New York Film Fest Reviews: THE TEMPEST and ANOTHER YEAR

Hey friends. I haven't written in a long time. I've mostly been focused on my exciting new podcast which I host with Sean Donnelly. You should definitely check that out, but I also went to the New York Film Festival this week and saw two films that got me in the mood to write. One is an ambitious, somewhat messy adaptation of a classic, and the other is an extraordinary film by one of my favorite directors. Hope you enjoy. And check out my new podcast here: http://moviesandfilms.mypodcast.com/

THE TEMPEST

I’ve had quite the love/hate relationship with Julie Taymor, going back to some of her early stage work. When she decided to bring one of Shakespeare’s most obscure and problematic plays to the big screen with TITUS, I was skeptical, but mostly impressed with her results. TITUS had some eye-popping visuals but often it seemed that Taymor didn’t know when to quit. Visual flare would quickly turn into pretentious overindulgence. She reined things in a bit with FRIDA, which was well acted and a fine story but ultimately a forgettable film. Then came ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. I know it has its lovers and haters. To me, it was one of the most god-awful, unpleasant experiences I’ve ever had in a movie theatre. It did more damage to the Beatles’ legacy than drugs and Yoko Ono combined. The fresh-faced cast amounted to nothing more than a bunch of obnoxious teens playing dress up. “I want to be the dreamy hippie girl!” “I want to be the cynical guy whose spirit is crushed by Vietnam!” All of Taymor’s visual tricks were on display but they were all used in pointless and incoherent ways. After seeing ACROSS THE UNIVERSE I thought that I might never let myself watch another Taymor film again. Well I broke my rule to see THE TEMPEST this week, primarily because of my love for this Shakespeare play and the chance to see a new adaptation of it. I must admit that it’s certainly an improvement and nearly a return to form for Taymor, though certainly far from perfect.

The biggest thing that THE TEMPEST has going for it is its cast. Helen Mirren’s gender-reversal take as Prospera, (rather than ProsperO) is domineering and powerful, never compromising the character or falling prey to gimmickry. Chris Cooper isn’t instantly accepted as a Shakespearean actor, what with his gentle, southern, folksy voice, but he gave one of my favorite performances in the film as Antonio, fitting so seamlessly into the rest of the cast that he never even telegraphs his darker, villainous character traits until they organically enter the story. Alfred Molina and Russell Brand make for very enjoyable clowns, with Brand’s Trinculo standing out as a nice surprise, showing that his one and only character that he always plays really lends itself to Shakespearean verse. But stealing the film from everyone is Djimon Hounsou’s Caliban. While playing equal parts the tragic slave and the conniving monster, Hounsou gains the audience’s sympathy, while never achieving absolution. It’s a beautiful and deeply physical performance that I could see getting Academy Award consideration.

Not every performance is quite as successful. Felicity Jones and (future singing Spider-Man) Reeve Carney make perfectly adequate young lovers. Jones fares better, especially in her scenes with Mirren, but her modern acting and unfortunate, Megan Fox-like inability to close her pursed lips hardly makes her seem like an innocent girl who has spent her life secluded from humanity. Too often she looks like she’s posing for a magazine cover. She is easy on the eyes though. Carney, has more experience as a singer than an actor, but even when he inexplicably breaks out into a musical sonnet, he carries the same vacant charisma he has with him for most the film. This doesn’t necessarily make me want to see him web-slinging to music anytime soon. Most disappointing for me though is Ben Whishaw’s Ariel. Whishaw has failed to impress me in films before, such as PERFUME and I’M NOT THERE, but his androgynous, whiny, and swishy fairy never feels like a solid presence in the film, mostly because he is almost entirely reduced to a never-ending special effect.

Which brings me to the overall look of the film. Rather than displaying all the visual bells and whistles that she can, Taymor makes a conscious decision to focus more on the brilliant text of the play and let the actors tell the story themselves with their mostly excellent performances. Surprisingly, Taymor shows a lot of restraint… until she doesn’t. Filming almost entirely on location in Hawaii, Taymor makes Prospera’s island feel divinely magical while still remaining earthly. This is why it’s so disappointing when she bogs down the film in unnecessary CGI effects, mostly at the end of the film. The animated dogs and Ariel’s water effects are the most cheaply looking and distracting, which can already be seen clearly in the trailer. More successful is the titular storm and shipwreck and Ariel’s transformation into a birdlike creature. Most of the film’s real, physical effects, (such as a sandcastle held in someone’s hand, or Caliban’s rough, stone-like skin), are so beautiful and impressive, that it makes one wish that Taymor had had a smaller budget so she could make better use of her craft skills, rather than resort to all too modern looking special effects.

