The 86th Academy Awards

So Anyway...

It's Oscars time again, and though I haven't got around to posting anything for a while, it seemed like a good time to weigh in again, because what you needed was more Oscars opinions, right? Especially mine, because my opinion is really important! Plus quotes, everyone likes quotes! And pictures! Look at all that great stuff that's waiting for you! So let's dive in...

But first, I'm gonna preface things by throwing out a strong recommendation for AMC's Annual Best Picture Showcase, which I attended for the sixth year in a row. Sure, it's not as good a deal as it used to be (2009 Cantera 30 in Warrenville, IL - The ability to bring in your own food plus free popcorn; 2010 Yorktown 17 in Lombard, IL - free popcorn; 2011 Yorktown 17 in Lombard, IL - A free ten dollar gift card/week; 2013/2014 Showplace Naperville 16 in Naperville, IL - Five dollars/week stubs members only) but it's still a great time hanging out with a bunch of like-minded people, watching a bunch of great movies. But enough about that, let's talk about a bunch of movies: 

Best Picture: It's my intention to review all nine of the Best Picture nominees separately, I just ran out of time before the Oscars so this post will be amended in a day or so. Suffice it to say that, of the nominated films, I liked Philomena the best but don't think there's any chance that it's going to win. So what, then, will win? It seems to be a foregone conclusion it will be either Gravity or 12 Years a Slave. Of the two, there's no denying that 12 Years is the better written, better acted, and all around more socially-conscious film. More importantly, it's the type of film that usually wins the award. Gravity is not, though I like it better. However, just because something is more fun to watch, it doesn't mean that its more important. On the other hand, it would be so surprising if the Academy picked a film so far outside its wheelhouse. In the end, though we may all pretend that Gravity is an outside chance, if any of us had to put money on it I think we'd all go with 12 Years a Slave.

Leading Actor: My favorite performance of the year is Robert Redford in All Is Lost (2013), but again the Academy decided not to acknowledge it whatsoever so I've got to go with something else. Christian Bale in American Hustle had the best character (which he performed admirably in what is likely my favorite Bale performance) but that's neither here nor there. DiCaprio was great, yes, but personally I believe subtle performances are much more difficult than over the top ones. Certainly Matthew McConaughey was the most committed, losing 47 pounds for the role. On one hand, Chiwetel Ejiofor played his role with strength and dignity, on the other hand, Bruce Dern was fantastic - that is assuming he was acting and they didn't just grab some old guy with borderline dementia off the street. So I guess I'd have to go with Dern if I'm being objective (the hallmark of doing a good job being that you don't notice that they're doing it in the first place) and McConaughey if I'm honest. So McConaughey it is: his character changed the most over the course of the film and he showed the most range.

See what I mean?

Supporting Actor: Since there's already a precedent, I'm sure it'll surprise no one that my favorite supporting performance this year was not recognized by the academy, that being Louis CK in American Hustle - not that he would have won by any means, but I would have loved to have see a surprise nomination like Jonah Hill in 2011. I also would have loved to see Jeremy Renner who, for the first time in his career played a character I liked, someone I actually felt for. But of course that's not my call to make. Speaking of Jonah Hill, it seems the competition this year is between him and Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. Bradley Cooper was good but not great, Fassbender is always good (even when playing a character that somehow makes me think of an evil Vincent Van Gogh), and I'd say that while good, I don't feel great about Barkhad Abdi's chances being a foreigner that no one's really heard of, playing the somewhat sympathetic villain in a kind of action movie, but the existence of Christoph Waltz proves me wrong, so who knows?

I was going to leave it at that but I realized I hadn't actually given an answer yet. So of the two front runners, Leto and Hill, I'm going to go with Hill: the old Academy would have gone with Leto but the Academy we have now, the one that seems likely to give Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar two years in a row (don't get me wrong, I feel like she deserves it for Hustle, I just feel like last year she was recognized for being generally awesome/Jennifer Lawrence instead of acting) will give it to Hill. The Academy, it's said, wants to appeal to a younger demographic so more folks will watch the Oscars -- which, if we're honest really shouldn't matter to them at all... Who cares about ratings? It's their job to recognize the most worthy artistic creations of the year, so why should industry politics figure into this at all? Why should ratings? To me, that sounds like what we call a Conflict of Interests.

But that changes nothing. Does Hill deserve the award? In my opinion, yes, but it could easily go either way.

Leading Actress: Carrying an entire movie by yourself is hard work, so Sandra Bullock gets mad respect for Gravity. Then there's Amy Adams who was great in American Hustle and really, when you think about it, was the fulcrum around which the whole story operated. Though I felt more for Bale, Adams was the entire reason I wanted him to succeed in the first place. Of all the performances this year, Meryl Streep's was the one that stayed with me for the longest (I think I was depressed for a full week and a half after seeing August Osage County). Judi Dench was brilliant in Philomena which, contrasted wonderfully by the stoic Steve Coogan, was warm and charming and is probably my favorite this year. Maybe there should be a Best Ensemble award? Cate Blanchett will probably win though, by all accounts, and I can't deny her performance in Blue Jasmine was a good (though unsympathetic) one but I found Streep's to be in a similar vein and altogether more compelling.

Supporting Actress: I just realized that if I keep writing this much there's no way that I'm going to finish in time. So, Julia Roberts was fine, but not my favorite. June Squibb was my favorite but isn't going to win. Sally Hawkins did a good job, but I don't feel like she stood out. Lupita Nyong'o stood out and was great and very sympathetic in the role, but I feel like Jennifer Lawrence truly embraced the insanity of her role and is the big standout this year. When people reference American Hustle in years to come they'll remember two things: the second is Christian Bale's hair, the first is Jennifer Lawrence.

Animated Feature: As a fan of animation and animated features, I'm ashamed to say I did a terrible job this year and managed to see none of these films. Sigh... At least I'll have something to do when Oscar season is finally over.

Cinematography: I haven't seen The Grandmaster so if it contains the best cinematography you'll have to forgive me. Prisoners was a well-crafted film that looked good too. You should definitely see it, but it's not my winner. Nebraska was beautifully shot and I don't know if the Coen Brothers have made a bad looking film yet but I'm going to have to go with Gravity. Sure, you'll say, a lot of it was computer generated but a surprising amount wasn't and someone still had to decide what the audience sees. 

