Cop Out

I think I'll keep this one quick, as there's really little to be said about a film like Cop Out. Director Kevin Smith has made a film that plays homage to the classic buddy cop comedies of the 80's. Everything is there: mismatched partners, a synth score, a ridiculous plot driven by a MacGuffin. Indeed, the only thing Smith left out is the actual comedy. Cop Out is simply a dreadfully dull film. Everyone involved seem to be either bored or don't care. The performances are lifeless, the story is tedious, and no amount of riffs on a genre can change that.

Smith is better known for his scripts than his directing, and he has said he took this as a way to test out what it would be like to direct a film he didn't write. Well, he should stick to his own scripts. It would appear that, when he doesn't write out the film himself, Smith has little to no actual ideas as to how he wants the film to flow. People, including Smith himself, have knocked the directing style of his previous films, but his directing always served the writing. His films may not look good, but the directing never got in the way of telling a good story. Not here. Smith seems so hung up on trying to prove he can create a visually interesting film, he ignored one of the real keys to being a director: pace. Scenes do not flow well together at all, the film feels disjointed and sluggish, and subplots either go nowhere or pop up at the wrong times. A funny running gag could have come out of Tracy Morgan's character trying to determine if his wife is cheating on him, but there is no rhythm to the way these jokes are parsed out through the film. This lack of pace kills any chance of someone like Morgan or Bruce Willis creating memorably funny characters.

I think Smith's concern over being a visual director is holding him back from making truly great movies. Chasing Amy looks really bad, but it is still one of the best films of the 90's because it is an interesting story told well. Anyone who has listened to the guy talk knows he is a pro at telling a story. For a man who holds the words of the script so high, it's shocking how little he cares about them here in Cop Out, focusing too much on what looks cool and little else. Let's just hope that now that he got this experiment out of his system, he can go back to crafting intelligent and insightful character pieces.

Another Oscar Season in the Books

And there you have it, the lowest grossing film (ever?) to win Best Picture. And you know, I think that's pretty cool. I'm sure there will be a lot of Avatar fans who are disappointed by the outcome, but hopefully they will give this thrilling and unique film a chance. And special kudos to Kathryn Bigelow for becoming the first woman to win Best Director. As for the rest of the categories, it was all pretty clear who would win. The big surprise, certainly, was Precious shutting out Up in the Air for screenplay. Not entirely in agreement with that decision, but at least it was surprising. Anyway, some stray thoughts:

• Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were awful. Really, really awful. Which is a shame, since these guys are usually very funny. You'd think given ten nominees, they'd have a wealth of material to work with.
• Indeed, the whole show was a big letdown. From the strange dance sequence during the score nominees, to the return of the supremely awkward acting presentations by other actors, this year was, dare I say, a disaster. It was becoming clear these last few weeks that Adam Shankman, the producer, had no love for the Oscars at all, so this wasn't all that surprising.
• Jeff Bridges finally won! He has True Grit, with the Coen Bros, coming out this Christmas, maybe there's a chance he will be the first consecutive winner since Tom Hanks?
• So, of all the people who have died since Stanly Kubrick in 1999, none have been more worthy of a standalone In Memoriam than John Hughes? I like the guy's films plenty, and his impact is undeniable, but that's just silly.
  
• Less silly? The horror montage. I was doubtful when they announced it, but damn if it didn't make me want to go watch a bunch of scary movies. Good on them for recognizing it in the show.

So it seems the 10 was a big success for the Academy. I'm sure the ratings this year will be huge. Hopefully the Academy will make as good of a selection in their picture choices next year as they did this year. If they continue to show good, varied taste, this could be an experiment I can get behind.

Alice in Wonderland

Normally I would review this movie like I would any other: the good, the bad, the ugly. But three years ago, in my review for Sweeney Todd, I declared Tim Burton to be my favorite filmmaker. I feel that statement needs to be further examined, and what better place to do so than in my review for his latest movie? Suffice it to say, I do not stand by that statement any longer, and it is not Alice in Wonderland that makes me reconsider. But it is Alice in Wonderland that so perfectly exemplifies why I can't stand by that statement any longer. Alice in Wonderland is a bad film, and it's a bad film because it is a Tim Burton film. It exemplifies what exactly is wrong with the career of my once favorite director.