Though I think I would have much preferred to see Taymor direct this for the stage rather than film, she still does greater honor to this play than she did with TITUS, thus possibly making this her most successful film to date. That’s mostly due to the fact that THE TEMPEST is a better play than TITUS ANDRONICUS, but it’s still a step away from her usual overindulgence. For her fans, this will be a treat. For people like me who had grown really tired of her flare, they will not be completely won over, but at least they’ll be provided with a satisfying production of one of Shakespeare’s greatest plays.

ANOTHER YEAR

Mike Leigh is one of my absolute favorite directors and I thought his last film, HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, was one of his very best. Now, just two years later, he has topped that with ANOTHER YEAR, which is not only the best film I’ve seen this year, but also quite possibly the finest film Leigh has made to date.

ANOTHER YEAR is quite simply a portrait of people stricken with various degrees of depression and the people who care for them. At the start of the film we see an emotionally lifeless woman, (played by Imelda Staunton in a moving cameo) being forced into counseling after she requests a prescription of sleeping pills from her doctor. When the counselor asks her how happy she is based on a scale of one to ten, Staunton answers “one,” without even taking a second to think about it. In hearing her situation, happiness for this woman seems to be completely hopeless. Leigh could probably fill a whole other film with the struggle of Staunton’s character, but this film isn’t about her. The instead film focuses on the counselor, Gerri, and her husband Tom, played by Leigh regulars Ruth Sheen and Jim Broadbent, and the depressed people we see in the film don’t always wear it so plainly on their faces.

Tom and Gerri have a perfect marriage. They were college sweethearts, are both intelligent and successful in their professions, and are still noticeably very much in love. One sees the two of them and wishes that they could be part of their family. Tom and Gerri have no shortage of people in their life who desire this very thing, most notably Gerri’s co-worker and longtime friend Mary, (another Leigh alum, Lesley Manville), who frequently invites herself over when she needs some support, or just someone to drink (lots of) wine with. Mary, at first, is quite reminiscent of Poppy, (Sally Hawkins’ character from Leigh’s HAPPY-GO-LUCKY), what with her optimistic smile and bubbly laugh, but little by little it becomes apparent that Mary is actually a terribly unhappy woman. Over the year that the film covers, Mary goes through a series of hardships which force Tom and Gerri to cease being merely nurturing friends with her, but rather reaching the point in which Gerri must confront Mary professionally and acknowledge that she needs help.

The beauty of Mike Leigh’s films, (and ANOTHER YEAR is no exception), is that they are filled, start to finish, with all the little scenes that would normally be on the cutting room floor of any other film. We never see Mary on her own, suffering through all the ordeals she recounts with Tom and Gerri. We only ever see her through Tom and Gerri’s eyes. Mary is likely always quite depressed, but for the first two acts of the film, (which is structured by sequences in each of the four seasons), Mary is much better at hiding her pain through laughter and drinking that Tom and Gerri have an easier time ignoring the elephant in the room. I’m sure there are much more eventful episodes in all of these characters’ lives that would tell a more traditionally structured story, but that’s not what Leigh is interested in. People rarely frankly come out and say exactly what is on their minds. You have to piece the story together through the little moments in between, and in the glances and sighs between lines of dialogue.

Leigh famously creates his films through months of rehearsal and improvisation. The actors in ANOTHER YEAR worked with Leigh for five months shaping and discovering not only the lives of their characters during the year the film takes place in, but also their whole history as well. Broadbent, Sheen, and Manville spoke after the film about how they essentially developed a back-story for every moment of each of their lives and that comes across completely in the film. It’s the reason they feel like such complete and believable characters. We don’t merely get to know them in this two hour story, but we can imagine a whole lifetime surrounding these events.

