Review: Hot Tub Time Machine

What can you expect from a title like "Hot Tub Time Machine"? Add one of the most reliable actors working today John Cusack, "Daily Show" Alum Rob Corddry, and Craig Robinson from "The Office", and you should be expecting something at least better than the title suggests. I'm happy to say, you do.

"Hot Tub Time Machine", is a film with no ambitions other than to make you laugh while you're in the theatre, make you laugh hard. It tries at times for poignancy, as it deals with the lives of three middle aged men who are disappointed with their lives. However, the poignancy doesn't last long, but it's nice to see they tried.

Cusack, Robinson, and Corddry all play three friends, who have screwed up their lives really bad, when Corddry's character attempts suicide, the others take him to a ski resort they went to when they were young. When they get there it's all run down, vanished like their youthful aspirations. However never fear, for they are about to travel through time via a Hot Tub with the help of a Russian energy drink. They find themselves in 1986, the same weekend the three of them spent together. Did I mention, Cusack's nephew played by Clark Duke is along for the ride, but he hasn't been born yet, he keeps flickering in and out a la "Back to Future", he also encounters his future mother who is anything but a model citizen.

At first, the guys try to remember what they did exactly so as not to ruin the space time continuum, but then they soon realize that this would be a great chance to rectify their mistakes of the past.

"Hot Tub Time Machine", is a title I like saying, which makes me think the makers of this movie were hoping to build a cult status around it, and that is indeed possible. It seems we have reached the point where the 80s must be parodied, not earlier where we were getting parodies from the 70s, that decade even had its own television show which parodied it.

For those who remember the 80s, or just the movies the decade produced, I think you'll get a kick from "Hot Tub Time Machine", or even if you're a fan of raunchy comedy in the vein of "I Love You Man" or "The Hangover", you'll also love this. "Hot Tub Time Machine" might've gotten lost in the shuffle, but thanks to the talented comedic performances and truly hilarious moments, it rises above to be something a bit memorable.

There are moments where the film seemed to be too full of gags, I definitely got the feeling it had been cut considerably as some shots seemed edited out, perhaps it will be revealed in the unrated version that will no doubt make its way onto DVD.

I'm not sure "Hot Tub Time Machine" is a film I'll see again, I got most of the jokes, it was funny, and it has fed my need for good comedy until the next one comes down the line. It isn't a bad little movie, it's not ambitious, but it will chase the blues away for an hour and a half.

Review: Me and Orson Welles

"Me and Orson Welles" is a love letter to the theatre, to youth, to the movies, and to Orson Welles.

"Me and Orson Welles" is a difficult movie to resist, it carries all the right elements of a crowd pleaser and it delivers, it's great Hollywood entertainment that isn't made much anymore, so it's a treat to sit and watch it.

The story of "Me and Orson Welles" takes place in 1937, only two years before Welles would make a splash with his radio version of "War of the Worlds" and four years before he would make film history with "Citizen Kane". Welles (Played here by Christian McCay) is the head of his Mercury Theatre company who are currently putting on a new production of "Julius Caesar" in New York. We see the production through the eyes of young Richard (Zac Efron), a young kid with aspirations who, after lying to Welles about playing the ukelele is hired on the spot in a small part.

The film takes place during the week before the show has its premier. At the beginning, it seems like the production is destined for disaster, thanks in large part to Welles' massive ego. Welles doesn't compromise his vision, he treats his actors and technicians as puppets who's only purpose is to serve his vision. However Welles is hard to resist, he's charming and charismatic, and he knows this more than anybody, we the audience are even charmed by him, this isn't accomplished because of Welles' personality, but because of McCay's uncanny performance of him.

However the real story of the film is young Richard, who throughout the week comes of age. Richard develops a relationship with a production assistant Sonja (Claire Danes), a slightly older woman with her own ambitions that causes some moral complications. Outside of the theatre, Richard also forms a bond between an eccentric young girl named Gretta (Zoe Kazan) who he meets at the beginning of the film in a music store. Gretta keeps popping up and as things in Richard's life seem to be less and less innocent, she remains the only honest person in the film.