There was a time when Tim Burton made original films - or at least films that weren't remakes/reimaginings. But ever since Sleepy Hollow, he has felt the need to remake everything that sounds vaguely like a Tim Burton movie (he is even reimagining one of his own next, the short film Frankenweenie). Perhaps no story sounds more tailor made to Tim Burton's sensibilities than that of Alice in Wonderland - and that's exactly the problem. When Burton gets his hands on these properties, he immediately goes into autopilot. There is no challenge in taking a story that sounds like a Tim Burton film, and then turning it into a Tim Burton film. One has only to look at the various elements of this film to see how much they mirror everything else he has ever done, and how little thought he had to put into it.

The most obvious autopilot choice Burton always makes is the casting. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are both fine actors, but his reliance on them repeatedly results in tamer and tamer performances on their parts. Depp especially seems lost here. After seven collaborations, I can't imagine that Tim Burton has a lot of new directorial ideas for Depp to try out. As such, we get a performance that never takes off, relying too much on silly makeup and bad character quirks. Carter fares better, taking her character to some really silly places, but all too often she seems to rely on quirkiness and not actual performing.

The score is exactly what you would expect. Where once a Danny Elfman score would jump out at you, now it seems to just serve as a placeholder. Nothing about the music is memorable because it hits the exact Elfman beats you would expect from a collaboration with Burton. While music shouldn't be a make or break element in the quality of a film, it is certainly a piece of the film, and in this case it serves to illustrate the lazy mentality that seems to go on when someone teams up with Burton for the umpteenth time.

But what Burton is most known for, of course, is his visual style. When someone says a story seems like a perfect fit for Burton, it is usually this element they are referring to. Here is no exception: Burton's love for German Expressionism is once again on display, but filtered through copious amounts of CGI. And it looks really bad. Perhaps this aspect of the film is the one I would have most easily given a pass, as his visual style still entertains me, but it is done so poorly here, I can't ignore it. Maybe it was the 3D, but this is one of the most visually repugnant movies I have seen in some time. One has to look no further than Johnny Depp's makeup design to see what I mean. It is harsh on the eyes, garish and without reason. It's weird simply for the sake of being weird. Why is the Red Queen's head so big? Because it looks weird. Why does Crispin Glover appear to be stretched out vertically? Because it looks weird. That seems to be the length of thought process Burton has been putting into his visuals, and the bad CGI here does him no favors.

The best films Tim Burton has done are among my all time favorites. But it has been a long time since the days of Ed Wood or Beetle Juice. It's strange to watch a man I once wholly respected so completely tarnish his image and credibility. Between the Frankenweenie remake and his stated desire to tackle the Sleeping Beauty story, there is no reason to think his decision making will improve. And when his movies make as much money as Alice in Wonderland has so far, why would he risk making something as uniquely personal as Edward Scissorhands again? As long as Burton continues to make the films people expect him to make, his creative decisions in each film will probably become more and more bankrupt of creativity. Tim Burton is a man in need of a comeback, but he'll need to step outside of his comfort zone again to achieve it.

Green Zone

Paul Greengrass is one of the most exciting filmmakers working today. He is one of those very rare directors that can straddle the line between populist entertainment and political film making. With past efforts, he tended to lean more heavily on one aspect while infusing it with the other. The Bourne films were entertaining while being moderately political, United 93 and Bloody Sunday were political while being moderately populist. With Green Zone, he blurs the line more than before. Here he tries to make a film that is both very political, and pure entertainment. The results aren't quite perfect, but they are an interesting step forward for a man who seems on the cusp of being one of the most important directors of his generation.

Green Zone is a fictional spin on the way we got into the Iraq War. One might initially assume he is going for a purely political film here, but that notion is very quickly brushed aside. From the beginning, this thing is an action picture. The film opens with an explosion (many of them, actually), and ramps up the tension from there. Matt Damon stars as Miller, a soldier who has been assigned the duty of finding the elusive weapons of mass destruction. After coming up empty handed again and again, he starts to suspect that the Intel he is being given is fictitious. He sets out to find the source of the information, with the help of a local man named Freddy (Khalid Abdalla, who also appeared in United 93). Jumping from location to location, never sure who he can trust, Miller is racing against time to find what he needs to know before things get out of control in Iraq.

