Machines have no extra parts. Every individual piece has a purpose, no matter how big or small. If the world itself is a grand machine of existence, what is your purpose? An interesting question posed within Martin Scorsese’s new film Hugo, which becomes its major theme. Beginning with a beautiful match-cut between the inside of a clockwork machine and the streets of Paris, Hugo pontificates that everyone has a purpose, and if not, they are broken and must simply be fixed.

Hugo tells the story of Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), a young orphan who lives in a large train station in the middle Paris. He meticulously maintains the many clocks throughout the station (a duty abandoned upon Hugo by his alcoholic uncle) and frequently steals pieces of machinery from a small toy store in an effort to rebuild the Automoton, a broken machine man found by his deceased father. Hugo is caught by the toymaker (Ben Kingsley) and forced to work for him to repay his debt. In doing so he meets Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), the toymakers goddaughter, and the two grow close as Isabelle helps with the Automoton and Hugo introduces Isabelle to his great passion: the movies.

That’s right, underneath all the simple charm and lighthearted wit; Hugo is all about the cinema itself. Yet it is not simply about film history, or the inner working of filmmaking, or even the importance of filmmaking to our culture. It is about filmmaking as work itself, and the effect of seeing a lifetime of work destroyed. A terrifying statistic states that 90% of all American silent films and 50% of American sound films made before 1950 have been lost… destroyed, gone, never to be seen again. Hugo shows the terrifying affect this had on early filmmaker George Melies, who made over 500 films in his career, nearly all of them lost now.

Hugo is a special film for director Martin Scorsese. Not simply because of the subject matter clearly close to his heart (Scorsese is the founder of the Film Foundation, a group dedicated to the preservation of film) but because it is both his first family-oriented film and his first 3D film. Much in the way Shutter Island had Scorsese showcasing the many tricks-of-the-trade he could utilize, Hugo has forced Scorsese to develop a completely new style to deal with the subject matter and 3D imagery. I’ve never been a fan of 3D, as it often confuses my eyes and makes many shots look confusing and jarring (particularly when the camera is focused on objects in the background, blurring everything in the foreground). This is the first time the 3D (as a whole) has not bothered me, particularly because Scorsese seems more interested in using the 3D to add depth to interesting images instead of dramatic effect. He also seems to be the first person to realize 3D is only effective with a wide depth of field, and Scorsese showcases this knowledge with numerous sweeping shots through the train station. There are definitely scenes where the 3D is unnecessary and becomes slightly obnoxious, but it’s worth it for the moments the 3D is meant for.

As is usual with a Scorsese film, all the performances are top notch. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz give some of the best performances I’ve seen of any child actors. Butterfield handles the heavy emotion with great depth and sincerity, and Moretz is instantly lovable. Ben Kingsley gives a tragic performance as the toymaker, adding significant gravitas in the later scenes. Whereas Sacha Baron Cohen proves once again how versatile a performer he is as the troubled, handicapped station Inspector.

Hugo is one of those rare films that is incredibly enjoyable, addictively watchable, and undeniably personal. In a time where far too many people have been broken and can’t seem to be repaired, Hugo is a great reminder that sometimes all we need is a little bit of help.

