non sci-fi movies are made essentially to win Oscars. But this is the best chance he has because it happens to be his best movie since Schindler's List, it revolves around a beloved historical leader, it has a remarkable group of actors, and it's got a happy ending. Sounds like a sure thing to me. Silver Linings Playbook may sneak in if it sweeps acting and directing, but I don't see it happening. This is the kind of movie the Academy loves, and it is the BEST (of those nominated).

BEST DIRECTOR

Nominees:
Michael Haneke, Amour
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild

Who I'd Replace:
Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master*; Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty; Ben Affleck, Argo
for Haneke, Lee, Zeitlin

Honorable Mention:
Ridley Scott, Prometheus; Zeitlin; Steven Soderbergh, Magic Mike; Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight Rises; Rian Johnson, Looper; Sam Mendes, Skyfall; Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained

Will Win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

There are plenty of worthy candidates this year. From camera composition to movement to performances, there wasn't a better-directed movie than Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master. Plus two of the top five scenes of the year: the first processing and the jailhouse confrontation, are directed by PTA. This is a no-brainer for me. The raid on bin Laden's pad is gripping filmmaking, the scene alone should have gotten Bigelow a nod. This is Spielberg's category to lose: the Academy loves him. Russell has a slight chance at an upset, again if Silver Linings sweeps, not likely though.

BEST ACTOR

Nominees:
Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln*
Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Joaquin Phoenix, The Master
Denzel Washington, Flight

Who I'd Replace:
Nobody

Honorable Mention:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Looper, John Hawkes, The Sessions; Jamie Foxx, Django Unchained; Jack Black, Bernie

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

This is the only category I think the Academy got completely right. These are the best performances in this category that I can remember. All deserving, and I think Phoenix is mesmerizing and is a miracle in physical transformation, but Day-Lewis is a lock. It's an incredible invention of a character we all know, but have never seen walking and talking. That's a lot of responsibility for an actor, but Lewis kills it, and if it wasn't already clear that he's the best living actor, he put all those doubts to bed.

BEST ACTRESS

Nominees:
Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook*
Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
Quvenzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild
Naomi Watts, The Impossible

Who I'd Replace:
Kara Hayward, Moonrise Kingdom
for Riva, Amour

Honorable Mention:
Jennifer Lawrence, The Hunger Games; Leslie Mann, This is 40

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook

It's a two-woman race between Chastain and Lawrence. Chastain is marvelous, particularly in the last shot of ZD30. But Lawrence, maybe more than any performance this year, blew me away. She is ferocious, and completely carried her movie on her own, even though there were some fine performances. Her talent and maturity shown with this character is well beyond her years.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Nominees:
Alan Arkin, Argo
Robert DeNiro, Silver Linings Playbook
Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

Who I'd Replace:
Since this is hypothetical, and this category is stacked with worthy actors, I'm going to throw in six nominees.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained*; Samuel L. Jackson, Django Unchained; Matthew McConaughey, Magic Mike
for Arkin & DeNiro

Honorable Mention:
DeNiro; Michael Fassbender, Prometheus; Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild; Joseph Gordon-Levitt, The Dark Knight Rises; Ezra Miller, The Perks of Being A Wallflower; Jeff Daniels, Looper; Javier Bardem, Skyfall; James Badge Dale, Flight; Andy Serkis, The Hobbit; Tom Holland, The Impossible; Jason Clarke, Zero Dark Thirty
\
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

This was a fantastic year for supporting performances from the fellas. Arkin's inclusion in nearly every awards show is baffling to me. He has a few memorable one-liners, and any other year might be worthy of a nod, but I feel he's taking up a spot for someone more deserving. DiCaprio plays so well off of Tarantino's dialogue, and his charisma shines with this sadistic slave-owner who still has Southern hospitality. I'd give Jackson a co-Oscar for giving a thankless, brave role as an Uncle Tom house servant. Hoffman and McConaughey might have given their best performances also, but I think Jones is going to get swept up in the Lincoln vacuum that's about to occur at the Oscars. Don't get me wrong, Jones is great, but in this ridiculously impressive year, I would have gone with my main man Leo.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Nominees:
Amy Adams, The Master
Sally Field, Lincoln*
Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
Helen Hunt, The Sessions
Jacki Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook

Who I'd Replace:
Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises; Jennifer Ehle, Zero Dark Thirty
for Hunt & Weaver

Honorable Mention:
Hunt; Cody Horn, Magic Mike; Emma Watson, The Perks of Being A Wallflower; Mae Whitman, The Perks of Being A Wallflower; Gloria Reuben, Lincoln; Emily Blunt, Looper; Kerry Washington, Django Unchained

Will Win: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

This is pretty close to a lock. Hathaway's not even in Les Mis that long, but her "I Dreamed A Dream" is pretty miraculous, and clearly the highlight of the movie. I personally prefer her as the cunning vixen Catwoman in Batman, but it will be a well-deserved Oscar for an emotionally-packed two minutes of singing. I thought Adams was haunting and is the most consistently great actress; I didn't think she had it in her after Contagion but Ehle was surprisingly a fireball of a CIA agent,  but Field's Mary Todd Lincoln really stuck with me. The pain she conveys as she mourns her son and the voraciousness with which she goes after her husband's contemporaries is a thrill to watch.

These will be brief, because I know non-film majors don't care about screenplay awards.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Nominees:
Amour
Django Unchained*
Flight 
Moonrise Kingdom
Zero Dark Thirty

Who I'd Replace:
The Master; Looper
for Amour, Flight

Who Will Win: Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained

ZD30 could be an upset, as its writer upset Tarantino in '09 with The Hurt Locker over Inglourious Basterds. My argument for QT: Tarantino dialogue. Leo's post-dinner speech about the slave called Ben. Enough said.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Nominees:
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Life of Pi
Lincoln* 
Silver Linings Playbook

Who I'd Replace:
The Dark Knight Rises
for Life of Pi

Who Will Win: Tony Kushner, Lincoln

Kushner is a Tony and Pulitzer-winning playwright, and as Sorkin showed with The Social Network, playwrights that come to the silver screen, the dialogue is rhythmic and poetic and its appropriate pauses in action enhance the editing, acting, and directing. It's an exquisitely written movie, and will be a well-deserved golden man for Kushner.

For those of you read this far, I hope you enjoyed it. I'll have my top 10 of 2012 tomorrow. Thanks for reading.

-Rex

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001