Moon

Drew's Thoughts:
I'll say it right up front, I think Moon is a great movie. I watched it again to see what'd I'd think after knowing all the twists and I still thought it was a hell of a picture.
The story revolves around Sam Bell, played by Sam Rockwell (Snow Angels), who mans a space station on the moon with only a computer, GERTY (voiced perfectly by Kevin Spacey), to keep him company. He works for a company that harvests Helium3 on the far side of the moon (which supplies the world with 70% of its energy in the film) and he's got two weeks left on his 3 year contract and things start getting strange.
Sam Rockwell who is more or less the only actor in the film, gives an absolutely brilliant performance and is surely the one to beat for the Best Actor Dolphin this year. I don't want to give anything away because it seems best to watch the film knowing as little about it as possible but Rockwell gets inside his character Sam Bell and manages to find how Bell would react in so many different circumstances making for a seamlessly real performance. More than just authentic, Rockwell's performance is incredibly engaging, natural, heartbreaking, and humorous. Just tremendous overall.
Rockwell isn't the only one who deserves commendation though. Writer/director Duncan Jones crafted a very interesting sci-fi story and then took a small budget of about 5 million and made one of the best looking sci-fi movies I've ever scene. The story is very tightly told and edited and the production design is fantastic. What I really liked was that the space station didn't seem like it was hermetically sealed off. It looks like it is lived in. There are skuffs, scrawled post-it notes stuck to everything, dust, grimy tape wrapped around the rungs of ladders etc. Furthermore, Sam Bell hangs out in slippers, sweat pants and an old t-shirt like any person does when they're at home alone. Sci-Fi isn't a genre I'm usually predisposed to liking, though there are many sci-fi films I really like including this one, but Duncan Jones treats his material like it's real so there isn't any disconnect with the audience despite the outlandishness of the tale. Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain) also composed a moving, fitting score for the film that is certainly deserving of a nomination.
I don't want to say any more and leave the film still shrouded in a bit of mystery but it's a really fantastic film and should be high up on the "to-see" list.

9

Drew's Thoughts:
Based on his Oscar-nominated short film, Shane Acker enlisted the talents of John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly and Tim Burton as a producer to expand the vision of his short into a feature length film.
Like Mary and Max, 9 avoids for the most part being a "children's movie" despite it being animated. Most young kids would probably just get confused watching it, cause I know I was. The film sort of plays out like The Terminator or The Matrix meets A Bug's Life. The characters of 9, these weird sack doll things, are fighting in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by machines. The story doesn't make a whole lot of sense but I like that the dolls are ragged and the machines are rusty and physical degradation pervades the animation design.
The title character played by Elijah Wood (each character name is a number 1-9) leads the effort against the machine and the dolls find that feuds within the group pose a threat just as much as the machines do. It's all somewhat standard post-apocalyptic stuff. The dialogue-less short was pretty good because, while the story was lacking, it had atmosphere and was only ten minutes long. With the full length they try to give explanations to why things happened, which the short avoided, and this movie fumbles those explanations pretty thoroughly. While I wouldn't say 9 makes many big missteps, aside from the weak story, and the animation is good, it also plays too much by the rules to stand out or seem special. Rather than being flawed but interesting like the original short, it's the usual mediocre, nonsensical sci-fi movie in animated clothing.

Coraline

Drew's Thoughts:
I was looking forward to seeing this because Henry Selick wrote, directed and produced it. Selick directed The Nightmare Before Christmas which is one of my favorite animated movies, and one of my favorite Christmas movies too. Anyway, I didn't really know much about the movie but I expected it to be pretty good.
I was pretty much wrong though. The story is ludicrous. The heroine, Coraline, finds a small door that leads to a portal, not into John Malkovich's mind, but into a much more boring alternate world of button-eyed people. There isn't much more to it than that, Coraline ends up needing to rescue her parents from Teri Hatcher who wants to sew buttons to her face and free the souls of these ghost children (who remind me of the ghosts in the Lemmiwinks South Park episode) which are trapped in marbles or something. I'm guessing maybe Neil Gaiman, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, is to blame for this crap?
Selick doesn't escape blame either though. Besides the flimsy story and bad dialogue, Selick gets atrocious performances out of his two main actors Dakota Fanning and Teri Hatcher. It's a bad move to cast them anyway, but apparently Selick paid no attention to actually directing their voice performances. All Fanning can do is sneer stupid, cliched lines like a prepubescent Juno (though thankfully not quite as annoying as that sounds) and all Hatcher can do is pretend to cackle maniacally and sound like Lois Lane. The guy that played the boy kid sounds exactly like Scott Tenorman too causing me to wonder if South Park was actually a big influence on the film.
The animation was pretty cool but I mean, there's just no saving the rest of the movie. I wish Selick had stuck with working on The Fantastic Mr. Fox instead of leaving to make this piece of crap.
Full disclosure though: I fell sleep for a significant portion of time in the middle of the movie, in which case it's possible that Coraline triumphantly achieved cinematic greatness that far surpasses Citizen Kane and The Godfather but there's no way I'm gonna go back to find out.

