So.

4 who I mourned
4. Harry “Opie” Winston (Ryan Hurst, Sons of Anarchy)
Opie was a good guy.  Opie was kind of the (yes, violent, yes, criminal) teddy bear type of the Sons, and watching everything fall away from him systematically had always been hard.  His death was a catalyst for the dark-as-hell path that Jax (Charlie Hunnam) tripped down with even greater manic abandon, so while I mourned him as a character and on behalf of Lyla (Winter Ave Zoli) and his poor kids, I also mourned him as a representation of a bit of Jax’s moral code.

3. Lane Pryce (Jared Harris, Mad Men)
Oh, Lane.  The “in terrible debt oh no” plotline for Lane came on rather suddenly, but then, sometimes these things do.  You would have a hard time spending five episodes hinting at someone’s suicide and having it still feel necessarily shocking.  I also recall idly asking last year for there to be more significant deaths on Mad Men, so I somewhat take the blame for this happening.

2. Owen Sleater (Charlie Cox, Boardwalk Empire)
This one was just upsetting.  It had to happen in a way, because heaven forbid anyone on this show maintain a pleasure-bringing romantic relationship and heaven forbid Margaret (Kelly Macdonald) find happiness.  They couldn’t have run off together, because the show wouldn’t need them if they did that and the show needs Margaret.  But offing Owen how they did, so unceremoniously and suddenly, was heartwrenching.

1. Doreah (Roxanne McKee, Game of Thrones)
…what.  You didn’t see this coming?  I’ve talked at length about this whole messy situation before, so I won’t go into too terribly many of the details, but let me just say: I mourned Doreah as a woman, because she seemed to be good until surprise betrayal time.  I mourned Doreah as a representation of an aspect of Dany’s innocence.  I mourned Doreah because hers and Dany’s was, as I have seen said, really the only female friendship on the show.  I mourned Doreah because of lady-tinted glasses and the potentials that I will miss reading into her facial expressions and the glances she sent her khaleesi’s way.  Of all of these deaths, this one stung the hardest and still stings when I think about it, which is ridiculous, but nonetheless true.

3 ladies I started loving
3. Ygritte (Rose Leslie, Game of Thrones)
I always liked Ygritte, but it probably wasn’t until my second go-round with the season that I started really loving her.  This is, I admit, in part because I think her accent is the absolute most wonderful thing in the world to listen to, but it’s also because I really do enjoy the feisty ones sometimes.  I enjoy her suggestive sense of humor and her unapologetic independence, and I enjoy the awkward looks she puts on Jon Snow’s (Kit Harrington) face.

2. Michonne (Danai Gurira, The Walking Dead)
Michonne is someone that this particular television show really needed.  She is still mysterious to us in many ways, but maybe that’s okay.  I think one of my greatest fears would be that she was just a Badass Sword Woman and nothing more, but even being a mystery, you can see so much in her expressions and reactions.  I don’t trust the judgment of many of the characters on this show, but I’m fairly willing to accept that if Michonne thinks someone is bad news, they likely are.

1. Nora Gainesborough (Lucy Griffiths, True Blood)
SURPRISE.  Except for not.  I think the thousands of words I have written about Nora already should prove that I love her too deeply much.  Furthermore, while I love a lot of characters (as above, both Ygritte and Michonne are ones I love), I count Nora among the few that I am (fictionally) in love with.  Her character arc, her various strengths and weaknesses, her PLAY ALL THE SIDES thing, her Britishness, her face, all of it.  /redundant.  (Also, I think I’ll mention here why Salome [Valentina Cervi] is not on the list of the mourned: while I managed to make myself very sad the other day by idly thinking about Nora/Salome while listening to Missy Higgins while halfway asleep and then imagining a scenario in which Nora mourns, I as an audience member knew that Salome did, for plot reasons, need to die.  Though I honestly didn’t think of Salome as the season’s big bad until I read that very thing somewhere, she was and she needed because of it to be killed.  I am sad when I imagine Nora mourning, but despite the fact that I adored Salome, I don’t mourn her necessarily.)

2 I always love
2. Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke, Game of Thrones)
I’ve also gotten into this before, somewhat here and somewhat on my tumblr.  But I don’t think there’s any secret about how deeply I am attached to Dany, my queen my khaleesi my darling.  I love her, flaws and all.  I really and truly do.

1. Joan Holloway Harris (Christina Hendricks, MadMen)
This season brought some painful moments for my Joanie (I am still processing the incident with the Jaguar man) and maybe that somehow taints her successes.  I don’t really think so, though.  As the series has progressed, we’ve seen Joan take a more and more active role in her own life, and here there was some action in the form of voluntary passivity to achieve means, which was absolutely tragic, because that’s all she’s been taught to do, but at the end of the day, there she is with glasses chains or spray paint, finally official in her just about running that company.  It has not been and will not be a neat and tidy journey, but no journey is.  And she continues to be fascinating and lovely.

2 romantic relationships that served as bright spots in otherwise dark times
2. Pam de Beaufort and Tara Thornton (Kristin Bauer van Straten and Rutina Wesley, True Blood)
True Blood, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned, is one of the few shows that can genuinely surprise me.  Not just in an “I didn’t quite see that coming” sense but in a “wow, I would never in a million years have guessed that anything resembling that would ever happen” sense.  Pam appearing in Sookie’s kitchen and turning a brains-blown-out Tara into a vampire was one of those things, but I’m, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned, gladder than anything that it did happen.  In 5×08, “Somebody That I Used to Know,” Pam gives Tara a woman who’d been at the bar, a former classmate of Tara’s who was offensive and awful to her, to nom on.  This classmate was Tracy (Anastasia Ganias), previously seen in an earlier episode running her clothing shop: Tracy’s Togs.  Now, in the book series one of Tara’s only functions is to own and run a clothing shop, Tara’s Togs; Sookie sometimes visits before she has to go do vampire business.  In a way, by nomming on Tracy, who is somewhat analogous at least in function to book!Tara, show!Tara is allowed to essentially kill her past, to completely negate anything that came before; that’s the gift Pam has given her.  And their attraction is not instant, nor is it the cause of turning, but instead it grows with time, into, yep, the most beautiful phrase in the world: interracial lesbian vampire couple.

