Originally Reviewed – 3/21/2010

Sometimes it’s best to simply write a review, be as objective as possible and call it day. If your buddy wants to see Couples Retreat despite your best efforts to dissuade him, that’s on him. However, this time around I actually want people to listen for once. Take heed and do as I say. Go out right now and see A Prophet. I’m talking right this bloody minute. Why? Because it’s probably the best film out right now that nobody is going to see.

Directed by Jacques Audiard and starring the fantastic first timer Tahar Rahim, A Prophet is the story of an illiterate 16 year old kid who is arrested and sentenced to 6 years in prison. While in jail, he has to use his wits and drive to navigate the world of prison, eventually working his way to being the right hand man of the “boss” of the jail, played by the unbelievably good Niels Arestrup.

First things first, Rahim is exquisite in the lead role as Malik. Despite the fact his character is an actual criminal, you instantly feel for his situation and predicament. Rahim plays his character in an honest, unfettered way that seems effortless. Props also go out to Arestrup as the inmate leader of the prison as his character is the polar opposite of Rahim and it’s this combination of the ruthless leader and the relative innocence of Malik that gives the film its balance.

The film is also wonderfully directed in that you get a little bit of everything. While the film does take place in a prison and there are some intensely graphic moments, the film isn’t all tension and violence. The film also allows for humor and compassion while never feeling forced or trite. The story is also brilliantly written, weaving three different groups of prison gangs and how Malik gets his paws in each one. One of the biggest hurdles to jump in this film is that it’s in a number of languages with English subtitles throughout, and while it can be distracting to have to read the dialogue and connect with the actors, A Prophet works just as well in subtitles as it would if you spoke French, so don’t let the subtitles dissuade you from seeing it.

Not surprisingly, A Prophet has garnered itself its fair share of awards and accolades. The film was the French submission for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars (should have won but whatever) and nabbed itself a Grand Prix prize at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. Critically it has been unanimously lauded and for good reason. Still, that don’t mean a hill of beans when it comes to box office receipts, where this movie has yet to gross a million bucks. Sad, sad, sad considering this is one of the finest films I’ve seen this year and a must see if it’s playing in your local arthouse cinema. Many critics have called A Prophet the French Godfather and while it doesn’t quite live up to that classic, it’s definitely playing the same game.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 3/16/2010

Often, reviewing movies can be, what the English call, a sticky wicket. As critical reviewers, we tend to examine what exactly makes a good or bad movie. Elements such as lighting, cinematography and acting all come into play and as critics, we tend to let deficiencies in those aspects affect our feelings on a film. By the very definition of the term, critics are…well…critical, more so than your average viewer, so much so, that we sometimes forget why we fell in love with movies in the first place.

Avatar is one of those films that inspire an internal struggle within me, the epic debate of substance versus experience, technique over emotion. The film features hammy, over the top acting, a script that is teeming with laughable dialogue and a story that’s been told literally a hundred times before. So why oh why did I leave the theater with a smile on my face feeling completely satisfied and blown away? The answer is a complex one, but to do the film justice, let’s examine what the movie is, what it’s not and what it aspires to be.

While you would think the highest grossing film in move history wouldn’t need a synopsis, Avatar is the story of a peaceful alien race called the Na’vi whose tree hugging way of life is being threatened by the big bad industrialist humans. Enter a crippled Marine who, via a mind meld with a Na’vi avatar, is tasked with infiltrating the alien culture to learn their ways and try to sniff out a potential weakness. On the way he flies a dragon, falls in love, and learns to appreciate a culture that his superiors have tasked him to help destroy.

First the bad, and there is plenty of it. As I mentioned earlier, Avatar featured one of the worst Oscar nominated scripts I’ve ever seen on the big screen. No amount of technical tomfoolery can mask the cornball lines that come out of the actor’s mouth at every turn. The role of the General is particularly painful as he has some of the worst lines ever committed to celluloid…and I have to reiterate, this was a front runner for Best Picture! On the acting front, Sam Worthington proves he has neither the charm nor the chops to be a leading man, Zoe Salanda plays it over the top as Worthington’s love interest and Sigourney Weaver is surprisingly wooden as the Avatar scientist. In fact, the acting as a whole is clichéd, stale and, without the incredible special effects, pretty boring. Inspiring monologues don’t inspire, humor falls flat and the film actually starts to drag after an hour and half into it. So why the 70% Fresh rating?

