Originally Reviewed – 1/6/2011

“Filmmaking at its core is a visual medium. Books can tell you what a character is thinking but film has to show you. As a result, the greatest films ever made all share one property: you should be able to turn off the sound and still get the jist of the movie” – My Literature in Film professor, Fall 2003

Black Swan, the latest film by director Darren Aronofsky, is a prime example of that mantra. Combining stunning cinematography, fine acting and a classic story of drive, artistic devotion and personal transformation, Black Swan is one of the most visually intense films to come out this season.

Featuring the talents of an emaciated Natalie Portman as the prima ballerina, Mila Kunis as her mind tripping competitor and Vincent Cassel as the production’s director, Black Swan is well cast from top to bottom. Portman in particular shines and will most likely gardener an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of the technically perfect but dispassionate young star. While Portman starts slow via seemingly mundane interactions with her mother, she hits her stride once tasked with the job of dancing both the innocent White Swan and the sensual Black Swan. Portman is near brilliant in the way she plays an artist letting go and continues to build in strength all the way to the films spellbinding conclusion. As for the other principals, Kunis and Cassel do a fine job in their respective roles, but it’s Portman who’s going to get all the praise come February.

That being said, one can not talk about an Aronofsky film without bringing up cinematography which is damn near Oscar winning in Black Swan. The film is a visual masterpiece, breathtaking from the first frame and sweeping in emotional scale. The movie can be best described as tapestry in motion and much like a painter conveys emotion through brushstrokes, Aronofsky, along with cinematographer and long time collaborator Matthew Libatique, does the same with the camera. The special effects are also noteworthy in how seamlessly they are integrated with the story, allowing the audience to experience Portman’s slow descent first hand.

Playing much like an Aesop fable where the focus is the moral, Black Swan is one big metaphor from beginning to end. If you are familiar with the story of Swan Lake, you’ll know exactly how things are to play out in Black Swan. Unfortunately, in an effort to make sure everything in the film connects to their appropriate themes, character development goes by the boards. While nicely acted, the characters don’t have much behind the gaunt faces and sweeping dances, making them difficult to connect with. During one particularly intense scene between Portman and her mother, I found myself simply not caring about her borderline abusive situation. Not a knock against the actors involved, mind you, just a by product of a focus on the connecting the story points in lieu of strong character development.

Despite some weak characters, Aronofsky has hit another home run with Black Swan. Intensely gripping, especially as it speeds towards a breath taking conclusion, the film is visual storytelling at its finest. In fact, the movie’s final half hour is some of the best filmmaking I’ve seen all year. While I doubt it’s going to make a splash at the Oscars, I could definitely see a few Golden Globes coming down the pike for Portman and company.

You know, writing this review made me think about something. Maybe my film professor from eight years ago taught at NYU at some point. And what if, in his class, there was a plucky young filmmaker with dreams of making that “one great flim”. And perhaps my old teacher said the same line about the classics remaining classics even when the sound is muted. If so, my professor should be proud. Aronofsky was a great student of the art form and made himself a film for the ages.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 12/14/2010

Ah, yes. Prestige Season. The special time of year when the air turns crisper, the season turns jolly and the thoughts of film executives turn fondly to awards season. Blockbusters may bring in the bucks but awards bring in the margins and if a studio’s three million dollar pet project can get some Oscar buzz, it’s all profit for Mama Hollywood. Even better, now is the time when us film geeks get to see the good stuff, the stuff that allows us to wax poetic over pints about films nobody else in the bar will ever leave their homes to watch. While this can be seen as putting on airs of snobbery to the Transformers crowd, to us film lovers this is our time of year to gloat about our hobby and revel in the cream of the cinematic crop. And with a ballot leading seven Golden Globe nominations, The King’s Speech is definitely on the tip of film foodies’ lips this December, and for very good reason.

Providing a bare synopsis of this movie fails in two ways. One, it makes the film sound haughty and overly high-minded and two, it makes the thing sound unbearably boring. Allow me to demonstrate:

“The Kings Speech is the true story of the Duke of York, who, after the sudden abdication of his brother, King Edward VIII, has to deal with the political realities of a lifelong speech impediment. With the help of his wife and an unorthodox speech therapist, the newly crowned king must overcome this obstacle and make an important speech to a country on the brink of war”.