Production Value: 9

Entertainment Value: 10

Let’s start this off by addressing the elephant in the room: yes, James Gunn’s Super shares story elements with Mark Millar’s Kick-Ass (just for the record, I’ve only seen the film, so any reference made to Kick-Ass is made to the film version only). However, the overall themes and ideas are completely different. That, in my humble opinion, is far more important
Super tells the story of Frank D’Arbo (Rainn Wilson), a timid diner chef who can only recall two happy memories in his entire life (marrying his wife, and directing a cop towards a fleeing criminal). Unfortunately, Frank’s wife Sarah (Liv Tyler) is a recovering addict and one day falls back into old habits due to the influence of strip club owner/drug trafficker Jacques (Kevin Bacon), and she abandons Frank. In his depression, Frank receives a vision from God saying he was meant for a special purpose, and Frank interprets this as a call fo him to become a superhero: the pipe-wrench wielding “Crimson Bolt.” He soon meets comic book geek Libby (Ellen Page), who convinces Frank to take her on as his “kid” sidekick “Boltie.” Together, they begin to plan a rescue attempt to save Franks wife.
Yeah, there are certainly a couple parallels between Super and Kick-Ass: the superpower-less heroes, the foul-mouthed female sidekick, extreme violence, and the showdown at the villain’s mansion/penthouse. But the devil is in the detail, and for my money, Super has a different message entirely. Whereas Kick-Ass seemed to almost advocate the violent (and irresponsible) actions of its protagonists, Super tries to dig deeper into the psychology of such individuals who would even contemplate such actions.
Frank has always had the violent urges to strike back at the people who have wronged him, and the identity of Crimson Bolt allows a disconnect for him to perform these horrible atrocities upon anyone from drug dealers to child molesters and even the everyday jerk who cuts in line. While his actions are certainly extreme, Frank does draw have a limit. This is discovered when he gains a sidekick in Boltie, who nearly beats a man to death because she was “pretty sure” he keyed her friend’s car. The key difference between the characters is that Frank has personal issues that drive him to fight crime and always tries to maintain the “moral” high ground. On the other hand, Libby sees her superhero identity as a chance to let loose and wreak havoc, anything to keep from being bored.
However, stemming from this interesting dynamic is a perplexing question: how are we supposed to view the character of Libby? While she may not be evil, she is almost certainly psychotic. She delights in eviscerating criminals: taunting a gunman after she has crushed his legs with a car, or laughing with joy as she disembowels a henchman with Wolverine-like claws. Libby also becomes strangely enamored with Frank once she discovers his secret: first asking if he wants to make out, but eventually raping him while wearing their masks. Yet in the end we are clearly meant to sympathize with her. It’s like her character arc never reaches a conclusion, the only things we know about Libby in the end is that she is a comic book geek and an absolute psychopath. The only other comic book reader we see is a fat loser who rudely comments on Frank’s selection of “research material” and uses inappropriate language in front of young children. Does this mean all comic geeks are either
assholes or unhinged psychotics? I certainly hope not, but I can’t draw any other conclusion.
Ellen Page has gotten a lot of praise for her performance in this film. And while she is certainly entertaining to watch in this, it seems to me like people are completely forgetting about Rainn Wilson. The only exposure I’ve had to him are My Super Ex-Girlfriend and The Rocker, so I wasn’t expecting much from him. Yet I can’t help but notice that he is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the film. Sure, Ellen Page’s Libby is entertaining and interesting, but Rainn Wilson’s Frank D’Arbo is the emotional core to the entire film. His character goes through numerous arcs and deals with many complicated emotions you don’t see in film very much. While Page is having fun letting loose with Libby, Wilson has to maintain a careful balancing act by keeping Frank unhinged and somewhat crazy yet down-to-Earth and still relatable.
In the end, is the film funny? Yeah, but not terribly so. There a few good laughs to be had but Super more often delves into the darker aspects of the characters and leaves the comedy behind. The film is ultimately more interested in the drama of the story and characters, as well as its themes of true heroism. The idea that while cutting in line is certainly legal and not as bad a thing to do as dealing drugs or molesting kids (and obviously doesn’t warrant the same punishment), it’s still bad, and we shouldn’t need the law to tell us what is or isn’t bad.
The limited budget unfortunately shows throughout, but not nearly enough to lose your interest.

Production Value: 6

Entertainment Value: 8

Production Value: 8
Entertainment Value: 9

13 Assassins is a new film by controversial filmmaker Takeshi Miike, who has gained international notoriety for his unflinching portrayal of violence, sexuality, and numerous taboo subjects. While I’m not on for pushing the envelope simply for the sake of it, Miike’s work has a very unique style to it, and the man is always willing to work in a variety of different genres.