1. Glenn Rhee and Maggie Greene (Steven Yeun and Lauren Cohan, The Walking Dead)
I mentioned this after the season 2 finale, I did, but it needs to be resaid.  One of the only things that I was actually tense about during the fall finale was “are Glenn and Maggie going to be okay?”  As individuals, because Glenn is actually my favorite of all of the characters probably and Maggie is definitely a favorite too, and as a pair, because their adorable little interracial apocalypse love is the sweetest thing.  I’m still kind of mad that the Governor (David Morrissey), who in our circles is called either Governor Douchebag or Governor Bill (re: his emotional and sometimes physical similarities to True Blood’s thus-named douchebag), had to threaten to rape Maggie, both because nobody messes with my Maggie and because did we really need that?, but I’m glad that the confession that threat prompted did not turn into a mess of perceived betrayal and badness.  I’m glad that they’re at least somewhat okay for now and could possibly live to be adorable for another day.

–your fangirl heroine.

“GOSFORD PARK” (2001) Review

In 1999, actor Bob Balaban had approached director Robert Altman with the idea of developing a film together. Altman suggested a whodunit set at an English country estate. The two approached actor/writer Julian Fellowes if he could take their concept and write a screenplay. Their collective efforts resulted in the 2001 comedy-drama, “GOSFORD PARK”.

In the movie, a group of wealthy Britons, a British actor/entertainer, an American movie producer and their servants gather at Gosford Park, the country estate of a wealthy industrialist named Sir William McCordle, for a shooting party over the weekend. Sir William is not a popular man. His wife and most of his in-laws despise him. And most of his servants (aside from one or two) dislike him. When Sir William is found murdered inside his study during the second night of the weekend, there seemed to be a list of suspects who have a very good reason to kill him:

*Lady Sylvia McCordle – Sir William’s bitchy wife, who despises him and had married Sir William for his money

*Constance, Countess of Trentham – Sir William’s aunt-in-law, who is dependent upon a regular allowance from him

The weekend party include other guests and servants, such as:

*Mary Maceachran – Lady Trentham’s lady maid

*Probert – Sir William’s personal valet and one of the few who actually grieved him.

Needless to say, the list of characters is a long one. Following Sir William’s murder, the local police in the form of one Inspector Thompson and Constable Dexter arrive to solve the murder. Being incompetent and a complete snob, Inspector Thompson seemed to regard the higher class guests as worthy suspects for the murder of Sir William. Constable Dexter, on the other hand, seemed more interested in Jennings’ World War I past and the clues at hand. In fact, Dexter managed to ascertain that Sir William had been poisoned by one person, before another drove an ax into his back. But it was lady’s maid Mary Maceachran who managed to figure out the culprits in the end.

I cannot deny that after ten years or so, “GOSFORD PARK” remains a big favorite of mine. When the movie first reached the movie screens in December 2001, many admitted to enjoying the film, but predicted that it would age with time. There are perhaps some critics who believe this has actually happened. But I do not agree. Considering the increasingly bleak social landscape of today, I believe that the theme behind “GOSFORD PARK” has remained relevant as ever. Despite my love for the film, would I consider it perfect? Honestly? No. Other critics may be able to find more than two flaws in the film. On the other hand, I was able to find two that bothered me.

The pacing for most of “GOSFORD PARK” seemed to be on spot . . . at least for me. It possessed a great set-up for introducing the characters, the setting’s atmosphere and the revelation of the suspects’ motives for wanting Sir William dead. However, the murder did not occur until two-thirds into the movie. Once Inspector Thompson appeared on the scene, the movie’s pacing began to drag. And it did not pick up again until the movie’s last twenty minutes. For me, the pacing during the last third of the film struck me as merely a minor flaw. There was another that proved to be a bigger one for me – namely the Henry Denton character.

I have nothing against Ryan Phillipe’s performance as Denton. Trust me, I thought he did a superb job. But Julian Fellowes’ portrayal of the character left me shaking my head in confusion. According to the script, Denton was an American actor for Fox Studios who accompanied Morris Weissman as his Scottish valet in order to study British servants for a role in a“CHARLIE CHAN” movie. This little deception strikes me as something actors did for a role during the past thirty or forty years . . . certainly not in 1932. The deception ended when Henry admitted his true identity to the police. But the one thing that really disturbed me about the character was his attempted rape of Mary Maceachran during the first night of the weekend. Why did Fellowes include that scenario in the first place? Henry had already made a date for some nocturnal activity with Lady Sylvia McCordle, several minutes earlier. If he had already scheduled a night for sex with the mistress of the house, why have him assault Mary a few mintues later? I suspect that Fellowes wanted to establish a character that most of the characters – aristocratic and lower-class – would dislike. Both aristocrats and servants alike reacted with glee when one of the servants, portrayed by Richard Grant, dumped a cup of hot tea (or coffee) on Henry’s lap. With Henry being an American, I can only assume he made an easier target for the derision of everyone. I can only wonder why Altman and Balaban did not question this heavy-handed characterization of Henry. Regardless of Fellowes’ reason for vilifying Henry, I found the rape attempt as an example of clumsy and unnecessary writing on his part.

Thankfully, most of “GOSFORD PARK” proved to be quite a cherished gem. Not even the flaws I had pointed out in the above paragraphs can overcome my appreciation of this movie. Altman, Balaban and Fellowes took a classic literary device - “country house mystery” - and used it to explore the British class system of the early 1930s. “GOSFORD PARK”revealed the changes that affected Britain’s social landscape by 1932. Aside from Lord Stockbridge, most of the aristocratic characters seemed to be struggling to make ends meet financially in order to maintain a lifestyle they had been born into. Those from a middle-class or working-class background like Sir William McCordle, his “cousin” Ivor Novello, Morris Weissman and Mabel Nesbitt have become successful, wealthy or in the case of Mabel, the offspring of a self-made man. Their success and wealth has allowed them to socialize amongt the aristocracy and upper-class. But their origins continue to attract scorn from the likes of Lady Sylvia, her sister Lady Lavinia and their aunt, the Countess of Trentham. The servants featured in “GOSFORD PARK” seemed to be divided into three categories – those who are blindly loyal to their employers; those like Elsie, Robert Parks and Mrs. Croft, who despise their employers; and those like Mary, Jennings and Mrs. Wilson who do not love or hate their employers, but simply take pride in their professionalism.

What I found interesting about “GOSFORD PARK” is that both servants and guests possessed both positive and negative traits. The exceptions to the rule proved to be Mary, who struck me as a bit too ideal for my tastes; and of course, Henry Denton, whose portrayal I had already complained about. Most people would add that Sir William had also been portrayed as a one-dimensional villain. But the humiliations he endured under the snobbish Lady Sylvia and Elsie’s warm recollections of him saved the character from such a fate.