Costume Design: Again, I can't speak for the two films I haven't seen (Grandmaster and Invisible Woman) but the clear winner is American Hustle - which is a shame because in a year without it I think Gatsby would have won.

Directing: This is a tough one. As I've said before, I haven't been the biggest David O. Russell fan in the past but I thought American Hustle was great. Wolf of Wall Street was similarly fantastic to behold and under my usual criteria of authorship, I think we might have to give it to Scorsese. However, when it really comes down to it, I've got to give it to Alfonso Cuarón for Gravity. The film took four years to make and Cuarón had a hand in every aspect of it. When it really comes down to it, Gravity has been fine-tuned into nothing more than it needs to to tell the story in the best, most efficient, most visual way possible. From the beginning to the end, you're riveted to your seat. Hustle and Wall Street were both great but Gravity was better.

Editing: To me neither American Hustle or Wolf of Wall Street felt like three-hour films, which is really saying something. Obviously again the best editing is the editing you don't notice, and that means that Dallas Buyers Club, Captain Phillips, and 12 Years a Slave were great. But once more they can't defeat the fine-tuned beast that is Gravity, a film that knows when it's time to eschew convention and use a seventeen minute continuous shot. Gravity is so highly thought out, so tightly planned that it's hard to beat.

Foreign Language Film: Another category where I'll have to let you down - mainly because our American cinemas are letting us down when it comes to the distribution of these movies.

Makeup and Hairstyling: Though the makeup in Bad Grandpa was impressive indeed, and though I liked The Lone Ranger in general (though it didn't really stand out to me in the makeup department), I'd have to give it to Dallas Buyers Club. Dallas Buyers Club did a fantastic job with a minimal budget - the whole thing felt very raw and real. Though who knows how much of that was makeup and how much was the actors themselves? In the end, though, if we can't tell isn't that what counts?

Original Score: I haven't seen The Book Thief. Though you can always count on John Williams to do a good job, I haven't been as impressed with his work of late, so who knows? Of the others, the only score that stood out to me - to the point I remarked to myself, 'I like what this score is doing' is Gravity. But, then again, that was the third time I was seeing the film, which is typically when I'll take the time to look around at a production and notice the individual bits and how they contribute to the whole. The rest of these films (Her, Philomena, and Saving Mr. Banks) were very emotional at their core and I know that music is a vital part of that experience. To me that means they all did their jobs admirably and deserve to be here. But again they didn't stand out, where as Gravity's score had to do a very different job, one of conveying fear, danger, and isolation, and in that way was unique this year, so that's the way I've got to go.

Original Song: I don't feel like I've got the right to make an opinion on this one only having seen half the films in this category and thus not really having an opinion. I will say though that I appreciate the original music in Her and how it contributed to the sensory experience of the film as a whole, existing in a way as a part of a character. "Ordinary Love" in Mandela was a good song, that I enjoyed listening to, but it didn't feel like a part of the film, it felt like the closing paragraph of an essay, summing up the whole thing for us, but not necessarily embodying it, if that makes any sense. Of the two, at least so far as being part of the film, I'd go with "The Moon Song" from Her.

Production Design: Alas, I've got to go with American Hustle again. Gravity was good, though nowhere near the amount of costumes and sets (though I realize that literally everything needed to be created for Gravity, since they didn't have any space stations hanging around the UK). Gravity did a great job portraying an event but American Hustle embodied an era. I have no doubt that every stitch of clothing in 12 Years a Slave was spot on, I really enjoyed Her's minimalist portrayal of a believable future not that distant from our own and, as much as I liked Gatsby and hoped it would win something, American Hustle just did a better job.

Animated Short: Again, I've got nothing. Maybe next year I've got to figure out how to get the Academy to send me one of those box of discs. From the sounds of it, there are plenty of people who actually get them that couldn't give two shits, so why not send them to someone who will actually watch them?

Short Film: Ditto.

Sound Editing: Here, I've got to go with All is Lost: for a movie with no dialogue (well, yes, if you want to get technical...) all the little sounds are all you've got, so they've got to be perfect. They were.

Sound Mixing: I'm really tempted to go with Inside Llewyn Davis because I wanted it to win something but the sound environment in Gravity is so well done I can't really say a bad word. Is there something to say for pulling all the sounds together to create a completely believable artificial environment? Or do I go with a movie about music, featuring several acoustic performances that was in its own right rich and flawless? I guess I have to go with Gravity because it created two distinct worlds of sound and transitioned back and forth artfully over the course of the film: the dangerous, deadly, vacuum of space, and the deceptively fragile but safe for a time sterility of the film's various stations/capsules. But it's a close call in my mind.

Visual Effects: As brilliant as Smaug was (and that can't be understated), without visual effects Gravity would just be Sandra Bullock in a queer assortment of seemingly random places: hanging from wires, underwater, tiny sets, etc. All with inexorable green backgrounds. Because it wasn't, because we instead got the oppressive, claustrophobic, murderous environment of space and that it was more importantly completely believable (and what's more surprisingly accurate) Gravity is the obvious victor.

Adapted Screenplay: So many of the best films this year are based on true stories, but my favorite screenplay in this category is the only one that wasn't: Before Midnight. Before Midnight counts as an adapted screenplay because it's based on the characters from the previous installments (Before Sunrise and Before Sunset). The film is escentially wall to wall conversation and, as such, the quality of the writing is the star. I'm a big fan of the series, especially of the collaborative nature between the director Linklater and the film's stars, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke, and think it's wonderful that they all care so much that they come together to determine the ongoing fates of their characters together. I look forward to dropping in on these characters in another ten years and see how things are progressing.

Original Screenplay: I really liked Her but I can't say that I think it's going to win anything - except this. Her was one of the most unique films of the year and that all comes from the writing. Though wonderfully executed, it's the idea, the world and characters that Spike Jonze created that allow it to exist in the first place. As the most original film, in my mind at least, it by definition has the most original screenplay.

The 85th Academy Awards

It Continues...

