Golden Dolphin Nomination Predictions

(Edited to include the Phil wins but predictions were not modified)
Before the official nominations for the 2nd annual PFA Golden Dolphins are announced in the coming days, I decided to try to predict them based on the precursors. Feel free to put in your own predictions/thoughts.

Best Picture:
The Wrestler = J Dr Do P
Milk = J Do P C
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button = J Dr P C
Tropic Thunder = Dr Do C
Baghead = J P
The Dark Knight = J P
Doubt = Dr C
Slumdog Millionaire = Do
Synecdoche, NY = Dr
Changeling = Do
The Reader = C
Drew's Thoughts: Button/Milk/Wrestler are locked with 4/5 precursor noms each. Tropic Thunder is in good position with 3 noms. The fifth spot looks like it'll be Doubt vs. either Baghead or The Dark Knight not sure which. The recent Colleen win is huge for Doubt's chances though.
PREDIX
Ben Button
Wrestler
Milk
Tropic Thunder
Doubt

Best Director:
Darren Aronofsky – The Wrestler = J Dr Do P C
Ben Stiller – Tropic Thunder = J Dr Do C
David Fincher – The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button = J Dr P C
Christopher Nolan – The Dark Knight = J Dr P
Gus Van Sant – Milk = J Do P
Tarsem Singh – The Fall = Dr C
Danny Boyle – Slumdog Millionaire = Do
Clint Eastwood – Changeling = Do
Ron Howard – Frost P
John Patrick Shanley – Doubt = C
Drew's Thoughts: Aronofsky is obviously the frontrunner with a win at the Joes and unanimous nominations. Fincher and Stiller are probably solid as well with 4/5. The last two spots will go to Nolan, Van Sant or Singh. I'm not sure if Van Sant will have enough high votes to get in though so I'm gonna predict Nolan and Singh cause of their more enthusiastic supporters.
PREDIX
Wrestler
Ben Button
Tropic
TDK
Fall

Best Actor:
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler = J Dr Do P C
Sean Penn – Milk = J Dr Do P C
Sam Rockwell – Snow Angels= Dr Do C
Brad Pitt – Ben Button= Dr P C
Benicio Del Toro – Che= Dr P
Steve Zissis – Baghead = J P
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder = J
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Synchedoche, New York = J
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon= Do
Leonardo Dicaprio – Revolutionary Road = Do
Michael Fassbender – Hunger = C
Drew's Thoughts: I'm guessin Rourke, Penn, Pitt, Rockwell have enough support to get in because they are obviously the top lead male performances of the year. It looks like it's a face off between Zissis (ridiculous...) and Del Toro for the top spot. I'll be pessimistic with my predictions...
PREDIX
Milk
Wrestler
Snow Angels
Ben Button
Baghead

Best Actress:
Melissa Leo – Frozen River = J Dr Do P C
Meryl Streep – Doubt = J Dr Do P C
Sally Hawkins – Happy Go Lucky = J Dr P C
Angelina Jolie – Changeling = J Dr Do
Kate Winslet – The Reader = Do P
Kate Beckinsale – Snow Angels = J P
Cate Blanchett – Ben Button = Dr C
Catinca Untaru – The Fall = Do C
Drew's Thoughts: At this point Streep (deservedly) has the Dolphin in the bag I think. Leo is locked for a nom obviously. Hawkins as well. Angelina probably too but she may be superceded by both Blanchett and Untaru. I really liked Blanchett but I might be the only one unfortunately.
PREDIX
Doubt
Froze Riv
Happy
Changeling
Fall

Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight = J Dr Do P C
Brad Pitt – Burn After Reading = J Dr Do P C
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt = J Dr P C
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder = Dr Do C
Tom Cruise – Tropic Thunder = J P
James Franco – Milk = Do
Josh Brolin – Milk = Dr
Anil Kapoor – Slumdog
Haaz Sleiman – The Visitor = Do
Nicky Katt – Snow Angels = J
Eddie Marsan – Happy Go Lucky = C
Drew's Thoughts: Ledger and Pitt are obviously locked. Phil Hoffman is in too, as is Downey. So it comes down to Cruise versus Franco (who was just thrust into the race with the Donna win). It's tough to get in with only one person behind you but maybe Franco can do it.
PREDIX
Doubt
TDK
Burn
Tropic
Tropic

Best Supporting Actress:
Amy Adams – Doubt = J Dr P C
Frances McDormand – Burn= Dr Do P C
Viola Davis – Doubt= Dr Do P C
Kate Winslet – The Reader = J Dr C
Samantha Morton – Synchdoche, New York = J Do C
Marisa Tomei – Wrestler= Do P
Taraji P. Henson - Ben Button= Do P
Hope Davis – Synecdoche, NY= Dr
Kristin Davis – Sex and The City = J
Misty Upham – Frozen River = J
Drew's Thoughts: My prediction for Supp actress hasn't changed for months. I'm pretty confident in it. Though, if Tomei picks up a win at the Phils I think Morton (or Winslet because of the vote split) may be out.
PREDIX
Doubt
Doubt
Reader
Burn
Synec

Best Original Screenplay:
Milk = J Dr Do P C
Tropic Thunder = J Dr P C
The Wrestler = J Dr Do P
Baghead = J Do P
Synechodoche, New York = J Dr C
Happy Go Lucky= P C
Burn= Dr
Changeling= Do
Visitor= Do
RocknRolla = C
Drew's Thoughts: I think my predictions are solid on this one. I don't see Happy-Go-Lucky getting in unless a win at the Phils happens.
PREDIX
Tropic Thunder
Synecdoche
Wrestler
Milk
Baghead

Best Adapted Screenplay:
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button = J Dr Do P C
Doubt = J Dr P C
Frost/Nixon = J Do P
Snow Angels = J Dr C
The Fall= Dr Do C
The Reader= Dr Do C
The Dark Knight = J P
Slumdog= Do
Che= P
Drew's Thoughts: This is a tricky one to predict. Doubt and Button are the only locks here. Dark Knight despite only two previous noms is dangerous with the Joes win. I think it is possible it can overcome some of the thrice nominated films. Reader got a pic nom. Fall got a couple director noms. Which may indicate support. Maybe just cause I like Snow Angels I think its getting in and maybe cause I don't like Frost much I don't think its getting in. There's only room for one alpine themed title. I have a feeling this could come to a tie breaker.
PREDIX
Doubt
Button
Snow Angels
TDK
The Reader

Best Cinematography:
The Fall = J Dr Do P C
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button = J Dr P
Doubt= Dr P C
The Wrestler = J P
The Dark Knight = J P
The Reader= Do C
RocknRolla= Dr C
Slumdog= Do C
Revolutionary Road = J
Il Divo= Dr
Milk= Do
Tropic Thunder= Do
Drew's Thoughts: Probably the most hotly contested category of the year. I think Fall is the frontrunner and Button and Doubt are locked for nominations. I think the year is so de-centralized Rev Road with its sole win stands a chance. Dark Knight has a valid chance but I'm gonna predict three Deakins noms for the hell of it.
PREDIX
The Fall
Button
Doubt
Revolutionary Road
The Reader

Best Editing:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button = J Dr Do P C
The Wrestler = J Dr Do P
Tropic Thunder = J Do P C
The Dark Knight = J P
Milk = Dr P
Doubt = Dr C
Revolutionary Road = J
Il Divo = Dr
The Fall = Do
Slumdog = Do
RocknRolla = C
Hunger = C
Drew's thoughts: I'm pretty confident about this lineup. Milk doesn't have enough support in this category.
PREDIX
Button
Wrestler
Tropic Thunder
Dark Knight
Doubt