Another aspect about “GOSFORD PARK” that I truly enjoyed was its overall production design. Stephen Altman did a superb job of re-creating the atmosphere of a country manor home in the early 1930s. He was ably supported by Anna Pinnock’s set decorations, along with John Frankis and Sarah Hauldren’s art direction. For me, it was Jenny Bevan’s costumes and the women’s hairstyles that made me realize that the production team really knew what they were doing. I have rarely come across a movie or television production set in the 1930s that was completely accurate – especially in regard to costumes and hairstyles.

There were plenty of first-rate performances in “GOSFORD PARK”. But there were a handful that stood out for me. Both Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith earned Academy Award nominations for their portrayals of Mrs. Wilson and the Countess of Trentham, respectively. Mirren was superb as the no-nonsense housekeeper, whose stoic personality hid a passionate nature that would eventually be revealed upon a discovery she made. In my review of Season One of “DOWNTON ABBEY”, I had complained that Maggie Smith’s portrayal of the Dowager Countess of Grantham bore a strong resemblance to her Lady Trentham in “GOSFORD PARK”. I stand by that observation. But there is something about Smith’s portrayal of Lady Trentham that struck me as a lot more subtle and a little more poisonous in her class bigotry. Clive Owen gave a charismatic performance as the mysterious valet, Robert Parks, whose past attracts the attention of both Mary Maceachran and Mrs. Wilson.

Michael Gambon gave one of his more interesting performances as the mystery’s main victim, Sir William McCordle. Superficially, he was as crude and cold-blooded as many regarded the character. Yet, Gambon injected a certain charm into his performance that made it easier for me to see why Sir William had a way with the ladies. Bob Balaban provided some fine comic moments as the droll Hollywood producer that harbored a slight contempt toward his aristocratic hosts behind a polite veneer. I have already pointed out Ryan Phillipe’s portrayal of Henry Denton. I must admit that he did a first-rate job in conveying the portrait of a smooth hustler. Many have commented on Maggie Smith’s wit in the movie. However, I thought that Emily Watson’s portrayal of head housemaid Elsie was equally sharp and sardonic. Alan Bates gave one of his last best performances as the stuffy, yet likable major domo of the McCordle household, who harbored a secret about his past as a conscientious objector during World War I. At the same time, Watson was wonderfully poignant as one of the few people who not only mourned Sir William, but appreciated his friendship and words of wisdom to her. I found it surprising that the movie’s moral center proved to the be the sweet and eventually wise Mary Maceachran, Lady Trentham’s new personal maid. Kelly MacDonald was in her mid-20s when she did this movie and her character was not particularly flashy in compare to many of the other roles. Yet, not only did she held her own against the likes of Maggie Smith and Emily Watson, she did a great job in becoming the movie’s emotional anchor . . . even if her character was a bit too ideal for my tastes.

“GOSFORD PARK” earned a good deal of accolades after its release. It was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won a Best Original Screenplay for Julian Fellowes. It also earned five Golden Globe awards and Robert Altman won for Best Director. Would I have voted “GOSFORD PARK” as the Best Picture of 2001? Not really. I was more impressed by Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the first “LORD OF THE RINGS” movie. But thanks to a superb cast, Julian Fellowes’ screenplay and Robert Altman’s direction, it not proved to be one of the cinematic gems of 2001, but also of the entire decade.

It’s got the plucky, fire-haired young girl—Merida, as voiced by the adorable and marvelous Kelly Macdonald—and the stunning animated representation of the Scottish Highlands. I mean it’s gorgeous. There is a King(boisterous Billy Connolly)and Queen(awesome Emma Thompson)as Merida’s parents. And you even get a creepy witch(Julie Walters)to keep things hopping. It’s light and fun and I bet it looked fantastic in 3D. Still, I pined for more. Even my 7 and 5-year-old were fidgeting after a half hour. Let’s be honest…Pixar is in a bit of a slide. I mean “Ratatouille” and “WALL-E” were masterpieces. Both won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature in 2007 & 2008, respectively. Those two were followed by “Up” in 2009 and “Toy Story 3″ in 2010, same wild critical praise, same Oscar results(btw, I LOVE “TS3″, but not as enamored with “Up”—if you are keeping score at home!). But 2011 brought us the execrable “Cars 2″. It’s the worst film of the Pixar franchise(the first “Cars” from 2006, while pleasant, isn’t exactly the high point of the canon either). So, if “Brave” was expected to be the bounce back—sorry. It’s kinda fun, and it’s a step up from “C2″, but it’s so far below the aforementioned quartet, that it’s a dishonor to even tally them in close proximity. “Brave” simply doesn’t measure up.

You’ve heard this tale before. The princess who’s simply not satisfied living the cloistered life of female royalty. She’s an archery expert after all(cue the ripping off “Robin Hood” split-arrow scene), and her free-spirited ways simply don’t jibe with the plans of the King(Mr. Connolly)and Queen(Ms. Thompson)…aka Dad & Mom. And when her loving parents decide to push forth with forcing her into an arranged marriage, Merida decides that enough is enough. She discovers a witch in a cabin in the woods, and coerces her into creating a spell to “change” her mother—with the hope that Mom will no longer support giving her daughter’s hand away to someone she doesn’t love. Well, “the best laid plans of mice and men”…and princesses apparently. Merida feeds her Mom some witch-enhanced magic cake, and it “changes” her alright. Into a bear. Then her three little brothers eat some, and they become bears too. Merida, unable to locate the spell-casting witch, does find a message left by the old crone in the now abandoned woods cabin. Merida, while staving off her bear-hunting Pop, discovers that she has less than 48 hours to change everybody back to their human form—or the spell becomes permanent. This involves some nonsense with a torn tapestry, followed by a variety of chases and close calls, culminating in an attack from an evil, “monster” bear that took the leg of Merida’s father(he walks on a wooden one now)many years before. Whatever will our spirited heroine do?