The film tells the story of the assassination of Lord Naritsugu, the brother of the Shogun who is rendered “above the law” due to his status. However, other government officials fear the eventuality of Naritsugu rising to a higher political position where he may gain true ruling power. To stop this from happening a ronin samurai, Shinzaemon, is secretly hired to kill Lord Naritsugu. Shinzaemon enlists the help of 11 other samurai, and eventually a bandit, to fight through the Lord’s daunting number of bodyguards. Together, they orchestrate a final stand against the Lord within a booby-trapped laden village.

One could say that 13 Assassins, despite being a remake of a film from the 60’s, could be said to parallel Akira Kurosawa’s epic Seven Samurai. It deals with numerous ideas about the life and code of a samurai, as well as the gathering of a large number of characters to accomplish a singular task. There are several instances of characters performing hara-kiri, a concept that is quite foreign to Western audiences.

The film also deals with the duty of a samurai: the 13 assassins are initially ronin (master-less samurai) who can fight for their own causes due to their lack of loyalty to any master. Yet Lord Naritsugu is protected by hundreds of samurai who have sworn to give their lives for his, regardless of how they personally feel about his actions. One such samurai, Hanbei, the personal bodyguard of Naritsugu, is actually an old friend of Shinzaemon. Hanbei is shown to be a generally good person who is faced with a difficult moral descision of whether to betray his (quite obviously evil) master, or retain his honor as a samurai. For Western audiences the choice would be obvious, but from the point of view of a samurai it becomes far more complicated.

Lord Naritsugu in particular is an interesting villain. The kind of villain that is so cartoonishly evil you would expect him to be larger than life and unbelievable, but he is actually quite an engaging character. He is the kind of villain you love to hate, the kind of person who, in a perfect world, no one could possibly identify with. He interchangeably rapes the wives of men who offer him shelter and uses entire families (including children) as target practice. He is the kind of person who will kick the severed head of a man who has just sacrificed his life for him, and delights in the numerous deaths of men who protect him. Naritsugu is a man of great power who knows how to abuse it.

One may be surprised at the pacing of the film. For well over the first hour is mostly expository information, building up the incomprehensible evil that is Lord Naritsugu as well as the entire plan to bring about his death. There are brief bits of action within the first half, but thing don’t really get rolling until the second half… and boy do they get rolling. Almost the entirety of the final 45 minutes of the film consists of the final stand within the village. Imagine the ending of Saving Private Ryan but in Feudal Japan. The entire sequence is thrilling and rarely lets up until the final showdown (we all knew it would come to that). In the end, the surviving samurai contemplates his loyalty: does it belong to a master, or to himself?

13 Assassins is definitely not to be missed if you get the chance. You can currently watch it on Amazon before it’s in theaters, but is scheduled for release by the end of the month. Do not miss that opportunity.