Well, now for the good. The film itself can only be described as a big, beautiful spectacle, and in this case, that’s enough. Much ado has been made about the technology behind Avatar, but the CGI world that the Na’vi inhabit truly is beautifully realized with ooohh and ahhh moments at every turn. While James Cameron’s weakness is directing real human beings, he is one of the finest action directors in Hollywood and those scenes are frantic, exciting and very satisfying. The art direction is also inspired as all that technology would have been for naught if the vision hadn’t been there, and it’s there in spades. The story, while clichéd to the point of plagiarism, still hits all the right emotional buttons. In short, the film is something that we are wired to enjoy.

In fact, one can make some Cameron / Lucas comparisons. They both have no clue how direct real human beings, have a love for cutting edge technology and are true visionaries. They also both borrow heavily from the archetypes of Joseph Campbell to create their movie structures. Just like Star Wars and The Matrix, Avatar, whether James Cameron intended on it or not, uses Campbell’s classic mythological archetypes to create a story that, despite its many flaws, people naturally respond to. While I’m not going to start writing a thesis on Campbell, do a quick Google search for “Joseph Campbell archetypes” and you’ll see what I mean. Avatar is basically Star Wars with blue people and audiences are having a similar reaction. Why? Because it’s a proven formula for writing success, that’s why.

When all the dust settles, Avatar works as a film because it’s a classic story that people can’t help but respond to. Much like pop music simply sounds good and peanut butter tastes great with chocolate, Avatar simply feels good to watch, despite all the aforementioned problems and pitfalls. When it comes to all the things we critics look for in movies, Avatar falls short in almost every aspect; however, it’s a fantastic ride for the senses and clicks all the right links within our souls. While it wasn’t deserving of the Best Picture buzz, Avatar creates an awe-inspiring, hopeful world that you can’t help but fall in love with, even if only for the 162 minutes you spend there. Afterwards, you can dish with your film buddies on all of the movie’s flaws, but if you don’t find yourself staring at it with childlike wonder, you may want to re-examine what made you fall in love with film in the first place.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 3/5/2010

One this season’s surprise critical hits and Oscar nomination scarfing films, The Hurt Locker flew under most people’s radar this past summer. Directed by Katherine Bigelow (Strange Days, Point Break, being James Cameron’s ex), this film tracks the lives and exploits of three Army soldiers whose specialty is defusing bombs in wartime Iraq. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty round out the bomb squad in a film that’s one part war flick, another part psycho-drama and all parts wonderfully kick ass.

The first thing you notice about the film is how expertly paced and balanced it is. From the first shot to the ending frame, everything is perfectly pitched. Humor is balanced with raw emotion and intense action is intertwined with light hearted joking, all expertly mixed by Bigelow, who deserves top mark for her work in this film. Without her excellent direction, this film could have easily devolved into “just another war flick”. Thanks to her, the film brings something new to the table.

Full credit also goes to Jeremy Renner in the role of SSG William James, the leader of the team and the most complex character of the three. When you first meet James, he tends to come off as brash and arrogant, but as the movie develops, you learn how deep the character gets and Renner does a fantastic in this emotional balancing act. If it weren’t for Jeff Bridges, he would be the front runner for a Best Actor Oscar.

The other actors do a fine job filling out the triangle. Mackie, playing the hardened journeyman soldier and Geraghty as the young kid just trying to make it though play nicely to Renner’s character. The cinematography is also noteworthy as it drops it you into the fray in almost a pseudo-documentary style that not quite District 9, but features a combination of shaky cam, quick pulls and classic filmmaking that compliments the story nicely.

When all is said and done, The Hurt Locker effortlessly balances all the intensity, drama and emotion of modern day warfare in what shapes up as an instant classic. Featuring fine performances by the top three actors, a thrilling story and top notch direction by Ms. Bigelow, The Hurt Locker is one the finest films released this year and is a no-brainer must see film.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 2/23/2010

At the risk of sounding overly emo, I love myself a sad, depressing movie. While summer blockbusters, explosions and comedies keep the little boy in me grinning, for me, there’s nothing like watching a film that pushes the right buttons deep within, eliciting an emotional response. Friends of mine often say that I like depressing movies and while that’s not always the case, I can’t say they are wrong. Nothing wrong with curling up on the couch with a bag of Cheeze-Its, moping about with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and if I have to turn in my guy card because of this, so be it.

