Hugo

Hugo is Martin Scorsese's latest film, his first in 3D, based on The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick. It was written by John Logan, directed by Martin Scorsese, and stars Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Sacha Baron Cohen.



Going into this film, I was a bit worried. Sure it's Scorsese, but he's doing 2 new things he's never done before: 3D, and a kids film. I thought it would come out good, but not great. Instead, we have one of his most heartfelt films, and one of the best he's ever made. It's a love letter to the early days of cinema.

For every decade Scorsese's been doing films, he has one great film per decade. The 70s, Taxi Driver. The 80s, Raging Bull. The 90s, Goodfellas. The 00s, The Departed. And for the 10s, we have Hugo. Sure we have 8 more years left of him making films (including a possible Sinatra biopic), but I just don't see how he can top this. How is this one of the best films he's ever made? The film, at first glance, looks like it's about two children, on an adventure, in 1920s Paris. Instead, the film is a love letter to cinema, a tribute to the history of cinema, and Georges Melies, one of the earliest filmmakers.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a young orphan living inside a train station, who lost his father (Jude Law) in a fire. He's working on an automaton his father found. He steal parts from a local toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley), and is eventually caught. He is forced to work in the shop, and eventually meets Isabelle (Chole Grace Moretz), the toy-shop owner's goddaughter. Together, these two find themselves swept up in an adventure involving some of cinema's earliest films.

Let's start with the acting. The main cast all does very good, especially our two leads, Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz. Butterfield is able to capture this sense of hope and despair at the same time, and Moretz is just infectiously fun. Ben Kingsley is also tremendous, playing one of cinema's earliest filmmakers. I'd also like to mention that Sacha Baron Cohen, an actor known for playing comedic roles, does a good job here as the (sort of) villain of the story, the inspector. He's an extremely versatile actor, and I always look forward to seeing his films.

Scorsese has done a lot for film preservation. So I can only imagine that as soon as Selznick released this novel, Scorsese instantly started making this film. It's arguably, the perfect film for him to make. Sure, there are no gangsters, Mafia, or De Niro/DiCaprio, but it's the perfect film for him to make, because it's about some of the earliest films ever made. And he does a tremendous job. There are references to some early films everywhere throughout the film, and he's actually able to make 3D work for the most part. I was genuinely surprised that I saw a 3D film not made by James Cameron that I genuinely enjoyed.

All in all, I severely recommend this film. It's a high class of kids films, and a damn good film at that. Your kid might not enjoy it, cause it definitely isn't a normal kids film. But it's still a damn good film, and if you want your child to see a good movie as opposed to a lot of the crap that comes out nowadays, show them this. Parents'll probably enjoy it too. I give it 10/10.

The Muppets

The Muppets is the latest release in the Muppets film series, the last film, Muppets from Space, being released 12 years ago. It was written by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller, directed by James Bobin, and stars Jason Segal, Amy Adams, Rashida Jones, Chris Cooper, and the Muppets.



I'm an 18 year old university student. Needless to say, I don't really watch the Muppets, I didn't grow up with them in their prime, and I don't know much about them. I of course know of Kermit and Miss Piggy, but aside from them, I didn't really know offhand of any other Muppets, aside from Animal, simply because he is essentially Keith Moon: the Muppet. Going into this film, I had heard the critical praise, and knew that I'd have a good time. It's a musical comedy revival of a popular puppet series. This wouldn't have been made if it was bad.

And luckily, we have one of the most heartwarming films of this year. Despite the fact that I really don't know much about the Muppets, I found myself shedding a few tears at some points. The basic plot concerns Walter (performed by Peter Linz), who is essentially a Muppet, and his brother, Gary (Jason Segal), and Gary's girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams). For Gary and Mary's anniversary, they take a trip to L.A., with Walter tagging along, as he is a large fan of the Muppets, and wants to visit the Muppet Theater. There, he discovers that an oil magnate, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), wants to buy the Theater and drill underneath it for oil. Walter finds Kermit the Frog (performed by Steve Whitmire), and they start to get the Muppets back together to put on teleethon to raise $10 million, what they need in order to save the Theater.

Even if you don't know much about the Muppets, you'll enjoy this film. It's got great and catchy songs, tremendously hilarious jokes, and a slew of cameos that will keep you laughing for hours after the film ends. And here's a list of my 3 favourite cameos from this film:
3. Alan Arkin as the tour guide
2. Mickey Rooney (yes, THE Mickey Rooney) as a resident of Smalltown
1. Dave Grohl as Animool (a member of the Moopets, a Muppets knock off)
 The only real problem I have with the film is a bit of a cop-out ending, but it's forgivable. The film is a true heartfelt love letter to the Muppets. I never knew that Jason Segal was such a big Muppets fan, but I'm glad he is, as he knows the best way to handle them, and how to make them famous again. Kudos, Jason Segal.

Overall, I highly recommend this film to everyone, Muppet fan or not. I give this film a 9.5/10.

Manamana.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn is the fourth of five films in the famous Twilight series. It was released on November 18, 2011. It was written by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer, directed by Bill Condon, and stars Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner.



The Twilight films. They suck. We all know it. And do you think this one would be any better? Well no, it isn't. As a matter of fact, it's the worst of the bunch. Let me tell you my opinion on the Twilight films. I liked the first, because I thought it had a so-bad-it's-good quality. I didn't care for the second one, as I thought this is where it started to get just plain old bad. And I didn't see the third. So, here we are, at the last book, split into two films, like Harry Potter.

First of all, I'd like to mention that this film does something you don't really think it would: talk to teenage girls about abortion. And due to the Christian undertones of the series, of course, the film's pro-life. My opinion on abortion is irrelevant here, all that matters is who's saying the message. In my opinion, something like Twilight would be great for talking to teenage girls about abortion, as they need to know this stuff. However, Twilight itself can't, because of how phenomenally bad it is. Remember, this is the film series that has their two males leads shirtless for the majority of these films (the opening scene of this film is Jacob taking off his shirt). We've got shining pale kids, shapeshifters, evil women who are the main character, and we're told that this is a horror story. And now, it's talking to us about abortion.

There's a mostly competent cast (Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, not Taylor Lautner, he does a bad job here) and a competent director (Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls), so with any other subject material, this'd probably be a decent film. But the subject material is just so horrendously bad. We've got a shining pale pedophile, a shapeshifter (who becomes a pedophile in this film too), and an evil woman who plays with guys feelings, and who is the worst role model for teenage girls everywhere.

This film has the usual bad stuff, as well two new problems: the lack of a (possibly controversial) sex scene, and the lack of a need for a two-parter. The novel was infamous among Twilight fans for it's addition of a sex scene, as well as actual gore during a childbirth sequence. While they keep the gore, they get rid of the sex in this film, which is disappointing. Not because I want to see sex scenes, but because it would create a controversy. I'd love to see Twilight create a controversy, especially among fans. The second problem is that the film has no real need to be split up into two parts. All problems are solved by the end of the film, with no open ends or cliffhangers. If you're gonna do that, why not just leave the film there? It wouldn't have been a great ending, but it would've been a definite ending.

Overall, this film was made to preach Christian values to (marrying at a young age, no sex before marriage, pro-life) to teenage girls. And they just eat it up, because there's shirtless boys and romances that don't work in real life. Overall, I give this film a 2.5/10. I recommend you don't see it.

P.S. Apparently, there is a post-credits scene in which we get a reason for making a two-parter. But who would stick around to watch a post-credtis scene of a Twilight film? This ain't Marvel after all.

J. Edgar

J. Edgar is Clint Eastwood's latest film, a biography about J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was written by Dustin Lance Black, directed by Clint Eastwood, and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Josh Lucas, and Judi Dench.



J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most interesting men in 20th century American history. He formed the modern day FBI, worked under multiple Presidents (Coolidge to Nixon, almost 50 years), and was supposedly a cross-dresser. Through his life, he saw the two Red Scares, the Great Depression and the bank robberies, McCarthyism, the Mafia in the 60s, communism in the 60s, and Kennedy's assassination. He's been involved with a lot. He's one of the most controversial figures in American history. Such a man deserves a great film, with a great director and a great actor to play the man. Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio? Yeah, they could do it.

Let me start with DiCaprio. His performance was truly phenomenal. His performance is without a doubt, the best I've seen this year, and I imagine that he will win the Oscar this year. While J. Edgar Hoover has been depicted many times (never in a leading role), the only performance I can compare DiCaprio to is Kevin Dunn, in Chaplin, who did a good job, but nothing great. DiCaprio is one of the best actors out there today. From Titanic to Shutter Island, he always does a tremendous job, and here, he does even better. This truly is the best performance I've seen this year, and while we still have a month and a half of films lefts, I can't imagine any other actor to win Best Actor this year.

This is the only true positive of the film. The rest of the film is merely good. The main problem is quite frankly, there's too much source material. Many of the major events in 20th century American history involved Hoover. 50 years of history involved him. How can you put all off that in a 2 and a half hour film? Quite simply, you can't. There's too much history to put in, so Eastwood and Black condensed it so we only saw the 20s, 30s, and a bit of the 60s and 70s. McCarthyism was reduced to a single line, the Mafia, one scene. That is the main problem with this film.