Production Value: 9
Entertainment Value: 9

Sucker Punch is, not ironically, something you will not see coming. It is a film that is equal parts action, fantasy, asylum drama, burlesque, and quasi-music video. It’s the kind of film that, despite appearances, does have thought in its head and a theme to be examined.
Sucker Punch is the fifth film by Director Zack Snyder, yet the first of which that is not an adaptation of some kind. Snyder is a born visual storyteller, composing each shot as if it were a painting. There is true artistry in the visuals of all of his films (particularly Watchmen) and he’s not about to hold back now.
Sucker Punch tells the story of a young woman (nicknamed Baby Doll) who is sent to an insane asylum by her stepfather. She learns that in five days she will be lobotomized, and so she escapes into a fantasy world within her own mind. A world in which she instead trapped in a 1920’s style brothel and acts out her escape plan there. Yet even within this dream Baby Doll imagines her various trials and tribulations as fantastical action sequences.
For the most part, all Sucker Punch really has are symbols and metaphors. The story isn’t particularly interesting and there’s little, if any, character development. What’s interesting about the film are its various iconography, which it uses to comment on female empowerment.
Think about what it means to be a strong male character: a man who stands up to his oppressors, a man of action who is always able to fight back, a man who stands up for his ideals. What do you think of when you hear strong female character? Personally, I don’t see many heroines in films that are actually strong female characters. Most of them essentially become roles that would be interchangeable with another male role (think Alice in the Resident Evil movies). The only one I can think of in recent memory is The Bride in Kill Bill, a role of action hero that could only be portrayed as a woman.
All of the heroines of the film are essentially all fighting back against heroic male iconography: battles with large samurai, battlefields of both World Wars, a Lord of the Rings styled castle (complete with orcs), and a runaway train with a bomb onboard. The fantasies all take place in the mind of Baby Doll when she is forced to dance for the entertainment of her male oppressors, yet these dream sequences are filled with Freudian male imagery (swords, guns, trains, etc) which the heroines interchangeably use and destroy.
What we are seeing is the typical female heroine’s internal, emotional battle “translated” as the typical male’s outward, reactionary battle. It’s not the fantasy battles themselves that are empowering, but instead what they stand in for.
Also of note is the aesthetic portrayal of the film’s male and female characters. All of the male characters are portrayed as being sleazy, conniving, or downright ugly with the exclusion of John Hamm who plays the one sympathetic male character (within the real world). In contrast, the women are breathtakingly beautiful, particularly within the dream sequences where they are often wearing sexy lingerie. They appear almost as works of art to be appreciated in and of themselves (objectification) yet consistently fight back and overpower their adversaries.
However, as fun as it is to wax philosophically about a film such as this, there are still questions that need to be answered.
The acting is all good for the most part. While the characters are not particularly developed, the actors portray them with much more depth than the script would suggest. Particular praise must be given to Emily Browning as Baby Doll, who shows us the character clearly and definitely yet doesn’t utter a single word for the first 15 to 20 minutes of the film (I actually thought Snyder might have been attempting to tell the story without the main character ever speaking, which could have been cool). Also of note is Scott Glenn as The Wise Man, who essentially embodies every male action hero/mentor character complete with clichés and one-liners.
The film’s biggest problem is a lack of emotional context. Once we figure out that the actions sequences are all dreams while the “real” world of the brothel is also a dream we lose nearly all our sense of place or consequences. It’s like when a friend tells you a story that one of their friends told them.
In the end, Sucker Punch is a visual fiesta that is gorgeous to behold. In some ways a action film with messages and ideas, yet in other ways plays as indulgence for indulgence’s sake.

Production Value: 8
Entertainment Value: 8

By: Andrew Walsh

Limitless is the story of a struggling writer who happens upon a miracle drug that unlocks the hidden potential of his brain and allows his mind to focus and work at superhuman levels… that sounds like a pretty cool idea to me. It’s not wild and altogether unbelievable but has enough room with which it can be creative. Unfortunately, this is not entirely the case when it comes to the movie as a whole.
We follow Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) as the struggling writer. As he takes the wonder drug and seems to be solving all the problems in his life Eddie soon realizes he is in way over his head and now has multiple enemies gunning for the secret to his success.
Honestly, that’s about it. There are a few threads dealing with Eddie’s girlfriend, Robert De Niro in the one-note role of “Mean Businessman #1,” a half-assed murder mystery that is ultimately glazed over in about 5 seconds, and something about Russian gangsters who are after the miracle drug. None of these threads seem to come to fruition and all ends up becoming so much noise.
The big problem with the movie is, ironically, a lack of focus. All of those storylines are happening all at once, they all have an equal impact on the story, yet all of them feel equally unimportant compared to one another. It would be much more interesting if they had dropped one of these storylines, especially if they could have focused more on the characters. Also, each story only plays at face value: there are no real world parallels, metaphors, analogies, etc. The miracle drug is not a metaphor for heroin nor is there any thought given to whether or not Eddie remains the same person while he is on the drug (or rather, they mention the idea in one scene and then drop it completely).
That being said, the more technical side of things is far more impressive. While most of the cinematography is a whole lot of unspectacular medium-shots and tracking-shots for most of the film, there are short glimpses of genius. In particular, there is an effect that is repeated several times in which the camera travels forward on a straight path for what must be multiple blocks on the streets of New York. I have never seen anything like it and I applaud whoever came up with such a brilliant and unique effect. Also, I like the detail of enhancing the color saturation of the film whenever Eddie is on the drug. It’s a subtle detail that becomes a shorthand for telling you he is currently on the drug, as opposed to constantly showing him take it onscreen.
At the end of the day Limitless is an entertaining movie with some cool ideas that unfortunately don’t ever pay off. You’ll probably have fun, but you might be yearning for something more…