Christ, I put myself to sleep while typing that! I think the name Edward, all by itself, has the same effect on me as Ambien.

As you can see, nothing brings me down more than a standard biopic and thank the heavens, The King’s Speech is anything but. In fact, director Tom Hooper does an outstanding job of balancing historic accuracy, real human drama and an uncanny knack for humor in his latest film. While the movie is shot, at times, in a very standard biopic way, Hooper treats the film like a stage performance, giving the characters room to breathe, interact and co-exist. Also, it’s worth noting again how damn funny this film is without ever getting silly, saccharine or overly light. What results is a well balanced character study of a visionary doctor and a tortured monarch.

Like most films of this type, the setting and dressing would be nothing without some fine performances and this is where The Kings Speech shines brightest. Colin Firth plays the speech addled duke and does so with a conviction, honesty and integrity that is marvelous to watch. Unlike the disappointing A Single Man, Firth is unencumbered by high minded photography and is instead allowed to encompass the spirit of King George VI without the overly directed meddling of Firth’s last effort. Brimming with subtlety, humor and raw emotion, Firth’s performance just might win him the Best Actor Oscar he missed out on last year.

That being said, if the Academy glosses over Firth, then they better hand over the trophy to the man who plays the good doctor, Geoffrey Rush. In playing the politically irreverent doctor, Rush also does a great job in balancing humor, empathy and an unwavering knowledge in the human condition. Firth and Rush complement each other wonderfully and every minute they are on screen together is a joy to watch. Helena Bonham Carter also does a fine job as Firth’s patient wife and the underrated Guy Pearce is well cast as the bad boy King Edward VIII, rounding out one of the best casts of the year.

All told, The Kings Speech is on the short list for winning Best Picture this year and for very good reason. One of the trickiest things to achieve in any artistic endeavor is balance. Lean too much to one side of the emotional spectrum, be it too dramatic, too funny or too sappy and you lose a portion of the audience. What The King’s Speech achieves better than any Oscar season film I’ve seen this year is reach a point where literally anybody could watch this film and enjoy it. Hopefully the Oscar buzz surrounding this movie is enough to propel it to wide screening status as I truly feel anybody and everybody will find something to love from this movie. A sublimely made film in almost every aspect, The King’s Speech is one of the easiest film going recommendations I’ve made this year and is a slam dunk nominee for Best Picture. While I would have whistled a different tune after seeing 127 Hours a month before, the accessibility, charm and stunning acting all make this my current pick for film’s highest honor.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 11/23/2010

Before I start this review of the latest film from director Tony Scott, I need to spend a minute talking about my different ratings systems. In my opinion, different genres of film require a different level of critical analysis. Dramas are mainly judged on the story the director is trying to convey on screen, comedies are based on belly laughs and some films are evaluated simply on how much I would spend to own it. For example, the Social Network is worth buying the 40 disc special edition, Crank is worth keeping if your aunt gave it to you for Christmas and I wouldn’t buy The Expendables if it were on the five dollar rack at my local Walmart and I had that exact amount left on a gift card. Welcome to another of my methods of film evaluation, the Popcorn System.

Reserved mainly for action films, the system is simple. When seeing a movie in theaters, due to diet, money and a host of other reasons, I limit myself to one small popcorn. The film in question then gets judged on how much of the crunchy stuff is left in the bag. The more the film does its job in sweeping me away, the more compulsively I munch. Conversely, if the flick is boring me to tears, I’ll have enough presence of mind to leave the stuff alone, saving me a few calories. Unstoppable features more clichés than an episode of Friends, hammy characterization and passable acting yet, guess what. At the end, my popcorn bag contained only a smattering of un-popped kernels. Despite all the silliness of the thing, Unstoppable is an exciting and enjoyable flick worthy of checking out on the big screen.

For a film of this ilk, it’s almost a waste talking about directing and acting, but despite the obvious plot contrivances, Unstoppable actually succeeds on both points. Director Tony Scott knows exactly how to make a roller coaster style film, as evidenced in flicks like Enemy of the State, True Romance and even the critically maligned Top Gun. Despite a script that has a shotgun’s blast worth of plot holes in it, the film has enough kinetic energy in it to keep the audience involved. Tony Scott succeeds again in giving audiences many reasons to gasp, perched on the edges of their chairs, even if their brains can take a little nap.