What Greengrass appears to have done is make a modern version of All the Presidents Men, and turn it into an action film. Miller jumps from lead to lead, clue to clue, trying to uncover a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government. Where some might take umbrage is with the fact that this is a fictional account on a real story. None of these people actually exist, nor was there ever any conspiracy uncovered. For those who don't take kindly to speculative historical fiction, this might come across as smug finger pointing. For those who can enjoy that sort of thing, Greengrass infuses it with many great details and ideas. Personally, I don't think there was a grand conspiracy, but the film does give ample evidence to support the idea that information could have been knowingly falsified to get us to war. And at its heart, Green Zone isn't about the specific details, as much as it is about the bigger questions of why we go to war, and what ultimately justifies it.

It can't be left unmentioned that Greengrass brings his traditional documentary style camerawork to the film. I personally have no problems with this style, as it lends itself to creating a level of intimacy that more conventional camerawork doesn't. At the same time, though, I think he overindulged. There are a great many scenes where it is almost impossible to see what is going on, especially early on. Some shots go out of focus, others miss what is happening entirely. It can be frustrating. On the other hand, it helps the audience get into the mind of these soldiers who were the first to arrive in Iraq. They too are lost and confused, and the camera is a great facsimile of how overwhelming the experience for them was those first few days of war.

The film's one big flaw, sadly, is the characters. The style of film Greengrass usually makes requires a bit of detachment from the characters, much like you would have in an objective documentary. Here, though, it stops being detachment, and starts being stock characters. Everybody is a character type, not a character. As such, they are only vessels for exposition. I have not mentioned the fact that the film also starts such great actors as Amy Ryan, Greg Kinnear, and Brenden Gleason. That's because none leave any impact on the viewer. Even Damon as Miller is a bit of a nothing character. His righteousness never feels backed up by anything, and when he gets his big moment at the end where he claims that the reasons for going to war always matter, it feels less like a character and more like a screenwriter saying it. But there is one shining performance, that of the aforementioned Freddy (Khalid Abdalla). He is the heart of the film, and you actually care what happens with his story more than anyone else. Part of that is the film playing on our fears that this Iraqi trying to help the government will get screwed for doing the right thing, but most of it comes from a strong performance on Abdalla's part.

While it doesn't achieve the same levels of greatness that his best political (United 93) or pulp (The Bourne Ultimatum) films did, Green Zone is still an interesting step forward in his attempt to fully fuse the two types of films. Had a bit more work been given to the screenplay and characters, it might have been to that level. It's interesting to see that in the last year, Hollywood has finally started to figure out how to tell Iraq War stories. While this isn't quite up there with The Hurt Locker, it is certainly an entertaining alternative. Let's hope Hollywood continues to find new and interesting ways to mine this material.

Oscars: Final Predictions

I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the 10, but I think it will largely depend on how the show goes next Sunday. If the new voting system is as flawed as we are hearing, something completely unexpected could show up as the winner. Up is a good example here. Not many people will place it at number 1, but how many would honestly place it in their bottom 5? So if the front runners really are as divisive as they seem, something no one hates could slide in for a win (no offense, Up!). Ultimately, this seems like a pretty cut and dry season, and I doubt there will be a surprise like that, but it will be interesting to see in future years how this plays out when the front runners aren't so certain.


Picture

• Avatar
• The Blind Side
• District 9
• An Education
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Precious
• A Serious Man
• Up
• Up in the Air
  

This is seemingly a two film race: Avatar vs The Hurt Locker, a battle to the end. At the moment, it appears as though The Hurt Locker has this easily, but it is still very hard to ignore the fact that no film has ever made so little money and won the big prize. I do love the idea that the year the Academy makes such a blatant attempt to draw in mainstream audiences, it will award Best Picture to the smallest film in their 80+ year history. Still, Avatar has the advantage of being seen by everyone, which can't be ignored.

Winner: The Hurt Locker
Surprise: Avatar


Actor

• Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
• George Clooney - Up in the Air
• Colin Firth - A Single Man
• Morgan Freeman - Invictus
• Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
  

Some years just belong to certain actors. It's kind of funny to think that up until November, Crazy Heart was not a 2009 release. Jeff Bridges has so completely wrapped this one up, it's hard to imagine who would have benefited had he stayed in 2010. My guess is Renner would have snuck away with it a la Adrien Brody in 2002. Still, no sense in debating it now, as Bridges finally gets his long deserved Oscar.

