Oscar Night 2013 - This Might Get Bumpy

This year's Oscar telecast will be met by a lot of uncertainty. Traditionally, the race solidifies into a pretty straightforward running order by this point, with eventual winners and also-rans clearly labeled. There are a plethora of categories this time around that are shrouded in mystery, and while I like my predictions/chances, I wouldn't be surprised if a handful of them turned out to be inaccurate. The writing categories, in particular, are particularly tough to predict . . . not to mention the strangest directorial race we've seen in years!

For my money, Emmanuelle Riva and Daniel Day-Lewis are the two titans this year that deserve the lion's share of the spoils. I'd also like to give some love to Quvenzhané Wallis. Her performance is the stuff that legends are made of. I work with kids, and, believe you me, most six year olds just aren't capable of stuff like that. 

I'll be interested to see what Seth MacFarlane does as host. While almost anything is better than the Franco/Hathaway debacle, I like my Family Guy in bits here and there and have a tough time sitting through an entire episode, and I hope that he doesn't take things too far in an attempt to be "edgy." 

Best Picture

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

• Predicted winner: Argo
• If I was voting: Amour
  Possible upsets: Silver Linings Playbook
  Analysis: The momentum that Argo's picked up in recent months has been staggering. While an early favorite for an Oscar nomination out of the gate, this was one that I thought wouldn't really have the chops to compete against the likes of films like Zero Dark Thirty, Les Miserables, and Silver Linings Playbook. After picking up wins at the Golden Globes, Director's Guild, Producer's Guild, and BAFTAs, thinking that anything else is going to win at this juncture is pretty foolish. That said, if the Academy's feeling sentimental, I could see them pull a Saving Private Ryan and give the prize to Silver Linings Playbook. The difference, of course, is that Shakespeare in Love deserved that one.
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Directing

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

• Predicted winner: Ang Lee
• If I was voting: Michael Haneke
  Possible upsets: Steven Spielberg, Michael Haneke, David O. Russell
  Analysis: Predicting this category's made more difficult than it ought to be by the absence of one man than it is by the actual presence of any of the nominees. Most of the circuit has given Ben Affleck the top directorial prize, despite his lack of a corresponding Oscar nomination. That really throws a monkey wrench in the proceedings, because it wouldn't ordinarily make a lot of sense to pick against Steven Spielberg, particularly when his film's got a league-leading 12 nominations. However, Affleck's DGA win really hurts the two frontrunners, Spielberg and Ang Lee more than anyone else. Personally, I like the scenario in which they split enough of the vote to allow Michael Haneke through, even though I think that's unlikely. Ultimately though, I think the DGA thing hurts Spielberg more than it hurts Lee, and I think he'll be pick up Oscar #2.
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Actor in a Leading Role

• Bradley Cooper in "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln"
• Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"
• Joaquin Phoenix in "The Master"
• Denzel Washington in "Flight"
  
  Predicted winner: Daniel Day-Lewis
• If I was voting: Daniel Day-Lewis
  Possible upsets: Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington (with the slightest of outside chances)
  Analysis: It seems like every time Daniel Day-Lewis is up for Oscar, I'm sitting here telling you that he's going to win, and nobody else has a chance. Not much else different this year. I think that, if anyone's really going to threaten, it's Jackman with a tiny hint of a threat from Denzel Washington. That said, if Day-Lewis doesn't win the prize, something's deeply wrong here. His work in Lincoln was staggering in the epic simplicity of its scope and the deeply heartfelt rendering of the character. This one is (and should be) his to lose.
  

