Brave

Pixar has been one of the most brilliantly run studios in Hollywood for some time.  They churned out movie after movie which grossed them over 100 million dollars, sold more in toys, garnered critical acclaim, and won awards.   Their last endeavor Cars 2 was the only blemish on an otherwise perfect record.  It seemed that everyone who worked there was passionate about their projects and wanted to be there. The only complaint really being that it was considered kind of a boys club, so what do they do, with their 13th movie they put in a strong female protagonist that's central issue deals with the relationship between mother and daughter.  From the outset Brave looked like a home-run but a major plot point in the second half changes this movie's fate and it becomes something different entirely.

Any of the first teasers that came out made it seem like it was going to be an intense mixture of adventure and magic.  But then those behind the scenes decided to not use any of the footage from the trailer in the movie.  Despite that even the first sequence laid the groundwork for an epic adventure tale.  The visuals are absolutely stunning in this movie and the music is enchanting.  It places you in the exact mood you need to be in for a movie that is all about a princess who changes her fate.

Nothing about the plot is all that ingenious when it comes to daughter being forced to marry against her will (On a side-note: I have been seeing a lot of female empowerment movies recently, you go girls).  Merida is an independent girl with the heart of a warrior and does not want to be married off just because of some tradition, while her mother has been training her to be queen her whole life.  Merida would much rather explore the outdoors and practice her archery on horseback all day.  From here the movie still has all the potential in the world to be something great and could very well be.

But then something happens, about halfway through the movie a major plot point occurs and throws any credibility the movie was building towards into the water.  I don't want to give the plot point away, as it is supposed to be a twist I think, but if you would like a hint please click here for everyone else just move on.  All of a sudden the movie moves away from female empowerment into a slapstick session, which was completely unnecessary as there are plenty of laughs everywhere else in the movie.  The toughest part about the plot point is it becomes the main focus of the story, so while I can say I liked everything about this movie except this one detail it becomes a MAJOR detail.  From here on to the end it seems that everything the movie was building to is forgotten in order to wrap the story up.

It almost feels as if Pixar doesn't care anymore.  Whether it is giving Larry The Cable Guy a whole movie, finding out where Sully and Mike matriculated from, or frankly giving the boys club a story about female empowerment. It seems there is less effort being put in at the studio to come up with groundbreaking ideas.  All of Pixar's movies before this have been about guys and boys and growing up and been told from that point of view.  Pixar's movies have been great in the past because they were writing from somewhere they know; you could feel a personal investment in the story.  While Brenda Chapman wrote the story and helped direct, the rest of her main staff are men.  So a story about a mother-daughter relationship being told from the perspective of boys may have been one of the problems with developing the full potential of the story.

The movie does come back around and the climax of the movie features some very touching scenes.  Plus I'd be lying if I said I didn't tear up just a little bit with the Scottish music playing in the background and a little girl coming over to give her Mom a big hug and tell her that she loves her.  There is a beautiful movie in here somewhere evidenced by these last moments, the sweeping Irish landscape, and the beautiful music, but that one moment really turned off any momentum the movie built towards.  Even the plot points that occur following the twist are more believable.  It really is just frustrating they took the movie in that direction.  And after that there was no coming back for Brave.  B-

2011 Oscars: Best Picture

It is time. If there was a year to have 10 best picture nominations it is definitely this year. Unfortunately they started this trend last year when there were not 10 great movies. But all that has changed and now after having seen all of these movies it is time to whittle them down to see what is the best picture of the year.

Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

It is tough for small independent movies to get noticed in a world full of blockbusters, its even harder when the movies debuted early in the year. Which is why the nominations of "Winter's Bone" and "The Kids Are Alright" is so impressive. Both movies were smash hits at Sundance last year and that kind of kudos never usually carry over. For Kids the acclaim has not stopped, winning some major awards from the foreign press. But for small films like this they need to pack a lot of punch for them to overcome huge budgets and a much larger pool of talent to work from. Bone moves far too slow for anyone to not fidget around, and while an honest look at a bigger problem without self examination it probably didn't blow you away. And comedies, well as we all know comedies are very rarely deemed artistic enough to be certified with the highest awards. Kids won't walk away with any major awards because of such fierce competition from more dramatic categories, and until a comedy comes out with a lot more to say, one will probably never win in best picture. There is no need for the Oscars to split the genres like the Golden Globes does as that would water down what it means to be best picture, it’s just something we will have to deal with.