On the acting front, Denzel Washington and Chris Pine seem like they are having genuine fun making this one, important when the dialogue is so laughably corny. The duo has fine on screen chemistry, making their journeyman / newbie relationship believable and engaging. While Denzel is fine, if not unspectacular as the twenty eight year railroad veteran, Pine continues to impress me as a Hollywood leading man. Charismatic with enough acting chops to get through a script, Pine should have a bright future as a marquee name. While the script doesn’t require much heavy lifting or soul searching, this is a well cast movie in almost every respect, even if the characters border on caricature.

Throughout the movie, there are multiple moments that are so dependant on contrivance that you can actually predict the line before they come out of the actor’s mouth. At one point in the film, I was literally saying the next line before Denzel did. This would actually be a fine drinking game, if you were to see this at home. In spite of this weary narrative, Unstoppable hits its marks exactly where you’d expect it to, providing some nice thrills at furious pace. Sure, none of it makes sense in the real world but sometimes, a film can live in a world of its own. In this world, where speed limits are suggestions and everyone has a back story, is where Unstoppable lives and for that space in time provides great visceral thrills that rank as some of the best in Tony Scott’s career. Besides, that empty greasy popcorn bag never tells a lie.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 11/15/2010

Movies are a mixture. A concoction of actors, story, directors and editors whose united effort creates the goulash we know as film, movies ultimately depend on having the right ingredients in the right combination. Like any recipe, sometimes the stew is d’lish and sometimes it tastes like a giant mess of Crock Pot slop. While Red has a fun concept and great poster presence, the execution is a classic example of opportunity squandered. To stick with the analogy, Red doesn’t exactly make you want to wretch but this is not an entree that you’ll want to revisit anytime soon.

And, man, with this kind of talent on the movie poster, this should have been one tasty meal. Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman make up the team of retired-CIA operatives on a mission to prevent a budding conspiracy and, at the same time, prevent their own assassinations. The actors do the best they can with the material given. Willis is mildly believable as the head of the group, Freeman is average (despite the fact his average is most people’s excellent) and Mirren shines every time she’s on screen. The main acting fouls are committed by Malkovich, who horribly overacts and Mary-Louise Parker as Willis’ love interest. While Malkovich has sadly become a caricature on the level of William Shatner, it’s Parker who is the biggest disappointment. Wooden, weird and unbelievable as Willis’ love interest, Parker does nothing with the meager script she’s given. Also, much of the comedic aspects rest on her shoulders and literally nothing that came out of her mouth made me laugh. Not a good start for a comedic action movie.

Unfortunately, the script didn’t help. Sloppily written and directed even worse, the film suffers from jarring time shifts, poor continuity and a shocking lack of laughs from this alleged “act-com”. Not to say much should be expected from the esteemed director of The Time Traveler’s Wife and Flightplan, but actors of this caliber deserve much better. In the end, Red is a barely passable diversion and not much else. Nothing pesters me more than when good actors struggle under sloppy direction and Red is a prime example of this. Not to say the film doesn’t have its moments of fun and madcap explosions, but if I have to suffer with one more scene of Parker and Willis trying to convince of me that they’re madly in love, in the midst of her “kidnapping” no less, I’m punching out, Maverick. Hokey, silly and ultimately a waste of 111 minutes, Red had the potential to satisfy my sweet tooth but the end result is nothing more than an inedible pile of mush.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 11/3/2010

Approximately one minute after I finish this review for Rotten Tomatoes, a link to it will be posted on the social networking site known as Facebook. Via Facebook, friends I haven’t seen since Mrs. Clark’s fourth grade class will be able read it, like it or maybe even comment on it. My Halloween plans were figured out via Facebook, my local bar sends me drink specials via Facebook, and I find out who among my exes just got engaged via Facebook. Whether you’re for the site or rage against the world knowing your every waking thought, you can’t ignore the impact Facebook has had on everything from business to interpersonal connections. Rather than do a standard biopic of the website origins, the latest film from director David Fincher takes the more interesting approach of examining the mind behind the phenomenon and the result is one of the best films of the year.