I was perfectly fine with most of “Brave”. It has a lot of energy, and the voice acting is inspired. Sure, there are some easy cultural stereotypes brandished about(I guess it’s okay, because they are Scottish), and it’s pretty darn predictable(more so than usual, even). So, why complain when it looks good and goes down easy? Some will blame first-time feature director, Mark Andrews(the replacement for first-time Pixar female director, Brenda Chapman). Then, others will opine that yours truly is nitpicking and difficult to please(not completely unreasonable). But I didn’t set the bar—Pixar did. And when you hold “Brave” up against some of the renowned Pixar classics, you recognize that there’s really not much more you can label it than a decided step down.           Grade:  B-

Director: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell (co-director)
Writers: Mark Andrews (screenplay), Steve Purcell (screenplay), Irene Mecchi (screenplay), Brenda Chapman (story)
Stars: Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly and Emma Thompson
Release Date: June 2012
Run Time: 100… Watch movie online here: Brave

“Anna Karenina”, based off the Leo Tolstoy novel of the same name, stars Keira Knightley as Anna Karenina, Jude Law as Alesei Karnin, Kelly McDonald as Dolly, who has an Irish accent mind you, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronksy, Domnhall Gleeson as Levin and Alicia Viklander as Kitty  and is directed by Joe Wright. This movie tells the story of Anna who gave up the love and support of her husband Alexi Karinina to be with  Vronsky no matter the cost. Taking place in late 19th century Moscow and St. Petersburg  this tale follows the blossoming of her love and her increase in erratic behavior, also depicting the blooming relationship between Levin and Kitty and the realization that childhood love isn’t true byDolly. Anna Karinina displays the results of the choices people make and what true love means from one person to the next. This movie was also an awful story,confusingly portrayed, and left me feeling uncomfortable and deflated. I recommend that you don’t see this movie. The sets, the actors, and the cinematography was what interested me in this movie, however I was sorely mistaken. This movie was not worth it and should not be seen. Now onto the details, SPOILER ALERT!

Aspect of this movie that I did not enjoy:

Throughout this movie, the audience witnesses the characters going through life as if it is a play, literally. They walk on catwalks, they hold meetings underneath the stage, and finally the most important scenes occur front and stage center. This aspect of the film, although intriguing, never is really explained and comes and goes sporadically. In one scene Jude Law is sitting with his children in a beautiful field, where this is no play backdrop, while directly following a scene in which Knightley is walking along the catwalks once again. It is unusual and very confusing.

This is a Russian story, set in Russia, based on a Russian book and not a single actor/actress within this movie had a Russian accent. They also had Americanized names too, like Kitty and Dolly, which, given that it’s based on a Tolstoy novel, I doubt they had  in the book. Why oh why did Wright not ask the actors to at least have Russian accents? They are actors, right? They could probably pull that off.

In the beginning when Anna first meets Vronsky, they share the briefest of moments, then they dance, and then Vronsky follows her everywhere smoking his cigarettes leeringly and watching her. Does this sound creepy to you, because it should, because it was. I don’t know who told Taylor-Johnson to act like a creep, but he certainly did. It didn’t feel like romance to me, despite him exclaiming to Anna that it was, it just felt like he was stalking his prey, trying to get with an older married woman just to have her.

Roman and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, those are great love stories. Despite all odds, these lovers fight for their love and the audience fights with them. The audience wants them to be together. I felt nothing like that for Anna and Vronsky. He creeped me out and her devil may cry attitude did not make me feel for their love. Levin and Kitty were cute, but the title of the movie is “Anna Karenina” not Levin and Kitty. I don’t know why Wright thought this was going to be a good love story, nor why it was advertised as such, because it wasn’t. I didn’t want them together and when they were together, I lost interest.

This movie wasn’t what I expected it to be. Thus, it was hugely disappointing.

But this also means, and this would be the case with other as well as most big-screen adaptations I assume, are as focused, inadvertently making the material they have to be a character study/actress vehicle. Again, the movie is the opposite of the book. In the novel, we read about the work of Dolly (Kelly MacDonald) her husband Stiva (Matthew McFayden), his brother-in-law Levin (Domhall Gleeson) and his wife Kitty (Alicia Vikander), Anna becoming this ghostly figure of gossip. In the film, these supporting characters are yes, sadly, gender stereotypes, but while they are forced to retreat the ghost comes full centre, as well as the underrated actress who plays her.

Read my fresher thoughts on Anna Karenina here on Entertainment Maven.

Following on from massive finale of season two this time we properly hit the ground running. The introduction of new villain Gyp Rossetti, played by Bobby Cannavale, gives even the first few episodes flourishes of brutal violence something that in the two previous seasons took a lot longer in between outbursts. I found a shame that Rossetti turned out to be only a season-long obstacle in Nucky’s path as it did feel as though he could have really fucked some shit up, despite this his final scene is one of the shows best moments yet.

With Rossetti leading the way all the consistent characters head even further in psychopathic madness. Nucky, yet again portrayed marvellously by Steve Buscemi, continues on his journey of becoming more and more ruthless and cold. Nelson Van Alden (Michael Shannon) also reaches new levels of insanity, which is hard to believe considering how much of nut job he already was. And Gillian Darmody (Gretchen Mol) commits some horrific acts while facing the grief of her son’s death. It really speaks to the shows quality that these characters can all spiral out of control but everything in the story remains so tight, it was obviously planned from the beginning that this is the kind of direction they would all go in, you’d be hard done by to find a single character that hasn’t got at least one screw loose.

The ending of season three couldn’t have been different from that of it’s predecessor, though. Rather than leaving us on a massive cliffhanger things here seemed rather well tied-up, they clearly must have some ideas of how things are going to get out of hand again in season four. But overall, season three ups the ante to a whole new level bringing a lot more craziness than the two before it, if the show keeps going in this direction by the time it reaches its end things are literally going to get insane.

James Arber is a famous writer who placed the setting of his best-selling novel on Hegg Island, Scotland. His super famous celebrity girlfriend, Lara Tyler, wants to get married in the exact spot in the book — because, you know, he told everyone he went there and that it was an actual place. Unfortunately, Lara and James just can’t get hitched without the darn paparazzi swarming the event and ruining everything, so they decide to hire a decoy bride. James gets “married” to her in the open, and then Lara and he have a nice private wedding without scrutiny.

It would’ve worked if Arber hadn’t fallen in love with the wrong bride.

What I liked:

• David Tennant. Enough said.
• Kelly Macdonald, who plays the decoy bride. I like her in Boardwalk Empire, so it was nice to see her here.
• This was a nice, lighthearted and straightforward romance. There are no surprises, but there don’t have to be because you get exactly what you go into the movie expecting to get. Nothing wrong with that sometimes, and there were some funny moments that involved the ghost of a cow haunting an abandoned public restroom.
• There’s a heartwarming awwww-inducing ending.

What I didn’t like:

• Alice Eve, the chick who played the super famous would-be bride. She wasn’t bad, she just wasn’t good, either, and her scenes dragged.
• Some of the predictability  I know I just said there was nothing wrong with it, but there were some places where something could’ve been spiced up a bit to give some spontaneity to the movie.

I’d give it a solid 4/5 stars on the romance movie scale. Since it’s on Netflix, there’s no harm in trying it out, right?