So, when a movie is about a British literature professor who’s trying to find joy in his life after losing his partner of 16 years in a car accident, I say sign me up. Never mind it’s being directed by first time director Tom Ford. When you have talent like Colin Firth and Julianne Moore starring, how could it go wrong?

The answer is simple. It goes horribly wrong when you rely on contrivances to force an emotional response. It fails when you introduce cliché characters that do nothing to move the story along. It sinks when you tack on a hack ending because you’re not brave enough to allow the characters to arc on their own. In short, a good story can be ruined when you simply don’t know how to direct a movie.

Wow…that last paragraph was harsh, so let me soften it a bit by saying there is a fair amount of good in this film. As every reviewer has mentioned, Colin Firth is wonderful in the starring role. Never once does he overact or play the part too strong. Firth’s performance is patient, controlled and connects with the audience in a meaningful way. The film also shines when Firth flashes back to moments with his partner. In interviews, Tom Ford mentioned that he wanted to add these moments as it reminded him of time spent with his partner and that was good move. These quiet moments of interaction, which include reading together at home and laying on the beach, are some of the best in the film and really cement the relationship between the two characters. Julianne Moore is also very good in the film, although I felt she was underused.

It all sounds great, right? Why the bashing? Keep reading…

The main fault in the movie centers on the absolute pretentiousness of the filmmaking. Making an artistic film is one thing, but boring is boring and pretentious is pretentious, no matter how you slice it. Do we really need the slow pull into a budding flower? Is the owl launching into flight at a moment of personal revelation really necessary? There’s a fine line between artful touches and being “too cool” for the room. While Tom Ford does have an excellent eye for staging, imagery and shot design (he is a professional photographer and fashion designer after all), his additions are hackneyed and unnecessary. Ultimately, A Single Man is defeated by Tom Ford’s insistence on being too arty for his own good.

And you know what the real crime is? HE DIDN’T NEED TO BE! Art films are just that…artfulness for the sake of art. Generally, films of that type work well enough because aspects like acting and character development are developed through the artistry of the filmmaking, not necessarily the actors on screen. Sure, you need a stomach for that sort of film, and there is a market for it. In A Single Man, you have excellent actors working their tails off. There is no need for the aforementioned owl because Firth’s state of mind is written all over his face. To me, nothing is worse than watching good acting get bogged down by bad, or in this case, over fluffed directing. If this were an art piece, fine, but this is a drama and the actors are pulling their weight. There’s no need to artificially heighten the drama.

Directorial choices aside, A Single Man falters in other areas as well. Firth and Moore aside, the surrounding actors don’t bring much to the table and the film features an ending that literally made me scream, “Hack!”, through my clenched teeth. Not to ruin the ending, which I’m almost tempted to do so you have no excuse to see it, but it seemed tacked on and gutless.

In the end, A Single Man is a prime example of opportunity squandered. The film features a moving story featuring excellent acting that’s brought to a screeching halt by a director Tom Ford’s insistence on being arty when the subject matter didn’t need to be. To be fair to a director I’ve really taken a dump on, you can tell this was a labor of love, and I respect that, however, a 99 minute film shouldn’t feel like it took two and a half to get through. Hopefully Tom Ford learns to trust his actors to bring the drama rather than relying on photographic cliché’s as he truly has the vision of an artist but lacks the filmmaking chops to see it through.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 2/12/2010

Typically, I’m not a huge fan of the traditional biopic. Something about the stoic re-telling of a famous person’s life always seem self serving and over-indulgent…about as much as using the words “self serving” and “over-indulgent” in a movie review, but give me a pass, I just watched a movie about Leo Tolstoy. I reserve the right to be “verbose”! While The Last Station certainly falls into some of the traps that other films of this type do, those other films don’t have Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer sharing a screen together. And that, dear readers, makes all the difference in the world.

The Last Station takes place in the twilight years of Tolstoy’s life as he lives out his elder years surrounded by his wife (Mirren), his personal secretary and devotee (played by James McAvoy) and his financial advisor (played by Paul Giamatti). While the central plot of the film involves Giamatti’s attempts to have Tolstoy sign over ownership of his work to the Russian people, which would leave his wife in the cold financially, the real strength of the film is the relationship between Tolstoy and his wife. Watching Plummer and Mirren together on screen is electric and is the highlight of the movie.

When it comes to Plummer’s portrayal of Tolstoy, he plays the character with the dignity and respect you would expect from an actor of Plummer’s caliber. Tolstoy comes off as a quiet genius who has lived his fair share of life in the past but now has resigned himself to a life of self sacrifice. If the Russian people must suffer, so must he. Plummer’s portrayal of Tolstoy is honest, deceptively simple and works wonderfully.