Best Art Direction:
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button = J Dr P C
Tropic Thunder= Dr Do P C
The Fall = J Dr C
Synechdoche, New York = J Dr C
Changeling = J Dr Do
The Wrestler = J Do
Slumdog= Do P
Milk= Do
Dark Knight= P
Hunger = C
Drew's thoughts: The Slumdog win might jump it ahead of Changeling but I'm not sure if that will happen. I need a no guts no glory pick in here somewhere, so I'm predicting Slumdog will show up at the Dolphins and it'll be here.
PREDIX
The Fall
Synecdoche
Button
Tropic
Slumdog

Best Costume:
Debi Hopper – Changeling = J Dr Do
Amy Westcott – The Wrestler = J Do C
The Fall= Dr Do C
Benjamin Button= Dr P C
Lindy Hemming – The Dark Knight = J P
Marlene Stewart – Tropic Thunder = J P
Doubt= Dr C
Melissa Toth – Synecdoche New York = J
Miss Pettigrew= Dr
Slumdog= Do
Milk= Do
Rev Road= P
Happy Go Lucky= P
Sex in the City = C
Drew's Thoughts: This is a difficult one. I'm going with Wrestler and Doubt after consulting my gut.
PREDIX
Changeling
Ben Button
Fall
Wrestler
Doubt

Best Makeup:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button = J Dr Do P C
Tropic Thunder = Dr Do P C
The Dark Knight = J Dr P C
Synechdoce, New York = J
Wrestler= Do
Drew's Thoughts: No surprises here.
PREDIX
Button
Tropic Thunder
Dark Knight

Best Sound:
Best Sound Mixing:
The Dark Knight = J Dr Do P C
Tropic Thunder = J Dr Do P C
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button = J Dr Do P
The Wrestler = J Dr Do
Che = J P
Hunger = Dr C
Slumdog = Do
Defiance = P
Doubt = C
RocknRolla = C
Best Sound Editing:
Che = J Dr P
The Dark Knight = J Dr P
Tropic Thunder = J P
Ben Button = Dr P
Hunger = Dr
Wrestler = Dr
Defiance = P
Drew's Thoughts: This is interesting cause the last slot is a duel to the death between arthouse biopics of "revolutionaries." I'm picking Hunger over Che cause I'd rather go to Ireland than Cuba. Though its possible they could both overcome the other arthouse contender, The Wrestler.
PREDIX
Tropic
Wrestler
Dark Knight
Ben Button
Hunger

Best Score:
The Dark Knight = J Dr P
Burn After Reading = J Dr C
Ben Button = Dr P C
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull = J P
Cassandra's Dream = Dr C
Milk= Do P
Synechdoche, New York = J C
Clint Mansell – The Wrestler = J
Death Defying Acts = Dr
Visitor = Do
Tropic Thunder= Do
Doubt= Do
Changeling= Do
Defiance = P
Drew's Thoughts: Cutthroat category. I'm coming to terms that Indiana Jones 4 will be nominated for a Dolphin, I pray it doesn't win though. A surprise is certainly possible here, The Visitor is probably the best chance of that.
PREDIX
TDK
Burn
Cassandra's Dream
ID4
Button

The Damned United

Drew's Thoughts:
The previous collaboration of actor Michael Sheen and screenwriter Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon, was a slog through mediocrity and their newest collaboration, The Damned United, avoids being a slog but mediocrity still prevails.
The film centers on Brian Clough, considered the UK's greatest soccer manager. The filmmakers make two interesting choices, the first of which is focusing on the major failure in his career (a forty four day stint as the Leeds United manager) and the other is they don't try to make Clough likable either. Despite the interesting approach, I still came out feeling a bit "ehhh..." You can point to the constant, unnecessary jumps back and forth in time, the failure to fully develop the characters and flat direction all as problems but to me it seems like Peter Morgan just doesn't really have any talent for screenwriting. I've seen The Queen and Frost/Nixon, and though this was better, Morgan writes some of the dreariest dialogue around and never finds a way to get the audience to give a damn about anything that happens in his movies.
This film is about a self-destructive coach driven to achieve ultimate success or his distorted image of it. That right there is a premise with potential for a few fierce cinematic fireworks but there is no tenacity in the dialogue or the direction. I can think of a few great sports movies that center on self-destructive individuals, one of them won the Golden Dolphin last year (though, to be fair, that's a "sports" movie). Instead The Damned United just limps along until the credits roll, like an injured player who manages to get the job done but can't keep up with those around him. The film has the feel of a missed opportunity more than anything else.
However, Michael Sheen's performance as Clough is actually pretty good though. He's far from a great actor but he's still a decent one and for me his performance was the main thing that kept me interested. Having already seen him play Tony Blair and David Frost, I was surprised how much he seemed to be Clough and without a trace of his previous performances. He'll surely be squeezed out by the end of the year but Sheen's work here is one of the better male lead performances I've seen so far.

Colleen's Thoughts:
I agree mostly with Drew's thoughts on this film. I especially agree with Drew's point that this movie felt like a "missed opportunity." I mean come on we are talking about the best fucking manager in the UK! And those redcoats are CRAZY about their football. A bio-pic about the best manager in the UK should be anything BUT boring or mediocre. If someone is the best at something their IS a great story behind it. Unfortunately, that story is not told here. I left the film still wondering, so why do I care about Brian Clough? And what did he himself do to become the best manager?
To be fair, this movie isn't that bad for this year. It is on par with many others. I guess the reason I am just so upset is that this is a UK FOOTBALL MOVIE! The dialogue should be full of fun swearing and football action and it's not.

Away We Go

Drew's Thoughts:
Sam Mendes's follow up to the abominable Revolutionary Road is thankfully an improvement but a (really) far cry from the promise he showed with his debut American Beauty.
The film centers around a couple in their young thirties who are having a baby, and traveling around trying to find where they want to start their family. The couple played by John Krasinski (American TV's The Office) and Maya Rudolph (P.T. Anderson's baby momma) are serviceable as leads. Nothing spectacular but are believable enough. The script provides a few laughs but doesn't rise much beyond mediocrity and the emotional moments often don't connect. The bigger problem is Mendes's direction which is so steeped in "indie-ness" it's almost sickening at times.
There's one reason you have to see this movie though (or at least the first 15 minutes of it) and that is Catherine O'Hara in a hilarious, absolutely scene stealing, or more accurately, movie stealing turn. Her scene as Krasinski's mom, with Jeff Daniels as his dad, is by far the best scene the of film. I don't want to say anything about it since it's a fairly short scene, but O'Hara is so strong she has catapulted herself to the top of the heap for Best Supporting Actress at this point.

Colleen's Thoughts:
This movie is hard to write my thoughts on because I don't feel it has much you can say about it. I am more and more convinced that Mendes is a one hit wonder. The direction is okay and surely nothing to be impressed by.
I like the way Maya Rudolph's' character is written and she is a good woman character. She is unconventional but not in the "Ellen Paige, Diablo Cody" way, which I can appreciate. Other than the leads the movie is full of over-acting (Maggie Gyllenhall and Allison Janney).
Like Drew said, the constant "indie-ness" is pretty tiresome to watch.
All and all the movie was alright, nothing to get angry about but it pretty much fades from memory after watching it. I am a quite the Catharine O'Hara fan so I was delightfully surprised to see her in the film, albeit for 3 minutes or so.

Star Trek

Colleen's Thoughts:
You don’t need to be anywhere close to a Trekie to enjoy the new Star Trek movie that came out this spring. The plot of this Star Trek is that all the members of the original Start Trek show are just being recruited into Star Fleet. You get a glimpse at their pasts and learn how they became involved in the exploration of the final frontier. The word “entertaining” best describes this film. The dialogue isn’t fantastic and often cheesy and Chris Pine, who plays Kirk, does get on my nerves, but I found myself smiling throughout the film. The actor playing Spock, Zachary Quinto, did a great job with the character and it was fun to see the original Spock, Leonard Nimroy, in the movie. Also, Simon Pegg went all out with the few scenes he was in. (Unfortunately for Pegg he was sharing his scenes with weird “e-wok-esque/jar jar binks” creatures which were just silly). I don’t think it will make a strong showing at the Dolphins this year, but all in all it was a fun film. Star Trek is a good movie to lift your spirits and distract you from school or work.