Anna Karenina:

With Joe Wright, you know going in what you’re going to get. You will get luscious visuals. You will get at least one impressive lengthy tracking shot. You will get a quality costume melodrama performance from Keira Knightley, as she provided in Wright’s previous films, Pride & Prejudice and Atonement. In Wright’s newest venture into the past, Anna Karenina, he uses a bold theatrical device putting the majority of the film in an old theater, putting these people on a stage much like the royalty in imperialist Russia would be constantly needing to perform for an audience. This tactic, aided by a smart script from Tom Stoppard, gives Anna Karenina far more forward momentum and energy than the usual period piece might provide. While the film stumbles with some usual adaptation problems and a dud of a performance from Anna’s love interest, the strong performances, witty dialogue, and visual splendor more than make up for the film’s shortcomings.

Much of the early portion of the film is set on or around a stage, as Anna (Knightley) visits her brother (Matthew MacFadyen) in hopes of keeping his wife (Kelly MacDonald) from leaving him. Meanwhile, an old friend of her brother, Konstantin (Domhnall Gleeson), has come to visit in hopes of marrying his wife’s little sister Kitty (Alicia Vikander). Sadly for Konstantin, Kitty is enamored with a young cavalryman, Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Sadly for Kitty, Vronsky only has eyes for Anna. Sadly for Anna, she herself alls for Vronsky, despite being married to a well-respected statesman (Jude Law). Sound complicated? It’s not, really—considering how heavy this material could get, the first half in particular is quite breezy and stylish. Johnson’s Vronsky, however, doesn’t possess the natural smolder necessary to truly connect with their love affair—the love story between Konstantin and Kitty is far more moving. It doesn’t help that the second half of the film is forced to fast forward through a gradual falling out between Vronsky and Anna; instead of looking like the fleeting nature of love had any impact, it becomes a typically melodramatic “how dare society frown upon us!” tale, not nearly as complex as the ending should get. Knightley and Law are both sensational, so it’s never disengaging, and the literal “staging” allows for some fantastic theatrical moments that should delight even those who turn their nose up at costume melodrama. Still, it’s a shame about Vronsky: the film is one perfomance shy of being truly terrific.

Rust and Bone:

It feels dismissive to call Jacques Audiard’s new film Rust & Bone paint-by-numbers. The lead performances by Matthias Schoenaerts and Marion Cotillard are rich and engaging, the cinematography rivals any film this year, and a few scenes within the two hour run time truly pack a punch. However, one can’t shake the feeling that Audiard has taken the “damaged people” storyline and given it the Mad Libs treatment. Outside of a killer whale attack, there’s nothing here that indicates the film will veer into unfamiliar territory. Perhaps this is just some lingering disappointment, as Audiard’s previous outing, Un Prophet, took the usual “menial thug to mafia don” storyline and made it feel fresh and alive. There’s no denying the film is exquisitely crafted… it’s just hard to fully emotionally engage when you’re admiring the craft from afar rather than being hopelessly absorbed into these characters’ lives. It’s well worth watching, but it falls slightly short of its potential.

Ali (Schoenaerts) is an ex-fighter working the odd security gig here and there in hopes of being able to support his five-year-old son. He’s not a particularly good father, yet you sense he means well enough underneath his luggish exterior. Stephanie performs with the killer whales at Marineland, when one day an accident during a performance costs her her legs. She met Ali out clubbing one night, when he served as her designated driver. They reconnect after her accident and begin to help one another. It’s not enormously difficult to predict that the film will draw clear parallels between her physical damage and his emotional damage, but Schoen and Cotillard share terrific chemistry. I’m not sure what method Audiard used to make Cotillard look like she has no legs, but it’s one of the more impressive effects I’ve seen all year. As an audience member, your eye at first is constantly drawn to try to find the seams that simply aren’t there, so eventually you merely accept the illusion: no small feat. The visuals alone are worth your admission price, as each angle and flare of light creates an air of delicate romance. If only the storyline or the characters presented us with something that felt new; every time the film looked like it was parting ways with the usual path, it would slide back into the formula. It’s still a formula that is proven and enjoyable, yet this tale of redemption via romance is likely to fade from memory long before the best examples of the genre do. Check it out for the execution, but afterwards, check out Un Prophet to see what this film could’ve been.

The Comedy:

Tim Heidecker is a comedian who revels in “anti-comedy,” turning the usual expectation the comedy genre provides on its head and allowing an audience to wallow in awkwardness. This works to great effect on his TV show, “Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job!”, and did not work for me in ninety-minute form in this year’s “Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie.” However, with The Comedy, Heidecker plays a man whose life is so sheltered by ironic detachment due to boredom that his attempts at humor make him a reviled figure. He jokes about Hitler and slaves, he makes black jokes to a room of black people, and he harasses the nurse caring for his dying father. This isn’t playing for laughs from an audience this time. Here, there’s commentary being made on humanity’s recent trend towards irony and removal—even shock humor is boring to most nowadays. While the message is certainly a bold one to tackle, The Comedy’s execution stumbles. By examining this loathsome man as a pure character study without any surrounding narrative, it forces us to spend ninety minutes hating the main character with only one message to deliver to its audience. It’s like the dramatic version of the Saw franchise: those were torture porn, The Comedy is metaphorical torture porn.

One can’t fault the actors and director for commitment: Heidecker, per usual, goes all out to act as disgusting and socially retarded as possible. Several of the scenes between Heidecker’s character and other similarly irony-cloaked figures involve merely a game of oneupsmanship: who can be the grossest party in the conversation? (The best of these features Neil Hamburger, out of his usual stand-up comedy persona.) I admired the bravery of a few scenes near the end, which added much-needed complexity. The first features Eric Wareheim sharing melancholy family photos, interspliced with pornographic images of naked women. No one laughs or responds at all to their inclusion. The other involves Heidecker watching blithely as his date one evening has a violent seizure. He watches, never removing his gaze, taking a sip from his drink and chewing his ice cubes. These scenes suggest more than boredom causes this detachment, and this need to “feel” something goes beyond our normal desires for love and sex. The prospect of watching someone possibly die in front of him seems to connect with Heidecker’s character more than any of the horrendous jokes he tosses out to family and friends. While this idea presented towards the end intrigued me, it sadly comes in the last thirty minutes, after I sat for an hour watching an awful human being behave awfully while the filmmakers acknowledge how awful and sad his behavior is. Perhaps some sort of narrative could have helped introduce further dimension into the proceedings earlier, or maybe the film doesn’t want dimension—it just wants you to bathe in how shitty people can be and how we all in this age of increasing disconnect may become. If the titular comedy is life, I wonder if Heidecker is laughing that he made me use ninety minutes of me to immerse in this unpleasantness.

My Next Big Thing is the release of my debut novel, The Marriage Alliance.

What is your working title of your book?

• The Marriage Alliance.