Production Value: 7
Entertainment Value: 6

If I have a guilty pleasure, it’s definitely Action / Revenge films. Death Wish, Kill Bill, Taken, Death Sentence, all films with clear good guys doing not so good things to very bad people. Often with simple protagonists with whom the audience can identify with to allow a catharsis for the audience to release pent up anger against the villains. They are simple movies made for simple reasons.  Certainly not made to get the audience thinking, the last time that happened was with The Brave One (and it didn’t turn out so good). I remind you of this because The Mechanic needed to get few things right, but fails so terribly at key moments.
The film follows Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) who is a “mechanic,” a high-end corporate assassin (yes, he works for a single company) who is given an assignment to kill his mentor and chairman of the company he works for (Donald Sutherland, who appears to be reprising his role from The Italian Job). While reluctant at first, Bishop carries out his mission. He afterwards runs into the man’s son, Steve McKenna (Ben Foster) who decides he wants Bishop to teach him his trade. Steve begins to learn gradually, but proves to be somewhat of a difficult student. After screwing up several hits for the company, the new chairman puts out a contract on Bishop, who decides to return the favor.
Yeah, pretty simple. It’s a remake, but I haven’t seen the original. The only thing I can compare it to is Leon The Professional, but only in the basic premise. The story takes quite a few leaps in logic and is lacking in character development. Luckily, it’s all in good fun and you aren’t forced to take anything too seriously.
One of the few things the movie gets (mostly) right is the action. A lot of it is well done and nicely choreographed. There are two particularly brutal scenes involving Ben Foster’s character. One shows a brawl that breaks out after his first hit goes terribly wrong. What was supposed to be done quietly and quickly becomes loud and violent when Steve is given no choice but to kill the man by force. It’s an incredibly brutal fight scene, with both men throwing each other through walls, shelves and bashing each other against counter-tops and doors. And we see every little thing. Unfortunately, after that all the action sequences are let downs. Most of the blood and violence in other sequences are done with CGI instead of the practical effects of the earlier scenes. This severely lessons the impact and makes the remainder action scenes feel limp and lifeless.
The other thing the movie does get right is Ben Foster. Foster is one of the most talented actors of his generation, but has unfortunately flown under the radar for most of his career. Most audiences might recognize him as Angel from X-men 3, but audiences should instead recognize him as the villains of Hostage and the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. Foster has shown that he can take relatively simple roles and make them memorable, and he manages to do a similar job with this film. Unfortunately, that also leads to the film’s biggest problem.
THIS NEXT SECTION CONTAINS SPOILERS OF THE ENDING! However, the ending is not so much of a twist but more of a slight surprise. If you do not wish to know the ending just skip this last section.

There is meant to be a lot of tension and irony in the fact that Foster’s character is learning to be a killer from the man who murdered his own father. Before getting revenge on the man who actually ordered the assassination of his father, Steve finds that Bishop is in fact the one who pulled the trigger. After they succeed, he decides that revenge is the only reason you would ever get into a trade as an assassin. After “revealing” to Bishop that he knows the truth, Steve offers one last chance of redemption. But Bishop accepts his fate and allows Steve to set off an explosion to kill him. The film seems to end there, but goes on to show that Bishop had already rigged an explosion elsewhere that kills Steve, while Bishop himself escapes the car explosion. What??????

This whole ending renders the film utterly pointless. Due to the fact that Bishop is an enigma, the character we follow and identify with becomes Steve. We identify with him and see him grow as an individual… only to be heartlessly (and pointlessly) killed 30 seconds before the movie ends.

But wait! Maybe this is meant to symbolize how audiences don’t properly connect with onscreen violence, and by killing the one character the audience can identify with is effectively forcing an emotional response from the audience? Maybe it’s all meant to make the audience contemplate the disconnect between onscreen violence and real life violence?!?!?! I might buy that if it weren’t for the fact the man who made this film directed Con Air.