Drew's Thoughts:
I'd describe my Trekkie status as not disliking Star Trek but not necessarily liking it either. It always seemed like an interesting premise/concept but the execution of the various TV series and movies left much to be desired in my opinion. Thus, my reaction to the news of J.J. Abrams's reboot of the series was pretty apathetic. Based on Colleen's review though, I figured it would be worth watching.
J.J. Abrams doesn't use much subtlety in telling the story but he manages to hit all the proper points to excite and engage the audience. Though the plot and dialogue are laden with cliches, the film manages not to get bogged down in them.
By far the worst element at work was the acting, the worst offender being Karl Urban as the doctor. He moves through every scene with his brow permanently furrowed and an unchanging scowl plastered across his face. Every word he speaks is steeped in a hilariously misguided "cynical" tone. Bogart he most definitely is not. Urban's performance had the makings of a great, campy performance if, you know, he actually realized how bad he was. Unfortunately, the best performance (Simon Pegg as Scotty) gets a scant amount of screen time.
The best element is the set design, which opts for a minimal amount of CGI. Obviously there's a fair amount of CGI in the film but it seems that the design department was consciously looking to the past, creating something more akin to Alien than the new Avatar-style bullshit.
Star Trek is not one the year's best films and though it's no Dark Knight, it's probably the best popcorn movie you'll get this year.

Joe's Thoughts:
I watched the first half of this movie, and don't have any immediate plans for watching the second half.

The Hurt Locker

Drew's Thoughts:
Director Kathryn Bigelow should probably get some special prize for making the first good film about the US's misadventures in the Middle East this past decade. After so many failures I doubted it was even possible until a good 10 or 15 years from now. That said, The Hurt Locker is good movie not a great one. Though it still manages to be one of the better war pictures I've seen, nowhere close to Paths of Glory or The Deer Hunter but still leaps and bounds above the usual Windtalkers/We Were Soldiers fare.
The story focuses on a small team focused on disarming I.E.D.s a.k.a. bombs. After the previous team leader dies, Jeremy Renner (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) joins as the new leader. Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty play the other two soldiers on the team. The acting in the film is generally pretty good, Renner suits his character embodying a thirst for the madness of war and a put-on informality. Anthony Mackie is nicely understated, finding working with Renner a constant source of frustration. Guy Pearce is also great in his much-too-small role.
The Hurt Locker mostly avoids politics, wisely I think. The film becomes a matter of experience instead of an agenda; furthermore, it deals with the madness of war without being satirical. Renner’s character is talented at his work but far too unprofessional in the wake of such serious circumstances, which continually discomforts Mackie’s character. What’s interesting though, is one doesn’t really get a sense if war has changed Renner into a madman or if he’s there because of a desire for, or addiction to, danger that existed far before he joined the military.
Bigelow's real talent exhibited in the film is her masterful control of intensity. What’s great about The Hurt Locker is the characters don’t necessary act like they’re in extraordinary situations. Even though nearly everyday they’re on the brink of death, it becomes routine. Bigelow and the actors create a sense of naturalness, everydayness, in the midst of terrifying situations. When Renner has difficulty disarming a bomb he expresses his frustration in a fit of swearing, the way someone might if they lock their keys in their car. The important thing is Bigelow never goes too far to show this naturalness. It just is.
In spite of this acclimation to danger, the soldiers are scared and Bigelow directs each military operation with an engaging and tightly wound tenseness—rattling the viewer by a slow application of pressure rather than loud explosions.
The film is at its weakest when it’s not focusing on military operations. A subplot involving one of the soldiers and a military psychiatrist (played by Christian Camargo, who is seriously the bastard child of James Woods and Marc Anthony) is pretty worthless and unnecessary but fortunately only amounts to two short scenes. Furthermore, there's a sequence later in the film that intends to develop Renner's character's hysteria but it ends up pushing the limits of believability that the film did such a good job creating elsewhere.
This year looks to be a fairly weak one cinematically and though it’s far from classic material, The Hurt Locker is a good, worthwhile picture and I imagine it could be one of the main contenders for the Dolphins, at least in the technical and director categories.

Donna's Thoughts:
Before watching this film I didn’t know what the title meant. I now know that sergeants on duty in Iraq speak of explosions as sending you to the “hurt locker”. Sergeant William James played by Jeremy Renner, Sergeant Jt Sanborn played by Anthony Mackie and Sergeant Owen Eldridge played by Ben Geraghty are a team assigned to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (E.O.D.) Jeremy is the staff sergeant and plays the role extremely well. In 2005 he starred in Neo Ned which received many awards at festivals. His performance in Hurt Locker makes me want to look Neo Ned up. He also starred in The Assas. of Jesse James riding along Affleck and Pitt. I believe he could be nominated for an academy but the subject of the film doesn’t lend itself to a wide audience.
The screen writer Mark Boal was inspired by real events. Watching Sergeant William James remove a bomb purposely placed in a dead body of a boy, a friend who would ask him to play soccer made me look away from the screen.
Anthony Mackie’s performance was okay. Being trained at the Julliard School of Drama and acting in 8 Mile and Million Dollar Baby. I judge his performance in Hurt Locker as mediocre. He was outshined by Ben Geraghty who starred in Bobby a few years back. Ben‘s character is a sergeant not liking being a part of Sergeant William James’ life.
The film has a good beginning. I especially liked the part of a single suicidal bomber who has changed his mind and begs Sergeant William James to dismantle the bomb. The bomb has several padlocks attached to a metal frame around the man’s body and of a course time is running out.
There is some footage of the mother of Sergeant William James’s baby back home that I feel adds another dimension to the story. I would recommend the film, however, many of my friends don’t have the stomach for real war.

Joe's Thoughts:
I was very excited to see the Hurt Locker after my man Colbert kindly invited director/producer Kathryn Bigelow onto his show, in which she discussed her new film, "The Hurt Locker". The film opens with the discussion of how sometimes war can be used as a drug by the soldiers who take part in it. The film does a great job of taking one story and proving its point. But what i really appriciate about this film is that its not trying to make a statement about the iraq war, which i thought it might, it simply focuses on it's story at hand. Which revolves around a young man who needs danger and loves the idea of having many lifes including his own in one hand, and a ticking time bomb in the other.
The film keeps you totally on edge the entire film, as it goes from one adrenline rush to another, which i think is another great tool used by the film. As the lead character is going from one needed rush to another, the audience is as well. Which leads to the movie getting its message across. But what the movie also does really well is showing how this addiction does not mean this characer is evil, as we see him getting the caprie sun and having fun with the dvd kid, Even though this man was putting so many people at risk for a selfish need he was a caring a loving character and not one dementional at all. And its hard to hate him beucase while he is taking uneeded risks, he is diffusing bombs and in a way saving lifes.
The direction from Bigelow is impressive as we defentily feel like all the soldiers who surround the crazy lead, and the script is pretty good as well. I was also really impressed with the acting from three members: Jeremy Renner, gives a great preformence as the big headed sarg who needs his war fix, he was perfect for the role and may get some dolphin love. The African American Anthony Mackie was also very good at playing the frightened but strong soldier, look for him at the joes in the supporting actor category. And of course our beloved Guy Pearce puts on a show, but then dies in two minutes, one may think the movie might go on a downward spiral with the death of guy but thankfully this isnt the case.
With all this praise there is however one big flaw within this film, as before mentioned the movie goes from one adrenline rush to another as its trying to make its statement clear, but to me it almost makes its statement too clear, as the movie beings to get somewhat repetative, there are variation to some of the bomb defusing scenes, and there is the sniper scene and the scene in the back allies in the dark, but to me still to much repetition keeps the film from being very great, but still is a very very solid film.