Where did the idea come from for the book?

• I wanted to have Highland romance with a Scottish heroine. Most I had read where English. But I wanted to know about what my heroine, Lady Ailsa Cameron’s life would be like.

What genre does your book fall under?

• Historical Romance set in the Highlands of Scotland in 1256.

Which actors would you choose to play your characters in a movie rendition?

• For Lady Ailsa Cameron, I would have to go with Kelly MacDonald. Physically, she’s different but she fits the characteristics of my Lady Ailsa.
  

  Getty Images

What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?

• Two enemies wed as love blooms a betrayal risk their chance for happily ever after.

Who is your publisher?

• Secret Cravings Publisher

How long did it take you to write the first draft of your manuscript?

• It took about two months. I had plotted out the story, scene for scene, and that took about two weeks. When it came to plopping myself before my computer the story just flowed.

What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?

• The Bride and The Secret by Julie Garwood.

Who or what inspired you to write this book?

• I wanted to write a fun, light toned book.

What else about your book might pique the reader’s interest?

• There is a man for every woman to fall in love with and each one needs the right woman to heal him.

Tolstoy’s story has been adapted for the screen in more than two dozen versions, including two from screen legend Greta Garbo (1927, 1935). Who better to take on the role of Anna than Keira Knightley, the ultimate period actress of our generation. It’s her third film with Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride and Prejudice) and by far, the least traditional in presentation. This version focuses on the affair between Anna and Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson from Kick-Ass), and her resolve in tossing aside her standing in Russian high-society … and even giving up her son.

We do gets bits and pieces of the other story lines: Oblonsky (Matthew Macfadyen) provides some comic relief from the start despite his extra-marital wanderings from his wife (Kelly Macdonald); the stoic determination of the bureaucrat Karenin (Jude Law) as he insists on maintaining the proper illusion; and the down-to-earth landowner Levin (Domhnall Gleeson, Brendan’s son) with his pursuit of perfect farming and the beautiful Kitty (Alicia Vikander). Some viewer disappointment creeps in when we realize that Levin’s story is minimized here for the torrid love affair of Anna and Vronsky. Levin’s story is allowed to sneak outside the theatre setting … presumably since he is the only character living in the real world.

Tolstoy’s powerful story is stymied to some degree by the lack of sympathy we feel for Anna … while we certainly understand her lack of connection to the cold Karenin, we never sense more than a physical attraction and unreasonable wish between she and Vronsky. The strength of the story stems from Anna’s knowing willingness to surrender her place in society for the sake of what should interprets as true love. When one of the society ladies states she could forgive Anna for breaking the law, but not for breaking the rules, we fully comprehend what a ridiculous state those in high society exist.

It’s difficult to imagine a wide acceptance of this unique presentation; however, the technical aspects of the film deserve much Oscar consideration – cinematography, set design, costumes, etc are all first rate. And Keira Knightley proves again that costume dramas are where she is at her best.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you thought all possible presentations of literary classics had been explored OR you need further proof that no actress today seems more natural in the unnatural costume dramas than Keira Knightley

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: film interpretations of the elite literary classics leave you with an empty feeling

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPGLRO3fZnQ

Tom Stoppard and Joe Wright’s film adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is what I would call different.  It’s different enough to provide a fresh, exhilarating film experience, but it only works one-hundred percent if you’re not much of a reader.

The story, set in 19th century tsarist Russia, follows Anna (Keira Knightley in yet another period piece) as she explores the question of her own happiness, a question whose answer seems to ever evade her grasp.  Her husband, Alexei Karenin (Jude Law), is practical, steadfastly religious, soft-spoken, and highly respected in society.  They have a son together and seem to get on just fine, until Anna lays eyes on Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and begins an affair with him during a trip to Moscow.  Karenin is relatively unmoved, as such concepts as “love” and “happiness” don’t hold much stock in his world, but he soon discovers that Anna is pregnant with Vronsky’s child, which is not only (according to Karenin) a “crime against God,” but also a threat to the family’s social and political standing.  The irony here is that the story begins with her coming to terms with her brother’s (Matthew Macfayden) womanizing, which threatens to break up the family.  Her own adultery is met with far less tolerance, and even when Vronsky brings her to St. Petersburg, the couple are unable to make friends, and as Vronsky develops his own social life, Anna becomes paranoid and possessive.

The parallel story involves Konstantin Levin (Domhnall Gleeson), a country landowner who loves Kitty (Alicia Vikander), sister to Anna’s sister-in-law, Dolly (Kelly Macdonald).  In the original story, his part is much larger, and his marriage to Kitty is anything but easy, whereas the film focuses more on Levin’s difficulty in courting Kitty – sure, this is important, but a novel of this size can’t be compressed, with all of its ins, outs, what-have-yous, character developments, emotions, and structures, into two hours. Additionally, some of the most important parts of the book involve epiphanies on the part of several characters, most of all Levin, who eventually decides, after doubting Kitty’s love for him and fearing a difficult relationship with his son, that he must live righteously in order to justify living at all.  Vronsky, amazed and embarrassed at Karenin’s strength of mind and heart when the latter forgives him for stealing his wife, unsuccessfully attempts suicide.  These pivotal scenes are omitted from the film.

In fact, the film does a bang-up job of sweeping any and all deep characterization under the proverbial rug.  Anna is depressive and indecisive, Karenin is righteous, Levin tries hard, Vronksy is foppish and irritable, Oblonksy is a funnyman, Dolly is understanding.  We never get much deeper than these traits, and the narrative focuses more on Anna’s manic dithering than any real growth on the part of the cast.

Where the film succeeds is its visual style: much of the story, particularly in the beginning, takes place on an enormous stage.  Single shots encompass multiple scenes, with the actors walking behind curtains and changing costumes in seconds.  Sometimes, they’re dressed by stage-hands right in front of us.  Many of the film’s discoveries take place in the theatre’s rafters, where the characters creep, ponder, and of course, in the end, leap.  This style is at the expense of never being unaware that you’re watching a scripted production, but for this piece, it inexplicably works.  The performances are mostly golden, with Jude Law radiating a reserved intelligence, Gleeson possibly finding a breakthrough as a hero, Macfayden managing to provide comedy within a tragedy, and Kelly Macdonald looking as though she’s about to cry in nearly every scene.  The only one I’m on the fence about is Keira Knightley.  Can she act?  Of course.  Was she cast in this film because she’s the best possible candidate to play Anna, or because her popularity following the Pirates of the Caribbean movies was the only ticket to getting a nationwide release?  I don’t know.  I would have been way more “with” Anna in the film version if Kelly Macdonald had taken up that role instead of Dolly, who is relegated mostly to the background.