Since Mike Leigh has made such a great number of nearly perfect films, it’s difficult to simply call this one his best. I will say that I think this is his most successful display of balancing wonderfully, joyous humor with deep, rich drama. He may be criminally overlooked by the Academy Awards this year (hopefully not the BAFTA’s), but one person who cannot be ignored is Lesley Manville, who gives one of the finest performances I’ve ever seen from an actress in this or any other year. Broadbent and Sheen have also rarely been better, and some of the other supporting cast members, including Oliver Maltman, Peter Wight, David Bradley, and Martin Savage do equally exceptional work. But the only one who deserves as much credit as Leigh for this film is Manville. She is extraordinary and you can’t wait for her to return every time she’s not on screen. For me, one year with her was not enough.

-Johnny Pomatto

GET HIM TO THE WEAK!

I wrote the following review after an early test screening in January. Much of the film may have been changed since seeing it.

GET HIM TO THE GREEK is essentially Brand’s spin off of his character from “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” which was a film I liked a lot, despite some of its pacing issues. Though I’m sure this early, nearly 2 hour cut will be trimmed down before its release, pacing is once again a problem this time around, and unfortunately there aren’t enough laughs in the film to strike a good balance.

Brand returns as rock star Aldous Snow, and as the film opens he is coming off a flop of a new album called “African Child.” Much like the music video featured in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” the “African Child” music video is full of clichés and spoofs celebrities pretending to care about tragedy and genocide in foreign countries. While amusing, the video and following introduction to Aldous’ current situation seem like a lost extra from the “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” DVD. It hardly seems like a springboard for a whole new film.

Jonah Hill, playing music promoter Aaron, is thankfully a different character from the one he played in “Sarah Marshall.” He has the brilliant idea to jump-start Snow’s career again by staging an anniversary concert of his famous performance at the Greek theatre in LA. All he has to do is get the drug-addled, alcoholic, crazy rock star from London to Los Angeles. You can guess what follows. How many times do you think Hill’s character vomits? I lost track but I’m pretty sure it was at least four. Oh. But one of those times was off camera. Does that count?

There aren’t many surprises or variety in this film. Basically the story can be mapped out as the two heroes party in London, barely make it to New York, party in New York, barely make it to Las Vegas, party in Vegas, party in L.A., and learn valuable lessons about friendship, drug abuse, etc. However this rock and roll lifestyle never seems as crazy, chaotic, and comedic as the film wants it to be. Even when hotel rooms catch on fire and groupies rip their shirts off, it’s all very tame and calm. For all the implied heavy drugs that he takes, (heroin, opium, etc.) Brand never plays Snow with any more energy or mania than he did in the last film and the situations never reflect the danger and risk that he is taking, aside for a brief moment at the end. I don’t know if making the film raunchier would have helped, but I think that the interplay between Brand and Hill would have been funnier if they were a little more mismatched. Brand should have been over the top and big and Hill should have been more restrained and shy. Or how about the other way around? Brand always acting nonplused by the wild events around him and Hill overreacting manically. Neither of these conventions are original, but they would have been more interesting than what we got, which was both actors hovering somewhere in the middle. Both occasionally look like they’d rather not be in their own movie.

Neither Brand nor Hill seem quite ready yet to be leading men or to carry a film themselves, but of the two, Hill fares a bit better. He’s quite funny at times and even pretty charming. His scenes with Elizabeth Moss, who gives a funny and sweet performance as Hill’s girlfriend, are some of the best in the film. I think I might have liked to have seen a whole film about the two of them, and leave Aldous Snow out of it. There are a few surprise cameos and familiar faces in supporting roles, but they never amount to much. Each time someone like Aziz Ansari, Nick Kroll, or Kristen Schaal came onscreen, the audience made a tiny noise of recognition, but no laughter followed when said actors were given nothing to work with. There’s even a brief cameo by Kristen Bell, reprising her role as Sarah Marshall, but I was most disappointed not to see Jason Segel pop up.

Rose Byrne and the great Colm Meaney have small roles, providing the emotional core and conflict in Aldous’ storyline, but once they’re brought in, not much is done with their characters. Meaney is supposed to be the estranged father who Snow could never impress, but when he goes to visit him in Vegas, the subject of their displeasure of one another is barely addressed. Byrne is kind of fun and sexy, playing against type, but it feels like her character should have been a larger part of the story, considering all that is set up for her in the beginning.