The film has three distinct stories running through it and expertly cuts back and forth among them. The film opens with the germ of the idea being born in the mind of Mark Zuckerburg, played in a career performance by Jesse Eisenburg. Starting with an eye opening moment where Mark is arguing with his girlfriend, the film makes it very clear that this is a character study of a flawed genius. As for the lead, Eisenburg does a great job with the character, giving him an emotional complexity that jumps off of the screen. The character of Zuckerburg could have been very one noted but Eisenburg digs deep and finds the essence behind the snarky sarcasm in what could very well be an Oscar nominated performance.

As for the rest of the film, the story jumps between the creation of the site and two depositions, one between Mark and his CFO Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) and the other between the Winklevoss brothers, both played, via a feat of camera trickery, by Arnie Hammer. This allows the audience to see not only how Facebook came to be but the stark realities of being an overnight success. The juxtaposition of watching Mark create the site with Eduardo in their MIT dorm room and the ensuing legal battle is poignant and engaging. Even Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker does a fine job in the role, bringing the right amount of world awareness and car salesman chutzpah to the character.

David Fincher has always been one of my favorite directors and he again does wonders with a brilliantly written screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. In fact, while I imagine Fincher will get a deserved nomination for Best Director, it’s Sorkin who deserves the trophy for Best Adapted Screenplay above all. The screenplay is smart, funny and emotional, all while keeping the audience engaged, despite the references to web site design and algorithms. The only negative I could possibly come up with is that I doubt Mike Zuckerburg is really as cold as the film makes him out to be. While I totally get that a film needs a catalyst, the movie is really pretty harsh on the genius towards the end. Luckily, both Eisenburg and Fincher make good decisions in softening the blows a bit. Sure, Zuckerburg comes off as a douche but at least his douchiness has an emotional center seeped in regret, a credit to both actor and director.

Despite very minor issues of character development, The Social Network is a triumph of modern filmmaking. Expertly paced, featuring wonderfully directed actors and an absolutely dynamite script, the film is an early contender for a number of Oscars. Facebook is universally accepted yet very polarizing, much like the mastermind who created it. By examining the person behind the concept, we not only gain an appreciation for how the site came to be technically, we understand the motivation behind it. In the end, we all want to be connected and in the same way Facebook connects us to the world, The Social Network connects us to its inspiration. This is a remarkable film that should be seen by Facebook devotes and adversaries alike.

Score – 95%

Originally Reviewed – 10/26/2010

Once upon a time, in the days of yesteryear, an out of work actor, a circus clown, a professional skateboarder and a couple of dudes working at a boarding magazine combined to create a show that would be a testament to bad taste. Feeding off of our primal enjoyment at watching people hurt, maim and make fools of themselves, their show would quickly become a turn of the century phenomenon. A strange combination of skateboarder culture, gross out stunts and genuine comedy, the show known as Jackass would spawn a number of spinoffs, a generation of copycats and two very successful movies. Although the third and latest film in the series, Jackass 3D, provides more of the same rambunctious tomfoolery we’ve come to love from the boys, sadly, despite the 3D and super slow-mo effects, the result is a little stale but still satisfying.

Knoxville, Bam, Steve-O and the rest of the Jackass crew are back for one more round of action with long time director Jeff Tremaine behind the camera. Subtlety has never been a strong suit of the franchise and the bits reflect that, ranging from slapstick to gross out to downright surreal. While there are a few absolute gems in this film, such as the Super Poo Cocktail, the super glue sketches and the absolutely gut wrenching “train scene”, much of the film, while funny enough, is treading on familiar ground. Not to say watching a grown man getting gored by a ram isn’t funny, but an evening on YouTube could get you the same type of thrills.