However, the ending seems to be a reshoot of some kind. After Ben Foster is shown to kill Jason Statham, he walks off somberly into the sunset as the screen fades to black… only for the movie to keep on going. Instead, the movie ends with Ben Foster dieing while Jason Statham drives a big manly truck into the sunset. The former would have been a good, contemplative ending. Instead, I have the distinct feeling that some test audiences or executive producers severely screwed this up.

Entertainment Value: 7

Production Value: 5

First, I want to make it clear that I did not see every movie that came out this year. If this list does not include what was your favorite movie of the year, it is quite possible that I didn’t see it, for which I apologize.

We shall get to the full list of my top good movies in a moment, but I must bring attention to one film that stood above all else at it’s own level of crap. The film that was, without a doubt the worst film of the year 2010:

“Legion”

           Seriously, I can’t think of a worse movie made in the past decade. It’s premise: laughable. Story: idiotic. Direction: non-existant. Peformances: more horrifying and awkward than an elementary school version of Angels in America. Every now and again we get films that are “so bad, they’re good,” but Legion had it’s sights set even lower. I could forgive it if it weren’t simply for the fact that it takes itself WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too seriously. The filmmakers seem to believe they themselves are doing God’s work by bringing this film to the people. But make no mistake, they are the Great Tempters. Do not follow them and their mind-numbing dribble of what can only ironically be called “art.” We can not allow them to keep doing this, especially since they have already remade their own film in the form of Priest, set for release later this year.

But now, so we can end on a pleasant note, here are My (not Your) Top 10 films of 2010. 

10. “Hereafter”

           I honestly think the concept and reality of death is often overlooked in films today. It’s very much present, but I feel that it is often glazed over and rarely taken as seriously as it should. In “Hereafter”, Death is an ever-present reality and fear. It isn’t done in the “I’m trying for an Academy Award” way that so many other “serious” films do, but handles the topic carefully and sensitively. I can’t think of another movie that made death feel so serious, and I applaud it for such tact.

9. “Machete”

           On the other end of the spectrum, Machete was a movie that took a very serious topic of recent social/political debate and made a farce of it. While the film certainly has a point of view it never takes itself too seriously and concentrates on simply providing a good, fun time at the movies. While it doesn’t quite hold together for it’s full duration, you’d be hard-pressed to find anything else out there quite like it. 

8. “Splice”

           Last year I said that the Science-Fiction genre of films has kind of been in the crapper for the past decade. Last year we saw a return to form with “District 9″ and “Moon” (which, as far as I’m concerned, is one of the best pure sci-fi films since 2001: A Space Odyssey) and now it appears we are continuing the trend. Splice is a bloody disgusting movie, and a lot of people probably stormed out of theaters after they saw one particular scene. But honestly, that was the point of the film: to make the audience feel a sense of unease. I saw all kinds of people make stupid comments about this film like: “if you enjoy bestiality and incest, then you’ll love ‘Splice.’” Those people can seriously piss off. I don’t enjoy crime, war, or murder, but I often love watching movies that portray such things, as do many other people. This film had the courage to put something up on screen that audiences would most definitely not like, and had more than enough reason to do so. 

7. “True Grit”

           The Coen Brothers are possibly the quintessential American filmmaking team at the moment, and many of their films evoke the styles of Westerns. Finally, the duo has made an honest-to-God Western, and it’s been worth the wait. With wonderful cinematography that emulates the landscape sweeping style of the great John Ford, the Coens have reminded me of how much I miss Westerns.

6. “The Social Network”

           A movie about the founding of a website… sounds pretty dull on paper. But put it in the hands of a director like David Fincher, and you get one of the most engrossing and involving character dramas in years. Few people could make a scene in which a character creates a website exciting, yet somehow Fincher pulled it off. And I must say Jesse Eisenberg deserves so much credit for his performance: after years of being negatively compared to Michael Cera, with one fell swoop he has declared himself as a standalone talent in a way that Cera may never be. 