In a darker sense of the film, "Me and Orson Welles" could really be about the sacrifice that one does for their art. For Orson, he sacrifices the people closest to him and alienates them, among them, his pregnant wife who is alluded to all too briefly. For Richard, he sacrifices his innocence, and is forced to grow up faster than he expected, for Sonja, she sacrifices her purity for higher ambitions.

All of these themes are in the film, but director Richard Linklater keeps them below the surface, and keeps things mostly light, and charming.

I enjoyed the look of the film, which makes you feel like you're in a depression era Hollywood movie. In fact the depression is never really alluded too, no doubt because this is the glamour world of theatre and art that Richard is entering.

The supporting characters are all colourful, and Linklater gives them all a chance to shine. However I would say McCay steals the show as Welles, after seeing his performance, I would say it was probably the most overlooked of 2009, and it's a crime he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

I wish films like "Me and Orson Welles" are made more often, every once in awhile, I would catch myself with a smile on my face. Some might say it's a film that manipulates you, that charms you into liking it, well after seeing this film, you could say the same thing about Orson Welles.

See You At The Movies

I was sad to learn earlier last week that "At The Movies", the long running show which discussed and critiqued recent movies was being cancelled.

My earliest memories of the show happened when I was a kid, seeing Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert talk about the movies of the week. I was always fascinated about movies was interested in what other people thought of them, even though I didn't fully understand what they were always talking about.

I wonder what my parents thought of me watching Siskel and Ebert instead of something more conventional like "Hockey Night in Canada", which was the norm with my more athletic dad and brother.



In high school, I still watched "At The Movies", even after Siskel passed away and was replaced by the controversial Richard Roeper. I still liked the sparring but mostly the discussion. I think watching these guys helped me form my own opinions about movies.

My favorite show of "At The Movies" was always the year end Top Ten List. I would always check at Ebert's list specifically to see which films I hadn't yet seen, then seek these movies out. Ebert in particular opened me up to a lot of smaller films I probably wouldn't have known existed otherwise. Spotlighting smaller films was probably the most important aspect "At The Movies" had, otherwise how else would people go see them.



"At The Movies" has gone through a variety of formats and hosts, most recently with respected critics A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, both of whom are very funny, intelligent, and thoughtful.

It has been said that "At The Movies" no longer seems relevant anymore thanks to things like Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes which gives movie watchers an overall view of what critics think of a certain movie. I disagree, what "At the Movies" brought was a discussion on movies, debates, arguments, conversation, and that is something which is sad to see go.

However I don't think the end of "At the Movies" is the end of that kind of television (Hopefully). Roger Ebert and his wife Chaz are at the moment creating a new show about the movies. There have been other shows on blogs, and on Youtube that have kept the legacy of "Siskel and Ebert" alive. The venues are limitless, it's as easy as making your own film and putting it on Youtube.

In high school, I couldn't help but think of myself as an outcast, when I looked at movies. No one there would give a second thought to people like Frank Capra, John Ford, Martin Scorsese, or the Coen Brothers. "At The Movies" showed me I wasn't alone, and that films were important enough to discuss and argue, just like any artform, I would hate to see that die out completely.

The Best Film of 2010 So Far

It doesn't really matter how long a film is, any length can be great. Look at Bunel's short "Un Chien Andalou", or Chuck Jones' "The Rabbit of Seville". The above film entitled "Plastic Bag" is 18 minutes long but it's a great film, I'm pretty sure it's the best piece of film I've seen all year up to now.

It follows the life of a plastic bag (narrated by legendary filmmaker Werner Herzog in his usual unique style). We watch the bag as it goes from a grocery store, to a woman's home, until it is discarded and is left to wonder the world.

The film becomes a rather touching poem, surprisingly considering it's about a plastic bag. The director is Ramin Bahrani, the man behind some of the best indie films being made, including one of my favorites from last year "Goodbye Solo".

Watch "Plastic Bag", you won't be disappointed.

Warning, the above video is partly cut off. "Plastic Bag" is far too special a film to be seen in half. Please search for it at Youtube.com to watch it in its full picture.