Back now after an unforeseen delay due to a multitude of things - the most exciting being kidney stones - we've just got time to talk about tonight's impending Oscars before normal services resume tomorrow (with the long-gestating review of The Sound of Music). First, I'd like to take a look at the nominations for Best Picture - nothing in depth of course, the briefest of reviews. Then, since it's apparently in vogue to try and foretell how the Academy will vote, I shall relate my opinions instead (not as esteemed as the Academy, of course, however there are plenty of places you can read about their predicted opinion - this is the only place you can read about my actual opinion). And so, without further ado--

Well, actually, I'll ado a bit more first. I just wanted to say that I've been going to AMC's Best Picture Showcase (where you get a chance to see all of the nominated films) since 2008, and it's one of the events I look forward to most each year. Not only is a an opportunity to see an acclaimed collection of movies (with a similarly great assortment of people), it's really an opportunity for folks to see a bunch of movies that they might not normally see (either through indifference, lack of time, or the like). For my own part, I can't think of a better way to spend a chilly day in February (well, technically two now. If you think it sounds even vaguely appealing, I strongly recommend you check it out - you won't regret it. Now onward!

First let's look at the nominations for Best Picture:

Amour (2012):
"I don't remember the film either. But I remember the feeling. That I was ashamed of crying, but that telling him the story made all my feelings and tears come back, almost more powerfully than when I was actually watching the film, and that I just couldn't stop."

For me, at least, this film was the one that was most impressive and surprising. Great acting all around; long, lingering shots; works well artistically, emotionally, and sub-textually. It's criminal that Jean-Lousi Trintignant wasn't nominated as best actor for Georges as he heroically shoulders the film's massive emotional burden and carries it the distance on his own. Powerful stuff. Be prepared to feel. Perhaps a little overlong but it works with the material. Not necessarily a movie I would want to see again but one that will be with me for a long time. I doubt it will win but it probably should: 4/5

Argo (2012):
"This is the best bad idea we have, sir... by far."

Drama, suspense, humor... Ben Affleck! What more could you ask for? This well-made historical thriller of one of the most audacious rescues ever mounted by the CIA (well, at least that we know of) will have you thinking, laughing, and on the edge of your seat the whole time. Great writing, pacing, and secondary casting (Alan Arkin gets all the credit but John Goodman and Brian Cranston deserve mention as well, as does Victor Garber, though his role is fairly understated). No lasting message, not going to change the world, but it sure is a lot of fun. It also gave everyone a great opportunity to say 'Argo fuck yourself' for, like, a month: 3.5/5

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012):
"Everybody loses the thing that made them. It's even how it's supposed to be in nature. The brave men stay and watch it happen, they don't run."

A truly special tale about a group of people that live by their own rules, struggling to survive and live their lives in the face of natural disaster as told from the most unique perspective imaginable - a young girl. Quvenzhané Wallis might be noteworthy for being the youngest-ever Oscar nominee at 9, however it's essential to remember she was 6 when the film was shot, and had never acted before. It does all the things The Village (2004) tried to do but does them right by leaving things ambiguous and not hitting us over the head with it. This charming film about freedom, strength, and - above all - community is a thing of whimsy and beauty due to its unique point of view: 3.5/5

Django Unchained (2012):
"I'm just a little more used to Americans than he is."

Django Unchained is, above all else, not a revenge film but a Quentin Tarantino film. It's gratuitous as hell. It's also a western. And it's a blast. Great performances all around, particularly Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie and Samuel L. Jackson as his villainous house slave, Stephen. Though underutilized of late, Christoph Waltz is brilliant once again as the German bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz - in fact, I think I'm going to pass a law that no one is allowed to use Waltz unless they write for him as well as Tarantino does. Which reminds me, I read a great article once about the German premier of Inglorious Basterds in 2009. The filmmakers didn't know how the German people would respond - they loved it. They cheered each and every time a Nazi died. In my experience Django is just the same in the US. Overall, it's not Tarantino's best film (which is a topic for another day, I promise) but it certainly up there. Resplendent with his trademark dialogue, Tarantino's latest film is a roller coaster of justice, subterfuge, racism, and of course revenge: 3.5/4

Les Misérables (2012):
"Take my hand and lead me to salvation. Take my love for love is everlasting. And remember, the truth that once was spoken, to love another person is to see the face of God."


As someone who spends a lot of time around 'theatre types', I know that movie musicals aren't generally well regarded. And, for a while at least (since the 1960s) they hadn't been well regarded in Hollywood either. However, as a film person - and a musical person - I love that the movie musical is making a comeback. I love a good musical and high production value plus actual locations makes it even better. Key, though, is finding a good cast, which is tough because, on one hand, you want good singers but, on the other hand, there's a marked difference between acting for theatre and acting for film (then again, Samantha Barks heart-breaking performance as Éponine arguably stole the show). Unfortunately, in most cases, commercial interests usually win out and, looking at cast, one wouldn't be blamed for thinking that's what happened here. However, despite walking this tightrope between two worlds, what we get is still good. Quite good in fact. Admittedly, the singing isn't perfect, but much of it is good and overall I'd say it's good enough - and don't forget, as opposed to 99% of other musicals, the songs were recorded live rather than during post production. In the end, what it really comes down to is personal taste - I know Russell Crowe got a bad rap from some, but he was probably my favorite character. Unless you've got an ear for such things, really all it manifests as is a line that's hard to understand from time to time, but I'd say the final product more than makes up for it. And, of course, Anne Hathaway was superb. But now I'm getting off on a tangent. Let's just say Les Misérables is a story of injustice, redemption, equality, love, sacrifice, and God: 3.5/5

Life of Pi (2012):
"I suppose in the end, the whole of life becomes an act of letting go, but what always hurts the most is not taking a moment to say goodbye."

What more can I say about Life of Pi than it was most likely the most visually impressive film I've ever seen? Well perhaps I could add that it has a great story, was written brilliantly, and... uh... there's a tiger! The film's quite impressive and makes excellent use of the 3-D technology. It employs various tricks (such as superimposing characters over the anamorphic letter-boxing to further make certain elements literally pop off the screen). My only real complaint is the film's ending was a little on the nose for me personally and the filmmaker's desire to explain every little thing, rather than leaving a thing or two for the audience to figure out, felt somewhat unnecessary/patronizing. Regardless, Life of Pi is a stunning, well-told tale told from a unique Indian perspective that almost any movie fan will enjoy: 3.5/5


Lincoln (2012):
"The greatest measure of the Nineteenth Century. Passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America."