That, in fact, is main enemy and ultimate downfall of Jackass 3D…time. Back in the year 2000, when the original Jackass was aired, half of the country didn’t have Internet in their homes, those who did were dialing in via telephone lines and social video sites, like YouTube, didn’t exist yet. Turning on MTV expecting a Missy Elliot video and getting grown men stapling things to their scrotums was shocking and outrageous. Now, you can get the same effect on your cell phone if need be. The march of time and progress has dulled the Jackass experience a bit, and while Joe Shmo stuntboy can’t produce the type of shenanigans a 25 million dollar budget can, it would have been nice to see the money used for more inventive bits as opposed to fancy cameras in three dimensions. Instead, we get Johnny dressed as an old guy (again), Steve-O drinking bodily secretions (again) and Pontius playing with his wiener (again).

Despite the repetition, Jackass is a well made film that provides a good number of laughs, even though we’ve seen the bit time and time again. Not for the faint of heart or stomach, Jackass 3D is a great time with a few drinks and a few friends. In regards to the question of how much more can this team of masochists take, one look at the ending credits makes it seem like this is the final stanza and if so, good for them. In this critics opinion, it’s time for Steve-O to hang up his banana hammock, Bam to stick to boarding and Knoxville to find actual work. Jackass has had a great run and will always be a part of my adolescent years but if this third installment is any indication, better to quit while you’re still making me laugh my ass off.

NOTE : Sadly, the feature is only being shown in 3D, so my recommendation would be to leave this for the rental racks as the 3D effects are not worth the five dollar up charge. Hopefully, they release this film in theaters in the standard 2D, but until then, wait for DVD.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 10/22/2010

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages: I am happy to report that the documentary is officially cool again. Ever since it became required to have at least one B list actor in your five million dollar “indie film” in order to get into Sundance, talented filmmakers with limited resources have turned to real life subjects to break into the biz. As a result, over the last few years, the documentary has made a turn from boring history film strips to actual pieces of cinema art. Estranged from a broken festival scene, filmmakers have started creating films that blur the line between doc and drama. Movies like Exit Through the Gift Shop and Paranormal Activity are prime examples of this shift and Catfish is just another example of this growing trend. While the movie is definitely more doc than drama, Catfish is a small yet intriguing mystery that’s wrapped in a crunchy documentary shell and the resulting concoction is a tasty morsel indeed.

The bare bones plot starts with the documenting of Facebook friendship between twenty-something New York photographer Nev and an exceptionally talented eight year old painter named Abby. Via this friendship, Nev gets to know her mom Abigail and her musician sister, Megan. When Nev starts getting romantically involved with Megan, all via online chat and phone, Nev and his filmmaker buddies decide to take a trip to Michigan to finally meet Meg in person. What follows next is an almost Hitchcockian mystery of false pretenses that provides equal parts suspense, humor and intrigue on its way to a shocking finale.

The filmmakers do a fine job with what they were given, which was basically a standard doc about a Facebook friendship that went strangely awry, much to the delight of the directors. While the first half hour feels like a passively shot affair, once the fimmakers realized, “Oh snap, we actually have a real movie here”, the film takes a turn in tone during the final hour. The result is a sense of shared discovery amongst the filmmakers and the audience, not only of the big surprise, but also over the fact they actually have something interesting to shoot. This spontaneity of the moment is what gives Catfish its energy and focus, enhancing the fascinating twist and making the film more interesting than it had any right to be.

Also, many critics have labeled this film as overly exploitive in the way it handles its central subject. While I agree to a point, the tone of the film turns almost apologetic in the final twenty minutes which, in my mind, forgives the many hidden cameras and sneaking around the filmmakers utilize to get what they want. Another minor gripe is that the movie has a good deal of filler in it, understandable considering the subject matter but still disheartening. Also, while some people may disagree with me, I really feel half the film was shot “after the fact”, which grates against the whole “shoot from the hip” style the movie was going for.

Minor gripes aside, Catfish is a fully engaging and entertaining docu-story about privacy, relationships and being careful when meeting people via social networking. Even if a friend has spoiled the twist for you, the movie is still worth checking out as it does its best to be more than the sum of its parts. While it’s most certainly not the best documentary I’ve seen all year, Catfish still manages to provide ample surprises and in the end treats its subjects with the kind of empathy and respect they deserve. Although it can be viewed as a bit on the exploitive side, I see it more of an open window into what makes people tick inside this sheltered box we call social media. Accepting a random friend request will never be the same.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 10/9/2010

One quick caveat before starting my review: I am not a fan of scary movies. Don?t startle me, don?t attempt the cheap jump out from behind the sink trick, don?t even tickle me. The more scare free my world happens to be, the better. As a result, certain movies like Paranormal Activities and anything in the Japanese horror genre are right out. That being said, I do like a good suspense movie, a film that drags you along and builds apprehension until you?re literally crawling on the back of your seat. Buried, a tight little indie suspense movie about a truck driver who wakes up from an insurgent attack to find himself buried alive in a coffin, largely achieves that goal.