5. “Inception”

           This has been another good year for Science-Fiction. Instead of creating typical cheese-fests and recycled special effects showcases, we are returning to a time in which sci-fi stories revolve around characters, philosophy, morality, and numerous other mature concepts. “Inception” is the brain-child of Christopher Nolan, who has proven after his success with “The Dark Knight” he can basically get away with anything. There hasn’t been a sci-fi film this original or as richly detailed in it’s conception and execution. Fall asleep during it, and you will awake to realize nothing makes sense anymore… maybe Nolan is trying to tell audiences something?

4. “Shutter Island”

           Here is the master at work. With Shutter Island, Martin Scorsese turns his attention to genre he is not readily familiar with: the psychological thriller/horror film. Few people are as in control of what is on the screen as Scorsese is. As layers of the film begin to fall away, he uses every trick in the book to put you off guard and even make you question what you just saw on screen (did that lady just drink from a glass that wasn’t there?) all for the sake of simply freaking you out. And if you’re complaining about the predictability of the ending just give yourself a cookie and shut up, because you have severely missed the point with this one.

3. “Toy Story 3″

           I have shed tears three times at a movie theater… all three times were watching this film. Having literally grown up with these movies, there isn’t a single film on this list that could affect me on such a personal level. This is easily the darkest of any of Pixar’s films, and being in the same franchise that put them on the map, you knew thay weren’t going to settle for anything short of perfection. The emotional rollercoaster that is Toy Story 3 is sure to affect anyone with a heart. And don’t be afraid to punch any immature middle school brats in the face for laughing at the ending… ARGH! Seriously, I want to break those punk’s noses. Sadness is a powerful emotion, so show it some damned respect. 

2. “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World”

           You know I’m biased for this film when I say I haven’t had this much fun at the movies since I saw Hot Fuzz (both of these having been directed by Edgar Wright). But I really don’t care, because not only was SPVTW the most fun I’ve had at the movies all year, it’s also one of the best directorial tour-de-force’s in quite a while. Similar to Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Wright is using every trick in the book with this film. However, he is also constantly experimenting with original techniques and frequently switching styles effortlessly at a moment’s notice. Mr. Wright explained the film quite eloquently in comparing the film to a musical, “instead of characters breaking into song and dance they break out into fights.” 

1. “Black Swan”

I’m honestly at a loss with what I can say about this. “Black Swan” is a masterpiece, plain and simple. Every time you think you understand what is happening, the film throws you for a loop. Is it all psychological, is it for real, is it fantasy, is it simple exaggeration? If you saw previews for this you likely thought it would give you the Fight Club twist, but Aronofsky is too good of a director to blatantly copy another film. All of his work has a unique, personal feel to it, and it is usually very down to Earth. However, with “Black Swan” he constantly forces you to question what is happening: how much is real, is any of it real, where is this leading, did I really just see that? Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis both give stunning, multi-layered, complex performances. And special mention must be made for the re-composition of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake score, which has been re-recorded and mixed in way that it feels very familiar, yet completely different at the same time. This,
people, is great cinema.

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is on fire!.

Crunchy numbers

The average container ship can carry about 4,500 containers. This blog was viewed about 17,000 times in 2010. If each view were a shipping container, your blog would have filled about 4 fully loaded ships.

In 2010, there were 19 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 64 posts. There were 27 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 3mb. That’s about 2 pictures per month.

The busiest day of the year was January 18th with 183 views. The most popular post that day was “Up in the Air” Proves Worthy of Hype.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were facebook.com, twitter.com, unwrittenlettersproject.com, search.aol.com, and google.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for hilary duff, hilary duff teeth, glee cast, up in the air movie, and emily browning.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

“Up in the Air” Proves Worthy of Hype January 2010

Fox airs “Glee” pilot after “Idol” May 2009

Plastic surgery ruins your career..duh January 2010
1 comment

“The Uninvited” movie review [spoilers] February 2009
4 comments

Truman Graffiti Project a success! April 2009
3 comments