Clearly what this film (and its inevitable marketing campaign) is going to be built around is the supporting performance by Sean “P. Diddy” Combs. This is more than just a cameo. He pops up frequently and is fairly essential to the plot. He’s not bad. Gets a few big laughs. Some of those laughs only come from the oddity of watching P. Diddy do silly things. He’s amusing, but by no means does he ever steal the movie. I can’t see this film being a big hit, but what success it receives will probably be based on people’s desire to see his performance.

This isn’t a bad film, but it doesn’t feel like a theatrical event. I can’t believe this is going to be released in the competitive summer. Feels more like a January release, or better yet, the kind of movie you find on cable at 1:00 AM and are just entertained enough by that you stay up to finish it. It’s possible that it can still be improved upon. After seeing the trailer premier a few days ago, I noticed several scenes featured in it that weren’t in the cut I saw. They probably have a lot of material to work with. I still think Jonah Hill is incredibly talented and he deserves a better shot at being a leading man. I’m hoping that his work in “Cyrus” gives him a better opportunity to impress. While Russell Brand is pretty one note, after reading his book I’m quite fascinated by him and I’d be curious to see him in a project that isn’t just building on his own image. Maybe his attempt at Shakespeare in “The Tempest” will be a step forward. This is more like a jump in the air. You can see he’s got talent but at the end of the film, he’s right back where he started.

-Johnny Pomatto

I've Got James Cameron In My Sights: Johnny's 2010 Oscar Picks

I considered not writing up a piece about the Oscars this year. After all, what can I tell you that everyone else isn’t already telling you? This is one of the seemingly easiest races to call in recent memory. It’s not likely there will be too many surprises come Oscar night, but I thought I would give you all my picks anyways. Now I have to be honest with you. This is the first year in at least ten years that I have not seen every nominated film and performance prior to Oscar night. I’ve seen everything except THE BLIND SIDE, THE LOVELY BONES and THE LAST STATION. I fully intend to see those films at some point, but none have been a high priority for me. That said, I think I can still make some educated guesses in the key categories. Even so, we may as well start with something easy.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Remember when Nicholas Cage won his Best Actor Oscar for “Leaving Las Vegas” and “Con Air” was released two months later? Well let me walk you through another scenario. In a year or so, a movie will come out. It might be “Soul Plan 2: Come Crunk the Jiggy Skies” or maybe it will be a Marlon Wayans/Katt Williams vehicle about funny car thieves. Whatever that movie is, MO’NIQUE has probably already signed on to it (under her old price) and will be billed as “Academy Award Winner MO’NIQUE.” As much as it pains me to say it, MO’NIQUE is this year’s absolute only sure thing. And good for her. I’m not a big fan of her past work, but she did give an incredible performance in PRECIOUS. If she had stronger competition in this category I would probably vote for someone else, but even with some fine performances, this isn’t a very competitive category.

I really wish actors like Julianne Moore and Samantha Morton had been nominated for their excellent performances though, just to make this a more interesting race. VERA FARMIGA gave her best performance to date in UP IN THE AIR, and ANNA KENDRICK is making good on the promise she showed in her youth in films like “Camp” and “Rocket Science.” She’s a very fine actress. But she’s young. She’ll have other chances.

PENELOPE CRUZ absolutely deserved a nomination this year… for Pedro Almodovar’s “Broken Embraces.” NINE was a terrible film and CRUZ was passable at best. I felt that MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL was somewhat miscast in CRAZY HEART, but she’s one of my favorite actresses and her performance was still quite good. I’m happy she got her first nomination, I just wish it had been seven years ago for “Secretary.” At least this won’t be her last nomination. She’ll be back, probably for a better performance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

CHRISTOPH WALTZ has won almost every award he’s been up for since winning Best Actor at Cannes last June, so people are saying that he’s a shoo in to win this award. I hope they’re right. I think his chances are excellent and he is most deserving, giving a performance that will be remembered for decades, and might even outlast memories of the film itself. From now on, whenever anyone makes lists of film’s most iconic villains, WALTZ’ Col. Hans Landa is going to be very near the top. I still think the one actor that could upset him is CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER. I still haven’t seen THE LAST STATION, and I think a lot of others haven’t either, but PLUMMER does have a nostalgia quality to him, and not only has he never won before, he’s never even been nominated. People have written him off because his film has so little buzz, but he could get this as a “body of work” award. Remember the year James Coburn won for a film that nobody saw? Just saying.