Breathless

What is difficult is to advance into unknown lands, to be aware of the danger, to take risks, to be afraid. (Jean-Luc Godard)

"Breathless" is probably, along with "Citizen Kane", the most important debut of any filmmaker. It's not just a film about youth, it's a youthful film, it's about the adventure, taking caution against the wind, it's about something new, cool, and exciting.

"Breathless" was the first film by Jean-Luc Godard, who was part of the French New Wave group of film critics. These critics turned to filmmakers who included Francois Truffaut, Alain Renais, Eric Rohmer, and Claude Chabrol. Godard was the odd man out, the loner, he was the last of the group to make a feature film, he considered his job as a movie critic as that of a filmmaker but without a camera.

While it's true, "Breathless" wasn't the first film by a French New Wave filmmaker, it is often mistaken as the first one. The reason behind this I think is it represented everything new in cinema that the new wavers were talking about, in his film Godard encapsulated a film revolution that was happening, and people were taking notice.

"Breathless" takes elements from genre film, in this case the film noir (with a particular nod to Nicholas Ray's "They Live By Night"). What Godard does is take the elements of this genre and frees them up, outside of Hollywood conventions and creates a new look, and a new feel for it.

The story begins with Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a small time crook who steals a car, gets chased by police, and ends up killing a cop. He flees to Paris where he runs into an old lover Patricia (Jean Seberg). Patricia is a New Yorker working in Paris as a journalist, Michel wants to take her away with him to Italy where they can live, she is hesitant. This type of scenario is common in any type of crime drama, I don't remember if it was Godard or Truffaut who said it, but they believed the only thing you needed for a film was a guy, a girl, and a gun, and this is basically what "Breathless" has for its story.

But the film is a love letter to the romantic couple, in this case Michel and Patricia, there are even references to Romeo and Juliet who were the first romantic couple. Michel and Patricia are people who live in the moment, they don't think ahead, they don't care about the consequences of their actions, they are in love with eachother, but they know they shouldn't be (at least Patricia knows this). Michel is a young thug who probably isn't as tough as he pretends to be. He pictures himself as Humphrey Bogart, as he sees a picture of his idol outside a movie theatre. Patricia is more the intellectual, she's a journalist, she's more cultured, more attuned with the world, she can probably see her life without Michel. We find out she was in love with another fellow journalist, and in a press conference with a famous poet (Jean-Pierre Melville), she seems to enjoy his flirtations.

Michel and Patricia both have romantic flaws, and they may be aware of this, which gives the film it's inevitable tragic finale. Michel often thinks of death and describes himself being "tired". Patricia is compared by a colleague to a young girl who kills herself, she is not sure if she will turn out like this young girl.

With most of his films, leading up to "Weekend" in 1967, Godard often focuses on disaffected, or disillusioned youth. His characters are usually romantically, or politically charged, and it often leads to a tragic turn. But perhaps no other couple in Godard's universe are as fondly remembered as Michel and Patricia, perhaps because they are his first romantic couple. They represent the rebellion and exuberance that Godard demonstrated in this film. The most memorable scenes in the film come in Patricia's bedroom, where she and Michel stay for almost a third of the movie. Here Godard stops the movie, for twenty minutes, we forget Michel is wanted by the police, for that moment there are only two people who are important in the universe, it is where film is used as passing time between these two people who are in love.

So why is "Breathless" the most important debut for a filmmaker since "Citizen Kane"? I have listed my reasons above, it's a youthful film, it remains that, Godard has taken his lessons from film criticism and applied them to a new approach in filmmaking. Godard wasn't the first person to use jump cuts in his films, but he was the first one to make them stand out as they do, Godard threw continuity out the window by doing this, he was playing with audience expectations. Some critics of Godard have said his techniques were merely a novelty, however I would argue they had a purpose, they were there to create a new impulse in the viewer, a new way to react to a familiar scene. In this way, Godard was re-writing film language, and you can see his influence in the next generation of film students, perhaps most prominently in Scorsese films.