  
  

  Actress in a Leading Role

• Jessica Chastain in "Zero Dark Thirty"
• Jennifer Lawrence in "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Emmanuelle Riva in "Amour"
• Quvenzhané Wallis in "Beasts of the Southern Wild"
• Naomi Watts in "The Impossible"

• Predicted winner: Jennifer Lawrence
• If I was voting: Emmanuelle Riva
  Possible upsets: Emmanuelle Riva, Jessica Chastain
  Analysis: This was seen originally to be a Lawrence/Chastain race, but Jennifer Lawrence has been picking up the majority of awards on the circuit to this point, and I really think that she's going to go all the way tonight. Now, she's a fine actress, and I liked her work in Silver Linings Playbook, but I think that the standout performance in that film was  easily Bradley Cooper's. Personally, I think this award should go to either Emmanuelle Riva or Quvenzhané Wallis. Riva's work is devastatingly nuanced in a piece that hurts, and was one of the single best bits of acting I've ever seen. To give the prize to Jennifer Lawrence tonight is a big mistake. That's not taking something away from Lawrence. She's a fine actress and has a long, successful career ahead of her. Riva is probably nearing the end of her career (if this isn't her final performance), and gave one of the performances of the young century. In 5 years, I think it's clear which performance will  still resonate. Both actresses are playing good tunes, it's just that Riva's playing a symphony. That said, it is her birthday tonight, so the Academy might just lean her way.
  
  
  Actor in a Supporting Role

• Alan Arkin in "Argo"
• Robert De Niro in "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Philip Seymour Hoffman in "The Master"
• Tommy Lee Jones in "Lincoln"
• Christoph Waltz in "Django Unchained"

• Predicted winner: Robert De Niro
• If I was voting: Tommy Lee Jones
  Possible upsets: Tommy Lee Jones, Christoph Waltz
  Analysis: This one is one of the single toughest categories to predict. My personal favorite, Tommy Lee Jones, has a good chance, but I don't think he'll be able to overcome the fact that Robert De Niro actually found a project that he liked enough to actually try to give a good performance. I'm also not ruling out Christoph Waltz. I'm really glad that he was the sole actor recognized for work in Django Unchained. A lot of people thought that DiCaprio would be the main contender from that thoroughly distasteful exercise in sadism, but I think that the Academy made the right choice. 
  
  
  Actress in a Supporting Role

• Amy Adams in "The Master"
• Sally Field in "Lincoln"
• Anne Hathaway in "Les Miserables"
• Helen Hunt in "The Sessions"
• Jacki Weaver in "Silver Linings Playbook"

• Predicted winner: Anne Hathaway
• If I was voting: Anne Hathaway
  Possible upsets: None.
  Analysis: I think this one's a done deal, folks, and it's well deserved. Her performance is fantastic. 

Here's the rest . . .

• Animated Feature Film: Wreck-it-Ralph
• Art Direction: Anna Karenina
• Cinematography: Life of Pi
• Costume Design: Anna Karenina
• Documentary (Feature): Searching for Sugar Man (I'd be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to The Invisible War, for which my friend Doug Blush was an editor. They just won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Documentary last night!
• Documentary (Short Subject): Open Heart
• Film Editing: Argo
• Foreign Language Film: Amour
• Makeup: Les Miserables
• Music (Original Score): Life of Pi
• Music (Original Song): Skyfall
• Short Film (Animated): Paperman
• Short Film (Live Action): Asad
• Sound Editing: Zero Dark Thirty
• Sound Mixing: Les Miserables
• Visual Effects: Life of Pi
• Writing (Adapted Screenplay): Silver Linings Playbook (but keep an eye on Argo)
• Writing (Original Screenplay): Amour (but keep an eye on Django Unchained. Amour is a long shot, but I have a feeling)

Above all though, I'm just happy that it's Oscar night. This is one of my favorite events of my year, and there are a lot of memories that go along with the territory. Mostly tonight, I'll be thinking of my mother, who was the one who used to turn the TV on every year even when we were too little to understand exactly what was going on. Love always.

Podcasting: Lincoln

As happens from time to time, I was fortunate enough to be included on this week's discussion/breakdown of Lincoln on Out Now With Aaron and Abe. After our review of the film, the conversation moved to post-2000 Spielberg films, and let's just say that I was a bit surprised to realize exactly how much I love that period of his work.