I still think the award belongs to WALTZ, but if there were anyone in this category as worthy of the award as he, it would be WOODY HARRELSON. This year HARRELSON reminded everyone just how much they liked him with a crazy fun performance in “Zombieland.” But his performance in THE MESSENGER has stuck with me, even months after seeing the film. I’m so glad the Academy remembered his work in this extraordinary film, which deserved nominations for Best Picture and Best Actor (Ben Foster) as well.

MATT DAMON also deserved a Best Actor nomination (for “The Informant”), but that category was a little full so he was given the consolation prize of a nomination for INVICTUS. DAMON was quite excellent in INVICTUS. That accent probably didn’t come easy and it’s a very subtle and inspiring portrayal. I think I liked INVICTUS more than a lot of people, but I still think DAMON was just given this for being gypped for “The Informant,” which I feel he deserved to win for.

Finally, STANLEY TUCCI for THE LOVELY BONES. I haven’t seen it. I’m sure TUCCI is excellent. He usually is. Even in thankless roles like in “The Devil Wears Prada” and “Julie & Julia.” He deserves recognition but TUCCI’s performance was the only good thing most people had to say about THE LOVELY BONES so I think that this won’t be his year. What am I saying? I KNOW it won’t be his year.

BEST ACTRESS

I know all the talk is about rewarding SANDRA BULLOCK for her comeback and financially successful year. I’m sure she’ll get many votes for that. But I don’t know. I think there are a lot of people who are going to see her name on the ballot next to MERYL STREEP’s and they won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for the football weepie. This is the only category I feel that is still pretty up in the air, and I think STREEP might just edge out BULLOCK. I haven’t seen THE BLIND SIDE, and I’m sure BULLOCK is quite good in it, but JULIE & JULIA was an incredibly mediocre film made nearly great solely by STREEP’s performance. I think STREEP’s portrayal of Julia Child will be remembered for years to come, while THE BLIND SIDE will be all but forgotten by the time another good sports movie comes out.

If I had to pick my favorite performance in the category, I’d go with CAREY MULLIGAN for AN EDUCATION. This young star came out of nowhere, and you couldn’t take your eyes off her in this film, even while she was surrounded by excellent, veteran actors equally deserving of praise, such as Alfred Molina and Peter Sarsgaard. MULLIGAN scored several critic’s award wins and a BAFTA for her performance, but I think an American is going to win in this category, and the Academy will simply wait for MULLIGAN to shine again in the future film. I’m sure she will.

The wonderful GABOUREY SIDIBE gave the best performance in PRECIOUS and deserves an award more than MO’NIQUE, but being against bigger names is going to hurt her chances. He reward is getting nominated for her very first film, which is an honor she richly deserves. Finally HELEN MIRREN was nominated just to prove what a weak year this was for actresses. I’m sure she’s excellent, per usual, in THE LAST STATION, but she’s only here for filler.

BEST ACTOR

All five actors in this category gave great performances and deserve their nominations, but it’s a shame that there were so many great actors this year who were overlooked, such as Matt Damon for “The Informant,” Michael Stuhlbarg for “A Serious Man,” and Sharlto Copley for “District 9,” just to name a few. However, between the five nominees, JEFF BRIDGES should have no trouble walking away with the Oscar, and it’s about time. I liked CRAZY HEART a lot, but the film was ultimately enjoyable but forgettable. BRIDGES gave a great, committed performance in a good movie, and while this might not be the role he is forever remembered for, it is the film that will get him his long overdue Oscar. This may be a “body of work” award, but it’s one that is very well deserved.

I would also love for JEREMY RENNER to secure his new A List status by getting a surprise award, but I think his film will be recognized in other categories. COLIN FIRTH was the glue that held A SINGLE MAN together, and he certainly gave the best performance of his career, but he will have to settle for the BAFTA he won last week. MORGAN FREEMAN successfully avoided the usual standard biopic motions playing Nelson Mandela in INVICTUS, but it won’t be enough to win the award for a film audiences didn’t connect with. And GEORGE CLOONEY solidified his role as classy leading man in UP IN THE AIR, but the film has lost so much of its initial buzz that this once sure thing just now blends in with CLOONEY’s many other great but expected performances.