Starring Ryan Reynolds and directed by first timer, Rodrigo Cortes, Buried does its absolute best to be bigger than its budget and thanks to some fine cinematography and direction, does a fine job of reaching that height. Centering on the aforementioned truck driver, played by Ryan Reynolds, Buried spends its entire 94 minutes in the very coffin Reynolds wakes up in. No shots of the outside world, no flashbacks to better times, no goofy dream sequences, just Reynolds, armed with only a knife, a cell phone and a Zippo. The result is one of the most claustrophobic ambiances I?ve ever seen on film. Naturally the effect starts to wear off towards the back half of the film but the script does a good job of keeping the audience engaged with some smart twists and turns.

Being the only on screen actor in the film, a lot is riding on Ryan Reynolds in Buried and he handles the job in what is easily his best performance to date. Immediately relatable as the trapped truck driver just trying to figure out what happened, Reynolds goes through the various stages of frustration, fear and despondence with skill I honestly didn?t think he had in him. While there are moments where his performance falls off, they are easily dismissible and never throw the viewer out of the story. Before Buried, I was very anti-Reynolds but now, thanks to this performance, my respect for him has been raised a few notches. Just steer clear of another Van Wilder, Mr. Reynolds. Pleaaase?

First time director Rodrigo Cortes also deserves some top marks for keeping the film coasting along without despite the limited theatrical resources of a four by seven coffin. The film is also framed nicely with distinct acts and plot points that give the affair a much needed structure. That being said, without the exceptional cinematography, everything would have been for naught. Flickering lights, harsh cell phones and the occasional glow stick all serve to highlight Reynolds striking features with texture and relative clarity. Just as much a part of the story telling as the actual script, Buried is a wonderfully shot film.

Tense, unnerving and quietly entertaining, Buried is a fine example of what supreme talent can do with little resources and an almost Hitchcockian idea. While not quite as tense as it could have been, especially in the last fifteen minutes, the overall effect delivers the tension in droves. Couple that with a career performance by Ryan Reynolds and an ending that polarized the audience I saw it with, Buried is well worth seeing in theaters with a good crowd. As a matter of fact, I imagine the tight, tense feeling trying to be portrayed is better served on a large screen than in a home theater, so do you best to see this on the big screen. You may never think of tight spaces in quite the same way ever again.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 10/5/2010

The genre of quality crime dramas has had quite the resurgence thus far in 2010. From the wonderful A Prophet to the equally excellent The Secret In Their Eyes to even the newly released Mesrine series, crime dramas have been tearing up art houses and mainstreams cinemas alike. Even The Town, a film I immediately panned when I first saw the trailer, is being hailed as one of the best of the year. So what does the Australian import Animal Kingdom offer to the mix? Outside of a bone chilling account of the dynamics of a generational crime family and how one fallen brick can send the whole wall crashing down, nothing much, really. Sarcasm aside, Animal Kingdom just might trump all those other flicks, providing an experience that just might make my Top 10 list this year.

Starring the understated yet quite good James Frecheville as a 16 year old boy who, after the death of his mother, is taken in by his grandmother and head of the ?family business?, Animal Kingdom is more Godfather than Goodfellas. Where the later was more about the rise and fall of one gangster, Animal Kingdom is a tried and true story of how a life of crime can bring together and tear apart a family. It?s this focus on family dynamics and loyalty that separates this film from the standard crime thriller. Well paced and tightly focused by first time writer / director David Michod, the movie, while deliberate in the way it moves, draws the audience in with believable characters and top notch acting.