You can listen to the entire podcast by clicking HERE to go to the episode's official page or by clicking the big ol' play button below.

Don't forget to share/post/link/tweet or whatever it is you do with things you like. Enjoy!

This episode features: 

• Aaron Neuwirth of The Code Is Zeek and Why So Blu?
• Mark Hobin of Fast Film Reviews
• Alan Aguilera of The VHS Diaries

Lincoln

If I told you that Disney was distributing a Steven Spielberg film about Abraham Lincoln, and that that film would star Daniel Day-Lewis, you’d probably have a certain set of expectations as to what that film would be like. From a tonal perspective, Lincoln is very much the film that you’d expect it to be.

The costumes are immaculate, Tony Kushner’s dialogue is filled with the witty turns of phrase that seem to have gone out of the popular idiom in 1960, and the music swells exactly when you’d expect it to during certain speeches. There’s a bit of a PBS vibe to the film, but, fortunately, it manages to avoid being too heavily sanctimonious, mostly thanks to Kushner and Day-Lewis. The only significant difference from what one might expect from this project is in its narrow focus on a specific period of time. Rather than tell the story of Lincoln’s life, the film zeroes in on the period surrounding the attempt to abolish slavery in the United States through the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution.

Where Lincoln succeeds best is in humanizing the man and in making the political conflict of the time seem relevant to the 21^st century. All too often, Americans of this day and age seem to think that the current level of political vitriol and unwillingness to compromise are unique to our time, when that’s been anything but the case. Lincoln details the tightrope that Lincoln was forced to walk every single day. If he wanted to gain the full support of his own party for the Amendment, he had to agree to secret peace negotiations with the Confederacy. However, if word got out that he’d agreed to negotiate, he’d be labeled a liar and opportunist for trying to divide the country further by pushing for legislation that was divisive enough for “free states,” to say nothing of the potential contentious reintegration into the Union of the thousands of people who’d committed to fighting to protect their rights to own slaves.

There’s a tendency to idolize certain events and people long since relegated to the annals of historic heroism, and, insofar as American history is concerned, Abraham Lincoln is probably victim to that more than many. I can still recall the opening line of his entry in the first set of encyclopedias that my parents ever purchased for my sister and I. “Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest men who has ever lived.” That’s a remarkably subjective statement for a text trying to establish a factual record. I could understand “most important” or “most influential,” but “greatest” implies a value judgment that you’d think has little-to-no place in an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, there it stands.

Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is masterful. It’s all too easy to forget the actor and simply see . . . him. Given the time he lived in, Lincoln is not someone whom we’ve watched on television for years, as is the case with contemporary historical figures. That said, this portrayal is pretty much the embodiment of everything that one would expect of what Lincoln would be like. He’s funny and charming in a rustic way, but possesses a keen insight into the law and the delicate things that affect the political machine of the time turn one way or the other. Something that I hadn't expected was for him to be as warm of a person as Day-Lewis portrays him. He cracks jokes to lighten the mood, swears when things aren't going his way, and above all, has a deep and abiding love for his family. One of my favorite scenes features him asking two telegraph operators what they think about something in a display of simple candor.

Something that I really admire about Lincoln is its refusal to polish the pedestal too brightly. Lincoln was, by contemporary standards, a racist, even as he worked tirelessly to abolish what he considered to be a scourge upon American identity. There’s a pivotal scene where he discusses the implications of freedom with his wife’s black attendant and he tells her that he doesn’t really know her or members of her race but, he supposes that he will “get used to you.” It’s a moment of surprising nuance. Furthermore, Lincoln’s family life is given a pretty complex treatment in his relationship with his wife and their (not so) different responses to the grief of losing their son William. There’s a wrenching moment where he describes for the first time the pain he deals with on a daily basis.