The same genre discrimination happens with animation. Are you telling me that "Lion King" wasn't a better movie than "Quiz Show"? Or that Wall-E didn't have important critiques of society just because it was done by robots. Any movie that can go 45 minutes without dialogue and still tell a beautiful story has done amazing things. But alas only three animated movies have ever been nominated for best picture and if the category hadn't been expanded I doubt "Up" or "Toy Story 3" would be in the running. Last year was a weak year for movies and they were trying to correct an injustice from the previous years. "Toy Story 3" is without questions one of the best movies of the year but with so many other quality live action films I doubt they would have received the recognition they deserve. The movie had everything; there was action, comedy, drama and heart. There were moments in the movie where I was afraid for the well being of the toys I have gotten to know so well. Anyone who tells me there wasn't any water leaking from your face you are either a liar or soulless, both options kind of suck. Pixar has changed the game and now require children's movies to appeal to an older generation as well. It also forced the Academy to increase the number of movies they nominate.

Nolan also had a hand in that when audiences and critics agreed that "The Dark Knight" also got the snub treatment. Nolan has done amazing things with a camera and I would implore everyone to see all of the movies he has done as there is not a dud among them. This meteoric rise to prominence is what has alienated some of the voters. It is without doubt one of the most original movies of the year, but without any nominations in acting or directing it shrinks any legitimate chances of winning, even though I could see this movie getting a fair share of the votes. It should clean up in most of the technical awards but that will be it.

Had the category not been extended I am not sure that "True Grit" or "127 Hours" would be receiving this honor. These two movies, more so than the independents that I mentioned earlier, are probably closer to the edge of the bubble. They were both really good movies, but I don't know if I would classify either of them as great. Danny Boyle and the Coen Brother's both recently won and for better works I doubt that the Academy will look to reward them again so soon.

Now here are 4 of the 5 that would be on the list had the Oscars chosen to keep it short. "Black Swan” is a beautiful art house movie that was transformed into a blockbuster using special effects. Critically, this may be the actual best movie of the year. It could go round for round with any of the four movies that are left, but I am not voting, and neither are the critics. This is an old man's game and it was a weird movie. And if you are not into the psychological frenzy that comes with turning into a big black duck than I doubt this is a movie for you. Plus the weight of it all is entirely on Natalie Portman to assure this movie does well, she has a solid cast around her but the acting block, which is the largest group of voting members in the academy, didn't deem any of their performances worthy enough to also be nominated.

All the acting kudos went to “The Fighter,” and justifiably so. The cast is fantastic and coming from Boston I can say they captured the essence of the town. Not Boston proper per say as that is full of rich people and college kids now, but the suburbs of Boston, which is actually where the movie takes place. While usually not as telling as the Director's Guild, the Screen Actor's Guild's best ensemble award and Best Picture have been in sync about 50% of the time. It also helped to predict major upsets in the past. Many thought that "The Fighter" would win for best ensemble, which is not surprising as three of the supporting players are also nominated for Oscars and two are heavy favorites. I would argue that the cast for "The Fighter" is the best this year, but the voters chose "The King's Speech" perhaps confusing the honor for what they perceive as the best movie of the year. Speech does have a solid cast but it isn't nearly as deep or as powerful as the one from Lowell.

With only two movies left, these remain the popular movies to win the night’s biggest award, the heavy favorite being "The King's Speech." After winning the SAG for best ensemble many thought that David Fincher would win the DGA award but it was not meant to be as the director's involved chose Tom Hooper as their recipient. The Producer's Guild also rewarded Speech which made it a Triple Crown winner. This has happened only six other times and of those six times five of those movies won the best picture award. The only time it didn't happen was when "Apollo 13" lost to "Braveheart." But 'The Social Network" also has some major awards as well winning the Golden Globes and Critics' Awards big prizes. The Facebook Movie had all of the early momentum but that has since vanished to the other side of the pond.

This is a classic match up between the youth and the older vote. And that is how many of the battle lines may be drawn with an assist from the Brits supporting a movie about the crown. Historical dramas with an uplifting message have always done well in this category, but in the past decade there has been more of a sway towards grittier movies with appeal from the critics. The past three winners "Hurt Locker," "Slumdog Millionaire," and "No Country for Old Men" have not been typical Oscar winners. They have even been nominating towards a younger and hipster crowd, with nominations like "Juno" and "District 9." But did it go too young with a movie about college kids being smarter than you alienating voters.

This also sets up a rematch and possible vengeance for producer Scott Rudin. Harvey Weinstein has always been one to go after Oscars and in 1999 he pulled off one of the biggest Oscar upsets when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan." Now there is little doubt over which is the actual better movie (if any of you say Shakespeare send me your address so I can slap the taste right out of your mouth) but campaigning helped and won him the award. Now it is Rudin who is knocking on the door of the man who won all three of the guild’s awards. It would not be anywhere near the same kind of upset but it would still be impressive.