BEST ANIMATED FILM

This was one of the best years for animation in recent memory. Films like UP, CORALINE, FANTASTIC MR. FOX, and THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG were so good that they could have been nominated for Best Picture, and one of them, UP, actually was. This category is usually reserved for the year’s Pixar movie and just the two other highest grossing animated films. But it’s nice that the Academy is treating this category seriously, even going so far as nominating a relatively unknown film, THE SECRET OF KELLS over bland tripe like “Monsters vs. Aliens” and “Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.”

I would love for any of these films to win, but I think that UP will prove unstoppable. Not many voters will pick this as Best Picture so they’ll give it the prize here. Possible spoilers could include FANTASTIC MR. FOX, which has a very devoted following, and THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, which many celebrate for bringing hand drawn animation back to Disney, but you shouldn’t bet against Pixar.

BEST DIRECTOR

This year’s new ten nominee Best Picture category was designed to honor a few films that wouldn’t ordinarily be recognized. So what are the real Best Picture nominees? Well the easiest way to pretend there are only five great nominees is to look to the Best Director category to pick the supposed cream of the crop. JASON REITMAN is a favorite to win Best Adapted Screenplay and with just three films under his belt he has shown that he is truly skilled at making modern, funny films that also have a soul. He’s going to have a long career making them and I look forward to seeing them.

QUENTIN TARATINO and LEE DANIELS share special honors as two of directors who got some of the best performances out of their actors this year. But of course the real race is between former spouses KATRYN BIGELOW and JAMES CAMERON. In BIGELOW’s favor: she directed one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year and would be the first female director to win the award. But of course CAMERON directed the biggest financial hit of all time and had a hand in inventing new technology to make his film look unlike anything that had been seen before. While there is strong support for both directors, I’m sure it will go to BIGELOW, and rightfully so. She did win the Director’s Guild Award after all. If CAMERON won at this point, it would make history in a whole other way.

BEST PICTURE

So, as I’ve previously alluded to, this is the year the Academy, in all their infinite wisdom, have expanded the category to ten nominees. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it gives the chance to some smaller films that would never have been nominated otherwise, such as A SERIOUS MAN and AN EDUCATION. If this practice had existed last year, great films like THE WRESTLER would have been honored alongside crap like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”

On the other hand, this opens the doors for even more successful, larger films, that don’t need a boost, like THE BLIND SIDE. I’ll keep the BLIND SIDE rage to a minimum since I still have yet to see it, though I must point out that a Best Picture nominee includes the line “I’m not changing his life, he’s changing mine.” Really? And isn’t that awfully close to the line from the retard/football movie “Radio?” “We’re not teaching Radio. Radio is teaching all of us.” Ok, Academy voters. You made your bed. Now sleep in it.

This new rule is designed to get people to tune in to the awards show to see the chance of a blockbuster film winning a big award. Also to help increase the success and box office receipts of more films. But let’s face it. AVATAR didn’t need any help and it was going to be nominated even if there were only five slots to spare. A few months ago, I thought that UP IN THE AIR was a lock to win Best Picture. It had the buzz of being the hit of the Toronto Film Fest, was topping many top ten lists, and was an upbeat film that was topical regarding our current economic times. But even with a fantastic cast, this film didn’t attract the kind of word of mouth buzz with the public that films like “Juno” and “Slumdog Millionaire” have in the past. Too bad. It’s a very nice film, but it certainly isn’t the best film of the year.

I’m overjoyed that a Pixar film finally got nominated for Best Picture, but while I think a film like “Wall-E” could have won if it had been nominated last year, UP just doesn’t have that chance this year. My favorite film of the year, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, has a decent shot of being a dark horse as it has a big fan base, but its reward will probably be for CHRISTOPH WALTZ and perhaps a screenwriting award for QUENTIN TARANTINO. I love that the brilliant little sci-fi indie DISTRICT 9 was nominated, but it doesn’t have a chance when put up against the sci-fi monster that is AVATAR.