Additionally, Tommy Lee Jones’ turn as Thaddeus Stevens pretty much steals every scene he’s in. There’s a wonderful moment where he’s forced to choose his words very carefully to support the Amendment without betraying his principles, and the balance he strikes is enough to make you pump your fist with a little theatrical celebration. The other performances are mostly fine too, with small parts for a ton of big names, but Day-Lewis and Jones are a cut above the rest. I’ll be up front. Daniel Day-Lewis deserves an Academy Award nomination at the very least. The only thing that’s keeping me from saying that he should win is that I want to wait until I’ve seen the other performances that might compete against him.

One of the emotions I felt most strongly in experiencing the film was sadness. In America today, the Republican Party is undergoing an identity crisis, as factions that want the party’s principles to adapt to changing times struggle against another faction that wants to take the GOP into ever more conservative territory. It’s sobering to remember that the Republican Party was once the party of emancipation and personal liberty, where it now seems committed to rewarding the wealthy and only affording equal rights to those groups, genders, and people that it approves of. It’s my sincere hope that the GOP finds a way to reclaim itself from those that would try to limit personal freedom and engage in exclusion.

Ultimately, Lincoln is the kind of film that one likes for sentimental reasons. There were a few occasions where the film choked me up, which seems to happen more and more as I get older. It’s not trying to reinvent the wheel or do anything that’s drastically different, opting to use a tried-and-true formula to tell the story of one remarkable man and the extraordinary times in which he found himself. After beginning the 21^st century with a period of astonishingly prolific creativity, Spielberg has not crafted a masterpiece with Lincoln, nor has he made one of his more interesting films, but the film is comforting in the way that it offers rewards you just as you think it should. I’m grateful for that. 

4 stars (out of 5)

-------

If you're in the mood for more Spielberg, here's a look at one of my favorites. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001): Look Again. 

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001): Look Again

Contribution to The Spielberg Blogathon. Thanks to Adam Zanzie and Ryan Kelly for hosting.

If you have not seen the film in question, you would be very foolish to read this.

One of the main charges that’s often labeled at Steven Spielberg is that he’s never content to leave well-enough alone and must always end his films on a sentimental (if not clearly positive) note. This viewpoint isn’t entirely unfair. It’s a trait that, for better or worse, Spielberg has demonstrated at various points throughout his career. The guy likes things to end on the classic Hollywood lump-in-the-throat. However, putting whether this is good or bad aside, there’s one place that the sentimentality charge simply doesn’t fit, and, oddly enough, it’s one of the most often used examples of Spielberg’s penchant for sentimentality.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence is often criticized/decried/lamented for being the film that Stanley Kubrick might have directed. The story’s simple enough. In a distant future, humans use robots called "mechas" to do all of the jobs that they don't want to do. A technician creates a child mecha that, once activated and specifically imprinted to a human being, has the ability to love that person. David, the child mecha, spends his entire life looking for ways to earn the love of the human being he considers to be his mother. Kubrick started conceptualizing the project in the 1970’s. Along the way, he showed Steven Spielberg what he was working on, spoke with him at length about the project, and attached him as a producer. For various reasons, he didn’t actually make the film, and tried to give the project to Steven, who didn’t want to take over the film. However, after Kubrick’s death, his family approached him with the project again, and Steven set out to complete Kubrick's vision.

Visually, the film’s spectacular, and I’d argue that the script (written by Spielberg himself) has nary a wrong step. Despite this, the fact remains that there’s a large contingent who believes that the film goes on about 20 minutes too long. Their preferred ending would come with David sitting in the sunken underwater remains of Coney Island, staring at the statue of the Blue Fairy, waiting for her to turn him into a real boy.

Then, the film departs into a distant future. A group of advanced mechas/robots exploring a frozen Manhattan find David and re-activate him, downloading his memories. What’s quickly apparent is that humanity has become extinct and these beings have never met their creators. David is the first link they’ve found to the heritage they cannot understand. After telling him the fate of humankind and of his “mother,” they tell him that they have found a way to recreate individual humans from a single strand of DNA present in something like a lock of hair. However, these people only live for one day, and, upon falling asleep, die for the last time. Unsurprisingly, David asks for his mother to be revived. They spend a wonderful day together, the kind of day that David had always wanted to spend with her. Finally, she falls asleep, as does David, and the film ends.