While the aforementioned Frecheville is quite good in the lead, the star of the show is Jackie Weaver as the nefariously intriguing Janine Cody, the ?Don Grandmama? of the family. Cold, calculating and unnervingly manipulative, Weaver is downright brilliant in the role. With an uncanny ability to be nurturing one second and diabolically cold blooded the next, Weaver is the intrigue that keeps the film moving through some of the slow points. Good work is also done by Ben Mendelson as the wild card of the uncles and Guy Pearce as the detective bent on taking the family down. While the film does suffer from some fairly bland cinematography, good decisions are made by the cast and crew which glosses over any rough spots in the production.

All told, Animal Kingdom is patiently quiet yet surprisingly bone chilling in the way it tells the story of broken trust and fleeting alliances. Walking out of the theater, I felt disquieted yet sympathetic to the plight of this family, despite the fact it was their choices that put them in this position. To me, that?s the mark of a fine film, one that will thrill, surprise and keep you guessing all the way through. A tough film to define but an easy one to recommend, Animal Kingdom is yet another fine addition to the foreign crime drama genre of films.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 9/28/2010

News flash: High school kind of sucks. Unless you were an exceptionally popular kid who sported a varsity letter jacket, a cool hair style and more friends than Facebook, the needless social pressures of high school were a drag for eighty percent of the kids involved. Despite classes, puberty and the inconceivable task of deciding who you were going to be for the rest of your life, high school was the first time most people had to deal with a social strata. An almost arbitrary hierarchy of standards and measures, being hip amongst your classmates requires most people to either risk being an outcast or change who they are in an attempt to fit in. Easy A, the smarty written teen comedy starring Emma Stone, examines the later in what is easily the best teen comedy I?ve seen in quite some time.

The story centers on Olive, an overly smart high school girl who, after telling her best friend a fib about a weekend tryst that never happened, suddenly becomes the victim of the fabled high school rumor mill. Once a wall flower and now deflowered according to her peers, she is confronted by her gay friend, Brandon, who asks her to feign sleeping with him in order for him to gain some social standing and prevent the daily beat downs by the wrestling team. Olive complies and quickly becomes the talk of the school. Reveling in this negative attention, Olive turns this lie into dozens, making herself into a startup business for the forlorn losers of the school. However, when her little white lies start affecting her friends, teachers and almost her family, she suddenly realizes how important her suddenly sullied reputation really is.

Once a supporting actress, Emma Stone is clearly the breakout winner in this film. Quick, witty and sassy, Stone wraps herself up in the character of Olive and has made herself a star in the process. The character of Olive could have easily succumbed to clichés but Stone does a remarkable job in keeping her many facets balanced and believable while maintaining a charm that is very reminiscent of Ellen Page?s turn in Juno. The rest of the ensemble cast fills her world with interesting and believable characters; Thomas Haden Church is great as the ?cool teacher?, Amanda Bynes is surprisingly believable as Marianne, Olive?s bible thumping nemesis and even Malcolm McDowell makes an appearance as the line chewing principal. Above all, though, are the fantastic performances of Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Olive?s parents that really stand out. Playing the cool, understanding parents we all wish we had, Tucci and Clarkson are great together, providing laughs every time they are on screen.

One of the better written films of the year, Easy A is helped greatly by a fine screenplay, written by Bert V. Royal. Good acting can only go so far and Royal?s screenplay keeps the story moving while giving us an honest yet quirky view of what high school life is all about. While the writing does lean on certain clichés and contrivances, especially towards its neatly sown up end, the sharp dialogue and quick wit make the film a completely enjoyable experience. Minor issues of pacing and an almost over-reliance on smart kid humor are the only real issues I can find and none of them mar the great time I had while watching this movie.

First time director Will Gluck should be proud. He has managed to create a sharply written film that blends standard teen comedy archetypes with modern day issues that works for both young and audiences alike. Although the ending is fairly clear after the first hour, I couldn?t have walked away from the film if the building were on fire. Emma Stone and company do a fine job of conveying the social issues plaguing kids in high school as well as the trails that go along with discovering one?s self. Wrap that all up in a film that is genuinely funny and at the same time endearing, and you have a great movie that is a worthwhile watch for viewers of all ages. Besides, we?ve all hated high school at one point, right?

Score – 80%