Winner: Jeff Bridges
Surprise: Jeremy Renner


Actress

• Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
• Helen Mirren - The Last Station
• Carey Mulligan - An Education
• Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
• Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
  

I wonder how much of the support for Bullock this year comes from the notion that she probably won't be nominated again, so if they want her to ever win, they better vote for her now. Streep seems to suffer from the fact that she will probably just be nominated again next year or the year after, so they will have ample opportunities to award her again. Personally, I think it'd be cool if Mulligan or Sidibe won, but it's clearly not going to happen. Bullock has this pretty locked down, but I think there's a contingent of folks who want to see Streep win another one. It's the closest thing to a real race in the top categories.

Winner: Sandra Bullock
Surprise: Meryl Streep


Supporting Actor

• Matt Damon - Invictus
• Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
• Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
• Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
• Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
  

While in other categories, the winner seems so certain because of how beloved the performance is, here it seems to be certain due to how forgettable the competition is. No knock against Waltz, who is indeed amazing, but his competition is extremely meager. Woody Harrelson is the only one who actually makes sense being here, the other three are the very definition of place holders. Nothing special to see here, Waltz gets this with ease.

Winner: Christoph Waltz
Surprise: Woody Harrelson


Supporting Actress

• Penelope Cruz - Nine
• Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
• Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
• Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
• Mo'Nique - Precious
  

Now here is a category filled with strong performances. I haven't seen Nine, but the other 4 performances are all worthy ones. Which makes it probably harder for someone to upset Mo'Nique: the support for the performances are pretty evenly split. When all the competition is so equally good, the obvious one is usually the smart bet. I still can't believe that Mo'Nique is soon to be an Oscar winner, but she deserves it.

Winner: Mo'Nique
Surprise: Maggie Gyllenhaal


Director

• Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
• James Cameron - Avatar
• Lee Daniels - Precious
• Jason Reitman - Up in the Air
• Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
  

You've probably heard it by now, but no woman has ever won a directing Oscar. That statistic seems destined to change this year with Bigelow. This usually goes to the Best Picture, and in the rare times it doesn't, it goes to the person whose film is usually looked back upon as the one that should have won (Saving Private Ryan, Brokeback Mountain, The Pianist). Regardless of what film wins Picture, I think Bigelow gets this one. Cameron might have been a bigger threat had he not won for Titanic.

Winner: Kathryn Bigelow
Surprise: James Cameron


Original Screenplay

• The Hurt Locker
• Inglorious Basterds
• The Messenger
• A Serious Man
• Up
  

Perhaps the most uncertain category for me, I can't choose between The Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds. Logic dictates that a Best Picture winner needs to rack up a few smaller wins to justify being the big winner, and screenplay is usually a gimme along with editing. Still, the writing in Basterds is what makes it work so well, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to give Tarantino another writing Oscar. My head says The Hurt Locker, my heart says Basterds, so in this case I will go with my heart.

Winner: Inglourious Basterds
Surprise: The Hurt Locker


Adapted Screenplay

• District 9
• An Education
• In the Loop
• Precious
• Up in the Air
  

This seems pretty easy to call for Up in the Air. Reitman has been turning out well loved films consistently since the start of his career, and it is time to award him for that. Precious is probably a bit too melodramatic and unpleasant to win here, but it's the closet to competition Reitman has. The other three have no shot, though some of them are certainly wonderfully unexpected nominees.

Winner: Up in the Air
Surprise: Precious


Cinematography

• Avatar
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• The White Ribbon
  

Our two eternal combatants, Avatar and The Hurt Locker, appear to be at it once again here. Unfortunately, they each have some pretty strong things going against them. The Hurt Locker is very dreary looking, there aren't a lot of pretty visuals to speak of. It's simply down and dirty film making, as it should be for this kind of film. Avatar, though, is CGI cinematography. What will voters make of that? Will they even count it as cinematography? Could a third party sneak in here? I don't think so, but it's so hard to tell what voters will make of these two films. I will go with Avatar simply because it's big and pretty, something that voters seem to like.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: The Hurt Locker


Editing

• Avatar
• District 9
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Precious
  

The easiest award to win for a Best Picture winner is usually editing. This goes to The Hurt Locker, which is able to sustain long stretches of tension through its expert editing. Occasionally big blockbuster action films can win here if the editing is really great (The Bourne Ultimatum), so Avatar is certainly still in the conversation. I think the fact the film is almost 3 hours long will hurt it in the end, though.