"Breathless" is a film that is aware of itself, so in this way, it's a romantic film that's ironic since it knows it's a romantic film. I suppose you could say, Godard's cinema was in fact all self-awareness. For him film was his way to discuss his own theories or philosophy. After "Breathless", Godard would move farther and farther away from linear storytelling in his films, until "Weekend" where he famously declared cinema is dead. Between "Breathless" in 1960 to "Weekend" in 1967, he made 15 films, they were all bold, experimental, radical, and youthful, I still feel cinema hasn't caught up with what he accomplished in those short years.

I'm not sure if "Breathless" is my favorite Godard film, of course, my favorite Godard film is usually the one I'm watching at the moment. I will say "Breathless" is the perfect start for the beginner, like every great film, it makes you think you're experiencing movies for the first time, and no matter how many times you've seen it, that feeling never fades away.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

Do you know what would be great? If Tim Burton the director of "Edward Scissorhands", "Beetlejuice", "Batman", "Ed Wood", and "Sweeny Todd" got a chance to direct "Alice in Wonderland". Wouldn't that be the best combination between a director and theme? Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" will have to remain a pipe dream, what we have instead is a Burton for-hire "Alice" by Disney, which is less enticing.

The "Alice in Wonderland" that is out now and breaking box office records is regretfully in name only. It borrows the same characters from the Lewis Carroll classic children's story, but takes away the whimsy, the wordplay, and Carroll's original intention. Instead, we get another fantasy adventure between good and evil, where Alice turns into a "Chosen One" who must defeat the evil Jabberwocky so the world can return to its proper order.

The Alice in this film is no longer a little girl, she is 19 and played by talented actress Mia Wasikowska. Alice remembers her first encounter into Wonderland only as a dream, one that she keeps having well into her young adulthood.

The opening sequence of the film in the real world shows off Burton's talents the best by satirizing upperclass society, showing off their own grotesque nature. I almost wanted Burton to follow these people which would make a much more interesting and terrifying film than what we have here. Alice is about to be engaged by an International Twit of the Year, when she sees that familiar white rabbit whom she chases down that familiar hole yet again.

Alice finds herself in Wonderland, which is now called Underland, she is met by the white rabbit, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and the door mouse. Alice is under the assumption once again that this is just a dream, but the others tell her she has been sent because it is for told that she is the one who must destroy the Red Queen's evil Jabberwocky. Of course Alice doesn't believe this right away, she must first believe in herself, otherwise how else can she fight the Jabberwocky.

She is helped along in her journey by Carroll's unforgettable characters who are there as guides, not as the mischievous creatures who make her life a living hell. (Even the Chesire Cat the most mischievous of them all isn't given much to do.) The creatures we find out follow The White Queen (Anne Hathaway) who represents the good, and her sister The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) represents the bad.

Of the characters who help Alice, the most prominent is The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), who actually is given a backstory as to how he became mad, why this is relevant I don't know why, it was always more fun to think of him as just mad.

Tim Burton is a director who is at home in the grim and gothic fairytale stories, he has a delightful sense of humour that shows off well in the performances of Bonham Carter, Depp, and Hathaway. The problem with this "Alice in Wonderland" is I don't think Burton believes in it. I believe he would've excelled with the original story where Alice is tormented by these characters, who are full of clever riddles, rhymes and word play, all that is replaced here by an action story which is not his strong suit, so much so that I have never seen Burton such a slave to CGI.

I wouldn't be out of line to say that "Alice in Wonderland" is Burton's weakest film, when it should've been one of his greatest achievements. Burton should've stayed with his first instincts and stayed away from Disney.

How Do you Define Cinema in 2010? Part 2

I'm not sure I can answer my own question. What is cinema today? Has it stayed the same? Is it progressing?

I can't help but think of the time of the French New Wave. When Godard, Truffaut, Malle, Rohmer, and others were describing cinema in ways that were new to us, there was excitement in the air. Cinema was now regarded as an artform, the new wavers had different theories and terms such as mise en scene and auteur to describe the film climate.