Lincoln is a historical drama, well crafted and starring the actual Abraham Lincoln! Well, not exactly, but close enough. Seriously, Daniel Day-Lewis is so good in the role, it's worth the price of admission alone. Even better, the rest of the movie is great too, besides the joy of watching DDL roll around as Lincoln for two-and-a-half hours telling his charming stories, the supporting cast is tremendous. Whereas one might expect the film to be about the American Civil War, it's actually about politics - specifically President Lincoln's attempts to pass the 13th Amendment and what it took to get the bill through the divided House of Representatives before the end of the war. What follows is a thorough and often humorous look at this turbulent time in American history and what it took to finally ensure equality for all: 3.5/5

Silver Linings Playbook (2012):
"The only way to beat my crazy was by doing something even crazier."

I don't know if it's a coincidence of just a thing with David O. Russell films, but I always want to like them yet they always fall somewhat flat. I like Jennifer Lawrence, I like Bradly Cooper, I like De Niro (well who doesn't?) I usually like romantic comedies (well arguably this is more in the post-modern 'comedy of romance' sub-genre) but it just didn't do anything for me. The film had great, quirky characters, solid acting, and was competently executed, yet the plot was fairly straightforward with no surprises. Yes, there was a twist, but I saw it coming a mile away so it didn't do anything for me. I was hoping Silver Linings Playbook would be this year's Up In The Air (2009), which I adored, but alas it wasn't. I felt the same in 2010 with The Fighter: there were some good, nuanced performances and some entertaining characters but it was nothing I hadn't seen before. In fact, The Wrestler (2009) had done it better just a year ago. I think it's still worth a watch, if you like any of those involved, as it's good enough, but if you're not sure I wouldn't go out of the way: 3/5

Zero Dark Thirty (2012):
"Quite frankly, I didn't even want to use you guys, with your dip and velcro and all your gear bullshit. I wanted to drop a bomb. But people didn't believe in this lead enough to drop a bomb. So they're using you guys as canaries. And, in theory, if bin Laden isn't there, you can sneak away and no one will be the wiser. But bin Laden is there. And you're going to kill him for me."

Another film I was unfortunately ambivalent about. It was fine but not great. Looking at my notes, all I see is a list of questions: "performances?" for example. But there are really no performances I have anything to say about. There was adequate character development, but not enough to make it good. Much like The Hurt Locker (2008), there was some history in it but nothing we didn't already know about, and the semi interesting parts were too short. In fact, the whole movie was, in a word, adequate, and in the company of these other films, that's a shame. Before Osama Bin Laden was killed, this film was originally going to be about the battle of Tora Bora, a battle we lost and failed to find Bin Laden - and that movie might have been better because I feel like the filmmakers would have actually had something they wanted to say. Much like Hurt Locker, I felt like the film's message was more of an afterthought to everything else, which is why it's not satisfying. In the end, if you're interested in terrorism and the combat thereof, I'd recommend Homeland, it does everything this movie does and more, and way better: 3/5

Alright, I'm now running out of time so I'm going to rock through these other categories real quick:

Best Picture: Nothing is a stand-out to me like some previous years but there are a lot of good films. If I had to pick, I'd say Amour has the most to say and does so in the best way (see above). However, I think Argo will win.

Leading Actor: To me, this is a no-brainer and that Daniel Day-Lewis the obvious choice. I still wish that Jean-Lousi Trintignant was nominated but would have gone with DDL anyway, so it's alright. Denzel and Joaquin Phoenix both had similar roles and were good in them, but those movies themselves were not good.

Supporting Actor: I'm gonna have to go with Christoph Waltz here. Yes, he wasn't as good as in Basterds but in a field where I'm just as happy to see anyone win, he's the one that amuses me the most. In fact, he was so good in Basterds, I think they should just give him an award every year for the hell of it.

Leading Actress: Admittedly, I haven't seen The Impossible, so I can't say how Naomi Watts was, but I adored her in King Kong. Either way, from what I've seen, I'd have to unquestionably give this award to Quvenzhané Wallis. Granted, I don't have faith in the Academy regarding recognizing the performances of children since they robbed Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit (2010) but I can still hope...

Suporting Actress: Anne Hathaway hands down, for I Dreamed a Dream alone.

Animated Feature: Of the ones I've seen, I liked Brave the best. Wreck-It Ralph was also good but I think it might have been too niche for the Academy.

Cinematography: Life of Pi

Costume Design: Les Misérables

Directing: Django, again not QT's best but I'm always rooting for him to win Director. Plus, my main Directing criteria is authorship and who could have made Django besides Tarantino? But, as he's not nominated, I'll extend those sentiments to Ang Lee for his singular vision in Life of Pi.

Editing: Argo

Foreign Language: Hopefully, this is where Amour will finally get it's recognition. Even if it doesn't win Best Picture, as the only foreign language film nominated for that, it should therefore be the best of those, yes?

Makeup and Hairstyling: Les Misérables. The devil is, as always, in the details: fingernails... teeth! Stellar work.*

Original Score: I really wanted to pick one, but nothing stood out this year... Maybe Lincoln 'cause John Williams?

Original Song: Sure, we'll give it to Skyfall. Nice to get back to an old-school Bond song.

Production Design: Another tough one. Out of my three finalists, I'll go with Les Misérables because everything in that movie was beautiful (and terrible, when it needed to be).

Best Animated Short: Paper Boy: thought it was pretty generic and overly cutesy, yet to no end, it had no message. Apparently if you don't take responsibility for your own shit, some paper airplanes will roll in and help you out... But I'm sure it's gonna win nonetheless.*

Visual Effects: Life of Pi

Adapted Screenplay: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Original Screenplay: Django Unchained

Alright, that's it. I'm out of time. So I'll post before I proofread in case anyone cares before the Oscars actually start. Apparently 2:30 PM was too late to start after all... And finally, we'll see how Seth MacFarlane does tonight, because he strongly implied he intended to be like Ricky Gervais on the Golden Globes a couple years ago and that was awesome.

Have fun!

* Because I believe in the inviolability of the Oscar Picks Post, I wanted to highlight the fact that I added these few after the Awards had already started. However, I have witnesses who will attest to the fact that I had already made up my mind before the ceremony started.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Slightly overlong but well worth the trip.

When it was rumored earlier this year that Peter Jackson would be adding a third movie to his adaptation of The Hobbit, I was doubtful. If he could fit a one-thousand page narrative into three movies, surely he could do three-hundred pages in two. Jackson was, of course, also adding some material from what Star Wars fans would call the expanded universe, which is to say the numerous story-adjacent texts that flesh out things behind the scenes. Though mention is made of 'the Necromancer' in the original novel, we don't spend any time there, yet Gandalf does disappear for a time to take care of his wizard business. From author Tolkein's other histories, however, we see the connection between the Necromancer and Sauron, the villain of The Lord of the Rings. As such, it makes a lot of sense that this is territory Jackson and company would want to explore, but is it enough to justify a further three hours or would it largely be padding to line the pockets of the myriad of companies involved? Further, how was the film's new HFR (high frame rate) 3D technology?