Where the Wild Things Are

Drew's Thoughts:
I've been waiting to see Spike Jonze's third film for quite some time. Jonze's work on Wild Things apparently began some ten years ago, and while initially set to direct what became last year's Synecdoche, NY, he handed the directorial duties over to Charlie Kaufman when the opportunity to finally get Wild Things into production came up. The production was obviously a complicated one that would take some time, experimenting with the technology to get the wild things right and so on, and this already lengthy production dragged on even longer due to a number of high profile battles with the studio.
Jonze is revered for his resourceful, inventive visual style and pitch-perfect comic timing. He makes all the crazy things in Charlie Kaufman's mind come to life better than anyone else. Something else Jonze does masterfully that often gets overlooked, is the way he works with actors to develop characters. He's directed Nicolas Cage, John Malkovich, Chris Cooper, Cameron Diaz and arguably John Cusack, Catherine Keener and Brian Cox to career best performances. Those performances all created characters who are fully formed and emotionally resonant. Jonze works his magic again with the wild things, which are essentially big furry suits with computer animated faces. Yet, they feel so real and I definitely got a little misty-eyed watching them. Their expressions are so nuanced and affecting it's a wonder they are products of a computer program. This is, of course, due in part to the phenomenal voice acting by Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, Lauren Ambrose and especially James Gandolfini as the lead wild thing, Carol. The fact that Jonze pulled together those voices, guys in giant hairy suits and CGI to make these incredibly life-like beings is nothing short of a cinematic miracle.
Max Records performance as Max which the story centers on was pretty good I thought. Not up there with Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone, Dillon Freasier in There Will Be Blood, or the girls in In America but still impressive in that he didn't seem like he was acting, often the downfall of child actors. Something that could bother some viewers is that Jonze and co. have no problem making Max a bratty little bastard. Carol, the head wild thing, acts as Max's wilder double, mercurial, pouty and impulsively violent. Max initially identifies himself in Carol upon their first meeting but grows to find Carol's brattiness difficult and tiresome. There isn't a strong driving plot in the film which has it's pros and cons. I'm happy they didn't make it into standard children's fare by making a bad guy that they have to fight against because that would seem really inauthentic in light the material but at the same time the screenplay could have been stronger and delved more deeply into the character's minds and the conflicts of their relationships. That said though, there are some great lines and it's fun to watch to the wild things banter back and forth.
I think in my anticipation for the film I lost sight that it still is a children's movie. It's a phenomenal children's movie and certainly one adults can enjoy and be impressed by, but there isn't the depth there you expect from "adult" masterpieces. The wild things are all touching and expressive but they weren't given quite enough to express to completely satisfy an adult viewer. This can't be blamed entirely on the film itself though because after all this is based on a 10 sentence long children's book so the depth wasn't there in the first place. Visual mastery is top notch and a strange, bizarre vision is made into reality just like the book, but the film doesn't fill in that lack of depth absent in the book. It's not necessarily expected that it fill it in, but I feel that was the key element needed to elevate the film to full blown masterpiece status.
After the first viewing, I feel Where the Wild Things Are is a staggering directorial achievement worthy of much well-earned praise but the film as a whole, while good, doesn’t quite command that same level of awe.

Colleen's Thoughts:
In my opinion, Drew was far too generous with his review. I agree that the visuals in this movie are fantastic and the wild things really couldn't look any better. Also the cinematography surrounding the wild things is magical, breathtaking and definitely worth looking at again.
However, Max is an asshole. While I agree that it is alright for Max to be bratty he was way too much of a jerk too me and where the film was asking me to sympathize with him (his igloo being broken, having to lie on the floor and entertain his poor mother)I almost laughed. What a BRAT! It brought me back to babysitting days when I thought "If I was your parent I would be MORTIFIED!" Yes, it is ok for Max to be somewhat of a brat, especially if he is to undergo a transformation (which again was laughable) but the character was a liar and devoid of sympathy even when he was with the wild things. I also disagree with Drew in Max's acting, while it was great at some points at other points it really did feel "acty."
Alright enough with the rant, like Drew said it was a children's movie. Going in expecting to be totally impressed the way I was after seeing Adaptation was asking far too much. I also think that since Jonze usually teams up with screenplay mastermind Kauffman that I was expecting the screenplay to be somewhat on par with that work, which again, was asking far too much. (The visuals and not the screenplay are clearly the strength of this film).
The major positive besides the visuals is the voice actors. I totally agree with Drew that their performances were PERFECT for their characters. They were fun to watch and entertaining to the children. I especially liked Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O'Hara and Chris Cooper. Cooper was especially fun to watch and listen to in my opinion.
In closing, Where the Wild Things Are is a fairly typical children's movie with visuals that are anything but typical. If you are looking to be impressed by visual creations and mind-blowing backdrops (as well as some great voice acting) this is the film for you, but don't go in expecting much more.

Joe's Thoughts:
I read an interview not to long ago in which spike jonze (director of Wild Things) was discussing his approach to his most recent film. Though based on a worlds famous “children’s” picture book, Jonze stated that his plan was to make a film for adults. This led to many problems as the studio pictured his picture to be the stereotypical “children’s” film. And while the film may contain elements and ideas taken from childhood, and the protagonist is a child, the film contains thematic themes and great one liners in which children cannot understand, thus leading to a film which caters to adults. Where The Wild Things Are is not a “children’s” film, or if it is, it certainly didn’t feel like one to me. No child can fully understand the theme between gandalfini and Max (even though they may live it, they don’t fully realize what it means or they wouldn’t act that way). No child can understand the comedic greatness that comes from such characters as the chicken. Maybe this film will go down in history as a “children’s” movie but in my mind no child can fully take what is offered by the complexion of many elements of the film.
That being said what holds this movie back in a way is the simplistic story, but one cant expect much as the book contains only a handful of sentences. But this is the only major flaw I see in this film. I thought it was a fucking great movie. I was cracking up nearly the entire time, Chris Coopers chicken was splendid, and I think it was dano playing the goat, but who didn’t have a friend like that goat. I mean every time I had dirt clad war some little pisser was crying off in the distance that he was hurt. Catharine O hara and Forest Whittaker were a great couple leading to many laughs as she contemplated eating max the entire film. The movie was a riot. And even beyond the comedy some complex scenes with deeper meanings arose. My favorite scene in the entire film was when gandalfini was destroying the houses; I felt the characters pain as his lover KW had just walked out on him. And while his character proved to be somewhat of a “brat” throughout the film and in the scene mentioned above, that was something for the audience to understand and dislike. As my fellow dolphin member Colleen did. We were supposed to view those two characters as “brats” why do you think they were the only characters who couldn’t understand bob and terry. They were too uptight and unable to take a joke and relax, and that’s why people in their lives were walking out on them, because they were just being “brats”. Which both characters realized to some degree near the end of the film, in which Gandalfini howls and Max runs home to his mom.
Another element which leads to many laughs is how Jonze uses his Wild Thing characters, utilizing them in every aspect, they can knock down trees, build amazing tunnels, they sleep in giant dog piles, all fun ideas from Jonze and company, which lead to many laughs. And the voices were played to perfection, Forest Whittaker creates a great character with his loomy low voice, and Catharine O’Hara creates a witchy character with her high pitched crackling voice. Dano’s poor and helpless goat is amazing and perfect for the character and Chris Cooper, wow!
In closing I agree 100 percent with my other dolphin members in the sense that the CGI/Puppets were a miracle, and obviously the movie would not have been quite what it was without being able to see the emotion in the characters faces, but that’s not what makes the characters so great, its starts with there individual personalities and the lines written for them and in that sense Jonze creates amazing creatures, aside from the great cinematic CGI/Puppets. The cinematography is pretty great, especially during the scenes which take place at night or day for that matter. Oh, and I would have to side with Drew on Max’s acting.
A very great movie, and I cannot wait for more from Spike.