I’m more concerned with the decision to leave out character details and depth, rendering many of the characters straw figures in fabulous clothing.  I cannot help but think this was a studio thing, or a knowing flourish on the part of the director – as classic and canonized as Tolstoy’s work may be (hell, I just had a student present on the author and this novel last week), as much as everyone should be looking at this material as an example of good art, there’s a dwindling interest (and we’re talking about the general public here, not writers and readers and thinkers) in anything that doesn’t involve fast cars, laconic dialogue, mushroom clouds, and traded gunfire.  Why does the work of Tolkien, work that’s been adapted to death, get a three-movie deal for a 317-page novel?  Anna Karenina, 864 pages, gets crammed into 2 hours of reel, and someone’s going to complain that it feels incomplete?  I’m sure Stoppard, who wrote and adapted his own play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, to film, had every intention of doing a faithful adaptation here.  But when it came down to it, there had to be a sacrifice.  Throwing character development in front of the train is an insane decision, but as we all know, there ain’t no sanity clause.

Anna Karenina (2012); written by Tom Stoppard; adapted from the novel by Leo Tolstoy; directed by Joe Wright; starring Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Kelly Macdonald, Domhnall Gleeson, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson.  

Watched

Rating: 3.5 stars

What I liked best: The jewelry, the costumes, the scenery and overall stylishness.

What I liked least:  I didn’t care much about the characters.

Favourite character: Matthew Macfayden as Oblonsky, although Alicia Vikander as Kitty started to grow on me a bit as well.

Favourite scene:  The dancing scene between Anna and Vronsky

Random thoughts:  This was a sumptuous, beautiful movie.  It is filmed as though on stage, which took a little getting used to, but became quite different and elegant once you did.  Everything there was to see, was just splendid.  And I swear I’m not a rock hound, but Keira Knightley’s jewelry blew me away in every scene: masses of diamonds and pearls, but in these gorgeous asymmetrical settings.  Is that what Russian jewels look like?  The dresses were also fabulous, and the sets, and the music, and the filming, and the people: all so beautiful.

But.

These were not sympathetic characters.  I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know whether you’re supposed to really be rooting for Anna, but I know I really wasn’t.  And it wasn’t just the cheating thing.  She just wasn’t likable.  But then, the lover wasn’t either, or the husband.  I didn’t really care about any of them, to be honest.  I did connect a bit more with the sub-story between Kitty and Levin though.

Overall, I would say this movie was one of the more beautiful spectacles I have seen, but my not loving the characters or their story hurt it for me.

Title: Tangled

Year: 2010

Country: USA

Language: English

Genre: Animation, Family

Directors:

Nathan Greno

Byron Howard

Writers:

Dan Fogelman

Jacob Grimm

Wilhelm Grimm

Cast:

Mandy Moore

Zachary Levi

Donna Murphy

Ron Perlman

M.C. Gainey

Jeffrey Tambor

Brad Garraett

Rating: 6/10

Title: Brave

Year: 2012

Country: USA

Language: English

Genre: Animation, Adventure

Directors:

Mark Andrews

Brenda Chapman

Writers:

Brenda Chapman

Mark Andrews

Steve Purcell

Irene Mecchi

Cast:

Kelly Macdonald

Billy Connolly

Emma Thompson

Julie Walters

Robbie Coltrane

Kevin McKidd

Craig Ferguson

Rating: 8/10

Inadvertently I have watched this two Disney animations hand-in-hand (TANGLED is from the orthodox Disney branch while BRAVE is its flagship Pixar production), which seems to be a perfect paradigm to juxtapose them together and to dissect the state-of-the-art tendency of the mainstream genre (enormously profitable since its chief target are zero in on family with children, so it has a much more important and instructive obligation other than merely an entertainment for the toddlers and above).

Coincidentally both films’ heroines are princess (Rapunzel in TANGLED and a Scottish Merida in BRAVE), adapted from Grimm Brothers’ tale, TANGLED is supremely reminiscent of Disney’s other established princess analogs trapped in a magic world, let’s say Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, what’s more, there will always be a prince-charming to deserve and requite her love. Wisely Rapunzel’s Flynn Rider has been sizeably modernized as a reckless, self-mocking yet conservatively “Disney” prince with a thief background.

But in BRAVE, Merida is a much more radical rebel by blood, she doesn’t have or need a prince with white horse (the film doesn’t care to proffer one since all her tribe suitors are one-of-a-kind wackos), she is fighting against her predestined life path which her mother has arranged for her and her status has requested her, a tad thread-bone notwithstanding, but chronicling with a single-linear arc, the mother-daughter predicament has slipped to the hanging-by-a-thread situation when a magic spell transfigures the Queen’s appearance into a bear which cannot be recanted after the second sunrise, therefore, instigates an intimate bonding phase for the two, viscerally the mutual love only exudes when something unusual happens, while living in the mundane life, we are all suffering and grated by the love with a insurmountable generation gap.

Rapunzel, on the other hand, her main barrier is the ultimate breakthrough from her “mother” Gothel (a greatly overlooked Donna Murphy), who raises her and locks her up in the tower for 18 years, treats her as her own out of a selfish but very understandable motivation (to rejuvenate her youth), but out of any sequential transition, all of a sudden Rapunzel miraculously remember her princess identity (she was taken away when she was an infant, so I doubt there is any memory there, more like an implausible epiphany or actually a screenwriter’s block), what’s more unbelievably awkward is that she immediately snarls back to her “mother” as if all the recollections of Gothel’s evil scheme has been replayed in front of her eyes and she has been tortured for all that year long (actually she is fairly happy and content alone with her cutesy chameleon) , which I deem as a child’s play, very much panders to its core audience of pre-school demography.

So, from a vantage point under the contemporary context, BRAVE is far more daring and enthralling from its “no guts no glory” premise, it is able to identify with a way broader audience, which is also the main ingredient of the winsome recipe “why Pixar can keep excelling all its peers (if not itself) on the top-tier of the hierarchy”, in spite of that on a technical level, all the major animation studios in Hollywood (DREAMWORKS, BLUE SKY STUDIOS, etc.) are almost equally cutting-edge.

Music is Disney’s strong suit, the first half of TANGLED is a conventional musical showcase, culminating the saccharine romance with the Oscar-nominated theme-song I SEE THE LIGHT, fusing with an intoxicating lanterns-all-over-the-sky spectacle, this has always been the tactic to emit Disney’s overblown sentimentality, I am certain it is no longer an all-age proof method now. In BRAVE, although Kelly Macdonald and Emma Thompson’s heavy Scottish accents do not get along with my ears, the exotic score and tunes are generally agreeable, and what’s more admirable, it doesn’t steal the thunder of the film per se.