Up

Joe's Thoughts:
“Up”- Made Me Want to Throw “UP”

I’m just kidding, as much as id love to follow in the footsteps of president drew dahles attempts to take reviews on pixar films to an all time minimal, I feel being this my first review of the year I owe our dear readers a great deal more. So here we go. Pixar scorched the silver screen with its debut film Toy Story, which was released in 1995. It depicted the lives of living toys that belonged to a boy named Andy. Before this film was released I felt the same way as director John Lasseter did, that when I indeed shut the door to my room to attend beockman creek primary my toys magically came to life, and as my sister has admitted to feeling the same way I think its safe to assume the majority of people with toys gave them some sort of life. And what happened when they came alive, each toy had a specific personality that somewhat related to who they were. This led to a great tale in which Lasseter utilizes every aspect of every toy, be it size or shape. He takes us into a new world in which we all had been to before, and puts a creative spin on it. Another terrific Pixar movie is one entitled Monsters Incorporated. Now, we all know monsters live in our closets or under our beds, and when the lights go out they groan and moan with lanky teeth and sharp claws in an effort to make us scream. What we didn’t know is why these monsters haunted us into the late evenings of our youth. Thankfully in 2001 pixar explained to us that monsters put us through agonizing pain simply because these monsters needed us to power their buildings and cars and houses. Director Pete Docter (who also directs UP) takes us into a new world in which we all had been to before, and puts a creative spin on it. And we all believe in super heroes, but what do they do at home? Or when the run out of steam? Luckily director Brad Bird introduced us to the domestic life of super heroes in his film The Incredibles. We see elasti-girl station ally vacuuming the entire house, while the Mr. Incredible lifts the couch with one hand. It’s a world we’d already been to, but with a new creative spin. That is when Pixar is at its best. When it takes hold of common old ideas, and brings creative life to them. UP does not do that. The story follows an old man who loses his wife, and when near certain eviction, he hatches a scheme in which millions of balloons turn his house into a flying boat. While this idea is clever, not much comes of it, or at least director/co-writer Docter chooses not to make much of it. Instead his main character lands on an unknown island with a child companion, where they find this magic bird thing that is being hunted, and of course the kid grows to love it and wants to save it. Where was this in my childhood? Or everyone else’s childhood? This wasn’t something that haunted me or took up my afternoons. Without much of a story the laughs for the movie have to rely on one-liners normally delivered by the kid, and they are disastrous. For example, he asks the old man if he should dig a hole before or after he takes a shit, only to reply it was suppose to be before. These awful jokes spew for the kid’s mouth the entire movie. The one clever thing, besides the flying house, was the invention of the device, which allowed dogs to speak. This creative idea had much potential only to prove to be minimal as many stereotypical dog ideas where used, which in turn led to an original idea becoming unoriginal. One can simply guess how exactly the story will end, I would say a half hour into the movie. There are however two things in which I thought were great aspects of the film. The score, though played a billion times, was memorable and maybe if it’s a weak year could be up for a nomination. And the best part of the movie was the cute relationship between the main character and his wife. Near the beginning of the film there’s essentially a 15-minute silent film that documents their lives together, and its really good and promising, and then she craps out and dies, killing the best part of the movie, and essentially murdering the movie all together. When is pixar going to get back to its old ways, in which it takes ideas we all cherished when young, and puts new and creative ideas into them, maybe next summer with Toy Story 3? I guess if I had to I would give UP a D+.