Today we know all that, film can be described as an artform for sure, and as Tolstoy predicted it has become the artform of the 20th century. We are now into the 21st century and it still is the most popular artform of today, but it has expanded to new arenas, it has also been corrupted.

When we say cinema, we can't just mean film anymore. Cinema is now digital, it's now in 3-D, it's now on television, the internet, DVD, and blueray. It comes with special features including making of documentaries, audio commentaries, and special Easter eggs.

Now more than ever we can learn about cinema in the privacy of our own home, perhaps the class most suitable to take as correspondence. Cinema can now be practised by anyone and everyone, the French New Wavers can claim victory with that.

But let's look at Hollywood, whose films are the ones that are still the most popular and influential in the world. Where to start? Let me say this, Hollywood no longer seems to be interested in films, they are more interested in packages. Hollywood is the breeding ground for amateur filmmakers these days, journeymen with no independent vision but can deliver a package that can be sold to the largest consumer. Artists in Hollywood have become scarce, you will usually see them now in television since their way of thinking is no longer relevant in the multiplexes.

It's hard to tell whether filmmakers in Hollywood know what they are doing, or they have just given up on trying to do anything anymore. Going to the the movies is no longer magical, there isn't even art in movie theatres anymore, each one resembles the other so much, you might as well start showing movies at Wall-Mart.

Should we begin to blame the audiences? At the risk of sounding unpopular, I will say they are partly to blame. Godard describes movie audiences as being "neither stupid nor intelligent", that was in the 60s, I would say today's audiences are either "apathetic or intelligent". I believe the majority of people do demand more from their movies than they are already getting, this includes both young and old. Even at a young age, you are able to tell the difference between an image and a blur, that is in fact the two types of movies that are being made today. Some people have chosen to give up and choose the blur, while others long for the image. For the latter group, going to the movies is more than sitting in a dark room for more two hours watching something that doesn't matter, for the former group, they might as well go to a laser show.

I may sound "holier than thou" and elitist when I speak about viewer apathy, that is not my intent, but I cannot deny that it doesn't exist. Apathy comes from a loss in faith, these people have lost faith in cinema and that's thanks to it becoming a machine and not an artform.

There is hope for this however. The hope might not come from the multiplexes, but from the artists, the real ones who have chosen not to compromise and corrupt the moving image. They think independently, and they may have found a way to work within the system, but for most of them, they have found new outlets. They may not come from America, for we are globalized now and can experience new perceptions and new worlds than we might not have thought imaginable. They might come from film festivals or from students making their first short.

There is joy in these kind of films, because it is fresh, it's original, and it's compelling. To me these are the films that in time will define cinema in 2010, and hopefully I'm right.

In 1967 Godard proclaimed "Cinema is dead". I disagree, long live cinema!

How Do you Define Cinema in 2010? Part 1

I've been reading a collection of criticisms written by Jean-Luc Godard when he wrote for "Cahier Du Cinema" back in the 1950s. One of the current questions he asks in his writings, and one I couldn't help but ask myself is "What is Cinema"?

I can't think of a better filmmaker to pose this question than Godard. In the 1960s, Godard tested the boundaries of cinema more than anyone else, in my opinion we are still trying to catch up to what he was getting at.

So here we are 50 years since Godard's first film "Breathless" came out and gave a new definition of what cinema could do, and now I think the question should be raised again. What is cinema in 2010?

For me, I don't think I have a straight answer, it's almost like asking the question what is art? Just because a person points a camera and shoots, does that make a film? Are there certain guidelines or steps behind making a film? Can rules be broken? Is there room to experiment anymore?

I remember going to film school and taking a screenwriting course. In the course we were taught of the five steps behind making a screenplay. The first step is having an inciting incident, this must happen within the first ten minutes (or pages) of the script. This was the thing that got the story going, you always had to have an inciting incident. Is this true? Does something always have to happen in the first ten minutes of a movie. For films that deal mainly in traditional story structure, I suppose that is true. I would argue this is the type of film you would see when going to your local multiplex.