Precious

Colleen's Thoughts:
This movie has been difficult for me to process. My English professor sent us a NY Times article where critical race scholars were going back and forth on the merit of this film. Not being from a black community or a poor community for that matter, I have little background in how I should place this movie.
I talked to my friend Reva who really enjoyed the film. She said she felt like it was an updated version of “The Color Purple” and many other critics agree with her. I also thought she made an interesting point. She said that looking at everything that happens to Precious may make the movie unbelievable for some, but she prefers to see the character Precious as a pastiche, who embodies the plight of many black women.
Do I think that this movie is as great as so many other critics? No. Do I think it is incredibly original and will blow people’s minds? Not really. Do I think it raises interesting questions and gets people to talk about race? Yes. All and all the buzz Precious has accrued is far more interesting than the movie itself. It is a typical American tale in which someone against all odds finds a way to overcome. However, incest, obesity, HIV, and domestic violence are not mainstays of this genre.
For everything this movie had going against it: Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz and a nod from Oprah and Tyler Perry I thought Precious, against all odds, was fine.

Drew's Thoughts:
With everything I heard about this movie, I fought hard to keep an open mind going in and I came out with the film being a little better than I anticipated.
I thought it was a decent movie with the strengths (Gabby Sidibe's performance as the title character and the screenplay) usually overcoming the often poor direction by Lee Daniels. I liked the character of Precious, I thought she was developed pretty well through some funny, well-written interior monologue and the expressive cadence that Sidibe used for the film. She certainly gave the best performance in the movie though the supporting cast is generally decent if sometimes lacking subtlety.
I was, however, underwhelmed by comedian Mo'Nique's performance who has been picking up Best Supporting Actress awards left and right. It's a decent performance, not bad, but I didn't feel like she added anything special to the character she was given. I feel you could have gotten any large, African-American actress who fit the profile and told her to shout every line of dialogue and you would have ended up with roughly the same performance. There isn't much nuance there.
A side note, there were times when Mo'Nique's verbal, and sometimes physical, abuse seemed somewhat comic or cartoonish to me. Maybe I'm just a terrible heartless person (though I definitely felt for Precious so I don't think this is the case) but I found myself laughing a few times and I'm confused whether that was supposed be intentional or not. Because if it is intentional it was a bad decision and if it wasn't it's a fault in execution.
Back to Mo'Nique though, she's a bit better in the final scene, which I found to be similar to Viola Davis's scene in Doubt last year (crying black mothers discussing the difficult, questionable choices of their parenthood,) but where Davis was electrifying and affecting, Mo'Nique is merely serviceable at delivering the interesting dialogue she is given. She definitely doesn't do anything extraordinary with it the way Davis did, and Davis only had one scene to establish herself and develop her character!
Overall though, I was invested in the story and Sidibe's performance as Precious, and I do think it's great that a film like this has been fairly successful in the mainstream. Also, unlike the other recent film about the life of struggling black youth, Precious gives its character a voice instead of Sandra Bullock to speak on its behalf which is definitely worthy of respect whether you care for the movie or not.

Bright Star

Drew's Thoughts:
Jane Campion (The Piano) excels at the period piece so I was curious to see this film about the doomed romance of poet John Keats and his "bright star" Fanny Brawne. I liked the film quite a bit more than I expected mainly due to Abbie Cornish who gives the best female performance I've seen this year. She's remarkable as Fanny, giving a very confident, expressive performance. Without her the film could not have achieved as much success as it did. Paul Schneider (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) was also good in his supporting role as Charles Armitage Brown, sporting a credible Scottish accent and a newly expanded waistline. He always has a great presence in movies, but this is the most "demanding" role he's taken and he does a good job adding a bit of humor (and mean-spirited quips) to the film. Ben Whishaw was also good, but I guess he had maybe the less interesting character in my opinion compared to the other two.
I liked that the film wasn't a Keats bio-pic (not that there'd be anything wrong with that) but was a well-written, affecting romance and their relationship drives the film rather than his poetry. The film drags a little 3/4s through when it becomes inevitable that Keats will die and it's just a matter of time. Though I guess that was the reality of it.
Technically the film is quite sound. The costumes were good and the cinematographer Greig Fraser made good use of lighting. The purple wildflowers were beautiful as well.

Colleen's Thoughts:
A fan of Keats (especially "Ode on a Grecian Urn") since high school I was looking forward to the movie Bright Star. I knew before I saw the film that Keats had a very interesting story for a poet of this time, he was poor and in debt (because of his dead father and sick brother) and was not of the aristocratic class. In that day and age just one of those two bad marks would bar you from being a poet people read and cared about. He is the exception to the rule of the famous Romantic poets. However, this movie seems to care very little about any of that. It is all about his passionate love relationship with Fanny and she is clearly who the film centers on. It was a bit melodramatic and heavy but nevertheless a thoroughly enjoyable film. Jane Campion clearly knew what she was doing so there are no glaring mistakes or complaints.
I loved the cinematography and art direction. My friend Val, who saw the movie with us (she got us in for 40 cents each woohoo!) said that the movie looked like a poem. I thought this was a very intelligent comment. A movie about one of the most famous poets in Romanticism should look like a poem. The English country is beautiful (by the way it takes place in Hampstead Heath which as Lizzie, mom, Drew and I know is now a beautiful posh area where lots of rich folk live) However, at this time it is a quiet area outside of the city with lovely flowers and lakes. I liked that the indoors of the houses didn't look too extravagant, even people with money like the one's in the film did not really have all that much to show off. I loved the shots through the windows.
I also LOVED Paul Schneider's (All the Real Girls) performance. I had no idea it was him and I really thought he was a native Scot or Brit. You hated him when you were supposed to and liked him when you were supposed to. I wish that the character of Keats would have been a little bit more fully formed, for instance I really like the scene where he is pacing in the rain and gets mad at Fanny and Mr. Brown but Keats (Whishaw) isn't given many lines or scenes where he can do a lot. I still thought Whishaw was good though. Abbie Cornish also was very good and is def a front runner along with Penelope for this year's best actor. She acted like a young woman passionately in love and I also respected her, sometimes those two are hard to pull off together. I also loved the little red head girl, best child actor of the year so far. And of course, I can't NOT talk about the ADORABLE tuxedo cat that plays such a prominent role in this film. He/She is so cute and would fit perfectly in the Kenny clan. I wanted to take him/her home after the film with me.
All in all this was clearly one of the best Dolphin films this year and will make a strong showing in the Colleen noms.

Cyrus

Drew's Thoughts:
Cyrus is the third feature from the Duplass brothers, following The Puffy Chair much-lauded-by-Joe and the unfortunately Dolphin-nominated Baghead. It's no secret that I didn't care much for The Puffy Chair or Baghead but I liked Cyrus. With this film, the Duplass brothers benefit immensely from having a quality cast at their disposal including John C. Reilly, Marisa Tomei, Catherine Keener and, in a rare bit of thoughtful acting, Jonah Hill.
The film is simple. Reilly and Tomei meet at a party and hit it off and then Reilly meets her creepily obsessive son (whom Tomei creepily enables as Colleen rightly pointed out after the film) and we watch what unfolds. The film is refreshingly mellow, it doesn't devolve into an escalating war of hi-jinx between Reilly and Hill as it could have and the characters are much more well-developed than the previous Duplass films. This is due to both the performances and a script that makes even the ridiculous characters pretty believable.
The film is pretty funny too, with master craftsman Reilly, and his numerous interactions with Hill, garnering the most laughs in the theater. The cast has a good chemistry and the small amount of characters in film allows the central trio of Reilly, Tomei and Hill a lot space to develop their relationship. I'd say the actors' work is really the strong point of the movie, and though things will most likely change by the end of the year, at this point all the actors are in the running for some love at the Drews.
I still don't care for the Duplass' directorial style (they gotta take their finger off of the zoom control!) but they've done good work directing the actors and I'd say Cyrus is enjoyable and a modest but
definite success.