AVATAR is an unprecedented achievement. One that the Academy could easily reward for its success and mass appeal. I suppose I wouldn’t be too upset if it won, but I think THE HURT LOCKER has a real chance of pulling it out, after a slough of Awards it received in the last few months. Of course The Academy Awards are not the BAFTA’s. Big business might prevail.

I can’t say I’m really on the edge of my seat to find out what happens on Sunday night. I’m more curious to see how next year’s awards play out. Will the ten nominee system stay in place? Probably. Will 2010 be such an amazing year that it will actually be difficult to pick only ten films to fill the category, unlike this year when it seemed like they were stretching to find even ten great films? I don’t know. But today I saw Roman Polanski’s “The Ghostwriter.” Best film I’ve seen so far this year. Not a difficult feat considering the crap we’ve gotten in the last few months, but I hope it’s a sign of what’s to come. I want an unbelievable year. So let’s get started. Enjoy the Oscars, friends. Give me a call before showing up. My couch is only so big.

-Johnny Pomatto

The RED RIDING Trilogy: You Might Think Twice Before Looking In This Basket

My first instinct on a snowy day in New York is to stay in my pajamas, turn on my heat, and pop in a few DVDs. While that might have been a perfectly nice way to spend last week’s blustery blizzard, I decided to take on the icy winds long enough to walk over to the IFC Center so I could spend the day in a warm theatre, watching the most dark and grisly of movies. Three movies to be exact. I’m talking about the epic RED RIDING trilogy that is currently touring the country, and possibly playing on your TV, courtesy of IFC On Demand.

RED RIDING is based on four novels by British author David Peace. They are fiction, though they are all inspired by real life headlines and cases, and the second film even makes the true case of the Yorkshire Ripper its centerpiece. The other two films bookend that story with a mystery involving the gruesome murders of a young girl, who is found with swan wings sewn into her back. It’s a haunting image and the horrific crime takes ten years to be completely solved, with many, many side mysteries that tie together the murdered girl, and very corrupt, immoral, and evil characters including police officers, reporters, clergymen, and land developers.

At five and a half hours this is a truly epic saga, but the beauty of it is that each film tells its own individual story and stands on its own. Each film shows crime and corruption from different points of view, and stars three main characters that appear in only one film apiece, each members of different professions affected by the crimes. The first film, subtitled “1974,” focuses on a young newspaper journalist, Eddie Dunford, played by Andrew Garfield. Dunford begins the story as a hotshot reporter, blooming with confidence, but by the end of the film he is practically driven insane by all the horrible things he’s witnessed, and from the mental and physical torture he has gone through. His descent is tragic and terrifying to watch, as we see a man who is surrounded by so much corruption that he has virtually no one to turn to who won’t find a way to punish him for what he knows.

The second film, subtitled “1980,” follows police constable Peter Hunter, played by Paddy Considine, one of those great actors that deserves to be a bigger star in this country. Hunter is brought to Yorkshire to help try to make sense of the case of the Yorkshire Ripper, which has left the police force baffled for years. Hunter faces the same incompetent and, in some cases, corrupt police force that was handling the child murders in 1974. Things have only gotten worse in the department. Hunter’s personal life is in such shambles that he hardly pays attention to the case of the Yorkshire Ripper at all. While the Ripper is eventually caught, Hunter has ignored so many things that tie the detectives to other crimes that he doesn’t realize what the real danger has been all along. The second film combines two of David Peace’s books, and is unfortunately the shortest of the trilogy, when it should have been the longest. At first glance, “1980” seems to have very little to do with the first film, and becomes almost a standalone story. It isn’t really until the third film that you realize just how crucial so many of the details of “1980” were.

The final film, dubbed “1983,” begins with the disappearance of another child, with eerily similar details to the murder from 1974, making inexperienced lawyer John Piggot, well played by Mark Addy, suspect that the man accused of the original murder might be innocent after all. This film also brings to the foreground Detective Maurice Jobson, played by the excellent and underrated David Morrissey, who is featured in all three films. Jobson is a high-ranking police official who is central to the case, but it isn’t until the third film when we finally understand his full involvement, as we watch him come to grips with some of the mistakes of his past and grow a conscience in the present. Unfortunately, one of the ways he does this is with the help of a psychic, which is one of the weakest aspects of the film. Up until this moment, all three films have been grounded in a gritty reality. Suddenly this psychic woman starts getting messages from the other side, and information that she couldn’t possibly know unless she were the real killer. (She’s not.) This fantasy element kind of took me out of the film, but it’s just a small misstep.