However, with this major limit set upon them, they still did a good job. The rest of the cast does good, but nothing spectacular. Black is a terrific writer, and he does make good with what he's given. He'll certainly earn a nomination, but I don't believe he'll get a win. Eastwood does a good job, as usual, but still, this ain't no Gran Torino. Usually, his films are best when he acts in them. He's 81 now, so I can understand him not wanting to act. It certainly would be nice if he could act again, but I'll take him not acting over him dead. Also, the makeup on the cast wasn't very effective, especially on Armie Hammer. It looked best on DiCaprio, but still wasn't completely convincing.

All in all, this is a good movie with a truly amazing lead performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. If you're a history buff at all, this film probably won't please you as much as you want it to, but it's still quite good, and gives a good look into the mind of one of the most controversial figures of the 20th century. Overall, a 7.5/10.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is the third film in the popular stoner comedy series Harold & Kumar. It was released on November 4, 2011. It was written by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, directed by Todd Strauss-Schulson, and stars John Cho, Kal Penn, and Neil Patrick Harris.

Harold and Kumar doing a Christmas film, in 3D. How the hell are they gonna pull that off? It's the two modern stoners, doing a Christmas film, in 3D. I'm still baffled that they made this. Going into this, I was extremely worried that they could screw this up, and make a terrible film. However, the premise was silly enough for this film to work.

This film is set in the modern day, 7 years after the Guantanamo Bay incident. Harold and Kumar aren't friends anymore. Harold (John Cho) is a successful businessman, married to Maria (Paula Garces), and given up weed. Kumar (Kal Penn) is still slacking, out of a job, broken up from Vanessa (Danneel Harris), and is still smoking, more than ever. An odd package is dropped off at Kumar's place, with Harold's name on it, so Kumar decides to deliver it to Harold.

Let's start with the cast. John Cho and Kal Penn are just as good as they always were, and there really isn't that much to say there. I was actually quite disappointed with Neil Patrick Harris (who will be refered to as NPH from now on). Compared to the last two films, in which he was a sex god, here, he's now a gay man, as he is in real life, but only pretending to be, in order to get more women. Due to this, he isn't really getting women at all. It's a very odd way to portray him, and while I'm glad to see him again, it's a shame to see him not at his top performance. This is mostly the fault of the writing however, so if there is a fourth one, write him better. I'd also like to mention Amir Blumenfeld, of Collegehumor. Collegehumor produces my favourite web series, Jake and Amir, of which he is a writer and actor. It's a good thing to see him in this film, furthering his career into film, especially one like this. It's also good to see that he didn't act anything like Amir from Jake and Amir, but instead, he acted like a completely different character. It's good to see he can act other roles, something I was worried about going into this film.

The choice of 3D in this film is one of the few times I'll let 3D slide, simply because they use 3D to parody it. It's used entirely for parody. Just watch the trailer, and you'll see what I mean. While I don't advocate the usage of 3D in films, unless it actually works quite well, like Avatar or animated films, for parody, I'm willing to let that slide. Mostly because I believe if we're parodying it now, that means that maybe it'll die off soon.

I only have 2 problems with this film. The first is NPH, and the way he was used. The second is the comedy. While this is a good film, and it does tell a good story, as well as having a good Christmas feel to it, it's not as laugh-out-loud funny as the others. There aren't many moments that make you burst out into laughter for prolonged periods of time, unlike the first two. There are several funny moments, but nothing terribly funny. The funniest scene I'd have to say would be the claymation one, which is quite hilarious.

All in all, it's a decent follow-up to one of the defining comedy series of the last decade. If you've seen the first two, I'd recommend you see this. If you're in the mood for a stoner Christmas film (I don't know why you would be, but oh well), this is probably the only stoner Christmas film ever made, so enjoy. While not as good as the last two, it's still a good follow-up, and I would be fine with another film in this series. Overall, a 7/10.

Anonymous

Anonymous is German filmmaker Roland Emmerich's latest film, and the one most different from his films, concerning Shakespeare and his plays, as opposed to a world disaster. It was written by John Orloff, directed by Roland Emmerich, and stars Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis, Xavier Samuel, Sebastian Armesto, Rafe Spall, Edward Hogg, and Jamie Campbell Bower.





William Shakespeare. Greatest writer ever? I think it's fair to say that's obvious. Do I believe all these theories that he wasn't really a writer, that somebody else did? Personally, I really don't care who wrote the plays. For all I know, there never has been a William Shakespeare. All that matters are his works. However, it can be quite fun to get swept away in these theories. That's what I was hoping for from this film, to get swept away in the conspiracy theory of the authorship if Shakespeare's plays. And I was swept away. I immensely enjoyed this film, despite its flaws.


Let me start with the positives. Rhys Ifans and Jaime Campbell Bower both play Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, at different points in his life, and both do a great job. This is their best role for both, and while neither will receive an Academy Award nomination for this film, they both definitely do a good job. Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson both play Queen Elizabeth 1, and both also do a great job, Redgrave in particular. If you were to ask me who the best actor in the film was, I'd say Redgrave. She plays Elizabeth like a fun-loving woman, despite her age and perilous situation. She was one of the most enjoyable parts of this film. The rest of the cast also did a good job, but I'd like to talk about the actor they got to play Shakespeare, Rafe Spall. I'd never heard of Rafe Spall before, and watching the trailers, I assumed that Jason Lee was playing Shakespeare in this film, with an English accent. The resemblance in freakishly uncanny. If you're wondering what Rafe Spall did before this film, he's known for his collaborations with Edgar Wright. Here's a picture of his role in Shaun of the Dead.

And here's a picture of him in Anonymous.

I don't think this is the same person. I swear to god, Jason Lee is in this film.

Now, the writing. The writer, John Orloff, states that Shakespeare didn't write those plays, but de Vere did. This is known as the Oxfordian theory, as de Vere was the Earl of Oxford. The particular theory he uses is the Prince Tudor Theory, which is the same theory, but states that the Earl of Southampton was also the son of him and Queen Elizabeth I. The writing is quite good, but if you are someone who hates these theories, you'll hate this film. And while I do enjoy the writing, I found a big problem with a twist at the end. To all who know the twist, I'll attempt to write in code, to protect those who don't know the twist. If W.C. was his father, then not only was he with his mother, but sister as well. Why didn't they mention that?

The directing was my only real problem with this film. I've never really liked Roland Emmerich, so I haven't seen a lot of his films. I've only seen Stargate, 2012, and The Day After Tomorrow. His films were always just big disaster films, nothing really special. I admire him for trying something different, but his directing is the only bad part of this. For the majority of outside shots, he chooses to use green screen. Everything shot inside, he shot in beautifully made sets, but everything outside is horrific green screen. Considering how he made some of the best special effects in film recently, you think he'd make his green screen look good. But no, he doesn't. He didn't really do anything good here, and he was the only thing I didn't like about this film.

Overall, I immensely enjoyed this film. The acting was brilliant, the writing, terrific, but the directing really brought it down. Regardless, I found this to be a great political thriller, while also being about the greatest writer who ever lived. If you support the theories, you'll probably love this film, and if you don't, you'll probably hate this film. I don't really care if Shakespeare really wrote the plays or not, I just enjoy them, as well as this film. This film earns a 7.5/10 from me.


P.S. The Derek Jacobi stuff works in the beginning, because it's interesting to think that the modern day Shakespearean actor (aside from maybe Kenneth Branagh) is talking about how Shakespeare never wrote anything, but fails in the end, because of how unbelievably cheesy it gets, and the fact that it was a major play on Broadway, and yet no one applauded.

Red State

Red State is Kevin Smith's newest film, and his first horror film. It premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, before getting a very odd release, that involved many different release dates on many different forms. It was written and directed by Kevin Smith, and stars Michael Parks, John Goodman, Michael Angarano, Melissa Leo, Kerry Bishe, Nicholas Braun, and Kyle Gallner.



Kevin Smith is my favorite director of all time. Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Hell, I even liked Jersey Girl and Mallrats. Most people think that he started to slip with Zack and Miri Make A Porno, and I'd have to agree. That film was merely okay, nothing special. And then he made Cop Out. An odd film, and certainly not a good one. An interesting thing I've noted about the film though is that people that love Kevin Smith hate the film, and people who don't know who Kevin Smith is loved it. Cop Out is his worst film, because it's not very funny, it tries to alter the basic film formula for the sake of comedy, and screws up the film entirely. Overall, it was a below average script that Kevin Smith should've stayed away from.

Now, we have Red State. It's not as bad as Cop Out, I certainly enjoyed it more, but it's much more perplexing. I have many a great problems with Red State, and I'm going to tell you them.