Colleen's Thoughts:
For the most part, I would agree with Drew. I would say a moderate success is an adequate description of Cyrus. It was nice to see Marissa Tomei out of her typecast role as slutty/stripper/skank. All of the performances were enjoyable and the movie was cast impeccably. (I also applaud whoever was doing the outfitting /costuming). It was also nice that the movie didn’t devolve into a kooky comedy about Reilly and Hill pulling pranks non-stop. I thought it was a sweet entertaining movie. However, I would say that Tomei's character should be reamed more in the movie for her own terrible parenting skills. The movie had hints of what made Puffy Chair so special. For example, I like the whole running shoes bit. However, it was missing a little bit of the originality that set Puffy Chair apart from other movies. (For example the one person per hotel room bit that was oh-so-Kenny). I thought it was a cute movie that will appeal to a wide audience. I am looking forward to the next Duplass film which I hope will stay the course and not feel too “inde” but have a little more of the Puffy Chair flair.

Shutter Island

Drew's Thoughts:
It's not often you get a Scorsese movie within the first two months of a new year and I was justifiably concerned. February, the month in which this was released, is notorious as a dumping ground for studios to unload their crappiest productions since the heat of Oscar season is still on and a lot of people are just going to see Oscar movies anyway. As things turned out Shutter Island is a decent film so its release was more of a money-making strategy to be a big fish in a small pond of crappy fish.
Shutter Island is one of those twisty thrillers (like The Sixth Sense and all the other M. Night Shyamalan flicks) and the downside is that the film definitely doesn't transcend its genre or do anything especially interesting with it. However, Marty is behind the camera making the film about as good as can be within the genre limitations.
The film centers on Leonardo Dicaprio as a Federal Marshall investigating a mysterious asylum for the criminally insane on an isolated island along the northeastern seaboard and when Leo arrives he finds that something strange is going on. The less I tell you about the plot, the more fun it will be so I'll leave it there.
It's probably a good 20 minutes too long, but it was pretty fun to watch even with the obligatory "unexpected" final twist. (For once, I just want the twist to be that there isn't a twist!)
There's solid work by a strong cast, Leo D. and Ruffalo were good and Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children) and the always welcome presence of Patricia Clarkson (Good Night and Good Luck.) were fun in their single scenes, but the script doesn't provide a lot for the cast to really sink their teeth into.
The art direction was good, if a little overly CGI'd, and it could potentially make it to the Dolphin ceremony next year depending on what competition materializes. I also liked the score which has a cold, hard and very sinister presence.
This is no Raging Bull (obviously!) or even The Aviator, but it's more or less the quality level of The Departed, though Departed has some great scenes intermingled with some pretty bad ones and Shutter Island just maintains being pretty good throughout. I did enjoy it more than Cape Fear, Scorsese's other genre thriller, which may be the most apt comparison.
All in all though, Shutter Island is a slick mainstream thriller that benefits from actual craftsmanship and care behind the camera.

Colleen's Thoughts:
Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island has the stamp of entertaining approval from this Kenny. While the movie was no Taxi Driver or even Aviator (as Drew mentioned) it was entertaining and, I felt, well directed. I would like to watch the film again now knowing the twist to see what details I can pull out or see the clues I should have seen before. I am not that great at guessing twists so this one, of course, got me. It was plain to see beginning to end that the movie had a heavy dose of suspenseful psycho-thriller Hitchcock influence which, for the most part, served Marty well. The cinematography and art direction are worth remembering for this Dolphin Season. While I did thoroughly enjoy this film sometimes I can’t stop myself from wishing Marty would return to his 70s and 80s style and throw a bit more grit on the screen.

Julie and Julia

Drew's Thoughts:
The bright side of the latest piece of crap by Nora Ephron (You've Got Mail, Hanging Up) is that a funny Meryl Streep performance is intercut throughout it. There really isn't much reason to watch this other than to see Streep, unless maybe if you're into cooking or if you are looking to punish yourself with watching the demonically annoying "Julie" part of the story. Probably the less said about the movie the better.
In this wintry state of potential Best Actress nominees I think Streep is guaranteed a nomination at the next Dolphins. She is good in this and fun to watch but it's definitely not Sister Aloysius-level so I don't anticipate her claiming a Dolphin the second year in a row. Still, she got me to watch the whole movie and, well, if she doesn't deserve a nomination for that then I don't know what she would deserve one for.

Colleen's Thoughts:
This was not a good movie. There isn't much more to say; Drew said what needed to be said. I will say that I thought the Julia Child's part was actually quite fascinating. Streep was good of course. They should have just made a biopic of Julia Child. The movie did inspire me to try and make something new, I made chocolate cream pie and it turned out quite well. I also loved seeing Paris, so Julia in Paris was fun for me to watch.
I think we can all agree that if Drew doesn't like Amy Adams in a movie than it must be a bad performance and it was, although she didn't have much to work with. Her character was a total brat. She acted like her life was a living hell because she worked for the government and had to live in Queens of all places. BooHoo I have to live in urban New york! A good smack in the head and change of perspective probably would have done her a lot better than cooking 524 (or so) recipes in 365 days.

Mary and Max

Drew's Thoughts:
Mary and Max is based on a true story, and I think making an animated film based on a true story is a really interesting (and possibly original?) concept. I'm guessing there was a large degree of poetic license taken in telling this "true story" but the emotions and characters still feel very real.
The thing I commend about this film, and it's Oscar-winning writer/director Adam Elliot, is it doesn't pander to kids. It's not even a movie kids should really be watching. It's not that the film takes pleasure in making animated characters curse and act "adult" or something like that (the content is probably about a PG-13) but it tells a story that will resonate with, most likely, only teenagers and adults.
The premise is very simple; by chance, a young Australian girl, Mary, and an obese New Yorker in his 40s, Max, become pen pals. They share their collective love of chocolate and Noblets cartoons and confide in each other about their equally lonely, friendless existences.
The story ends up focusing more on Max which is a wise move because I felt his character had a little more depth (and he's much older meaning he has a lot more experiences to share) and also he is voiced fabulously by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The story moves in unexpected ways (maybe due to it being based on truth?) which is a credit to the film. The premise seems like it could wear thin but Mary and Max develop such a real relationship and their characters are developed so well, that the film gets by just fine on it's writing and more importantly on how genuine it is.
It seems like maybe through animation a filmmaker can avoid the audience's preconceived notions of the kind of people the characters are. I know I might be grossed out if I saw a 350 pound man stuffing his face with chocolate hotdogs, but when I see an animated version? Not so much. Instead though, you feel really sympathetic for both Mary and Max, and they each go to some surprisingly dark places in the film. Ultimately, the film is pretty touching which is always rare with animated films (not necessarily because they're animated though).
I've heard rumors of a Best Animated Film category at the Dolphins this year and I'd say at this point Mary and Max is definitely the one to beat. I wouldn't be surprised if it reached outside the animated category for noms though. It's a competitive category but Mary and Max could possibly get an Original Screenplay nom and maybe Score as well but that's another tough category. One category I feel Mary and Max should not be forgotten in, and maybe should even win, is Best Sound. The sound design in the film is phenomenal and really contributes to its "realness." When Max is sitting in his apartment typing you hear noise from the streets leaking in, for instance; the film takes great pains to create a true world, a strange world but a true one and sound is a big part of it. And of course this being animated there's no on location sound recording, it's all created specifically by the sound designer for the film.