I don't find anything wrong with this way of making films, a lot of great ones have been made with this structure, however in this day and age it seems we have become too dependant on it, and I think is the cause of a lot of lazy filmmaking.

This brings me to another question, is plot at all important in a film? I'm probably bringing this up for selfish reasons, for I don't believe plot is at all important in a great film, but I'm interested to know if others feel the same way. What interests me the most in a film is the characters and their psychology, the look of a film, the tone, and the mood. I'm put into a world, if by chance there is a plot than fine.

A recent film that I think works well in psychology, look, tone, and mood, but has been unjustly criticized for its plot is Martin Scorsese's recent film "Shutter Island". Scorsese works in pure cinema, and throughout his career, it's the psychology of his characters that interests him the most. With "Shutter Island", Scorsese has been criticised for being too concerned with the plot points in the film in order to surprise the viewer at the end. I don't think this was his intent. Many people I know who have seen the movie guessed the ending within the first 20 minutes, and as the final line of Leonardo DiCaprio's guilt ridden character suggests, Scorsese was up to something completely different. For me, the surprise of the movie was finding out it wasn't what you thought it was, it was a Scorsese film disguised as something else.

Despite this, the people I know who have seen it were disappointed in the film. So am I wrong to think that plot doesn't matter?

Another film getting criticized for its plot is "Avatar". This film belongs to a special category and one I will probably discuss int he second part of this topic. "Avatar" has become a pulp culture phenomenon and has pushed the technical boundaries of special effects and 3-D. I would argue it's visually stunning, but to break down the plot, you would get as much depth as "Ferngully The Last RainForest".

I enjoyed "Avatar" for what it was, it was an escape movie, a space opera of epic proportions. The problem I see people having with it were they were able to see through its plot too easily. They saw story lines taken from other movies, and what they saw was a very shallow film. This is actually something I did have a problem with. "Avatar" is a shallow film, but it doesn't realize it's shallow. In comparison, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a shallow film as well, but it knows it is.

"Avatar" is self-important, and doesn't hide its political leanings in anyway, but behind it, is a film with a pretty entertaining adventure story, and stunning visuals that are as groundbreaking as "Star Wars".

"Avatar" attempts a new kind of cinema, and this is what we must ask ourselves, will this define what cinema will become? I would very much like to hear your opinions of this, and I will continue this topic later on.

Movie Review: Precious

"Precious" is a competent film, I believe it's sincere in what it's trying to say, it has brief moments of insight and clever filmmaking, but it failed to leave a lasting impression on me.

I was curious to see "Precious", and I finally got my chance when my local movie theatre finally got it three days after it was released on DVD (Yay Red Deer). The film gained a following after it was a big hit at Sundance earning great reviews for its stars Gabrielle Sidibe and Mo'Niique. It went on to be a big contender during awards season and culminated in it winning Oscars for its screenplay and Mo'Nique's performance.

I read many reviews for "Precious", which is something I try to avoid before seeing the movie, but I knew I wouldn't see it for some time. I like to think however I went in with an open mind with no critics influencing me.

"Precious" is the name of the main character played by Sidibe. Precious lives in Harlem, she is overweight,she's illiterate, she lives with an abusive mother (Mo'Nique) and has been pregnant twice after being raped by her father. When Precious' school finds out she is pregnant again, she is expelled, but her principal gives her the information for an outreach school which can help give her a second chance.

There Precious joins a group of other inner city teens with terrible lives, and with the help of her teacher Ms. Rain (Paula Patton), she starts to read and write and gain confidence in herself.

The unique thing about "Precious" and the reason I think it became such a breakout hit comes from the fantasy sequences. Whenever Precious re-lives or is going through a traumatic experience, she escapes into fantasy where she pictures herself a movie star or supermodel. Some of these moments are effective, the most interesting one is when Precious is looking in a mirror and sees her reflection as a beautiful blonde white girl. I found that sequence worked as it showed what not only what her perception of beauty was but what normal society's perception was as well.

However most of these fantasy sequences I found looked a little out of place and they weren't filmed well. Instead of what they were intended to do which was take Precious out of her horrible real world, it just took me out of the movie all together.