1. This isn't a horror, it's a comedy with elements of horror. Kevin Smith constantly stated that this was not his typical film. It would be horror, and a damn good one at that. That's why nobody bought it at Sundance, and Smith had to buy it himself, cause it was too good for normal studios (in case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic). However, this film proves that Kevin can only write comedy. Are there scary scenes? Yes, there's a few, and they certainly are scary. But overall, this film is a comedy. But even in the horror, I feel like there is comedy to be found in that. Some of Michael Parks scary scenes involve him playing with kids, and joyfully singing hymns, the latter in particular being quite funny. Also, many characters do funny things. A sheriff (Stephen Root), right after killing a teenager, falls down on his way to the car, in a funny moment. And it is funny! That's the thing, Kevin Smith can't write a straight up horror, because at his heart, he's a comedy writer! Some directors loved the film, including Richard Kelly, who said, "I have never seen a filmmaker reinvent himself the way you just have." (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2010/12/29/neil-gaiman-and-more-inspired-by-advance-screening-of-kevin-smiths-red-state) This isn't a reinventing, this is a filmmaker's desperate attempts to stay relevant.

2. The lack of a clear protagonist. The film starts out with these three teenagers, and we believe one of them (Michael Angarano) is the protagonist. However, by the time they're captured, the protagonist has become another one of the kids (Kyle Gallner). For a little while, it seems that the sheriff (Stephen Root) is the protagonist, before the film attempts to settle on John Goodman's character, ATF Special Agent Keenan, as the protagonist. However, the film also tries to return to Kyle Gallner as the protagonist for a short while. I was reminded of the Phantom Menace, as that film also didn't have a clear protagonist. Without a protagonist, we have no character to identify with, and thus, no way to connect to the film. Considering how this is supposed to be a horror film, it's extremely important that we identify with the characters, because we then connect with them, and don't want them to die, thus making the film horrifying when they do die. Once again, just like Cop Out, Kevin is trying to alter the basic film formula, but I feel like he's doing it here for the hipster crowd, simply because they might find the basic film formula "too mainstream."

3. Despite frequently saying his characters are essentially the Westboro Baptist Church, in the film he specifically points out how these people, the Five Points Church, are much more worse then the Westboro Baptist Church. Remember, this is the guy who counter protested the Westboro Baptist Church. They would protest something, and Kevin Smith would show up to counter-protest them (in my opinion, the only good form of protesting: counter protesting the Westboro Baptist Church). So, you'd imagine he has no fear of them. And yet, here he is, attempting to protect himself from a slander/libel charge from the Westboro Baptist Church. Come on Kevin, grow a pair. You once made a film where Chris Rock was a black apostle, Salma Hayek, a stripping muse, and Alanis Mourisette was God! I think you can live with a bit of controversy.

4. The ending, when compared to the original ending. I'm not gonna spoil the ending of this film, but I will spoil the original ending. Basically, the rapture happens. Everyone dies, except for John Goodman's character. He sees an angel with a sword, sees says "shh," flies away, and the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse descend on the scene. THAT, would've had made me forgiven the film for all of its misfortunes. However, an interesting idea would be instead of having some random angel there, how about instead, Smith put God there, played by Alanis Mourissette? Make this a sort of spiritual sequel to Dogma. That would've been genius.

Kevin Smith needs to stick to comedy, particularly the View Askewinverse. What we need is a Clerks 3, to see Jay and Silent Bob again. We need to return to New Jersey, the Quick Stop, Mooby's. That is Kevin Smith's best stuff, and it's what makes him work. I feel like he's angry at the View Askewinverse, because that's how he made his career, but it never made him extremely famous. Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen come along doing the same thing, and they became extremely famous for it. I feel like Kevin hates this type of comedy, because it didn't make him famous, when it did to other people. And it's a damn shame it didn't, because he is genuinely talented.

The fans love you Kevin, including me. Like I already mentioned, you're my favorite filmmaker. I know you want to make Hit Somebody, but how about scrapping it, and making something for us fans? Hell, don't scrap it, but put it in the View Askewinverse. We'd love you forever. Why do you need fame when you've got us? We come to your Q&A's, we buy all your stuff, we see your movies, and listen to SModcast. We love you, and don't forget it. If you keep going down this path, we might not be able to follow you.

Overall, I give this film a 6/10. After a hectic release starting in January and going to October of 2011, it's now on DVD, as well as OnDemand and iTunes. Check it out if you're interested.

P.S. Kevin, I'll be at the Vogue Theatre on December 7. Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll get to ask you about this.

Moneyball

Moneyball premiered at TIFF 2011, before being released on September 23, 2011. It is based on Michael Lewis 2003 book of the same name. It was written by Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, with story by Stan Chervin, it was directed by Bennett Miller, and stars Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Chris Pratt, and Casey Bond.



I don't really follow sports, let alone baseball. Being a Canadian, I of course have at least a slight interest in hockey, but's that as far as my interest in sports goes. However, I was quite excited for this film. Despite my lack of interest in sports, even I knew the story of the Oakland A's. A mediocre team with little money, who started using a radical baseball theory, becoming one of the best teams in the league, and changing the way the game was played.

An epic story requires an epic film, and that's what we have here. With a script by both Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, both Academy Award winners, and a cast of Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the director of Capote, we have epicness in the making. I would say that this film is this years Social Network. The film that should win the majority of Oscars this year, but won't, probably losing to some sort of historical biographical drama (either J. Edgar or The Iron Lady, I imagine). Arguably, this is the best film this year.

Let me start with the cast. Brad Pitt, one of the best actors in cinema nowadays, does a fantastic job as GM (General Manager) on the Oakland A's, Billy Beane. We see his rise (short it is) into baseball, and his fall, eventually reaching the Oakland A's, and being promoted to GM. After losing the last season, he attempts to find a new way to win the World Series. He runs into Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a composite character, mostly based off of Paul DePodesta, a young Yale grad with radical ideas about baseball. Beane is inspired, and adopts this idea, called sabermetrics, also known as moneyball, to his team, coming into conflict with Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the manager of the Oakland A's. Brad Pitt does a fine job here, easily earning a Best Actor nomination. Jonah Hill also does a superb job, coming from mostly comedy work into drama. It's an interesting career move, and one that works well for him. This is his best role to date, and I hope to see him do more dramatic roles. Perhaps he will get an Oscar nomination as well. Philip Seymour Hoffman does splendid, as usual.

The writing behind this film is an interesting story. Steve Zaillian wrote this film originally, with Steven Soderbergh directing. However Soderbergh was fired, apparently for using odd tactics for the film, including interviewing the actual players for the film. Bennett Miller was hired to direct the film instead, and Aaron Sorkin was hired for a rewrite. Due to Zaillian's credit on the film, I imagine that Sorkin just touched it up, and added a bit of his own style to it, as you can see from the first line in the trailer above. I imagine that this film will win Best Adapted Screenplay in a few months time, and both will collect the award.

Overall, a fine film, one of the best of the year. I give it a perfect 10/10. You've probably already checked it out, but in case you haven't, go ahead and check it out.

The Thing (2011)

The Thing is a prequel to the 1982 film of the same name, by John Carpenter, which itself was a remake of The Thing From Another World, by Howard Hawks-Christian Nyby. It was released on October 14, 2011.  It was written by Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore (who was uncredited, apparently), based on the story Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, directed by Matthjis van Heijningen Jr., and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, and Eric Christian Olsen.



Let me just say this right off the bat; I haven't seen John Carpenter's version. (Post all insulting and mean comments below.) My apologies, but for this film, I think this works out in a good way. I can judge the film entirely on its own merits.

This film was average. It wasn't horrific, it wasn't phenomenal. It wasn't terrible, it wasn't great. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good. For every good thing about this film, there's a bad thing. And for every bad thing, there's always a good thing. For instance, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, our lead, does a pretty good job. She's playing a female lead in a horror film, who doesn't panic. She keeps her head, and thinks her way through all the crazy stuff happening around her. It's nice to see a strong lead this time around. However, the rest of the cast is nothing spectacular. While I do love Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr. Eko on Lost, Simon Adebisi on Oz, one of my favorite tv shows), his role is minimal, and the film could've survived without it. And it is nice to see Joel Edgerton continuing his career, but this film shows nothing special from him, as well as an odd moment for him in the end.

The writing has these nice little moments where it actually makes a good film, particularly a bonus scene shown during the end credits. That was arguably the best part of the film. However, something that is the fault of the writers is the lack of an insane human. Think about it. If a creature were to break free and kill everyone in a base, and could impersonate anyone in the base, don't you think that one of the people there would go crazy? Also, a lot of the side characters remain completely undeveloped, being there only be bodies.

One thing I have constantly heard about Carpenter's version is how spectacular the special effects were, and that not only were they good back then, but they were also good now. The special effects of this film, like the other parts of this film, are both good and bad. The good? The two-headed thing. It looked not only real, but terrifying as well. I was genuinely frightened when this thing was on screen. The bad? The final thing, with its human face. Absolutely fake, and laughable when it first appears. It does lose the face soon enough, but we don't see enough of it, in my opinion. The Thing works best when we see distorted humans, turned into an odd creature. The thing itself, in this film, looks fake and uninspired.

Without spoiling it, I'd like to talk about the one good thing in this film that has no bad thing to counter it: the scene shown in the credits. We get a small amount of character development for one of the better side characters, an interesting, and tense scene (which I imagine directly leads into the original), and something that made me think, "I didn't just waste two hours."