But, first, let's talk about next year's Star Trek Into Darkness. I attended an IMAX 3D show of The Hobbit specifically so I could see the first nine minutes of the upcoming Star Trek film. Though an increasing number of films have been embracing IMAX of late, I had not attended a showing until last month, when I saw Skyfall in IMAX. Despite the additional cost, I must say I was very impressed with the experience. Besides the larger format of the screen, the balance/fine-tuning of picture and sound was phenomenal. I sought out a de-facto IMAX theatre, though, not one of the many 'converted' theatres cropping up all over. With the growing popularity of the IMAX format, a lot of multiplexes are simply 'converting' one of their preexisting theatres for IMAX. I say 'converting', however, as true IMAX is intended to be viewed from a specific, optimal distance which the experience is balanced for. Unfortunately, these 'converted' locations largely end up as nothing more than a slightly larger screen accompanied by a $4 surcharge. So, when presented with another reason to go to the IMAX, I hoped to return to the same theatre however, as I soon discovered, only specific venues would have the Trek footage - specifically, IMAX digital locations, ie largely the 'converted' theatres. The movie was so long already that the additional footage made things untenable for the traditional IMAX locations.

Either way, the footage was definitely a lot of fun, and it was great to see those characters back on the big screen once more. The nine minutes opens with two parents visiting their terminally ill child. The father, played by Doctor Who's Noel Clarke, is visited by John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a man claiming to be the only hope for saving the child's life. Then we cut to another planet, in media res, where Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) are fleeing from the natives, while a nearby volcano threatens to erupt. Meanwhile, Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Sulu (John Cho), fly overhead in a shuttle, trying to complete their mission before it's too late. Inevitably, before long, Spock finds himself in the center of the volcano, from where the crew has no way to retrieve him, which of course is where the preview ends - but not before Spock suggests they leave him, characteristically citing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The sneak peak goes far not to give anything away about the film's larger plot (who is the mysterious Harrison, and does he have the powers he implies?), while still packing the action-punch we saw in the previous installment. While certainly worthwhile, I don't know if it's worth the extra expense just to see the additional footage. On the other hand, if you're already thinking about seeing the film in IMAX, be sure and check this list for participating theatres in your state.

Alright, now let's finally talk about The Hobbit. I saw the film twice: once in IMAX 3D and once in HFR 3D. First, let me lead off by saying that I'm not a huge fan of 3D movies, though admittedly it's growing on me. In fact, though I had always intended to see the film in HFR 3D (to see what the technology was like), the only reason I saw it in IMAX 3D was for the additional Star Trek footage, otherwise I would have definitely seen it in 2D. After some great trailers for next year's films (which included Star Trek Into Darkness, Jack the Giant Slayer, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Man of Steel), and after getting past the plumes of smoke to my right, from the punk with the electronic cigarette, not to mention the large black man to the left of me that spent the first few minutes dodging the 3D effects for the amusement of his girlfriend, followed by what I can only assume was some vital, life-saving text-messaging on his part through the middle of the film, I was off to Middle Earth once more.

The film begins with a prologue, depicting the ancient dwarven home of Erebor and its eventual fall to the dragon Smaug. All this is told to us by Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), as he writes it all in a book for his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood). Now notice an issue up front, I'm already talking about characters from another film. This film is supposed to take place sixty years previous, and indeed it does. However, its telling is framed within The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring (2001), and much of its early attention is focused there, as Bilbo prepares for his birthday party and complains about his less desirable relations. Eventually, we do make the jump and hop back six decades to the actual story we're here to see. A much younger Bilbo (Martin Freeman), is visited by the wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), who is looking to recruit him for an adventure. Of course hobbits, such as Mr. Baggins, are notoriously opposed to such things. However, once he's made up his mind, a wizard is most stubborn indeed. As such, a little later, dwarves start showing up at Bilbo's house for dinner and there's not much he can do to stop them. They make quite a mess and he's most annoyed about the whole thing. Eventually Gandalf himself shows up, followed eventually by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the leader of the dwarves.

At this point, everyone settles down to business and plans are made. The dwarves (thirteen in all) intend to retake Erebor, and they're looking for a burglar to help them. Gandalf has submitted Bilbo as such. Eventually, through much cajoling on the part of the wizard, Bilbo is convinced to come when the party sets out the next day. Along the way, everyone gets into many adventures, fighting trolls, orcs, goblins and more. Through it all, Bilbo does a lot of soul-searching about whether he deserves - or even wants to be - there and tries to prove himself to all assembled. Finally, deep within the Misty Mountains, Biblo has an encounter with a creature called Gollum (Andy Serkis) that will forever alter not only his own life but the future of Middle Earth forever. Further, Thorin encounters an ancient adversary he thought long dead that will stop at nothing to see him meet the same fate. Rounding out the company of dwarves are Graham McTavish, Ken Stott, Aidan Turner,  Dean O'Glorman, Mark Hadlow, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Petter Hambleton, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, and Stephen Hunter. Reprising their roles from the The Lord of the Rings are Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White.

Myself, I'm a big fan of dwarves and The Hobbit is one of my favorite books. Correspondingly, I have an appropriate hatred of the elves, for some reasons which, bordering on future spoilers, I won't include here. Either way, throughout the whole Lord of the Rings film trilogy, I felt like they were going out of their way to make the elves seem cool. However, at least in the books, the elves are just as flawed as everyone else. In the The Two Towers, at the battle of Helm's Deep, no elves show up to save the day. They're too concerned with themselves. Thus, I was worried the elves would receive similar treatment in The Hobbit. Thankfully, there's a great scene at the beginning where the elven forces have a chance to step in and help the dwarves against Smaug but do nothing, setting the stage for the animosity between the two races. Making the dwarves bigots and the elves blameless would undermine a lot of what's to come. It remains to be seen if this thread will continue throughout the other two films, but I hope it will, as it's central to the story. In the LOTR, the dwarf Gimli was largely used to comedic effect, which worked well, however I was concerned (with thirteen dwarves) things would get out of hand. However, I think the filmmakers struck a great balance with the characters in this movie.