Detractors find this ending a cop-out, claiming that this is Spielberg’s attempt to soften a narrative that’s too harsh to fit within his usual aesthetic. Initially, I understood this point of view, even if I felt that the ending served the film successfully. What’s ironic about this is that the film ends exactly the way that Kubrick intended.

So, what does this mean?

The first time I watched the film, I took the ending at face value. It meant what it said it did, and wasn’t anything more than that. Then, I thought about it, thought about it some more, and came to a different understanding.

See, the ending is anything but a happy one. It is impossible to recreate all that an individual human being is from a single strand of DNA, even in the fantastical world of A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Even if it were possible to recreate a person’s body (which is not entirely inconceivable), DNA isn’t truly what makes a person a unique individual. Memories created by a singular life experience are the things that define who someone is. If it were possible to reconstruct someone’s body, there would be no way to restore that person’s soul. The lights would be on, but the same person wouldn’t be home.

It’s ironic that the most caring creatures in the film are these advanced mechas. Even as person after person has used (and abused) David, what remains after humanity is dead has surpassed its creators in kindness and basic “human” decency. After David’s memories have been downloaded, the advanced mechas have learned all that they’re going to about humanity from him, and they’ve decided to give him the only thing that he’s ever really wanted: the love of his mother. It would be simple for them to deactivate David or to modify him to become a member of their community, but instead they choose to GIVE. They know exactly what it will take to make him happy, and they provide that for him. The Monica that we knew in the first part of the film wouldn’t treat David with as much love as her recreation does. No, she’d want to know where her husband and son were, what was going on, and why David, who she’d abandoned, was there in the first place. Through their processing of his memories, the advanced mechas knew exactly what David has always wanted from her, that he had a lock of her hair, and construct an elaborate fiction that will allow them to provide it for him. Finally, remember that David does not sleep, so his curling up next to Monica to go to the “place where dreams are born” is an impossibility. Essentially, they’re allowing him the chance to end his life after experiencing ultimate happiness.

While it’s a tragedy that A.I. Artificial Intelligence hasn’t taken its place in the cinematic canon, I think it’s because the film is smarter than a lot of its audience. In this version of the Pinocchio story, the dream of becoming “real” doesn’t come true so much as the protagonist, and, by extension, the audience, believes that it has come true. It’s no small thanks to this ruse that A.I. Artificial Intelligence gains so much resonance.

What resonates more? A lump-in-the-throat happy ending or an ending built on the deception that someone’s gotten everything that he wants when he hasn’t gotten a thing? You already know what I think.

No bull, no chaser, just the best films of the aughts.

Who’d a-thunk it? We’ve hit the end of the first decade of the new millennium! To be honest, I had it in my head that the end of the decade would be at the close of 2010, not 2009. However, after seeing list after list of the best films of the decade from everyone from the New York Times, Empire Magazine, and a pretty decent list from Paste Magazine, I decided that it would not be the proper finish to the decennium without my very own contribution to this endless stream of lists.

I’m going to do these in alphabetical order, because I really have a problem with ranking terrific films as being “better” or “worse” than each other. For my money, a great movie is just that: a great movie.

Incipit . . .

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Written and directed by Cristian Mungiu
--The objectivity that Mungiu brings to the haunting story of two young women trying to arrange an illegal abortion in Communist Romania provides for a pitch perfect look into the difficulty of life in Eastern Europe and the horror of what these women and others like them went through in situations like this. This film is wonderfully directed, with a combination of both handheld work and beautiful, classically constructed shots. This is taut, gripping stuff.