Colleen's Thoughts:
At the very beginning of the Mary and Max screening I would say the word which best described how I felt about the movie was worried. The narrator says “poo” within the first few minutes and I was very concerned that this might be a movie which, to my horror, relished in its own quirkiness. I was wrong.
Somewhere during this film I became extremely emotionally attached to the characters. Since Drew and I discuss films together after seeing them he said a lot that we both talked about and thus some of my opinions were already voiced by Drew. For example, I think it was an amazing idea to make this true(ish) story in animation. I am startled by real life Max-like people on the bus or walking to school practically everyday. Quite frankly, if in the movie I saw a human Max collecting toe nails in a jar and eating chocolate hot dogs I would cringe!
Instead, Max is a lovable character (shout out to Phil) and the depth of his and Mary’s “outsiders” friendship is really touching. Also, I am a fan of anyone who has a life goal of having an endless supply of chocolate. Although, Max is out there, the script and the voicing make the characters incredibly relatable. I wish Mary’s climactic dramatic scene would have been executed better (the song during it is AWFUL). I think what the film does best is it develops a relationship between these two people that is truly humane and genuine. When there is a snag in their relationship you feel for them. I think the ending of this movie is incredibly satisfying and tears were running down my cheeks. Mary and Max is different, engaging and truly heartwarming.

The Informant!

Drew's Thoughts:
Though I once had an aquaintance earnestly, and without a trace of irony, assert that Ocean's 11 is Steven Soderbergh's masterpiece and his immortalizing entry into the cinematic history books, I think it's safe to say The Informant! is Steven Soderbergh's best movie since Erin Brockovich and really his best movie period (though I haven't yet seen Out of Sight or The Limey.)
Sporting a hairpiece and a bitchin' mustache, Matt Damon's performance as Mark Whitacre (his best as well) is the bedrock on which the film is built. Damon is a talented actor but takes too many straight man roles in my opinion, but here given plenty of freedom with this character he goes for broke. He plays a total moron but a believable moron. He garners the audience's sympathy and its scorn in all the right places.
Soderbergh, under his cinematographer alter-ego Peter Andrews, bathes the film in the amazing glow of a early 90s occupational training video, situating the film and the characters' mentalities permanately in that epoch in history. Scott Z. Burns's screenplay, adapted from Kurt Eichenwald's book from which the film takes its name, introduces the film with a titlecard stating that what happens in the film is mainly true. Similar to Fargo, how I understand it is that the events are true but the filmmakers give themselves plenty of room to create the characters though they're based on real people. That was definitely a smart choice as Mark Whitacre's idiot/savant buffoonery would come off as purely incomprehensible if played with a strictly serious tone. Whitacre's character arc is really unexpected but well-written, eliciting the gamut of emotion from the audience towards Whitacre.
It was another wise move of Soderbergh's to surround Damon with various character actors whose faces you'll recognize but whose names you will probably not know. Tony Hale (Arrested Development) is particularly great in a brief role.
It's not nearly good enough to be among the five best of the year but it looks solid on Best Actor and Adapted Screenplay noms.

Colleen's Thoughts:
My one word review of this movie is “mediocre.” However, having now spoken my peace, I will say that it had some rather interesting less mediocre aspects to it. As Drew pointed out Matt Damon really carries this movie but he is nowhere near someone like say P.S. Hoffman. Also, the cinematography and set design really do a lot for the mood and atmosphere of the film. I think Melanie Lynskey who portrays Ginger Whitacre has a good shot at getting a supporting actress nom at the Colleen’s. All an all an enjoyable film but nothing too memorable.

In the Loop

Drew's Thoughts:
It’s interesting having watched In the Loop and Nothing but the Truth within the span of a few days cause in a way they’re alternate universe versions of the same similar movie. Both feature political power plays, leaking of supposedly secret information, people getting chewed up in the gears of political machinery and, of course, careerism galore. The biggest difference is that In the Loop is funny.
The film contains a massive amount of characters and to the credit of the director, script and cast, each of the characters, even the smaller ones, come out seeming like people rather than plot points. Speaking of plot, there is one but I couldn’t exactly tell you what it is. There is a secret US war committee and falsified intel and somewhere in the middle of it all an ineffectual, low-level British cabinet member embroiled in the mess. The film moves at a dizzying rate, making the viewer work extra hard to follow all the ins and outs of US/UK political relations. The film uses this briskness to its advantage, however; even when you aren’t exactly sure what’s going on, the film is bristling with so much energy that one can’t help but get caught up in it.
The cast is solid with Tom Hollander playing the pathetic cabinet member at the center of the story, Peter Capaldi as his creatively, usually nonsensically, foul-mouthed boss and Chris Addison as a new, motivated assistant who doesn’t realize what a complete dumbass he actually is. David Rasche (who you’ll remember from Burn After Reading) is the best of the more peripheral (read: American) roles. He’s what boils down to the film’s antagonist and is brilliant as the clever and conniving head of the war committee. He’s responsible for a lot of the film’s funniest moments at least partially cause he approaches the dialogue in a different, more subtle way than much of the other cast.
The film is such a whirlwind that at the end I was surprised I spent the last 100 minutes watching it. Furthermore, it left me wanting to revisit it soon in the hopes of catching more of the lightning fast dialogue.
Though it may have some stiff competition in the adapted screenplay category this year, I think In the Loop will be worth remembering in the winter when the Dolphin ballots are made out. I can’t say it’ll be there when things are all said and done but as far as things go now, it’s the best movie I’ve seen this year.

Colleen's Thoughts
I will preface this review by saying it has been a while since I watched this film and I should probably see it once more before this dolphin season is over. In the Loop is a fun movie with lots of laughs. I really enjoyed Tom Hollander's performance. He was a refreshing look at a mid-level politician who isn't a conniving arsehole, or an intelligent hero. He is probably a better picture of what a typical politician is like. I found myself rooting for him despite his incompetency. At times, the loud mean Peter Capaldi was a little much for me and silly rather than funny or witty, at other times he was spot on. I especially love his pro-Scottish remarks (I won't give anymore of the best line in the movie away).
I disliked Chris Addison and his whole affair part of the movie, it felt a bit tacked on and I think the movie would have been better doing away with it.
All and all In the Loop was an enjoyable film and I smile often thinking back on it. I also loved its quick pace; it was refreshing after all the slogging mediocrity of the dolphin year so far. The dialogue is quick and so it is one I can definitely see getting more out of the second time around.

Nothing but the Truth

Drew's Thoughts:
Filmmaker Rod Lurie (The Contender) is back in political thriller mode with Nothing but the Truth. The film is fictional but based on real events regarding a journalist publishing an article leaking the identity of a CIA operative. After the article is published the reporter, upon refusing to reveal her source, is jailed for aiding a criminal in a matter of national security.
I wasn't sure how the film was going to turn out going in but the film ended up being pretty good. Nothing but the Truth doesn't have the powerhouse cast of The Contender, which had great performances by Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges and particularly Gary Oldman, which limits the overall potential of the film. Nevertheless, the script is pretty solid and engaging throughout and the cast turns in a decent, though far from extraordinary, performance. The central performance by Joe and Phil nominee, Kate Beckinsale, is about as good as her limited talents allow her to be and Alan Alda's vain attorney is probably my favorite performance of the bunch. Vera Farmiga, one of the worst things about The Departed, is miscast though; she's given a character with loads of tough talking dialogue and she can never really sell it. Despite all the swearing she does, you can never actually feel the ferocity that's supposed to be there.
The film plays out like a pseudo-mystery with the continuing question being who was the source of the leak in the first place. When it is finally revealed it left me thinking, confused, which is one of the better compliments I can pay the film. I'm still not sure how I feel about the plausibility of it, but regardless of that once you know who the source is, it causes you to totally reevaluate all of Beckinsale's actions and wonder if it was really a matter of principle after all, and who was it that she tried so hard to protect, the source or herself.