There are so many actors, and characters, it's hard to single out a few. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, in fact I couldn't imagine him being played by anyone else. Surely Ian Holm was too old to portray the younger character for the entire film. However, once Freeman was suggested for the part, based on his performance in the BBC's Sherlock, he seemed like the obvious choice. In fact, there couldn't be anyone better. However, due to conflicts with filming Sherlock, it looked like he wouldn't be able to accept. But Peter Jackson moved the whole filming schedule to accommodate him, and we're so lucky he did. Another point of concern was how they'd handle a movie with, effectively, fifteen main characters. But I think they did so admirably, focusing on a few dwarves up front, the charming yet wise Balin (Stott) and his gruff brother Dwalin (McTavish) stand out to me personally, as does Bofur (Nesbitt), who forms a friendship with Bilbo early on (and of course Thorin). Fíli (O'Gorman) and Kíli (Turner) are more important later in the story, so I trust we'll come to know them (as well as the others) better in the subsequent installments.

Is Kíli supposed to be a dwarf or Aragorn II?

My one complaint about the dwarves themselves is that it feels like the appearance of a few, such as Thorin or Kíli, have been tweaked for marketing purposes - they share none of the exaggerated features of the rest, and their beards are comparatively almost nonexistent. This is not to say that there can't be variety in dwarves, as with anything else, however given the way that everyone else is presented, it stands out (plus, you're telling me that the dwarven prince/king doesn't have the most robust beard of all? Come on!). And, of course, it's great to see McKellen and Lee return. Yes, they look a little worse for wear, ten years later down the road, as does Ian Holm, but I can deal with it to have them in the film. Further, as with LotR, I love the sense of scale in this movie. There's a great bit at the beginning where Bilbo's sitting down to eat this reasonably large fish. When Dwalin busts in (and subsequently eats the it) the fish is tiny compared to him. What's great is that they achieve many of these scale effects through practical means, such as the use of forced-perspective (optical illusions based on the relative position of the actors and size/alignment of the props) and doubles, rather than computers.

Admittedly, there were things that annoyed me the first time I saw this film, based on my own preconceptions, primarily from reading the book. However, this is why I say one should always see such a film a second time. For me this is true with any hyped-up film you feel vaguely disappointed with upon seeing initially. And, in fact, I really enjoyed the film on the second viewing. Yet a few issues remain, the primary one being that the film is slightly overlong. Honestly, I think without the prologue, things would have been just right. Aside from feeling like the inclusion of LOTR Bilbo/Frodo at the film's start was largely fanservice, a lot of redundancy was created in the process, leading to the beginning of the film felling very slow. The prologue covers a lot of information, however much of this is told to us a second time, when presented to Bilbo by the dwarves. Though it is nice to see all the places that are being talked about as part of the prologue, I personally feel like the conversation with Bilbo is much more effective at relating the same information. First, it works on the imagination: we hear about all these fantastic places and wonder what they're like, we want to see them, which invests us in the story. Second, we experience things from Bilbo/the dwarves point of view, which not only adds character but invests us in them. Having both present, in my opinion, is redundant, unnecessary, and why many feel the film is slow to get underway.

For some proof, the second time I saw the film, I saw it with my father, who arrived about half an hour after the film had begun: he didn't feel like he had missed anything. Unfortunately, he missed the classic arrival of the dwarves, which I filled him in on later, but didn't mourn the prologue one bit. In general, I felt like there was more exposition in this film than LOTR and it suffers accordingly. Leaving a little mystery (within reason of course, you don't want to confuse anyone) engages the audience. Too much exposition only bores them. For example, do we really need an Orc point of view occasionally? Do they really need subtitles/who cares what they're saying? Might it be more interesting (not to mention put us in the same head space as the dwarves) to let us speculate about that for a little bit longer?

There's a lot more I could say, for instance, one of the things I was initially concerned about was the new material they'd be adding but, thus far, I think it turned out great. The council scene in the second half is one of the best written parts in the film, and really sets the stage for the future. However, I've already said quite a lot, so I'll forgo telling you my opinions about Azog so I can focus on the HFR 3D for a little bit before I'm done. Normal film is displayed at a rate of 24 frames per second (FPS), while television is displayed at a rate of 30. Either way, when things move fast, a slight 'ghosting' effect is created, where objects will be slightly blurry/appear to be in two places at once. This is more pronounced in film, since there are less frames. If you freeze-frame a movie when a lot of movement is going on, you'll see what I'm talking about. When frame rates were standardized for sound back in the 1920s, 24 FPS was chosen for film as it was the very lowest they could go (so as to save on film) while still maintaining the illusion of motion. We've become accustomed to this, over the years, and the frame rate of film is one of the things that contributes to its 'look' versus television. However, with 3D, this 'ghosting' inherent with low frame rates disrupts the 3D effect and makes everything somewhat muddy. Next time you see a film in 3D, try closing one eye and you'll see the picture is much sharper. With HFR 3D, which doubles the normal frame rate to 48 FPS, everything is much clearer.

At first, since it's not what you're used to, your brain doesn't know how to react. At the beginning of the film, my brain treated the extra frames as if everything was sped up, however you do get used to it eventually - it took around 20 minutes/half an hour for me personally. It's especially obvious when there's lots of movement, particularly battle scenes and camerawork. Granted, it's a little weird at first but once you're acclimated to it, it's quite amazing. Rather than normal 3D, where everything looks vaguely fake, it literally looks like you're watching a play, rather than a movie. Some people have complained that, with this added reality, some of the film magic (makeup, effects, CGI) looks bad, however I for one thought everything looked great, be it the 3D characters or the environment. My one complaint was during one scene where it was raining, though the characters were wet, you could tell that none of the rain was landing on them, which seemed artificial. However, overall, I'd say it was a superior experience. As I said earlier, I don't often see films in 3D, however if HFR continues to be offered, I will seriously consider it. True, the filmmakers might have to wield some of their tricks more effectively but, as with any new technology, I expect they'll only get better with time. Better still, a friend of mine that always gets headaches at 3D movies found that the high frame rate solved the issue. Overall, this is a technology I'm now very excited about now, and I look forward to seeing what they do with it in the future. It takes a little getting used to, but having seen it once, I wouldn't want to see a 3D film any other way.