The one sequence I did find where fantasy and reality did come together beautifully was when Precious brings her newborn baby home to her mother for the first time. It was as if the whole movie was building up to this confrontation and director Lee Daniels doesn't disappoint with the heightened drama.

I am coming off like I didn't like "Precious" all that much, save for a few scenes. What I will say for "Precious" is it's a sincere film with sincere performances, and I give it points for that, I don't think it tries for false emotion, the creators had conviction in what they were trying to say, I just think it could've been pulled off better.

"Precious" just didn't have enough of an impact on me, I found most of it to be a film about close-ups. I remember each actor's face, because they all get their share of close-ups, it sometimes felt as if Daniels didn't know how to use space, and made it up by filming the performances, and that is what you are left with. It is no wonder that the performances are the most memorable thing about this film.

For her part, Sidibe never overplays her role, she is perfectly cast, and carries the movie on her shoulder. As the horrible mother, Mo'Nique also does a nice job in not overacting in what I think is a very overwritten role. It felt as if we were being constantly hit over the head at the meanness of this woman which is felt right away in Mo'Nique's first powerful monologue when she yells at Precious at how worthless she is. In the end if the mother gets any sympathy, it's from the power of the performance and not the words.

However I'm a fan of the understated, and for me the heart of this film belongs to Paula Patton as Ms. Rain. It's true that Ms. Rain is the archetypal teacher/mentor we have seen in countless films, but Patton brings a gravity and intelligence to the role, and she shines brightly in it.

The other students in Precious' class are sadly given the backseat, which I guess is fair since this movie isn't about them, however because of it, they fail to be released from their own ethnic stereotypes.

I don't think "Precious" will be remembered in a year, it has its intentions, but it's not high art as it tries to be. It sometimes becomes a victim of its own pretensions, it's self-important when it didn't have to be, but the actors deserve recognition, and I think there is talent in Lee Daniels, I hope the next one is more memorable.

The Stanwyck Solution: Night Nurse

Is there a more beloved movie actress remembered by cinephiles than Barbara Stanwyck? I don't think so. Of the movie blogs I read, the one thing they always seem to have in common is Barbara Stanwyck was a special type.

Stanwyck was the kind of actress not appreciated enough in her day. Although she was nominated for four Academy Awards, she never won. She never struck me as carrying the type of prestige like Bette Davies or Katherine Hepburn. You could never picture Stanwyck in a costume drama saying classical lines, she was always a modern girl. Stanwyck is mostly now known for her work in comedies like Hawks' "Ball of Fire" or Sturges' "The Lady Eve", or classic film noirs like Fritz Lang's "Clash By Night" and of course Billy Wilder's masterpiece "Double Indemnity".

I'd be hard pressed to say what my favorite Barbara Stanwyck performance is, I like all the above titles, I would also throw in Anthony Mann's western "The Furies", and Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe".

Stanwyck's characters always have something in common, they are survivors, they con, connive, and charm their way through life. Sometimes we fall in love with these types, and other times they can be deadly.

One film that I would say brings out everything about Stanwyck I admire is 1931's "Night Nurse". In it Stanwyck plays Laura Hart, a working class girl who attends nursing school. She ends up getting her training at the city hospital where she befriends another nurse "Maloney" (Joan Blondell). After a late night out, Laura and Maloney are caught by the head nurse and are punished by working nights. One night while working, Laura helps a friendly bootlegger with a bullet wound (Ben Lyon) who becomes eternally indebted to her.

After graduation, Laura gets a job at a high end 5th avenue apartment looking after two sick children. It doesn't take long to find out something isn't right in the apartment. The children are slowly being murdered by their crooked doctor and a mysterious chauffeur named Nick (Clark Gable). Nick is in charge of the place while the children's mother is kept liquored up most of the time. It seems the children have a large trust fund which Nick hopes to inherit once the family is bumped off, and Laura seems to be the only one who cares about the children.