Winner: The Hurt Locker
Surprise: Avatar


Art Direction

• Avatar
• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• Nine
• Sherlock Holmes
• The Young Victoria
  

Another of those more difficult ones to get a feel for. I just have a hard time believing that voters will embrace Avatar in these technical categories where CGI is usually frowned upon. Can entirely computer generated environments really win an art direction award? I think yes, but if they snubbed Avatar here I wouldn't be too surprised. The problem is, what wins instead? Having seen none of the competition, it's hard to say. I would say Sherlock Holmes would be the threat, based on the stylized period recreation that film needed to create.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: Sherlock Holmes


Costumes

• Bright Star
• Coco Before Chanel
• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• Nine
• The Young Victoria
  

If the last one was hard to call based on my lack of knowledge of the nominees, this one's even worse. Having seen none of these films, it is especially hard to call. Coco is about a fashion designer, so it certainly must be in the mix. But The Young Victoria is the prototypical winner here: period costume drama. I think they will stick to the norm, but just maybe Coco can eek out a win?

Winner: The Young Victoria
Surprise: Coco Before Chanel


Sound Mixing

• Avatar
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Star Trek
• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
  

Now we start to get into the Avatar sweep zone. Sound awards are an easy win for a mega blockbuster like this one. There are exceptions, like last year with Slumdog Millionaire, so watch out for the more beloved film in the race: The Hurt Locker. Still, it's hard to imagine Avatar not getting this.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: The Hurt Locker


Sound Editing

• Avatar
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Star Trek
• Up
  

See above. No reason to think Avatar can't take this one. Had Up had a nomination in both sound categories, it might have seemed a bigger threat. The Hurt Locker does have the benefit of being an action film of sorts, so it certainly has a shot in this race as well, but it seems less likely than Sound Mixing.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: The Hurt Locker


Visual Effects

• Avatar
• District 9
• Star Trek
  

I know I am in the minority (perhaps I am the only one?), but I think District 9 has the best special effects of 2009. Since I am the only person who thinks this, it won't win. But it's nice to imagine.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: District 9


Makeup

• Il Divo
• Star Trek
• The Young Victoria
  

They don't usually nominate two aging-makeup films, so Divo and Victoria will probably cancel each other out, allowing Star Trek to take this.

Winner: Star Trek
Surprise: The Young Victoria


Song

• Crazy Heart - "The Weary Kind"
• Nine - "Take It All"
• Paris 36 - "Loin de Paname"
• The Princess and the Frog - "Almost There"
  
• The Princess and the Frog - "Down in New Orleans"
  

A lot of people like to badmouth this category, but I think the voters do a good job 90% of the time in picking winners. As such, Crazy Heart will win here. The Princess and the Frog might have won here if this was 1994.

Winner: The Weary Kind
Surprise: Down in New Orleans


Score

• Avatar
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• The Hurt Locker
• Sherlock Holmes
• Up
  

Will Michael Giachhino finally win his much deserved Oscar? It looks like it. Up is such a unique and memorable score, helped by the fact that it is pretty much the only thing you hear during the opening montage of the film. But Avatar lurks in the shadows, as it does in so many categories, hoping to steal a win from a more deserving choice.

Winner: Up
Surprise: Avatar


Documentary

• Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country
• The Cove
• Food, Inc.
• The Most Dangerous Man in America
• Which Way Home
  

Because you have to watch all 5 nominees if you want to vote, this is one of those categories where it really helps to see all of them before you predict. I have only seen The Cove, but it seems like a very solid choice - it's thrilling, informative, and powerful. I've heard a lot of good things about Food, Inc, so it might pose a threat.

Winner: The Cove
Surprise: Food, Inc.