In the end, I really enjoyed this movie. It wasn't what I was expecting necessarily, and does feel sometimes like it's trying too hard to be Lord of the Rings rather than itself, but overall it's a good film. It's a little long and there's too much exposition at times, but there's a lot of charm to be found within, and a lot of humor. Plus, if you're a fan of 3D, HFR really takes things to another level. I give this film a 4.25/5.

6. For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943, 170m)

May 1937: The Spanish Civil War

Alas, I had to do a little reorganizing here as it occurred to me that I really should have included a film about the Spanish Civil War, but only after I had already watched The Flowers of War (2011). So I have reordered those posts just in case any person, vaguely mad as I am, ends up following in my footsteps and tries to tackle this list him/herself. Further, at the end, it's my intention to single-out the best films I watched over the course of the project and make, effectively, a 'highlights list' in case there are those who are interested in seeing some of these movies but don't want to commit to the (likely) full one-hundred.

Either way, today's film is For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) based on the celebrated novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway, inspired by his own experiences as a reporter during the Spanish Civil War. The film stars Gary Cooper, Ingrid Bergman, Akim Tamiroff, Arturo de Córdova, Vladimir Sokoloff, Mikhail Rasumny, and Katina Paxinou. Though the Spanish themselves stayed out of the Second World War, many of the same nations that would fight in that conflict used the Spanish Civil War to cut the teeth of their armies (Germany and Italy provided aid to Francisco Franco while the Soviet Union helped the opposing Republican forces). I was planning, at some point, to ask why all WWII movies were two hours long, but then this one was almost three so I figured I probably shouldn't ask too many questions.

The film follows Robert Jordan (Cooper) - no, not the best-selling fantasy author, though many speculate he may have derived his pseudonym from the book - an American serving with the Spanish Republican forces in their struggle against Franco's fascists. Jordan, we learn, is skilled with dynamite and demolitions and is tasked by Russian General Golz (Eric Feldary) to blow up a bridge used by the opposition. To this end, Jordan and Anselmo (Sokoloff), his elderly guide and friend, will be aided by a local band of guerrillas, hiding in the mountains in the vicinity of the bridge.

The small crew is lead by Pablo (Tamiroff), a cowardly stand-offish man who wants the dynamite for his own purposes, but peopled by diverse characters such as the Gypsy Rafael (Rasumny), who are eager to help. When Pablo's true intentions are revealed, the formidable Pilar (Paxinou), Pablo's woman, belittles him in front of the others. In return, Pablo suggests she lead the group instead, which she does, happily, to the applause of everyone else involved.

Here, Jordan also meets María (Bergman), a fellow refugee whom Pilar has taken under her wing to help with the cooking/general chores in the cave where the guerrillas are headquartered. At the start of the war, her father (the mayor of their village) and mother were murdered and she was imprisoned and raped. Amidst the grim and uncertain times, the two inevitably start a relationship, though Jordan grows increasingly concerned as her affection for him grows. He knows that she wants him to leave with her, yet he intends to see the war through to its end (for better or worse).

Meanwhile, Pablo vacillates between cowardice and a resolve to complete the mission, resulting in increasing sentiment among the men to have him killed before he betrays them. One night, when everyone is sequestered during a snowfall - to prevent footprints - Pilar tells the tale of the man Pablo used to be; how he lost his resolve after witnessing the mob behavior and wanton murder of his fellow Republicans. At this point, Pablo returns and is once again allowed to join the group. The next day, however, on the eve of the planned sabotage, he witnesses the death of a fellow company of guerrillas. Led by a man named El Sordo (Joseph Calleia), these men sacrifice themselves to allow Pilar's forces to escape. In a moment of weakness, Pablo destroys the only detonator for the explosives, jeopardizing the plan's success at the worst possible moment.

This film, at least given it's length, should be fairly epic yet, upon watching it, I couldn't tell you why it's so long. Don't get me wrong, I love old movies and am typically all about slower pacing - at least with a purpose. However, with this film, it didn't feel like it accomplished anything. The narrative simply seemed drawn out for no reason. For a time, the will-he/won't-he nature of Pablo was interesting, particularly when it was unclear how he would respond to Jordan's usurpation of his authority. Unfortunately, once it became clear that Pablo didn't have the balls to do much of anything, after his third or fourth time leaving, followed by concern on the part of the men, and subsequent return, it seemed like nothing more than a waste of time. Similarly, in addition to the Sisyphean trials of Pablo, a lot of time was spent discussing horses. The concern was, once the bridge was destroyed, the rebels needed to escape the valley, however they didn't have enough horses for everyone. The clear solution, at least to me, was to move the nonessential personnel (María for example) out of the valley the day before the attack. Problems such as this, that fly in the face of common sense, serve only to catapult the audience out of their suspension of disbelief and, thus, highlight further faults. When compared to other epics, be they contemporaries like Gone with the Wind (1939), and especially when stacked up against the heavies of two decades later, such as Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Ben-Hur (1959), and of course Lawrence of Arabia (1962), that depict so much, it's a shame to see a film clock in at almost three-hours that could just have easily (and likely more effectively) been told in half/two-thirds as long.

Musically, the film harkens back to another era with it's classic score, though the mixing leaves something to be desired. There are times in the movie when the music serves one purpose - suspense, for example - and another piece of music, conveying an entirely opposing thought - say, humor - is spliced in awkwardly for a couple seconds, before returning to the original piece. Mind you this is not simply the juxtaposition of themes in a single composition, but two different songs crudely and distractingly cutting to and from one another.

Visually, the film is solid, though given it's scenic nature I can't help but feel like it would have been better in widescreen, had they waited another ten years. Obviously, I can't hold that against them, however. On the other hand, the technicolor is beautiful, bringing the film's earthy color pallet to life with soft, yet rich hues.

In general, I felt that the acting was adequate. I will admit up front that I haven't seen too many films with Gary Cooper or Ingrid Bergman in them but, as a point of comparison, felt that Bergman was good in Casablanca (1942) and Cooper was stellar in High Noon (1952). Perhaps it was the director's goal to employ understated performances, that somehow this would bring the film more realism/authenticity, but to to me everything simply felt flat. For a time at least, Tamiroff was compelling but, once his conflict with the rest of the characters had overstayed it's welcome, he similarly went from feeling like a threat to a distraction. Even a unique, somewhat quirky character like Pilar, whom I would normally love, was only okay in this case.