Donna's Thoughts:
I’m not going to give much time to review this film as it was a 2008 drama film that never made it to theatrical release because the Yari Film Group filed for Chapter 11 protection. I was intrigued by the inspiration behind the screenplay, Judith Miller. She was jailed for contempt of court keeping secret the person who revealed a CIA agent. Kate Beckinsale’s performance as Judith is good but Vera Farmiga, the CIA agent, outshines Kate. The ending was surprise. I didn’t put the clues together but does that surprise any of you? The middle drags on as days go by in jail. Since it won’t be up for any nominations, I’ll quit here.

A Serious Man

Colleen's Thoughts:
I was looking very forward to A Serious Man, the latest from the Coen's. Despite not being a huge fan of Burn After Reading I thought since this one has been called autobiographical it might be interesting. Also, many Coen brother movies, have a charm about them that is difficult to describe (Raising Arizona and The Big Lewboski are the ones that come to mind). I crave this charm and despite recent disappoints I go in expecting it.
I have to say I was fairly disappointed. The more I think about it the more I think the film has some redeemable qualities but all and all I just wasn't impressed. It didn't seem like they had much of a story to tell and if you don't have a story why tell it? I think the film failed mainly in the area of entertainment. A good movie should entertain and I was pretty bored halfway through the film. The movie had a very cynical and apathetic tone which isn't always bad but in this movie was quite lame. After an odd and, I must admit, intriguing intro you are introduced to Larry Gopnick. Larry is having what seems like no end to life problems. He is a good guy and tries to do good so you want better things for him. His, kids his wife, his brother, his work all bring different mundane challenges for him. This is about the extent of the film.
Deakins did a fine job with the cinematog. I thought the lead actor Michael Stuhlbarg as Larry Gopnick did a good job with the role and you truly did think he was a good guy even though he was a total putz and somewhat of a wuss.
All and all the film was ok. If you don't know much about Jewish culture you may learn something but that is about the extent of it.

Drew's Thoughts:
The Coen brothers' latest is a tale concocted straight out the Book of Job. The film centers on Larry Gopnik, who "tries to always do right", as his life begins to crumble around him in strange and often hilarious ways. Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry and his performance is central to what makes the film work. Stuhlbarg finds the right balance between eccentricity and playing the "straight man." Gopnik's essentially a sweet guy, hard working, moral, always taking on the burden of others (to the point of nearly being a complete wuss) and with each new obstacle he becomes increasingly panicked, wondering why this is happening to him but trying to still deal with it in an upright manner. He looks for answers anywhere and everywhere, visiting three Rabbis in the process, and never receives a satisfactory answer. Or any real answer really.
Though Colleen found the film to be boring, I was quite entertained. A lot of the fun comes from the push/pull between the comic and the dark, tragic elements (take Carter Burwell's creeping, minor-key score, for instance). Seeing Larry get increasingly over his head, scrambling to make sense of it all, was fun and reminded me a bit of the Dude's misadventures, though where the Dude got an ultimately zen-like movie consistent with his demeanor, Larry gets a frantic, less benign film.
This is also one of the weirder Coen brothers' movies. It's not as upfront about the weirdness as, say, Barton Fink but there's the ambiguous opening scene, set in a past century, and strange existential happenings, both central and peripheral to the film, that you might expect to be in a Charlie Kaufman screenplay.
The Coens in their later years have found more and more humor in fatalism, futility and misanthropy and A Serious Man fits right in there. Though the audience is taking pleasure in Larry's disorientation, the Coens disorient the audience (probably taking pleasure in it) by telling their comedy like a mystery--where the audience scrambles to put the pieces together just like Larry. Though I'm not sure if it's one of the best films of the year, it is good. And I'd like to see it again soon, not necessarily to relive favorite moments as is usual with the Coens' work, but just to try to figure the film out a little bit more.
Even if some of the PFA members don't end up being big fans of the film I hope they'll remember, come Dolphin-time, Jess Gonchor's detailed, pitch-perfect circa-1967 Art Direction work and also some of Roderick Jaynes's best editing yet. The film is edited quite tensely for a comedy and there are a number of sequences where the Coens... I mean Jaynes devises some inventive editing.

The 2010 Joe's

Best Picture

Animal Kingdom – Liz Watts

The Fighter – Dorothy Aufiero, Mark Wahlberg, David Hoberman, Ryan Kavanaugh, Todd Liberman, and Paul Tamasy

Greenberg – Jenifer Jason Leigh and Scott Rudin

The Social Network – Dana Brunetti, Cean Chaffin, Michael De Luca, and Scott Rudin

True Grit – Ethan Coen, Joel Coen and Scott Rudin

Best Actor

Jim Carrey – I Love You Phillip Morris

Jesse Esinberg – The Social Network

Colin Firth – The King’s Speech

Ben Stiller – Greenberg

Mark Wahlberg – The Fighter

Best Actress

Annet Bening – The Kids Are Alright

Jennifer Lawrence – Winters Bone

Julianne Moore – The Kids Are Alright

Natalie Portman – Black Swan

Hillary Swank - Conviction

Best Director

Darren Arronofsky – Black Swan

David Fincher – The Social Network

Tom Hooper – The King’s Speech

Christopher Nolan – Inception

David O. Russel – The Fighter

Best Supporting Actor

Christian Bale – The Fighter

Matt Damon – True Grit

Rhys Ifans – Greenberg

Sam Rockwell - Conviction

Mark Ruffalo – The Kids Are Alright

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams – The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter – The King’s Speech

Barbara Hershey – Black Swan

Melisa Leo – The Fighter

Jacki Weaver – Animal Kingdom

Best Original Screenplay

Noah Baumbach and Jennifer Jason Leigh – Greenberg

David Michod - Animal Kingdom

Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, and Keith Dorrington - The Fighter

John Lassater, Lee Unkirk, Andrew Stanton, and Michael Ardnt - Toy Story 3

Mike Leigh – Another Year

Best Adapted Screenplay

Aaron Sorkin - The Social Network

Joel and Ethan Coen - True Grit

Scott Teems - That Evening Sun

Rowan Joffe - The American

Debra Granik - Winters Bone

Best Sound Editing

Black Swan

Inception

True Grit

Toy Story 3

The Good The Bad The Weird

Best Sound Mixing

Green Zone

True Grit

Inception

The Town

The Fighter

Best Editing

The Social Network

The Good The Bad The Weird

Black Swan

Animal Kingdom

Greenberg

Best Art Direction

Inception

Black Swan

True Grit

The Kings Speech

The Good The Bad The Weird

Best Cinematography

Inception

Black Swan

True Grit

The Social Network

Greenberg

Best Score

Inception

Black Swan

That Evening Sun

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

Costume

Alice In Wonderland

True Grit

Greenberg

The Good The Bad The Weird

Toy Story 3

Make Up

The Wolfman

The Killer Inside Me

Black Swan

Drew's Thoughts:
EMBARRASSING! Noms for The King's Speech and Black Swan??? What are these, the goddam Oscars?!

(I mean this in a playful tone. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings hehe)

FYI, you will not be able to vote for Toy Story 3 in Best Original Screenplay at the Dolphins because it is based on material and characters previously produced or published (Toy Story and Toy Story 2)

Colleen's Thoughts:

I have to say, I was disappointed in the lack of noms for some amazing films, not to mention Carlos being not included. It was released in festivals as a film and judged that way at sun dance. Colin Firth? Helena? Natalie? Tom Hooper? Get King's speech and Black Swan out of there. Both painfully mediocre films. Hopefully they will not get noms at the Dolphins. Disappointed Trotsky didn't get proper respect. Hilarious creative film with some great acting.

Happy to see Fighter and Social Network got their proper due at the Joes. Also glad to see Rockwell made his much deserved appearance. I was a little surprised not to see any noms for previous Joe favorites the Duplass brothers and their film Cyrus.

Head nod to the Mike Leigh screenplay nom. I have a soft spot for that guy and I was happy to see that Joe saw the film. (Now he has kind of met our host family in London)