Foreign

• Ajami
• The Milk of Sorrow
  
• A Prophet
• The Secret in Their Eyes
• The White Ribbon
  

The obvious choices would be A Prophet and The White Ribbon, the two high profile films. But high profile has nothing to do with it when all 5 must be seen in order to vote. That apparently really benefits The Secret in Their Eyes. Add to that the fact A Prophet was apparently the film that had to be shoehorned into the nominees by the special jury (this is the only category where the voters can't be trusted to choose good movies, so a jury is in place to make sure at least one good movie gets in), it seems like only The White Ribbon can compete with Eyes.

Winner: The Secret in Their Eyes
Surprise: The White Ribbon


Animated

• Coraline
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• The Princess and the Frog
• The Secret of Kells
• Up
  

It would be silly to bet against the film also nominated for Best Picture. Still, Pixar fatigue is inevitable, and a viable option actually exists for a change. Fantastic Mr. Fox is certainly a threat here, and were I willing to go out on a limb, it would be my wildcard choice this year to go against the grain. But ultimately, I don't think Up will be the Pixar film voters finally choose to shun.

Winner: Up
Surprise: Fantastic Mr. Fox


As for shorts, my money would be on The Door, A Matter of Loaf and Death, and The Last Truck. It looks like The Hurt Locker will not only be the lowest grossing winner ever, but also one with only 3 wins. Hopefully it will win 1 or 2 more than that, and if it does, it will be pretty clear that a Best Picture win is inevitable. Still, I can't help but wonder how, if at all, the preferential voting will affect the outcome.

Shutter Island

Shutter Island finds Martin Scorsese at his most delightfully unhinged. Having chased the Oscar for the last decade, it is exciting to see him let loose a little bit. With Shutter Island, he marries his visual and thematic styles with a pure horror/thriller picture. Much like he did with Cape Fear twenty years ago, Scorsese is able to mine a great deal of psychological thrills and depth out of what could have been a simple genre picture. While some might be put off by how the film's plot progresses, there is no denying that Scorsese tells this story with appropriate flair and wit.

Two federal marshals - Teddy (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) - are sent to an island housing a mental institution to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a patient. From this simple premise, Scorsese weaves an intricate and confounding story of mental illness, memory, and justice. To say that the premise is a bit misleading would be true. The film quickly goes far beyond what the trailer implies, and we realize that film is less about the investigation and more about Teddy. That is a smart choice, as a film of this kind would not work without a great central character to examine in contrast to what is happening around him. Teddy may not be the best character Scorsese has put to screen, but he's certainly one of the more heartbreaking and unsettling.

The fourth collaboration between Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio, Shutter Island continues the escalation of DiCaprio's talent as an actor. While many decried the decision for Scorsese to "adopt" DiCaprio all those years ago, it is clear that under Scorsese's tutelage DiCaprio has become one of the most exciting, refined actors working today. Shutter Island represents perhaps his best work to date. The reason it is such a good performance might not be immediately apparent as you are watching, but by film's end you will realize that DiCaprio has had to work on many different levels through the whole film, some too subtle to notice until after the fact. The premise of the film doesn't initially seem to lend itself to a lot of depth for its characters, but DiCaprio is able to mine some great material out of Teddy. We learn that his wife died years ago, and the man responsible may also be on the island. DiCaprio plays Teddy as a man just this side of unhinged, so we aren't sure what will happen when he finds who he looking for. Add to this the fact that he has nightmares of his time in World War II and the death of his wife, and Teddy seems to be just as damaged as some of the patients on the island.

Scorsese has crafted a film that is in full service of his central character, not the mystery at hand. What we get is a waking nightmare of a film. The editing is often off by a few beats to throw us off, the music is ludicrously overbearing, the art direction is engrossing and haunting. Teddy is a troubled guy, and Scorsese doesn't shy away from that. Perhaps most interesting is the way he will blend the past and present for Teddy, like creating nightmares of Dachau that are filled with modern details and characters. Much like Teddy, we are always on edge, our nerves a bit frayed. We are just as afraid of what's around the next corner as the characters are.