The third film does provide definitive answers to almost all the mysteries from the saga, including the identity of the child killer. This, sadly, didn’t come as a surprise to me, as it ended up being the one person who I suspected since early in the second film. There seemed to be so many clues pointed to this person for so long, that I was convinced that they wouldn’t possibly make that person the killer because it was much too obvious. Though the identity of the killer wasn’t too surprising, the horrid details surrounding the killer’s process were still gripping, disturbing, and fascinating.

My other complaint with the final film is that it ends too abruptly. Just like with the second film, here is where you really start to feel that whole other book that wasn’t filmed. The film provides the series with closure of its central mystery, but there are so many characters in this story guilty of so many horrible things that we are left with a lot of loose ends. We never find out what becomes of a few key corrupt members of the police force. Really horrible, sinister people. Do they just get away with everything? Maybe so. And that would be fine and fitting, considering the rest of the story, but it still would be nice to know for sure. Even title cards and an epilogue would have been an improvement.

It isn’t just director Julian Jarrold’s beautiful and haunting imagery that makes “1974” the best of the three films. It also works because it is the only film that truly stands on its own and tells a complete story, even with ambiguity of the killer’s identity and other crimes left unsolved. Andrew Garfield’s performance as Eddie Dunford is sharp and devastating. The film succeeds so well because we are seeing these horrible events unfold through his eyes, and while the story is far from over at the end of the first film, the experience has figuratively destroyed Dunford to the point that he can no longer be any part of it. He leaves that up to us. The other two films are both very good, but they seem to rely too much on having to explain hazy references from the mysteries in the first film, rather than building their own stories into something that can hold its own.

James Marsh, the Academy award winning director of “Man on Wire,” does an excellent job of giving “1980” a fantastic raw feel of inner workings of a corrupt police force, reminiscent of something like “The Wire,” but the screenplay lets him down. I suppose at this point its foolish to hope that the cast will reunite to film the fourth book, but it would help make the series feel more fleshed out and complete. Anand Tucker doesn’t provide “1983” with as much visual flare as the other two films, but it has an ominous tone that works well, even if it feels like the most mainstream of the trilogy. It’s possible to enjoy each film on its own, but the joy that one gets when you discover a new piece of the puzzle which gives an entire new meaning to the mystery is just too much fun to deny yourself. I’ve seen several plays that offer this experience, such as Tom Stoppard’s “Coast of Utopia” and Alan Aykbourn’s “The Norman Conquests,” but we don’t see this structure nearly enough in film.

RED RIDING most reminded me of the phenomenal, (and superior), miniseries “State of Play.” RED RIDING offers the nice spin of telling the story from multiple points of view with different directors and visual styles, but “State of Play” had a more complete and solid narrative. That epic six hour miniseries was then turned into a two hour American film which cut and condensed all of the rich details that made the original so satisfying. The American version of “State of Play” was actually quite good by American adult thriller standards, and it included a terrific performance by the great Benjamin Affleck. Anyone who saw the remake and not the original miniseries might have been impressed, but those of us in the other boat know just how much was missing. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that America is taking a crack at RED RIDING with a studio adaptation, though at least directed by a talented Brit, Ridley Scott. I don’t doubt that Scott could make a fine film based on the series, but by trying to cram the entire story into one large film would deny the audience of all the little details that make the crimes and the solving of them so believable and compelling.

Even with the films sometimes being uneven, seeing the whole RED RIDING trilogy is an engrossing experience, one not quickly forgotten. In addition to the performances by the excellent lead actors, the film includes supporting performances by a who’s who list of great British actors sprinkled through all three films, including Sean Bean, Rebecca Hall, Jim Carter, Peter Mullan, Daniel Mays, and Cara Seymour, just to name a few. Whether you see them all at once or spread out, I’m sure you won’t be bored by the long running time. These are essential films for fans of the serial killer procedural, ranking up with some of the best of the genre, such as “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Zodiac.” It’s dark, disgusting, and disturbing stuff, and it can be tough to watch at times, but we all need to see something sick and twisted every once and a while, don’t we?

-Johnny Pomatto