Mirren, on the other hand, plays his wife, Sofya, with a ferocity and a passion that perfectly mirrors Tolstoy’s stoic nature. Sofya is almost Tolstoy’s opposite, a true lady who enjoys life, love and everything Tolstoy’s success has afforded them to have. Although Sofya and Tolstoy argue on a regular basis, simply because of their divergence in ideals, there is always an undercurrent of a true love for each other that lifts the movie from ordinary to excellent. Without giving anything away, the scene between the two when they are in the bedroom together is one of the sweetest scenes I’ve seen this year and cements the two as head strong characters who still share a deep love for one another.

As for the rest of the main cast, McAvoy does a nice job as Tolstoy’s idealist secretary who, after years of studying his work, finally has a chance to work for his idol. The role is an important one as he’s thrown in middle of both the financial and emotional tension between Sofya and Tolstoy. Being a young idealist, he tows the line between a true Tolstoyian and his deep desires for forbidden passions providing that emotional link the film desperately needs. Giamatti also does a fine job as the “villain” in the film, however, I felt his character was underwritten.

The rest of film follows the period piece / biopic formula to a tee, with all the expected strengths and pitfalls. While I applaud director Michael Hoffman for giving the actors a stage to simply work their magic without too much meddling, the script itself could have been livelier without the standard clichés and slow pacing of period piece writing. All in all, though, the unbelievable performances of both Mirren and Plummer elevate this film to required viewing status and will be enjoyed by anyone who can appreciate two actors at the top of their game.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

For me, January is one of the best months for movies. While many fans yearn for the thrills of summer blockbusters, I always like getting a chance to see as many prestige movies as I can before the Oscars. The problem with this is that many films get over-hyped as the Oscar buzz gets louder and louder. One of my favorite films from last year, Slumdog Millionaire fell to victim to this…the movie was great, but it wasn’t the life changing event the buzz was making it out to be. Crazy Heart, especially the performance of Jeff Bridges, has fallen to that kind of buzz. Would the film live up to it? Read on to find out!

Written and directed by first timer Scott Cooper, Crazy Heart is the emotional, at times humorous and inspirational story of a broken down country singer, played by Jeff Bridges, who in touring the many bowling alleys and dive bars of the Southwestern United States, tries to rebuild his crumbling life. Along the way he encounters a young reporter, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, her adorable son and his protégé who’s now more famous than him, played by Colin Farrell. The cast does a nice job of keeping the story moving but the performance of Jeff Bridges is the shining light of the film and keeps the film from slipping into mediocrity.

As far as Jeff Bridges is concerned, this is truly one of the landmark performances of his career. While many critics have been comparing Bridge’s hard drinking, hard living character to last year’s The Wrestler, to me there is no comparison. Where Mickey Rourke was essentially playing an extension of himself, Bridges reached out and created a character with true emotional depth. The character of Bad Blake, while seeped in the depths of alcoholism, womanizing and a career going nowhere, is a sympathetic one. Bridges balances his character’s cocky western swagger with a surprisingly sweet side that enriches the film as a whole. Bridges more than deserves his Best Actor Golden Globe and will most likely win himself an Oscar come February.

The rest of the film does a fine job of moving the story along, which, while it’s a touch thin, holds together thanks to the fine performances of the cast. The dialogue is crisp and witty, the direction tells the story in a well paced manner and the cinematography captures the beautiful vistas of the Southwest with grace and beauty. The music in the film is also noteworthy as it’s truly excellent and evocative in a way that only old school country can be.

In the end, Crazy Heart more than deserves the buzz and accolades its been receiving since its release last month. Despite a thin story and a less than believable relationship between Gyllenhaal and Bridges, the strength of the Bad Blake character and the man behind him elevates this film to must see status.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

To be fair, we’ve gotten to a point where Robert Downey Jr. can do no wrong. After revitalizing his career with Iron Man and getting an Oscar nomination for Tropic Thunder, Downey has been on quite a roll as of late. Enter director Guy Ritchie, whose career arc matches Downey’s to a certain degree. After a few disappointing films, Ritchie needs a strong one to get his career back on track.

So what better way to do so than mix the charm of Robert Downey Jr. with Guy Ritchie’s kinetic filmmaking style in a reboot of a classic franchise. The result is Sherlock Holmes, an imperfect but highly entertaining action / adventure film that turns the thoughtful sleuth into an ass kicking, swashbuckling detective that’s more Pirates of the Caribbean than the classic character.