Adaptation
Written by Charlie Kaufman, directed by Spike Jonze
--Charlie Kaufman took his own struggle to adapt Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief and wrote a screenplay that is the dramatization of that struggle to write the screenplay of the movie that ends up on the screen. If it sounds confusing, watch the film. You’ll understand exactly what I mean. Adaptation is staggering proof that as screenwriters go, there are people who write movies, and then there’s Charlie Kaufman.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Written for the screen by Ian Watson & Steven Spielberg, directed by Steven Spielberg
--A.I. Artificial Intelligence is widely regarded as the film Stanley Kubrick might have directed. The futuristic re-telling of the Pinnochio story works wonderfully as visual spectacle and also forms an undeniable emotional connection. Kubrick’s ending, often mistakenly attributed to Spielberg, gives him the last laugh on those who think they can figure him out. If you think David’s story ends happily, I encourage you to take a closer look. You might just be surprised.

Casino Royale
Written for the screen by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, & Paul Haggis, directed by Martin Campbell
--As an action film, Casino Royale succeeds on every front. If I had a quarter for every time I thought “They’re NOT!” only to be proved wrong, I would be a few dollars richer after watching the film. Daniel Craig is wonderful as 007 and brings a rough-edged quality to Bond’s signature devil-may-care approach to his job and his life. Just when I thought the film had reached its zenith, I was thrown back in my seat, shocked to find a beating heart present amongst the gunshots, explosions, and shaken martinis.

City of God
Written for the screen by Paulo Lins & Bráulio Mantovani, directed by Fernando Meirelles & Kátia Lund
--Many modern directors use all kinds of tricks to heighten the action on screen, including handheld cameras, quick cuts, time-lapse sequences, slow-motion, and speeding things up. While Meirelles and Lund use all of these tricks, the way they use them is wonderfully distinctive. Instead of distracting the viewer with gimmick after gimmick, their extensive use of these visual flourishes is wonderfully naturalistic and actually achieves the lofty goal that those who use them rarely reach: intensifying the visual experience of the film. City of God is one of the best-directed films I’ve ever seen.

The Constant Gardener
Written for the screen by Jeffrey Caine, directed by Fernando Meirelles
--This a throwback to an older version of the thriller, when the characters were what drove the story, instead of the action-packed moments designed to keep you on the edge of your seat. Ralph Fiennes is outstanding as a bureaucrat in Africa trying to uncover the conspiracy behind the murder of his wife. With wonderful direction from Meirelles, The Constant Gardener lingers in your mind after it’s over. Name another thriller that does THAT.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Screenplay by Wang Hui Ling, James Schamus, & Tsai Kuo Jung, directed by Ang Lee
--Nowadays, hyper-kinetic fight scenes are the norm, but back in 2000, this stuff was breathtakingly new. Ang Lee’s take on the wuxia film blew my teenage mind. Not only do the fight scenes achieve a sense of visual poetry, but the love stories are incredibly poignant and the ending unforgettable. Films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are why I love the movies.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Written for the screen by Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry, & Pierre Bismuth, directed by Michel Gondry
--After Adaptation, the fact that this film is a cinematic mind trip is no surprise. The fact that it’s that emotionally compelling is. What’s even more shocking is the grace and poise that Jim Carrey brings to his performance as Joel, a man trying to have his ex-girlfriend erased from his memory. As it turns out, Ace Ventura can REALLY act. As for Kaufman, the literal depiction of the whirl of thoughts, feelings, and memories taking place in Joel’s mind is something that only he could do, and do this well.

Finding Nemo
Written by Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, & David Reynolds, directed by Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich
--I dare you to try to watch Finding Nemo without once cracking a smile. It can’t be done. The film is stunningly animated, wonderfully funny, and beautifully tender. The voice cast is outstanding, with particular credit going to Ellen DeGeneres’ hilarious work as Dory. In Pixar’s long line of diamonds, Finding Nemo is the crown jewel.