Donna's Thoughts:
Pixar Animation Studios released Up in May of 2009. This story about a grumpy old man named Carl Fredrickson and an overeager wilderness explorer, Russell reminded me of my life in the past and possibly in the future. Ellie, Carl’s wife has a dream about moving to Paradise Falls in South America. Of course many obstacles come in the way of her dream. I can certainly see this. We’re safer in doing “what is right” rather than take a risk to fulfill a dream. Ellie passes away never reaching Paradise Falls. I certainly relate to Ellie seeing myself doing “what is right” and being stuck in the suburbs the rest of my life. Carl isn’t in too much of a predicament. The city is growing around his house and he is unwilling to sell. I don’t see the city of Portland surrounding my house, so Carl should have looked at the bright side. As Shady Oaks Retirement Home sends their greeters to kidnap Carl after an angry mishap, he launches his house into the air with thousands of helium balloons. This is extraordinary, but when they come to hall me off to Shady Oaks, I won’t go willingly. (take note children)
I really enjoy Russell the wilderness explorer. I had a student that epitomizes his character. He is trying to find a way to get his merit badge for “assisting the elderly.” No one considers themselves as “elderly”. I know I never will! It’s a difficult badge to fulfill.
The story then enters a hard to believe point. An antagonist, Charles Muntz, is looking for the “flight less bird”. On their way to Paradise Falls Russell attracts the flight less bird with his candy droppings. Russell reminds me of Jack Black in Tropic Thunder. He just uses a different “candy”. The whole charades of Muntz, the unique bird and his dog pack is only entertaining to dog lovers, but I’m in the minority with dogs. I can see why Pixar went that direction. There are sentimental parts like when Carl looks at the empty journal pages behind Paradise Falls, when Russell returns Kevin to her chicks (the name Russell gives the flight less bird is Kevin which is a typical choice for a 10 year old boy), and of course when Carl takes the place of Russell’s father at the boy scout ceremony pinning the grape soda cap on Russell which earlier in the movie was pinned on Carl by Ellie. I laughed, had tears in my eyes and smiled throughout the movie and the best part is, it whisked me away from reality for 90 minutes.

Drew's Thoughts:
Joe's comment that when the wife dies the movie is murdered was hilarious but also somewhat of an overstatement. I think what amounts to roughly the first half hour of Up is a pretty good movie. The old guy and his wife make a cute couple and they are pretty enjoyable to watch; even after the guy is living by himself, the movie is still kinda funny. I laughed when the old man tells the business man, who looks like one of the agents from The Matrix, to "cut your hair, hippie!" or something like that. The score is pretty good too as Joe mentioned.
So anyway, I liked the first half hour of the movie but then Up self-destructs so immediately and so thoroughly it erased most of the goodwill it had already earned. Once the house lands in Paradise Falls the plot, jokes and characters wear thin instantly. And I'm not sure why we're supposed to care about that fat Asian kid/dumbass or find him to be anything but grating.
The movie starts out heartfelt with some emotional depth, something the viewer can connect with but devolves into unfunny jokes and unexciting action sequences, and any time the film refers back to the emotional moments it chokes on all the surrounding stupidity. I wish Pete Docter would have had the balls to make the whole movie with the same tone as first half hour because I think he would have ended up with a pretty good piece of work.
Still, even with its problems its a vast improvement over Ratatouille and WALL-E. Each year I face a choice on whether to give the new Pixar movie a shot (cause after all they gave me Toy Story and A Bug's Life) and I thought I was at the end of my rope this year but Up gave me just enough good stuff to not give up just yet. I guess I'll wait until Toy Story 3 to see if it's time to start ignoring Pixar altogether.

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.

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.

A Prophet

Drew's Thoughts:
Jacques Audiard's latest film follows Malik, a young, possibly innocent, Arab man's stint in a Paris prison. Unlike most prison films that document an inmate's escape, or attempt to anyway, A Prophet witnesses a prisoner becoming ensnared in the environment around him. The thought of escape never crosses his mind, only how best can he succeed inside the prison.
Told with raw, unflinching intensity and realism, with a touch of surrealism as well, A Prophet is a character driven exposé akin to The Wire. Racism, corruption and mafia rivalry all factor in without overpowering character and plot development. I don't want to say much about the film because it's best to just experience how it unfolds for yourself. I will say, however, that the script is quite good and Audiard does a good job directing as well; and that the film's final half hour is a total tour-de-force and satisfying finale that the film slowly and unexpectedly builds to.
In a weak year for supporting actor, the French Rutger Hauer, Niels Arestrup's performance will be worth remembering. He plays Cesar Luciani, a mafia higher up operating from prison. His intense, volatile portrayal pulls no punches and never once courts the audience's sympathy. The lead actor field looks to be much trickier but Tahar Rahim's central performance is also good. Very naturalistic and without a trace of vanity, his assured performance is expressive without being "dramatic".
I see potential in A Prophet to be a film the PFA might be in unanimous favor of; it could be one of the big Dolphin contenders this year.

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.

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.

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.