Overall, this film was completely average. I really came out of it thinking "meh," aside from the credits scene, of course. Due to this scene, instead of giving this film an average score of 5, I will give it a slightly above average score of 5.5/10. I recommend this to you if you liked the original so much, that you wanted to know the story behind it. Only in that case, though.

The Ides of March

The Ides of March premiered as the opening film of the 68th Venice International Film Festival, before receiving a wide release on October 7, 2011. It was written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon, based on the play Farragut North, by Beau Willimon, directed by George Clooney, and stars Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, and Evan Rachel Wood.



I like politics. I think it's an interesting topic, one that everyone should have at least, the slightest interest in. I love film. I think it's one of the most interesting things in the world, that everyone can and does enjoy. So whenever the two are combined, I'm very happy. Films about Presidents, monarchs, I absolutely enjoy. And it's the same with this film, I did enjoy it. But here's the thing about this film: it's very standard.

The film has a fantastic cast, as well as a very good director. Ryan Gosling, one of the best young actors nowadays (yes, he's 30, but oh well), George Clooney, just a damn good actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of the best supporting actors of all time, and Paul Giamatti, one of my favourite modern actors, make up the main cast. Ryan Gosling is Stephen Meyers, a junior campaign manager for Governor of Pennsylvania and Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the Governor's senior campaign manager, and Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) is the senior campaign manager for the rival, Senator Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell), of Arkansas. We see Morris, an idealistic Governor, attempting to become President so he can fix America, and put them on top of the world again. And what's more? He looks like he could do it. Meyers is a young campaign manager who is extremely idealistic, and believes that Morris will truly fix America. The one thing these two have in common? They refuse to play dirty. By the end of this film, both of them are playing dirty.

The main problem with this film is just how standard it is. It's easy to predict the next move, and before the mid-point of the film, I knew exactly how it would end. Hell, I even knew what shot it would end on. Watching the trailers, I believed this would be an extravagant political thriller. When instead, it was just a good political thriller. Now, this doesn't mean it's bad. It's good. If you weren't expecting a great film, you will be surprised. However, if you were expecting a great film, like me, you'll be disappointed.

The acting, without a doubt, is the best thing about this film. The 4 leads are spectacular, but I'd have to say the best were Gosling and Giamatti. Giamatti wasn't in the film a lot, but he drove a lot of the plot, and brought power to every scene he was in. Hoffman and Clooney were terrific, but felt outshined by the power of Gosling and Giamatti. Evan Rachel Wood was also quite good. I haven't seen a lot of her work, so it was nice to see her do a good film. Gives me a good impression of her.

Being adapted from a play, the writing features many monologues, all of which are brilliantly written. I don't know which of the 3 writers deserve credit for that, but I'm going to go with Willimon, because he wrote the original play. The monologues, particularly those from Giamatti and Hoffman, were my favourite parts of the film. Clooney's directing is also to be commended. I wouldn't say it's worthy of an Oscar, but still very good. He's a good director, and I do genuinely enjoy his films. I wish he'd do some more in the following years.

Overall, I can only recommend this film if you're looking for a standard, but good, political thriller. It's not bad, it's just predictable. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10.

The Skin I Live In

The Skin I Live In (La piel que habito, in Spanish) is Pedro Almodovar's new film. It premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, before being released in Spain on September 2, 2011. It was written and directed by Pedro Almodovar, based off of the novel Tarantula, by Thierry Jonquet, and stars Antonio Banderas, Elena Anaya, Marisa Paredes, Jan Cornet, and Roberto Alamo.



This review will be quite short, simply because I can't really talk about this film without spoiling it.

I've never seen any of Almodovar's (as he's commonly known) movies before this. So, I went in completely blind to his style of filmmaking. I unfortunately knew the plot of this movie going into it, which was a big mistake. To anyone that wants to see this film, do not, I repeat, DO NOT, read any plot summaries of this film. Did knowing the plot of this film ruin the film for me? No, but all I can think of now is how I would've reacted watching the film blind.

The film is superb. Remember how I said Drive was the best film I've seen this year? This is better. (Also, it has a better ending, I'd argue, but I won't say anything else about this.) The plot, at it's most basic, concerns a plastic surgeon (Antonio Banderas, in one of his finest roles to date) who has created a synthetic skin, and also holds a young woman (Elena Anaya) captive. Antonio Banderas needs to do more serious dramatic roles. In this film, we see how far he can go, and he goes far. It's hard to tell if he's obsessed with his projects, or just plain insane, but Banderas does a tremendous job leaving us stupefied. Anaya is also extremely good, but to talk about her role is a spoiler in itself. Let's just say, in her character's situation, Anaya shows true intelligence, and depth. The rest of the cast is also very good, but nothing compared to our two leads.

Almodovar is a terrific writer and director. He has won two Oscars, among countless other awards. He deserves the Oscar for Best Foreign Film this year, but I don't believe this will be nominated, due to its extreme material, and the Academy's idiotic nomination process for Best Foreign Film. From this film, I've noticed that Almodovar has a dark humour, but is also very intelligent with the way he handles his characters.

Overall, watch this film. Not only does it get a 10/10, it also gets the Seal of Brilliance. This is a brilliant film. For my fellow Vancouverites, it is currently playing at VIFF, and it also gets a limited release across America and Canada on October 14. I'll be seeing it again then, and I highly recommend that you see this film as well.

50/50

50/50 was released on September 30, 2011. It was written by Will Reiser, directed by Jonathan Levine, and stars Joseph-Gordon Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, and Bryce Dallas-Howard.



Cancer is a horrible thing. You, and everyone you know has been affected by cancer. Will Reiser, the film's writer, is very unfortunate, in that he suffered from cancer. He decided to write about his experiences, adapting them to film. That's this film. It's poignant, powerful, and very eye-opening, showing us how cancer patients live with their disease, until they get rid of it, or it kills them. Also, this film is a comedy.

I mean, come on, Seth Rogen's in it, you know it's gonna be a comedy. He does a superhero film, it'll be a comedy (a bad one at that). Now, to be fair, this film technically is a dramedy, favouring the comedy side. When this film wants to be dramatic, that's where you get the poignant, the powerful, and the eye-opening.

The film is about Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young man who works at a radio station, who is diagnosed with a rare type of spinal cancer. He begins treatment, receiving support from his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), and his mother (Angelica Houston), who is also supporting Adam's father, (Serge Houde) an Alzheimer's patient. He also begins seeing a therapist assigned to him by the hospital, young Dr. Katie McKay (Anna Kendrick), as well as making friends with two older, wise-cracking cancer patients (Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer).

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a good actor, and here, he's still good. Something I've always noticed about him is that he rarely does angry, but when he does, he's great. He is angry here, as he is suffering from cancer. It's really interesting to see. The only other film I recall him doing angry was (500) Days of Summer, and he wasn't terribly angry in that, whereas in this film, he does full out angry. And when he isn't angry? He's still great. Quite frankly, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the best actors of this generation. Bogart, Nicholson, De Niro, Gordon-Levitt.

The other actors are great as well, Seth Rogen in particular. He's doing his typical comedy routine, which he is very good at. You see that his character does care for his friend, while still being hilarious. Anna Kendrick, I find, is great at being giddy, naive, and way under her head, but trying to keep her cool. That perfectly describes her role in this film. She's a young doctor, who deals with cancer patients. Not an easy job. It's a great role for her, as it seems like that;s the kind of person she is in real life. Her performance reminded me of her character in Up in the Air, very naive and young, in a tough situation. Bryce Dallas Howard also did a good job, playing Adam's artsy girlfriend. You'd believe that she's an artsy chick, and I do.

The writing of this film, based on writer Will Reiser's life, is very heartfelt, and funny at the same time. The comedy is absolutely hilarious (you don't realize how many funny situations you can get involved in with cancer and weed), but the film is also beautifully heartfelt. Admittedly, by the end of the film, it becomes a bit cliched, but it does keep a good amount of tension as we head into the end of the film. The directing is also good, suiting the film perfectly.

Overall, this was a nice little heartfelt film that a lot of people can enjoy. While it can be a bit cliche, the films needs this to keep audiences hopeful. Overall, I give this film an 8.5/10. Check it out if you want. It's an Oscar season comedy, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen. It can't be that bad.

P.S. This was filmed in Vancouver, Seth Rogen's hometown, and my new town. Awesome.

Drive

Drive premiered at Cannes Film Festival on May 20, 2011, before being released on September 16, 2011, in the United States and Canada. It was written by Hossein Amini, based on the book Drive, by James Sallis, directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, and stars Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, Oscar Isaac, and Albert Brooks.



WARNING: While there will be no spoilers in this review, I will be talking about the end of the film in detail, without spoiling anything.

Goddamn, I love Oscar season. Even the films that don't get nominated are good (which, unfortunately, is probably the case with this film). You've got art on one side, highly intelligent films on another, excellent biographies, and then the bad films. But no one cares about those films, simply because you've got all these other films to choose from. I love Oscar season.

And this film is sheer proof of that. Warrior was a very good film, and the first of Oscar season I saw. This is 10 times better. Not only is this a damn good film, but it's the best film I've seen this year. Seriously.

Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan are actors, that while very good, I've never really cared about. To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of what they done, and I'm not really intrigued with the majority of their work, mostly Carey Mulligan. Recently, I have been showing more interest in Ryan Gosling, but the majority of his work is indie films, that are hard to find. I will find more of his films though, and I have decided to now pay attention to Carey Mulligan as well, as she is now doing films I do find interesting. If you can't tell, this film changed my opinion of them. Both of them were TREMENDOUS, working with so little too. No, the writing was not bad, it was actually very enjoyable. But these two characters don't have a lot of lines throughout the course of the film, Ryan Gosling's character (we'll call him Driver, as he has no name) has, supposedly, less than 20 lines in the entire film. Carey Mulligan has what seems to be a bit over 20 lines in the entire film. Every other character (aside from Christina Hendricks, but we'll get to that later) has more lines then them.

Driver is very reminiscent of film noir characters, Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name, and Steve McQueen, at just how cool he can be at some points. He plays a stunt driver by day, and a getaway driver by night. He meets Irene (played by Carey Mulligan), a young mother, with a husband in jail. They start to fall in love, but eventually, the husband is released. He intends to go straight, but has to pay protection money to people he knew in jail, and they want him to do a job for him. Driver offers to do the job with him, telling the people they're doing the job for that after this, his debt is over. The reason why Driver is doing this is because he genuinely cares for this family. Not just Irene, but her husband and child as well. He's a very quiet character, which contributes to his performance greatly. He should be nominated for an Oscar, but probably won't be, like many other parts about this film. Irene is also very quiet, but a different kind of quiet. Her quiet is calm, and trusting. It's a great performance from her as well.

The rest of the cast does good as well, Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman being the other stand out performers. Ron Perlman, unfortunately, has a small role, so he isn't seen much. However, whenever he is on scene, he steals the scene. Bryan Cranston, famous for his Emmy-winning role on Breaking Bad, does a great job here as Shannon, Driver's boss/mentor/friend. He evokes this sympathy of sorts, so that every time we see him, we feel sorry for him, without really knowing why. It's quite chilling. Now, you may be wondering with my earlier remark about Christina Hendricks. She is fourth in the cast list, which she shouldn't be, due to her extremely small role in this film. Was she important? That's arguable. Overall, I'd say that her role could almost be cut out of the film entirely. She is fourth in the cast list because she's a very famous actress, who was used extensively in the trailers. Also, she is extremely attractive, which I'll admit, for the entire 4 minutes she was on screen, was enjoyable.

Speaking of Christina Hendricks, this film was violent (spoilers?). Damn violent. There wasn't a lot of violence, but when there was, my god, it was violent. But I must commend this, because not only was it violent, it was realistic. People get a shotgun to the head, they fly to the ground. A man gets his head kicked in repeatedly. There is skull and brain everywhere. I know, I just turned some people off of this film. But I just had to talk about the violence.

One of my favourite things about the film was the script. It didn't use a lot of dialogue with the two main characters, using silence a lot. I like this. Silence isn't used a lot in film nowadays. Did it work all the time in the film? No, but for the majority of the film, it worked superbly. It was very good writing, and definitely deserves an Oscar nomination, and I do believe that this film will get a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. The directing was also good. I love the choice to make this film look like a modern day film noir. It works greatly to the film's advantage, making it one of the better thrillers today.

This is the bit about the ending. The ending is both ambiguous, and yet, reminds me of the ending of Thelma & Louise. That film, despite being in all actuality, depressing, was very uplifting, and left us cheering for the two characters, despite of what was to come. This film does the same, but much more ambiguously. We see a certain fate for Driver, but he just keeps on going. It's hopeful, but realistically depressing, like Thelma & Louise, and yet ambiguous. Damn good ending.

Overall, this film was superb. The best film of the year so far, and leaves me excited for The Ides of March, Ryan Gosling's other film this year. I give this film a 9.5/10. If you want to check it out, check it out. But, be wary of the violence.

P.S. My only real problem with this film, the reason why it isn't a perfect 10/10, there weren't enough driving action sequences. I can think of 2, when they're should've been at least 4. My only major problem with this film.

P.P.S. I saw a trailer for a film starring Johnny Depp, about him being a journalist in Puerto Rico. I think Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. His character takes a copious amount of alcohol, and starts to see things. Fear and Loathing. I see that it's based off of a book written by Hunter S. Thompson. I think sequel. (In all actuality, no, it's not a sequel to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but I'm gonna think of it as a spiritual sequel.)

Warrior

Warrior was released on September 9, 2011. It was written by Gavin O'Connor, Cliff Dorfman, and Anthony Tambakis, with story by Gavin O'Connor and Cliff Dorfman, directed by Gavin O'Connor, and stars Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, Jennifer Morrison, Frank Grillo, Nick Nolte.





Since Rocky Balboa was released in 2006, a new sub-genre has been forming in sports movies, the fighting film. The Wrestler, The Fighter, and now this, Warrior, are some of these films that have come out of this. They're all about different types of fighting. Rocky Balboa and the Fighter concerns boxing, the Wrestler concerns wrestling, and Warrior concerns MMA (mixed martial arts). This is the first film I've seen, in this sub-genre, or film in general, about MMA. I don't know much about MMA, and I've never found it particularly interesting. I intended to skip this film, until I learned that Tom Hardy was one of the stars, alongside Joel Edgerton, an actor who I have never heard of. (Upon doing some research, I learned that the only film I know him from is Star Wars Episode II and III, where he played the young version of Luke's uncle.) Tom Hardy is one of my favorite actors, and I'll watch anything he does. Including this.

In this film, we meet brothers Brendan and Tommy Conlon, played by Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy, respectively. They are both the children of an abusive and alcoholic father, (Nick Nolte), and a dead mother. They were both trained as fighters by their father, Tommy being the favorite. When the family split up, Tommy went with his mother, and Brendan stayed with his father. The mother died, and Tommy joined the Marines, serving in the Middle East. Brendan stayed, got married, became a UFC fighter, had two children, and became a high school physics teacher. When Tommy comes back home, he goes to his father, looking for training. Brendan is 3 months from losing his home, and decides fighting could bring money into his home. They both (separately) hear about an MMA tournament called Sparta, destined to find the best MMA fighter in the world. It's in Atlantic City, is only two nights long, and the winner takes home $5 million. They both get in, not knowing the other is in, with Tommy being the favorite to win, and Brendan being considered the underdog.

The interesting thing about this film is we have two protagonists, we like both of them, we want both to win, and the film doesn't have a favorite either. That's what makes this film so amazing, and makes it stand out in the fighting sub-genre. It was an incredibly smart move, and makes this one of the best films I have seen this year. Without a doubt, this film will be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture next year.

The acting was terrific, with Tom Hardy being singled out as the best performance in this film, and the best I have seen this year. While it is too early to say if he will win Best Actor at the Academy Awards, he will certainly be nominated. Joel Edgerton also does a tremendous job, but he is more subdued than Tom Hardy, who just goes all out. I'm not sure if Joel Edgerton will be nominated for Best Actor, but he could be. We'll just have to wait and see. Another actor that also does a great job is Nick Nolte, playing the recovering alcoholic father. He's got this real desperation about him. All he wants are for his two sons to accept him, and he conveys it perfectly. I think he could be nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

Gavin O'Connor is a director I have never heard of. Upon doing some research, I realized I know none of his films. I have never heard of any of them, let alone seen or review them. So, this was my first experience with Gavin O'Connor. It was a good experience. He is a great director, and an even better writer. How he was able to make us care for not one, but two people is phenomenal, especially when they're so different. He did a terrific job, and he better get a nomination for Best Director next year. Also, his choreography for the fight scenes was terrific. Like I mentioned earlier, I know nothing about MMA, so for all I know, this may have been the fakest looking fight choreography ever put on film. But to me, it looked absolutely brilliant. The moves these actors had to go through, the punches, the kicks, the strangleholds. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Overall, I loved this film. It genuinely surprised me with how good it was, and I am glad to say this was my first film of Oscar season. I am truly happy with this film, and I recommend it to anyone. I give it a 9/10.

P.S. It's Oscar season. Time for the good films.

P.P.S. For any followers of the list, I apologize for my lack of updating it. I am now at university, and I am finding I have no time to watch these films. I will continue the list, but my output will become much slower. Also, my due date, August 5, 2015, is probably a bit short for me, considering my new limitations, so I'm getting rid of that limit, and will finish this list whenever it is finished. Keep reading people. :)

Fright Night

Fright Night was released on August 19, 2011, and is a remake of the 1985 horror film, Fright Night. It was written by Marti Noxon, original story by Tom Holland, directed by Craig Gillespie, and stars Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Imogen Poots, Toni Collete, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.



I haven't seen the original version of this film, and didn't know of its existence, until I heard about this film. I didn't watch it, mostly because of a lack of interest. So, going into this film, I knew nothing. I probably wouldn't have seen this film, until I learned that David Tennant was in it, playing Peter Vincent (an obvious reference to horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price). I'm a big fan of Doctor Who, so that was the main reason why I wanted to see this film.

Overall, I'd have to say that this film was good, but unnecessary. I didn't really see the point in remaking it, as they didn't really add anything different. I read the plot of the original on Wikipedia before watching this, and they really didn't change anything, aside from the addition of some comedy. Now obviously, I can't compare the two, so I must judge this film on its own merits.