"Night Nurse" was a benchmark film during the pre-code era of movies. This was when sex and violence could still be alluded to in blunt straight forward ways. This explains why Stanwyck and Blondell are constantly being shown taking off their nurse's uniforms, and why a friendly bootlegger could end up being a hero. After 1934none of this could happen.

The film was directed by William Wellman who directed another pre-code classic the same year as this, "Public Enemy" which made James Cagney a star. Wellman makes this dizzy melodrama work, it's fast-paced, tough, and contemporary, which makes it hold up better than most early sound films of that era.

But the real savior of "Night Nurse" comes from Stanwyck. For those who think they never had juicy roles for women back then should see this film. Laura is a woman who knows how to handle herself, she's hard nosed, and just as aggressive as the toughest guys in the film. Watching her confront Gable is a treat. Gable was one of the toughest guys in Hollywood at the time and his size shows it, but Stanwyck never stands down even though she is physically much smaller than he is.

The penultimate scene however comes when Stanwyck confronts the children's drunken mother. At first it's a plea for her to do something about her children, but after Stanwyck sees the mother is too far gone, it becomes a rather rough and comical struggle.

There are plenty of things wrong with "Night Nurse" that makes show its age, I'm not too sure about the some of the plot holes such as not having one doctor intervene as a matter of ethics even though it's clear enough the children are being deliberately killed off by another doctor.

"Night Nurse" is a study of Stanwyck, she was a unique actress of her time, and remains so today. Other actresses of that era don't seem to have aged as well since their styles were more out of date and theatrical, (I cringe at Norma Shearer). Stanwyck was always ahead of the curve, even today's actresses don't seem to add up. Where are the Stanwyck characters of today? Are any being made anymore? If they are, they are too far and in between, I can't picture a romantic comedy made today that Stanwyck could be in, they are too tame, and lack personality. Stanwyck was always ready for anything, she was unconventional, and a true original, movies today probably couldn't hold her.

The Only Thing I Will Say About The Oscars

The Oscars are fun, they remain fun, I will be at home Sunday night and watch them with anticipation. I'm hoping for an upset of epic proportions just to shake things up. Remember when "Crash" beat "Brokeback Mountain"? Something like that would be great!

I'm hoping a write in vote for Matt Damon in "The Informant!" will be the upset, I know that isn't expected to happen but wouldn't it be exciting if it did?

Let me just say I'm excited about Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin co-hosting, I expect nothing short of hilarious.

Of the Best Picture nominees I haven't seen "An Education" or "Precious" so I hesitate to give my pics. I also haven't seen "The Blind Side" but really why bother? Needless to say my favorite movie of last year "Summer Hours" wasn't nominated for anything. My second favorite "Up" was, as was my third "A Serious Man" so to those I wish nothing but good luck.

As for the new rule of having ten films nominated I like A.O. Scott's comment that if you look at the ten movies nominated, for better or for worse, it does give you a good idea of the kinds of movies 2009 had to offer, and in that way I don't mind the extended list. Whether this will conclude with a longer telecast I guess we'll see.

Kieslowski: The Conclusion

I have just finished reading Annette Insdorf's book "The Cinema of Krzysztof Kieslowski" reluctantly. I've been holding off reading the last chapter for nearly a week because I still wanted to live in the world of Kieslowski for just a little bit longer. Insdorf's book was a great companion piece to look at as I viewed Kieslowski's films, it was full of insight and I came off understanding his body of work a lot more.

I suppose that's what this little examination of mine was, I was trying to get a deeper understanding of the films from a director I admire.

I've said it before that Kieslowski's films have had a very profound effect on me, it's not just his films, but his philosophy I find so fascinating and enlightening. I never get tired of probing his work as if I'm trying to find an answer to a bigger meaning.

In the years after his death, Kieslowski's films have become more available to people. I didn't know that it was only until 2000 that "The Decalogue" was first shown in America, what a treat it would've been to see it then with people who were seeing it for the first time.

For me, Kieslowski's films will continue to inspire me and challenge my perceptions, they are a lovely place to visit whenever I'm down or I'm tired of seeing the same thing over. The films remain complex but enjoyable and I only hope to learn more about them as I grow.