Gosford Park
Written by Julian Fellowes, directed by Robert Altman
--Gosford Park is a perfect addition to Altman’s storied tradition of taking a genre story and turning it on its ear. It starts as a whodunit and ends as a whydunit by using the familiar conventions of the Agatha Christie-style mystery to illuminate the socially tense delicate balance between the aristocrats visiting a country house and the servants serving their every whim. The first time you watch Gosford Park, you’re figuring out what the puzzle looks like. Every other time after that, you’re figuring out how the pieces fit together. This film fascinates like few ever do.

The Lord of the Rings
Written for the screen by Phillipa Boyens, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, & Stephen Sinclair, directed by Peter Jackson
--Peter Jackson’s project was one of the most ambitious in the history of cinema; that he succeeded so well is nothing short of a movie miracle. On their own they have their ups and downs, with The Return of the King the best film of the trilogy, but seen together? Together, The Lord of the Rings is one of the best literary adaptations, fantasy films, and trilogies ever made. Lumping three films into one slot is cheating, and I know it. They were clearly meant to be seen as one (albeit HUGE) film anyway.

La Vie En Rose
Written by Isabelle Sobelman & Olivier Dahan, directed by Olivier Dahan
--Biopics, such as they are, are nothing new. Even though it contains many of the biopic’s conventions, La Vie En Rose is so much more than that. If some actors are born to play certain roles, Marion Cotillard was born to play Edith Piaf. She’s simply radiant. The masterful final act is one of beauty, grace, and heartbreak.

Letters From Iwo Jima
Screenplay by Iris Yamashita, directed by Clint Eastwood
--I’ve seen a ton of films about war, but few of them have shaken me to the depths that this one did. Letters From Iwo Jima refuses to accept the traditional definitions of “good guy” and “bad guy.” For the first time, I felt that I truly saw those who the history books always painted were evil. I looked at their faces, and realized that they weren’t so different from my own. In a year when Eastwood released two films about the battle of Iwo Jima, this film is far-and-away the superior effort. A masterpiece from an American master.

Lost In Translation
Written and directed by Sofia Coppola
--Lost In Translation is one of those modest little films that sets out to tell a story that appears simple and straightforward. Bill Murray is the middle-aged man in crisis. Scarlett Johansson is the young woman in limbo. The impact of their encounter, set against a background of Tokyo, insomnia, and late nights, is too wonderful for me to even think of spoiling for you. Thoughtful, funny, and poignant, Sofia Coppola’s little film is one that I will cherish for the rest of my life.

Million Dollar Baby
Written for the screen by Paul Haggis, directed by Clint Eastwood
--Hilary Swank’s performance as an aspiring boxer is one of the single greatest pieces of acting I’ve ever seen. Morgan Freeman is excellent. Clint Eastwood is great in front of the camera, and even better behind it. I don’t like choosing “favorites,” but this film would be on the shortlist of my all-time favorite movies. Some films have the power to change the viewer. Million Dollar Baby changed me.

Moulin Rouge!
Written by Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce, directed by Baz Luhrmann
--Exhilaration! Lightning fast direction. Head-spinning songs. Vibrant colors. Elaborate production numbers. “They wouldn’t do THAT!” This is crazy! “Oh, yes they WOULD!” The musical is back and its name is Moulin Rouge!

Mulholland Dr.
Written and directed by David Lynch
--In his way, David Lynch has been the Boo Radley of American film for years. You don’t really know what he’s doing, but you sure are curious to find out. Mulholland Dr. is a hypnotic film like few modern films are. Lynch found the perfect balance between his trademark dreamy surrealism and the barest glimpse of narrative consistency. I think Mulholland Dr. actually makes perfect sense if it’s approached a certain way. . . but good luck with that. You may not have a clue what’s going on, but I dare you to try and stop watching.