The role of Jerry, originated by Chris Sarandon, was played by Colin Farrell, a talented actor. Some people were worried that he couldn't quite do this film justice, but I can safely say that he did. He was perfectly creepy, and cool at the same time. He looked like he was ready to seduce you, as opposed to eating you. On the note of seducing, that seemed to be the way they treated vampirism in this. Whenever Jerry bit a new victim, he panted, enjoyed himself, licked the blood very sexually. A very interesting way to look at vampirism. Twilight, take note, this is a good way to do vampires, not overtly moody.

While Colin Farrell was rather splendid, for me, the show-stealer was David Tennant. Take away my love for Doctor Who, and you still have a phenomenal performance. He was perfectly funny, despicable, and cool, all at the same time. He had the best lines, the best scenes, and whenever he wasn't on screen, I missed his presence. Now, he doesn't show up until halfway, and then reappears in the last third. While I did miss him, the scenes without him were still good. The beginning was particularly enjoyable, mostly due to Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who is only in the beginning and the end, but is notable enough to be a starring performer. He was usual Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and by usual, I don't mean nerdy, and pathetic, but still likeable, like Superbad. I mean all those qualities, combined with assholeism, and villainry. (SLIGHT SPOILERS) He was a villain in Kickass, and he was a villain here. It's becoming his usual role, and it works. You don't think of him as the villain, because he's so pathetic. And with each villain role I find him in, he becomes more of a villain. One day, perhaps, we will see this young actor performing villain roles like the Joker, or something of the like. Here's a thought. If the Riddler were ever to come back to screen, get Christopher Mintz-Plasse to play him. It seems likely that Christopher Nolan won't be doing that, but perhaps, in 15 years or so, someone else will reboot the series, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse could very well be the Riddler. Just a thought.

There's an interesting subtext about vampirism in this film, mostly shown through the character of Evil Ed, Christopher Mintz-Plasse's character. Becoming a vampire is a sexual awakening, and in Evil Ed's case, he realizes he's gay. In the beginning of the film, Evil Ed and Charley (Anton Yelchin), our main character, are ex-friends. Charley doesn't want to be friends with Evil Ed, and Evil Ed misses Charley. Charley stopped being friends with Evil Ed to have a girlfriend, and Evil Ed refuses that. He wants to be with Charley, but Charley doesn't want to be with him. Evil Ed soon confronts Jerry, the resident vampire, who convinces him to turn. It's an emotional scene for Evil Ed, and it can be seen as giving into who he really is, a gay man. When we later see him, as a vampire, he openly expresses his desire to have Charley be a vampire with him. He wants to be with Charley, and is now free to do it. Also, interestingly, whenever a character is converted into a vampire, it's highly sexualized. Girls jump on top of guys, guys kiss girls. I did enjoy this subtext quite a bit, as it added an interesting depth to the film.

The rest of the cast was good, but nothing special. Slightly forgettable, but that's probably because of the grandiose nature of Farrell, Tennant, and Mintz-Plasse. The writing was enjoyable enough, and the directing was sufficient enough. The stand out moments for the film had either Farrell, Tennant, or Mintz-Plasse on screen, but whenever they weren't on screen, this film was just okay, nothing particularly special.

One more thing: this film was in 3D. I've grown neutral to 3D, as long as they keep darkness out of the film. Being a horror-comedy involving vampires, there were a lot of dark scenes. This film was very hard to watch, all because of the 3D. I tried to find this playing in 2D, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Why? Why the lack of 2D? This film should've been released in just 2D, because it's a dark film. Shame on you, Craig Gillespie, and/or producers.

Overall, this film was enjoyable, mostly due to Colin Farrell, David Tennant, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Without them, it was okay, nothing special. I highly recommend this film, if only for their performances, and a damn interesting subtext. Overall, I give this film an 8/10.

Attack the Block

Attack the Block is the first film of English comedian Joe Cornish, half of comedy duo Adam and Joe, and was released on May 11, 2011 in the U.K. It was written and directed by Joe Cornish, and stars John Boyega, Alex Esmail, Franz Drameh, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard, Jodie Whittaker, Luke Treadaway, and Nick Frost.

I was lucky to watch the Tree of Life, because it's in extremely limited release, and hard to find anywhere. I'm even more lucky to be able to watch Attack the Block, because of its history. In May, it was released in the U.K., where it was extremely popular. In attempt to secure a release on this side of the Atlantic, producers and film studios were worried that the film wouldn't be popular over here, and not only that, but the film would need subtitles for the characters heavy South London accents. That's absolutely ridiculous, the accents are not hard to understand. The film secured a limited release, only playing in 6 cities in the U.S. initially. I didn't know it was playing in Canada at all, I just happened to be at Yonge and Dundas one day, and saw a poster for that film at the theatre. A few days later, I went to see it.

All I had heard about this film was good reviews, and all of those reviews are right. This is a very good film. Many people have compared it to Edgar Wright's first feature, Shaun of the Dead, which is very unfair. The only things that Shaun of the Dead and Attack the Block have in common is Edgar Wright (he wrote and directed Shaun of the Dead, and was an executive producer on this film), Nick Frost (starred in both films), the fact that they're English films, and the fact that they are films. That's it. Aside from those similarities, these films are quite different. Shaun of the Dead was a comedy with a little bit of good horror as well. Attack the Block is a straight up science-fiction horror, with elements of comedy in it. While Shaun of the Dead wants to make you laugh, Attack the Block wants to make you scared.

In the film, we meet 5 youths (John Boyega, Alex Esmail, Franz Drameh, Leeon Jones, and Simon Howard) who are residents of a typical "block" in South London. In case you're wondering, a block is a building that is part of the projects, a ghetto of sorts. They mug Sam (Jodie Whittaker), a nurse who also lives in the block, and as they mug her, something flies down, and crashes into a car beside them. Sam escapes, and upon inspecting, the boys find that a creature not from this world is in the car, and starts to attack them, scratching Moses', the leader of the group, face. He kills the alien, and takes it to Ron (Nick Frost), the local weed dealer, hoping to store it in his "weed room," as it is the safest place in the block. Shortly after this, more aliens start to come down, more fierce, vicious, and blood-hungry aliens. The gang and Sam have to gang together to defend the block (which probably should've been the name of the film, Defend the Block, but I digress).

Aside from Nick Frost, the cast is filled with mostly unknowns. All these young actors are phenomenally good actors. These kids are scared, but pretend to be tough, in order to survive on the block. They're pretending to be tough and strong, but in reality, they just want to go home, and not get eaten by the aliens. All the kids, particularly Moses and Pest (John Boyega and Alex Esmail), were great actors, and I look forward to seeing their careers advance forward. Jodie Whittaker also did a fine job. She plays Sam, the nurse who was mugged by the gang, but has to join them in order to survive. She does a fine job here, and apparently she already has a career, so I will be checking out some more of her films soon.

The writing is quite good in this film. Going into this film, I was expecting a comedy, something similar to Shaun of the Dead (I know I said they shouldn't be compared, but oh well). But this film is quite different, because it's a science fiction horror first. That's what makes it so different from Shaun of the Dead, in that this film is a horror film, with elements of comedy, and not a comedy, with elements of horror. That's what makes this film so interesting, and so much more funny.

Overall, this was a very good film, and if you get a chance to check it out, I recommend it, despite the fact that it is hard to find. It's a great debut from Joe Cornish, and I look forward to seeing more of his films in the years to come. I give it an 8.5/10.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was released on August 5, 2011 (my 18th birthday), and is a prequel/reboot in the famous Planet of the Apes film series. It was written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, directed by Rupert Wyatt, and stars James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, and Andy Serkis.





I saw the original Planet of the Apes, and Tim Burton's remake. I saw the original when I was very young, and I don't remember much about it, aside from the basics, and of course, the famous twist. I do remember more of the remake, and I remember it to be quite bad. It left a sour taste in my mouth, and I didn't ever really intend to watch the other Planet of the Apes films. The original is on the list, so I will watch that. Aside from that, I had no real intention of watching any of the other films. I didn't even intend to see this film, I just saw it by chance.

I went into this film thinking I would hate it, or at the very least, find it to be underwhelming. However, when I heard good reviews, I was intrigued, but not enough to go see it. And then by chance, I ended up seeing it with a few friends, and came out genuinely surprised at the fact that it wasn't bad, but actually pretty good.

While certainly not a great film, it was a good film. The detrimental points were mostly the uselessness of Freida Pinto (if you take her out of the film, nothing major changes), and the lack of Brian Cox (underused, and not seen in or near the ending). But everything else was actually quite good. The showstealer, obviously, was Andy Serkis, playing Caesar, the revolutionary ape. He played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (reprising the role again in next years Hobbit), and King Kong in Peter Jackson's remake of the 1933 classic, both roles entirely done in a combination of acting, motion-capture, and CGI. He was brilliant in both of those, and brilliant in this as well. He plays Caesar like a young child, excited in learning new things, and loving his family. However, due to the fact that he is first and foremost, a chimpanzee, he is imprisoned, with other apes. Using his intelligence, he becomes their leader, and starts an ape revolution, by making the apes intelligent. Andy Serkis was not only the perfect choice to play Caesar, he was also the only choice. This is how Andy Serkis makes his career, essentially playing creatures through CGI. He was absolutely brilliant, and while he won't be nominated for an Oscar, he definitely deserves a nomination, or at least recognition.