In the role of Mr. Holmes, Downey essentially plays the same character he does in Iron Man, giving the usually stoic character a bad boy jolt to go with his logical mind. The combination worked in Iron Man and it works in Holmes but I hope Downey isn’t typecasting himself, as he truly is an excellent character actor. The other side of the duo is Jude Law, playing the more traditional Dr. Watson in a part that essentially has him sighing at Downey’s behavior and chiming in witticisms when the script allows. Law plays the part adequately but he doesn’t have much room to maneuver in playing the straight man to Downey’s high octane Holmes. Still, Law does a fine job with what he has to work with.

Unfortunately, neither Downey nor Law has much dramatic room to work with in a script that files from one action scene to another without too much meat in between. The moments of detective work offer some nice surprises and “aha!” moments, but the bulk of the film is spent fighting minions, dodging band saws and destroying shipyards. That being said, the action is one the film’s strongest features with each scene full of excitement, thrills and moments of hilarity that really move the film along. Guy Ritchie’s electric style comes on full force in these scenes that are well choreographed and very enjoyable.

The rest of the films direction works just fine in moving the story along, which involves dark magic and political corruption in Victorian England. The story, while very far fetched in some moments, serves the main characters well and gives us a chance to see Holmes and company unearth the mystery in an interesting setting. The film also features very nice cinematography, especially when the camera sweeps over landscapes and half finished landmarks.

All in all, Sherlock Holmes, while doing little to capture the quiet charm of the original character, is a vibrant and exciting film that features excellent action and great acting by Robert Downey Jr. Long time fans may hate the souped up version of the classic character, but I felt enough of the original was kept intact to make this truly Sherlock Holmes not Iron Man 1.5. Ritchie may not have another Snatch on his hands, and it’s nowhere near the level of this summer’s Star Trek, but as far as big budget action films go, this one is well worth the price of admission.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

Just as a quick background check, I used to travel for a living. In 2006, I spent 216 nights in hotel rooms in various parts of the country, usually for four to six weeks at a stretch. Traveling for a living, while it’s an ever changing life, still has moments grounded in routine. How early you need to get to the airport, what type of amenities required for hotel stays, even down to what type of shoes you wear to breeze through security are all dictated by the experience of business related travel..

Imagine then my excitement when the trailer for a film directed by the always great Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) staring George Clooney as a jet-set road warrior first came out. Luckily for me, the film did not disappoint as Up In The Air is a thoughtful, well written, and finely acted affair that should get more than it’s fair share of buzz this coming awards season.

Up In The Air is the story of Ryan Bingham, who travels around the country as an out-sourced firing expert. Along the way, he meets his female counterpart, expertly played by Vera Farmiga, as well as a newcomer to the company who travels with him to learn the ropes, played by Anna Kendrick. All three of the leads do an exceptional job with the characters, giving each one an emotional depth to go with the genuinely funny moments. Reitman’s films are often dark comedies featuring unlikable protagonists that you secretly wish you could be like, but Up In The Air is a much more balanced affair. While the characters don’t lead “normal” lives, you can’t help but admire their conviction to their life decisions, despite everything they miss out on in the process.

George Clooney in particular does a great job in the lead role. Clooney has played the cool, confident character before, but never with this kind of arc or depth. The character of Ryan Bingham goes through quite a journey in this film, but never once do you feel the feelings are forced or sacrine.

Up in The Air is also one of the best written films of the year, with a script that teems with a healthy dose of dark humor as well as more serious fare. To be sure, this is a comedy at its core, but there is enough emotion to make the funny moments even more memorable. The film is also has a very nice look to it, making it an all around pleasure to watch. If you’re looking for a film that provides humor, drama and even a touching scene or two in a perfectly balanced package, Up In The Air will not disappoint. Where Thank You For Smoking felt very forced at times and Juno overdid it on the quirky / cutesy factor, Reitman found his balance in this, his best film to date. Sure to be an Oscar nominated film and highly recommended.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

On my way out of the Claridge Theater in Montclair, the only place within 50 miles that’s even carrying this film by the way, a couple of college age guys were walking behind me, commenting about the movie. They both agreed that it’s no wonder the film isn’t being carried anywhere and “there were a few cool parts, but it was soooo sloooow.” While I can’t agree with their overall analysis, there is one thing that’s very evident in John Hillcoat’s The Road: The apocalypse is nigh and, yes, it’s going to take it’s sweet damn time.