Munich
Screenplay by Tony Kushner & Eric Roth, directed by Steven Spielberg
--When Munich was released in 2005, it was alternately decried in certain Israeli circles as being pro-Palestinian and in certain Palestinian circles as being pro-Israeli. The heartbreaking truth of the film is a deftly nuanced look at the history of the conflict between two great cultures that is alternately thrilling and horrifying. The performances are strong, the ending penetrating, and the final shot unforgettable. Munich is a criminally overlooked gem.

No Country For Old Men
Written for the screen and directed by Joel & Ethan Coen
--From beginning to end, No Country For Old Men is a textbook example on how to make a proper film. The writing is terrific, the direction is nearly flawless, and the cast, particularly Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Kelly Macdonald and a chilling Javier Bardem, is excellent. This is one of the best films the Coen brothers have ever made. While they’ve made a career out of putting strange characters in even stranger situations, here, Joel and Ethan Coen do the strangest thing of all. They play it straight.

Once
Written and directed by John Carney
--The mere existence of Once is enough to restore a person’s belief in the possibility of the miraculous. The film was shot for a paltry $160,000 over 17 days, with two leads whose combined acting experience was one small part in a 1991 movie. In almost any other situation, all of those factors could have been a recipe for disaster or, at the best, mediocrity. That’s what makes the beauty of Once so astounding. It’s a musical without artificiality, a romance without clichés, and a coming-of-age story without platitudes. When people talk about movie magic, this is what they’re talking about.

Shrek
Screenplay by Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Joe Stillman, & Roger S. H. Schulman, directed by Andrew Adamson & Vicky Jenson
--For all of the talk of the brilliance of Pixar, if I had to choose my out-and-out favorite computer-animated film, I might just give the nod to a little movie about an ogre and a talking donkey. Shrek’s ability to thoroughly deconstruct the fairy tale while simultaneously re-affirming its most basic principles is nothing short of genius at work.

Spider-Man 2
Written for the screen by Alvin Sargent, Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, & Michael Chabon, directed by Sam Raimi
--In most superhero movies, the obligatory “regular guy” stuff is what you have to sit through until the hero emerges on screen to jump, fly, and smash his way to victory. That’s what sets Spider-Man 2 apart. The focus is squarely on the trials and tribulations of Peter Parker, not Spider-Man. As a result, the costume never overshadows the character. In many ways, the real world sequences with Peter are more interesting than Spidey’s action setpieces. Note-for-note, Spider-Man 2 is the finest superhero film I have ever seen.

There Will Be Blood
Written for the screen and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
--Anyone who watches a lot of movies gets used to certain rhythms, conventions, and stylistic tendencies that can point the way to where the film is headed. There Will Be Blood is something wondrous and rare: a truly original, honest-to-god, full-blooded, living breathing MOVIE. The performances are perfect. The music is perfect. The direction is almost flawless. Brooding and raging his way across the screen, Daniel Day-Lewis deserves a place in the pantheon usually reserved for actors like Brando. Simply put, this is what you call a masterpiece.

Traffic
Screenplay by Stephen Gaghan, directed by Steven Soderbergh
--Traffic serves as an unflinching look at the world of those who buy, sell, and fight against illegal drugs. Despite juggling a number of stories, characters, and locations simultaneously, Soderbergh (who also served as the film’s cinematographer) always keeps the viewer grounded visually as to exactly where the action on screen is taking place and what’s going on. Before hyperlink cinema became all the rage, Traffic did it first, and in some cases, much, much better.

United 93
Written and directed by Paul Greengrass
--The story of the terrorist attacks of 2001 is not a story that is easy to re-visit, because, unlike many other historical films, we were there and we know how it was. When I first heard about this project, I immediately thought that 5 years didn’t seem like enough time to wait to make the film. I was wrong. The screenplay is completely respectful of those who died on board United Flight 93, and Greengrass’ signature handheld style has never been more effective. As the film neared its conclusion, I reached over and took the hand of the person I was with. Even though a part of me wanted so badly to look away, I couldn’t. United 93 is essential cinema.

Finis.