The other actors were very good as well. James Franco is our lead, and he does good. Nothing special. He wasn't horrible, he wasn't great. Freida Pinto's character was essentially useless, but regardless, she was believable, and relatively good. In my opinion, John Lithgow is a tremendous actor, whether he is a playing a sad old man suffering from Alzheimer's, or television's greatest serial killer. He was the former here, and was tremendous. He made us feel sad, and extremely happy at some points. While Brian Cox wasn't used enough, he was very good, as he normally is, and his presence was sorely missed in the end.  It's good to see Tom Felton furthering his career, especially so soon after the Harry Potter films ended. And not only that, but he wasn't half bad in this. Come to think of it, he was one of the best actors in it. He had a career before Harry Potter, and it looks like he'll have one after Harry Potter too. (He also said, "take your stinkin' paws off me, you damn dirty ape!" Well, they had to put it in somewhere.) I'd also like to mention David Hewlett, the angry neighbour. He is a Canadian actor, who has only done Canadian productions (Cube, the Stargate shows), but is a very good actor. While every role I've seen him in, he's usually playing a calm character, he displays sheer anger here. Despite being in a small role, he was my favourite part of this film for two reasons. One, his character was the first to feel the wrath of Caesar, and two, because it is good to see this great actor's career furthering into Hollywood.

The film was able to function on its own, as a film separate of the Planet of the Apes franchise, and that's what makes it so good. The writing of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver was very good. They were able to shine through Caesar, which is definitely the best part about this film. While I don't know the Planet of the Apes universe, I imagine that this film probably isn't 100% correct in that universe. However, there a good number of references to the original film as well. Aside from the aforementioned famous quote, we sees news reports about the first manned mission to Mars, and how it becomes lost in space. This spacecraft was in Planet of the Apes, and while I don't remember much about the original film, I do remember that.

One more thing I'd like to mention: the CGI. The CGI was not just used for Caesar, but all of the apes. It looked fantastic. From gorillas to orangutans to silverbacks, they all look unbelievably real. In action sequences, they can look a bit fake sometimes, but aside from that, it looks absolutely brilliant. The gorilla was, without a doubt, the best looking of all, looking like a miniature King Kong. We've come a long way from having men wear fake looking ape costumes.

Overall, this film, while not perfect, was a nice little addition to the Planet of the Apes film series, and it leaves me hopeful and excited for a sequel. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10. A nice little film with some great CGI and a great performance from Andy Serkis. A definite a-must if you're a fan of the Planet of the Apes film series, but if not, check it out anyways. You'll probably like it.

The Tree Of Life

The Tree of Life was released May 27, 2011 in the U.S., premiering at Cannes, where it won the Palme d'Or. It was written and directed by Terence Malick, and stars Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, and Sean Penn.

Terence Malick is one of the most interesting directors in Hollywood. He made two films in the 1970s, both highly regarded as some of the best films of that decade, then stopped making films for 20 years, releasing the Thin Red Line, an extremely famous war film, in 1998, famous for containing cameos or supporting roles from almost every major actor in Hollywood at the time. In 2005, he made the New World, which received mixed reviews on release, but has since been regarded as one of the best films of the 2000s. And now, in 2011, he has made the Tree of Life. Now, aside from the Tree of Life, I had only seen the New World. I saw it shortly after it came out, and being 12 at the time, I thought it was ok, but nothing special. Since then, I have learned the history and reputation of Terence Malick, one of the most elusive, compelling, and brilliant directors in Hollywood today, and in the history of cinema.

Going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I knew the basic plot, and that was it. I knew of the "creation of life" sequence, the 50s storyline, and the modern-day storyline. I had heard all the reviews, praising this film, and I could tell it would blow me away. However, I was completely worried, mostly because of the "creation of life" sequence. What was it, and what was the point of it? However, I was mostly optimistic. And you know what? This film blew me away.

Now while it did blow me away, after the first hour, the film starts to feel like it drags. Let me explain. the first 10-15 minutes is just a setup of the basic plot. We meet Jack O'Brien, in two different timelines (Sean Penn in the modern-day storyline, and Hunter McCracken in the 50s storyline). I don't really want to spoil the plot, so the only other thing I will reveal is in the 50s storyline, the main characters are Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien (both played brilliantly by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain), but seen through the eyes of young Jack. I imagine that the 50s storyline is partly based off of Malick's own childhood, as the setting of the film, Waco, Texas, is the town he grew up in. And it certainly is interesting, especially in the beginning, as we see the children being raised. But after a good while of that, it can be boring, because we've seen it already. It still is good, but it drags on a bit.

That is the only negative about this film. Everything else is a tremendous positive. Brad Pitt is at his best here. He plays a father who genuinely loves his children, but he doesn't know how to show it. Due to this, he ends up beating his children. Very typical of a father in the 50s. You can see the love he feels for his children, but he doesn't now how to express it, and gets very angry over it. Pitt was tremendous at doing this, and I'd have to say, he has a very good chance at winning the Academy Award for Best Actor. I think Leonardo DiCaprio will blow me away when J. Edgar comes out, but I have hope for Brad Pitt.

Jessica Chastain does just as good, but is playing the exact opposite role. She does genuinely love her children, like her husband, but does know how to express it. For her, it's essentially by being a child with them. She constantly plays with them, and acts like she's more of a friend. She does however remain in the motherly role, by enforcing the rules when they are needed. Jessica Chastain was great in this role, and I'd have to say the same about her as I did for Brad Pitt. Jessica Chastain can act like a loving mother extremely well. She's got a good chance at winning the Academy Award for Best Actress this year.

I'm not exactly sure what Terence Malick was thinking when writing this film. Combining a story about the raising of children with the creation of life is an extremely odd choice. Oddly, it works. It really works. The 50s storyline in particular is rather brilliant, not just because of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, but because it feels like the 50s. I couldn't help but compare this to Carnivale, a show that used to air on HBO. There are many similar things between these two shows, but the major comparison I found was in the design. Carnivale was set in the 1930s, and looked like it. There were dust storms everywhere, the buildings were breaking down, and the people wore ragged clothes, covered in dust. In this film, it genuinely looks like the 1950s. There are aluminum cups, the kids wear button down shirts, and all the streets are filled with white houses. I think this is more proof that the 50s storyline was based off of Malick's own childhood, because he got the 50s right. He was a child then, so it only makes sense that he would know the 50s.

Now, I'd like to talk about the "creation of life" sequence. The first 15 minutes establish the plot of the film, but the next 20 are this sequence. It's very odd. Essentially, it is a visual representation of the creation of the earth, life, and a basic history of life. It is beautiful, and visually mesmerizing. It makes you think, and ask the questions that we have all asked at one point or another. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What's the point of it all? It's phenomenal, superb, sublime. There aren't enough positive words to describe it. But what is the point of it in the film? What is its relevance?

We see this after Jack O'Brien, the modern-day version, starts to question his life, and remember. Why is this what we see, as opposed to his beginnings? All throughout the sequence, we here Jack, and various other characters, including his parents and young Jack, asking existential questions, the same ones we've asked ourselves. The only reason I can see for it to be in this film is a juxtaposition of his life against the earth, in an attempt to figure out life, and try to find the answers to those questions he has. It's confusing, it makes you think, and most of all, it mesmerizes. It's a truly brilliant sequence, and takes this film from a very good film, to the best film of the year.

Overall, this film is extremely enjoyable, but there are many people who wouldn't enjoy it. If you love film, and love just how brilliant it can be sometimes, this is the film for you. It reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the "creation of life" sequence. It's not easy to find (I live in Toronto, and couldn't find it here, I just happened to find it while on vacation in Vancouver, strangely enough), but if you can find it, go see it. This film deserves your money. Let's try to get this in as many theatres as we can. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10, truly brilliant.

#484 - The Fountain

The Fountain was released on November 22, 2006, and is Darren Aronofsky's third film, and certainly his most interesting. It was written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, with story by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel, and stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz.



4 years ago, my mother rented this film, for us to watch. We had recently been watching Oscar nominated films, including Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, and Brokeback Mountain. We put this on, and within 5 minutes, we turned it off. We thought it was a load of rubbish, mostly because of it's overtly confusing plot. 4 years later, I still thought it was rubbish, and had no real intention of ever watching it. However, here it was, on the list. So, I put it on, and 96 minutes later, I found myself in an odd position.

This movie is... strange. Visually, it's beautiful. It truly is. And the music is spectacular too. Clint Mansell's score is fantastic, and gut-wrenching, all at the same time. But the plot is just... confusing. It's extremely hard to describe. Essentially, we have these 3 storylines, one in the past, one in the present, and one in the future (I'm not entirely sure it is in the future, for the most part. This film is very confusing). Aside from the fact that Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz play characters in all of them (Rachel Weisz isn't in the future storyline), they seemingly have no connection, other than the themes of the tree of life, and losing your loved ones.