Any fan of this writer knows who my support is behind. "The King's Speech," while a very well done movie, just tried following a winning formula. Academy members love historical dramas and love to humanize monarchs. A successful formula to follow, but it was a wholly unoriginal story and idea. The performance of Colin Firth is sublime as His Royal Highness; he submerged himself in the role and helped to make a historically unimportant role seem regal again. The praise it received from the guilds and an Oscar for best acting should be enough. "The Social Network" is without a doubt the best picture of the year, it is current, it is fresh, and god damn it, its American. It had all of the best parts to it. The writing and directing will no doubt win but Jesse Eisenberg is also nominated and at one point there was talk that all three supporting actors could get nominated, and maybe they all deserved it. Tell me it wasn't impressive that one man played both Winklevoss twins. All of the interactions between each character were amazing. Not only that but Trent Reznor did a fantastic job with the score. It was the best produced movie of the year with all of the parts contributing to a masterpiece. A direct correlation between this movie and "Citizen Kane," arguably the greatest movie of all time, is impressive as well. Even if this movie were to lose in the end it would still go down as the more important film of our time and much more telling of our era.

What do you think? Do I have it wrong? Will you even be watching? I personally can't wait. And to those of you who made it to the end of this extremely long article and my others thank you for reading and I hope you enjoy the show.

Toy Story 3

Pixar doesn't know how to make a bad movie, from the first ten minutes of Up to the academy oversight of Wall-E Pixar keeps getting better with age. This movie picks up where the studio started, in Andy's room. Toy Story 3 has a lot to live up to, not only through an outstanding series but it also lives in the shadows of the most successful movie studio in Hollywood. And once again Pixar knocks it out of the park.

Screenwriting 101 dictates that you have to captivate your audience in the first 10 minutes, and Toy Story does just that with plenty of nods to the original as we get to see the bank heist scene from the perspective of the players involved. Want to know how far technology in the industry has come? Look no further than the opening sequences of the first and third Toy Story.

Once again the cast of characters are being led by Sheriff Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz Lightyear (Allen). Andy's toys have been lost to old age and yard sales, including love interest Bo, but this helps to define the one true love in Woody's life, Andy. Andy however, no longer creates the imaginative worlds for his toys to be featured in. Woody and the gang spend their days in the wagon train toy box as Andy prepares for college. It seems the beloved toys have only the attic or the trash to look forward to.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

Through some shifty negotiations the toys find themselves being donated to the Sunnyside Daycare. The daycare is run by a giant purple bear named Lotso (Ned Beatty), and an always questionable Ken doll, played by Michael Keaton, who no doubt had a lot of fun with the role. The toys soon find that the system is corrupt and the movie shifts to a Hasboro themed jail-break. Full of wonderful nods to the genre and an escape plan that would no doubt impress Andy Dufresne.

SPOILER OVER

The jokes seem kind of sporadic but it doesn't mean they aren't good. Many of them seemed rehashed nods to the two movies prior. The new gags they use are priceless and many in the capable hands of Tim Allen. Another bright spot in the comedy is Mr. Prickelypants who appears to be classically trained in the arts.

It isn't until the third act where the movie sets itself apart. The emotions run the gamut from action packed tension to heartfelt. It seems the only purpose of the 3-D glasses (besides driving up ticket prices) if to hide the tears slowly dripping down your face. Not my face that is, I'm too tough, yours probably, alright I teared up, don't judge me till you see it. The 3-D feature offers truly nothing to the movie, it is unnecessary to use when all the best parts of the movie revolve around the writing.

Lee Unkrich takes the helm on this one after previously editing the other two movies and co-directing the last one. Most of the creative team from the original story are back in this one to create the newest chapter. They blocked out the major action points in the movie while Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) takes to the script and does a masterful job with it. It's another point of praise for the people at Pixar to take such care in its story that they go out and get an academy award winner writer.

The most heartfelt moments happen at the end and that is when the movie is truly able to send its message. Some of the moments may be too much for the real youngsters in the audience, either that or those moments will fly by their heads Either way the movie is not really for them anyway. Pixar knows that for every child that gets a ticket there will be an accompanying adult and they are the ones that will spread word of mouth to friends with children.

Had Pixar decided to make this a new movie with different characters instead of the ones we've grown attached to and seen facing peril before, I believe this movie becomes an instant classic. Instead you are forced to compare this one to the movies prior, and because of the legacy the movie loses out a little. However, the geniuses at Pixar know what it means to craft a movie and that is why Pixar is unequivocally the most important studio in Hollywood. A