If the film can be faulted, and I suspect it will be by many, it is in the end. I would agree that the end is problematic, but not for the reason many would claim. I had no problem with the direction the plot went in as the film wrapped up, but with how it was told. When a character had to break out a white board with information on it pertaining to what was happening, it was clear that Scorsese was concerned that his audience might not buy what he was selling. On top of that, we get an extended flashback that is used to seal the deal. While this scene features perhaps the best moments of acting on two actors' parts, it still felt extraneous. The film should be quickly rapping up with its final revelation, not reveling in it. But then, it's clear that a major influence here is Hitchcock, and Hitch ended his most famous movie with a similarly long denouement explaining a character's mental history, so perhaps it is intended as homage. Still, the ending is a small misstep in an otherwise utterly engrossing, haunting, and thrilling movie. Maybe not up the usual classy standards of his more revered films, it fits better with his more bizarre - and I would argue, more rewarding - films like Bringing Out the Dead, Cape Fear, and The King of Comedy. If you like your Scorsese a little rough around edges, this can't be missed.

The Wolfman

Much like the Wolfman himself, Joe Johnston's The Wolfman is a conflicted film that doesn't know what to be. On the one hand, it tries to be a moody period piece in which atmosphere is key. On the other hand, it wants to be a loud and visceral horror film filled with gore. By trying to have it both ways, it achieves neither. It's a shame, too, because the film shows glimmers of promise in both aspects, making its failure all the more frustrating.

Benicio Del Toro plays Lawrence Talbot, a man who has returned home to England in order to investigate the murder of his brother. Shortly thereafter, he is attacked by a werewolf, turning him into the very creature that killed his brother. From a story perspective, The Wolfman does not try to add anything new to the genre. It hits all the notes one would expect from a werewolf picture. What bolsters that, though, are the visual details. The low hanging fog, the unusual sets, and the costumes all evoke a Victorian feel that seems right at home with this kind of Gothic horror. Though, strangely enough, the cinematography is terrible. At times everything is so horribly lit, you aren't sure what to look at. Early on, for example, two characters in the foreground are talking about someone in the background. The person farther away is - naturally - out of focus. Yet the closer two having the conversation are back lit and thus also inscrutable. It's just one example of what was often unforgivably bad cinematography.

But most of you don't go to a horror film for the cinematography: you go for the thrills. Which The Wolfman has... occasionally. When the blood starts to flow, it gets pretty gruesome. Limbs fly left and right, viscera litters the floor. But those moments come few and far between. Instead, we get long character beats that go nowhere, failing to either flesh out the characters beyond stock types, nor adding any connection to these people that will have to make hard decisions later in the film. When the violence does happen, it is all the more rewarding because we've sat through so much nonsense.

What also disappoints are the ways the film tries to scare the audience. Often director Joe Johnston resorts to the cheapest possible tactics to make his audience jump. Overly loud noises and things popping into frame are this film's bread and butter. At one point, a character wakes up and sees some sort of Gollum-like creature at the foot of his bed for no reason, only to really wake up. This is bad on two levels: resorting to dream sequences to create fake dramatic tension never work, and by having a creature never seen anywhere else in the film suddenly show up simply because it is creepy looking is ridiculous. And this happens a couple times throughout the film. Maybe I just don't know enough about werewolves, but are they known for having bad dreams about Tolkien characters?

The acting is very hit or miss, but I don't think that is entirely the fault of the actors. Benicio Del Toro seems like a great choice to play a tormented werewolf, but the script and the director let him down. He has nothing to work with, and as a result he becomes an afterthought in his own movie. Anthony Hopkins needs someone who can guide and restrain him in films like this, and Johnston is not up to that task. Hopkins sleepwalks through the film without giving any choices he makes as an actor a second thought. But then, about a third of the way into the film, Hugo Weaving shows up and decides to steal the movie from everyone else. As a Scotland Yard investigator he is funny, commanding, and strange - the exact kind of thing you would expect from a Wolfman movie! While he also has little to work with, he tries his hardest to make it all enjoyable, and comes closest to pulling it off.

Considering the werewolf genre has been so under utilized of recent years, its shocking just how tired The Wolfman feels. Had it gone for straight gore thrills, or for pure atmosphere, it might have worked. Instead, we get a hodgepodge of cheap shocks, dull speeches, and under developed characters. A film that pulls off this kind of horror so much better is Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow. If you go in to The Wolfman expecting a good horror film, you will be very disappointed - and kind of bored.