The film is well acted, the dialogue well written, and the scenes well directed. However, the film is odd. It's extremely odd. It's all because of the plot. The plot is so weird, and jarring, it just leaves you confused. Regardless, I found that at the end of this film, I had not, in my opinion, wasted 96 minutes. I wouldn't call it good, but I would call it something positive.

I don't really have that much else to say about this film. It's a great audio-visual experience, but because of it's jarring plot, that's all it is. An experience. A film critic I follow once said, in regard to this film, a film that trades story and plot for great audio and visuals creates a truly great experience. He is right, it creates a truly great experience, but not a truly great film. I enjoyed that 96 minutes, but I wouldn't say that I watched a film.

Overall, this one is an extremely interesting experience. If you are 100% sure you are up for it, then do it. But don't go into this wanting an enlightening story, go into this for a good experience. On an enjoyment scale, I give this a 7.5/10. However, I think I should rate this on a greatness scale as well (remember, this scale is for how good the film is, not how much I enjoyed it). For that, I'd have to give it a 3/10. While the visuals are great and the audio is superb, that's all this film has got. It's an experience, not a film.

Next time, I'm watching The Big Red One, a World War II film starring Lee Marvin and Mark Hamill. Interesting combination.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger was released on July 22, 2011, and is the fifth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, directed by Joe Johnston, and stars Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Neal McDonough, Derek Luke, and Stanley Tucci.



So, here we are. The fifth, and second-last entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (so far). We've seen the rise of Iron Man, the return of the Hulk, and the beginning of Thor. Now, we are introduced to Captain America, the Star-Spangled Man. Now let me say, while I know the basic story of Captain America, I don't really know anything else about him. I know he was puny Steve Rogers, they give him a super soldier serum, and now he's super human. I know he gets frozen, and wakes up in present day and starts dating his former girlfriend's niece, and joins the Avengers. I know that Red Skull is his nemesis, and he's a Nazi. I know about Bucky, and what he becomes. But that's pretty much it. So going into this film, I knew the basics, and that's it.

Something I was very worried about going into this film was, "how are they going to make a superhero film in World War II?" These are two things that don't look like they mix very well. And normally, they wouldn't. However, it worked here, and here's why it did. The original Captain America comics, before the Avengers, were created as propaganda. They were created for children, to entertain, and educate about the war, to an extent. The famous comic book cover with Captain America punching Hitler, is propaganda.

During the war, Captain America was the most popular comic book out there, because he was entirely propaganda, and a representation of America itself. He never gave up, and he always won the battle. And in this film, that's how Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, in his second superhero role, and definitely better one) starts out, once he gets his powers. He tours America, selling war bonds, doing shows, in which he states that he fights for America, and in his shows, he punches an actor playing Hitler. The kids love it, the adults love it, it's all good stuff. Once he goes to entertain the troops, however, they can't stand him, because what he represents is not what war is. It's not what they've seen. This had to be my favourite aspect of the film, because here, they successfully combined a superhero film with a World War II film. The soldiers, annoyed with his performance, boo him off stage. When he learns that his friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), is trapped behind enemy lines, with roughly 350 other men, he goes in, and frees them, winning the respect of the troops. From here, he assembles a team of men, who fight the Nazis, namely HYDRA, the occult division led by Johann Schimdt, commonly known as Red Skull (Hugo Weaving).

I really enjoy World War II films, and because of how this film was able to connect a superhero story with a World War II film, I found myself really enjoying it. There were some other aspects of it I liked, and here they are:
1. Tommy Lee Jones.
This film has Tommy Lee Jones playing Tommy Lee Jones. That's as good as Nic Cage doing whatever the hell he wants to. It's extremely entertaining, and absolutely hilarious. It really helped the film.
2. Hayley Atwell.
Most people don't know her, and I think that helped this film, having a female lead that most people don't know. You can't judge her on who she is, or what she's done, because you don't know who she is or what she's done. I had seen her two years ago in the Prisoner remake, and I thought she was one of the best parts of that horrible, horrible miniseries. She's a very good actress, and I hope to see her do more productions.
3. Stanley Tucci.
While his role was small, his impact was powerful. I'd argue, he was the best actor in the whole film. Mind you, this is a film filled to the brim with good actors, but I think he had the best performance of them all. He was funny and heartfelt all at the same time.
4. The CGI.
In the first third of the film, Chris Evans' entire body was done with CGI, to make him look short, and thin. It was some of the best CGI I'd ever seen. It looked completely realistic. Better than Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
5. Howard Stark.
The addition of Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) in the film was a nice little treat for us, that actually turned out to be something great. Not only does he look like Tony Stark (I honestly thought Robert Downey Jr. was in this film the first time I saw Howard Stark), but he acts just like him. It was a very pleasant addition.

There are a few small problems with this film, but they're just that: small. This film was very good, and I'd say the best superhero film of this year. In comparison to Thor, the film is much better, because we now have an identifiable character. Speaking of Thor, there's a scene near the end in which something shoots up into the sky, and it results in an effect that looks similar to the transportation between worlds effect in Thor. What could it mean?

Overall, this was a very good superhero film, and I'd say second-best in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I give it an 8.5/10. It leaves me extremely excited for The Avengers, next year's (possible) conclusion to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. By the way, the post-credits scene is a short trailer for the Avengers. Enjoy. :)



P.S. For all readers of the list, don't worry, I'm still doing it. I'm having some trouble finding the next few films on the list though. The list will return.

#485 - The Wicker Man

The Wicker Man was released in December of 1973 (the exact date is unknown), and is widely regarded as a cult classic, and one of the best British, and horror, films ever made. It was written by Anthony Shaffer, directed by Robin Hardy, and stars Edward Woodward, Britt Ekland, Diane Cilento, Ingrid Pitt, and Christopher Lee.



I'd never seen this film before, or its remake. I knew the twist at the end, as many people do, but literally, that's all I knew. (SPOILERS) The twist is this: the people of Summerisle believe they need to sacrifice someone to their sun god in order to get their crops to grow, and they sacrifice protagonist Sergeant Neil Howie, by burning him in a gigantic wicker man, hence the title. I didn't really know the plot of the film, aside from that basic twist. I'm glad that I didn't know the plot, cause this film was rather brilliant, and kept me interested the entire time.

Sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward), a Scottish police officer, is sent to the small island of Summerisle, just off the coast of Scotland, to search for a missing girl, Rowan Morrison (Gerry Cowper). On this small island, the inhabitants adhere to an odd religion, which according to Wikipedia, is inspired by Celtic paganism. They believe in reincarnation of the soul, into fire, water, air, earth, and animals. They believe they must make a sacrifice every Mayday in order to ensure their crops will grow. They teach their boys songs about sex and reincarnation through sex, and they teach their girls about phallic symbols, and how to jump over fire naked. Howie is disgusted by this, and rightfully so. He is a Christian, and proud. Now, I'm not religious at all, but I can completely agree with Howie in these matters. Quite frankly, the people of Summerisle are crazy. There must have been some inbreeding somewhere, because these people will believe just about anything. It seems that they are manipulated by their spiritual and political leader, Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee), into believing whatever he says, and it seems like he truly believes in what he's saying.

I found myself being extremely emotionally involved with the film, and I can think of 3 main reasons.
#1. The oddities of the people of Summerisle.
These people are just plain weird, and shocking. There is one scene where a teacher is teaching young girls about phallic symbols, penises, and it seems that this is the most basic of education for them. Not only that, but in a later scene, we see these same girls, completely nude, dancing around a fire, singing some weird song about reincarnation, and jumping across the fire. Encouraged by their teacher. These people are really odd, and regardless of your religion or beliefs, you are concerned for these children. Yes, this is film, and hence, fiction, but what you see is so shocking, that you feel emotionally involved with the story.
#2. Edward Woodward.
He is the protagonist, and the most identifiable character. He represents sanity in this world of insanity. He attempts to being Christianity to this island, only to be repressed. And the reason why we identify with him so well is because he is a great actor. He shows such concern for the people of Summerisle, and fights against the insanity of Lord Summerisle. He is a police officer, and so, is a strong authority figure. We trust him, because he is normal in this world of abnormal.
I've never seen him act before, or even heard of him, for that matter, but let me tell you, he was brilliant. If he's done more films, I intend to check them out.
#3. The soundtrack.
The soundtrack, composed by Paul Giovanni, is rather brilliant. (Does the fact that I'm using the word brilliant a lot imply something?) It's a mix of folk, 70s rock, and musical. The music can show the oddities and insanity of Summerisle, but it can also be strangely compelling in scenes (admittedly, Britt Ekland being nude in this scene helps). Arguably, it's one of the best horror soundtracks ever.

Overall, I'm extremely glad I saw this film. This film was brilliant. And because of this, it earns the Seal of Brilliance, along with #492 - Amores perros. This film truly is a gem of horror cinema. Overall, this film earns a 10/10 from me. I highly recommend this film to anybody. And watch the remake if you want too, but from what I've heard, it's some of Nic Cage at his best.

Next time, I'm watching The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky's foray into the mainstream.