The Road is the film adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy’s epic novel of the same name and chronicles a father and son (Viggo Mortensen and Kodi McPhee respectively) who, after a an unknown apocalyptic event, is traveling south in a barren American wasteland a least a decade after. Before I continue, be aware that I may reference the other post apocalyptic film released recently, I Am Legend as they are similar in set up, but polar opposites in theme, scope and style. Let’s just say, if I Am Legend is a rock concert, The Road is a beautiful sonata.

One of the first things you notice when this film starts is how beautifully the disaster is shot, and with about half of the film being long shots of father and son walking through waste, it sure as heck better be. No worries in that department though, as this is how I always envisioned the end would be. Where I Am Legend is all lush vegetation and badly CGI’ed mutants, the world of The Road is sparse, chilling and unnerving. The world isn’t just ridding itself of humans, it’s rotting from the inside out. What makes the sense of dread even more palpable, is how you never quite know how the world got into this state. This takes the focus off of the horror of the devastation and puts the attention squarely on the relationship between Mortensen and young McPhee.

The father / son relationship is where the film truly shines and separates itself from the standard end of the world type fare. The disaster is merely a setting for what really is a character study of a father and son pressing on together in the most impossible of situations. Both McPhee and Mortensen turn in award worthy performances that pulse with true feeling and emotion. Towards the end, the film starts to tilt towards melodrama with over-emotional results, but by then I was so invested in the characters, I gave the film a pass. The flashback scenes between Mortensen and Charlize Theron, as Mortensen’s wife, also leave something to be desired as they seem thin and undeveloped.

In the end, though, The Road is a patient, thoughtful and very emotional film that showcases excellent performances by the male leads. The film isn’t all sap and sadness as there are moments of genuine fun as well as graphic scenes that show how depraved “the bad guys” have gotten in this world of non-plenty. The majority of the film, however, is a frightening, sad and unrelenting view of two people trying to survive in a world gone to waste. While the film does move at a glacial pace, the end of humanity as we know it shouldn’t have to be a massive explosion or a swarm of mutants. Sometimes it’s more evocative to just watch the world simply wither away.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

Winner of a few Grand Jury Awards at Sundance and another at Toronto, Precious is the intensely emotional story of an overweight and illiterate 16 year old named Precious who suffers insults, molestation and abuse while living in the mean streets of 1980’s Harlem. And that’s all from her family.

Yikes…

While the premise has all the makings of a bad Lifetime movie, director Lee Daniels has directed a wonderfully balanced film that never sugarcoats the pain Precious suffers yet gives her many opportunities to dream, to laugh and to rebuild her crumbling life. It’s this tricky balance of melodrama, genuine comedy and moments of hope that allow the viewer to stomach all the intense moments.

On the acting front, both leads do an excellent job with first timer Gabby Sidibe playing the titular part and comedienne Monique playing her abusive mother. While Gabby does a great job in portraying Precious, Monique steals the show playing a varied and interesting character that is despicable and at the same time pitiable. Her performance should get her some looks for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar come February and I wouldn’t be surprised if she walks away with it. Amazing for someone who’s known more for her stand up than her acting chops. The relationship between the two is intense with many moments that will make you gasp and is not for the faint of heart. Their relationship reminds me a bit of Grey Garden in their codependency, only where Big and Little Edith quibble about cats, Precious and her mom are throwing frying pans.

The supporting cast does a fine job of coloring the world Precious lives in and is headlined by Mariah Carrey as a tough social worker and Paula Patton in an excellent turn as Ms. Rain, a teacher who takes a special interest in Precious. The other characters do a nice job, with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as the male nurse whose screen time is wooden and seems forced.

The direction of the film is also fantastic with Daniels offering ample time for fantasy, daydreams and light hearted moments to go with the despair. The editing of the film is also noteworthy as Daniels fills the film with quick, jagged cuts that keep the film looking fresh and interesting. The editing style also keeps the viewer on their toes, further adding to the overall feeling of tension. For those of you who may be avoiding this film because of the “depressing” nature of the subject matter, be consoled in that there is enough balance here to keep things moving.

When it’s all said and done, Precious is an excellent film that shows a woman in an almost unthinkable situation and how she tries to claw her way out of it. This film is almost a lock for a Best Picture nomination and should not be missed if you enjoy intense real life dramas. Highly recommended.

Score – 90%