Overall, I thought the film was alright. The subject matter was somewhat interesting but the pacing was off and the film was overlong. If there was stand-out character (like Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds (2009), seriously, I could watch that guy for the whole three hours - not that Basterds needed one of course, since it was taut and compelling all the way through), someone to keep the audience's interest, it would be a different story. Reportedly, Hemingway himself didn't care for this adaptation as he felt it diminished the political elements of his novel. Indeed, it's possible, with an additional storyline, the film might have felt less repetitive. In the end though, what promised to present us with the grim realities of war, wound up as nothing more than folks hiding in a cave talking about Pablo and his horses for eighty-seven percent of the time. I rate this film 2.5/5.

7. The Flowers of War (2011, 146m)

December 13, 1937 to January 1938: The Nanking Massacre

For the first time in this project, we're off to Asia with Jīnlíng Shísān Chāi (The Flowers of War), a film by the acclaimed Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yimou (Raise the Red Lantern (1991), Hero (2002), and House of Flying Daggers (2004)). The film focuses on a group of people that take shelter in a Nanking church when the Chinese capitol is invaded by the Japanese Army. The film features an ensemble cast, starring Christian Bale, Ni Ni, Zhang Xinyi, Tong Dawie, Atsuro Watabe, Cao Kefan and Huang Tianyuan.

John Miller (Bale) is an American mortician that has come to the city to tend to the recently deceased Father of the local Catholic church. When the Japanese attack, Miller flees to the church, helping two Chinese schoolgirls along the way, including Shu (Xinyi) who provides voice-over commentary for much of the film. Nearby, the remaining Chinese troops in the city, lead by the formidable, yet understated, Major Li (Dawei) - a talented sniper - make a final stand against the invaders in order to protect the remaining schoolgirls. The girls are saved but everyone else is killed, save for Li and one critically wounded young soldier.

Miller arrives at the church and is informed by George Chen (Tianyuan), a reserved young man left in charge after the Father's death, that the priest's body was tragically destroyed by a stray bomb and they have no more need of him. Miller demands to be paid for his trouble, but George insists they have no money to pay him. Meanwhile, the remaining schoolgirls arrive and the church is sealed against outsiders. George asks Miller to fix a broken-down truck parked in the courtyard so they can evacuate the city, but Miller refuses to do it for free. Major Li arrives shortly thereafter and takes a position outside the church with his rifle, a guardian angel of sorts.

Soon, a group of prostitutes appears, seeking refuge, but George turns them away, so their unofficial leader, Yu Mo (Ni Ni) simply leads the girls over the church's walls. George is helpless to stop them and the women take up residence in the church's basement. The prostitutes and the schoolgirls find themselves immediately at odds and are constantly fighting. Yu Mo also tries to persuade Miller to fix the truck, that he may take the prostitutes to safety instead, offering sex in return. He quickly becomes infatuated with her but doesn't want to commit himself to anything. Drunk, in an attempt to win over Yo Mo with humor, Miller dresses in the Father's vestments and attempts to engage in a little role-playing, but things get a little out of hand and Major Li is forced to intervene.

Suddenly a force of Japanese soldiers breach the gates and storms inside, intending to rape the virginal schoolgirls. Still in the Father's clothes, Miller comes to their aid, acting as the church's priest and putting his life on the line to save them. Undeterred, the soldiers persist and Major Li engages them with his rifle. After the battle, the local Japanese Colonel, Hasegawa (Watabe), pays a visit to the church, apologizing for the behavior of his men. He says he is a music lover and wants the girls to perform at a Japanese victory ceremony, stationing guards around the church for their safety. However, as time passes, Miller realizes the terrible truth: the Japanese are merely protecting the girls as 'party favors' for their celebration, and everyone must come together in the remaining time to try find a method of escape.

Wow. I was really impressed with this movie. The visuals are simply stunning and the events portrayed, though uncomfortable at times, are not widely studied in the West. Yimou's signature visual style is evident throughout, resulting in something quite beautiful and serene, a stark contrast to the brutal events depicted. Acting-wise, Ni Ni is great, as the beautiful yet mysterious Yu Mo, as are many others, such as Huang Tianyuan's charming-yet-infuriating performance as George. Further, Christian Bale is solid as the conflicted Miller which, by no means a standout, is good in the role and allows the other actors to shine. My personal favorite is Tong Dawei as Major Li, the consummate professional/undeniable bad ass. Honestly, I'd love to see a movie just about him.

Of course, a film such as this is bound to attract the usual complaints about the White Savior, and this movie is no different. Indeed the credits struck me as somewhat odd as well: Christian Bale was listed first, prominently, then the whole crew (director, writer, composer, cinematographer, etc), and finally the rest of the cast was all at the end. Indeed, though this film is largely historical fiction, there were whites such as John Rabe, a German, who actually helped get people to safety. However, what I would say is this: this film was made by a prominent Chinese director, for a Chinese market. At no point during the production of this film, was there some up-his-ass American jamming his manifest-destiny crap into this movie. In fact, during an interview, Yimou said it was a conscious choice on his part and getting Bale's character into the movie/past the censors was one of his biggest accomplishments: "this kind of character, a foreigner, a drifter, a thug almost, becomes a hero and saves the lives of Chinese people. That has never ever happened in Chinese filmmaking, and I think it will never happen again in the future." Similarly, Yimou wanted to present a more sympathetic/"layered" portrayal of the Japanese, than that usually seen in Chinese film, particularly with Colonel Hasegawa, who struggles internally with the orders of his superiors.

A lot of Western reviews at the time of the film's release release were, I feel, unduly harsh on these counts alone. There's a tendency I've seen a lot lately for people to get indignant on the behalf of others who aren't offended in the slightest (such as Roger Ebert's review of this film, where he asked why is couldn't have been a Chinese mortician instead of an American one) and it drives me crazy. Honestly, I think that telling people from another country (or of another race), based on our own sensibilities, what should be offensive to them is far worse. Regardless of who helped who historically, though, this film is largely about the Chinese characters and that's what's really at the heart of this story. The film is mixed language, 40% English/60% Chinese (subtitled).

Overall, seeing great films such as this, that I've never seen before, is one of the main reasons I'm doing this project. This movie combines good acting with a compelling, heart-wrenching subject I know very little about, and presents it all through dazzling visuals. Though the events portrayed are grim and tragic, the film itself is brilliant and masterfully crafted. It's also available on Netflix Instant Watch so you should definitely check it out! I rate this film a 4/5.