Honestly speaking after the astonishingly-acclaimed WALL-E (2008, 9/10), UP (2009, 9/10) and TOY STORY 3 (2010, 9/10), I automatically skipped last years CAR 2 (2011), BRAVE is a left-field choice, the scale of the story has been slimmed down to a quite unimaginable mother-daughter clash, even grafting it on the most platitudinous soil of a princess’s tale. But by good fortune, the film doesn’t smear Pixar’s paramount reputation, Merida goes through a well-deployed rite-of-passage and the sub-plots such as the blue wisps, the ancient lore of the discontent brother and the witch’s hut are all positioned into the right niche to uplift the mythology and idiosyncrasy of the film.

As for TANGLED, Disney will never relinquish its tradition (otherwise Walt Disney will definitely be jumping inside his tomb), and it is also an exquisitely-made piece of work, just unfortunately paled by comparison by BRAVE since there is no sparks glittering and all the chirpy happiness seems synthetic and a bit stale.

When I first heard that this book was being adapted into yet another film, I was actually excited. It’s been awhile since the last remake, and I was looking forward to something new, fresh, yet classy and beautiful. A classic period piece. The casting of Keira Knightley as Anna cinched it for me. After movies such as Pride & Prejudice, The Duchess, and Atonement, Knightley has made her mark in historical dramas. But Anna Karenina is not your typical historical drama.

Director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement, Hanna) brings a new and interesting twist to the classic period piece. Instead of filming a straight-up drama, he brings a touch of theater to the production by shooting the film as if it’s a play. Much of the action plays out on an actual stage, and characters and set pieces move in and out seamlessly as one would expect to see in live theater. The problem is that, while novel, it’s also quite contrived. There never seems to be a good reason for making the movie this way. While visually interesting (some would say distracting), there is no value added. In fact, if you don’t know what’s going on before the movie starts, you may spend too much time in the beginning trying to figure out what the hell you’re watching, rather than paying attention to the character development at play.

The other drawback to this approach was that it wasn’t used consistently. Some scenes were shot as you would expect in any other film, and there seemed to be no rhyme or reason for jumping back and forth between the two styles. Other reviewers have said that the theatrical setting mimics the scripted feel of life among Russian aristocracy with its strict rules of proscribed public behavior, but I disagree. If the technique were limited to scenes in which Anna’s behavior plays out in front of the audience of her peers, that would be one thing. But that is not always the case. To me it seems that Joe Wright used this technique when he could secure an interesting and beautiful shot, but when he couldn’t, or it was too complicated, he gave up altogether. The result is a film which lacks consistency in its cinematography and comes across as more cobbled-together than they were hoping for.

Stylistically, this film is flawless. Everything looks so exquisite, so painstakingly beautiful. Every dress, every chair, every flower is just so. And Keira Knightley… I mean, just look at her.

I cannot think of one bad thing to say about the casting choices made for this film. Keira Knightley is perfection. Jude Law is stoic (and nearly unrecognizable) as Karenin. Aaron Taylor-Johnson (the kid from Kick Ass… yes, really) holds his own as Count Vronsky. Kelly Macdonald is heartbreaking as Dolly, while Matthew Macfadyen is absolutely riveting as Stiva (Seriously, try taking your eyes off his mustache. I bet you can’t do it!). And you’ll definitely find yourself saying, “Oh, it’s that guy! And that guy! And that chick!”

Overall, I can’t say that I loved this movie, or even liked it. I understand what they were going for, I think, and I’ll give them credit for making a very pretty movie. But, as PaultheGeek says, “Never have I seen a movie with its head so far up its own ass.”

It’s alliteration a gogo for the announcement of the 40th Annual Annie Awards.

Brave, Wreck-It Ralph and Rise Of The Guardians lead the nominations, with Hotel Transylvania and ParaNorman not too far behind. It’s a strong set of nominations for Disney, with John Carter and The Avengers also lurking on the sidelines.

As for who to put your money on in regards to the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, well, I think it’s pretty safe to say it’s a two-horse race between Brave and Wreck-It Ralph.

Check out the full list of nominations (minus anything TV-related) below:

Best Animated Feature:
Brave
Frankenweenie
Hotel Transylvania
ParaNorman
Rise Of The Guardians
The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists!
The Rabbi’s Cat
Wreck-It Ralph

Best Animated Short Subject:
Brad And Gary
Bydlo
Eyes On The Stars
Goodnight, Mr. Foot
Kali, The Little Vampire
The Simpson: The Longest Daycare
Paperman
The Simpsons – Bill Plympton Couch Gag

Animated Effects In An Animated Production:
Brave
Ice Age: Continental Drift
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted
ParaNorman
Rise Of The Guardians
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Wreck-It Ralph

Animated Effects In A Live Action Production:
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Avengers
Battleship
John Carter

Character Animation In A Feature Production:
Brave
ParaNorman
The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists!
Rise Of The Guardians

Character Animation In A Live Action Production:
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Avengers
Life Of Pi

Character Design In An Animated Feature Production:
Hotel Transylvania
The Lorax
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted
ParaNorman
Wreck-It Ralph

Directing In An Animated Feature Production:
Genndy Tartakovsky – Hotel Transylvania
Sam Fell, Chris Butler – ParaNorman
Joann Sfar, Antoine Delesvaux – The Rabbi’s Cat
Rich Moore – Wreck-It Ralph
Remi Bezancon, Jean-Christophe Lie – Zarafa

Music In An Animated Feature Production:
Bruce Retief – Zambezia
Patrick Doyle – Brave
Mark Mothersbaugh – Hotel Transylvania
John Powell – Ice Age: Continental Drift
John Powell – The Lorax
Alexandre Desplat – Rise Of The Guardians
Joel McNeely – Secret Of The Wings
Henry Jackman – Wreck-It Ralph

Production Design In An Animated Feature Production:
Brave
Frankenweenie
Hotel Transylvania
Ice Age: Continental Drift
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted
ParaNorman
The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists!
Rise Of The Guardians

Storyboarding In An Animated Feature Production:
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted
ParaNorman
Rise Of The Guardians
Wreck-It Ralph

Voice Acting In An Animated Feature Production:
Jim Cummings – Adventures In Zambezia
Kelly MacDonald – Brave
Catherine O’Hara – Frankenweenie
Adam Sandler – Hotel Transylvania
Atticus Shaffer – Frankenweenie
Imelda Staunton – The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists!
Jude Law – Rise Of The Guardians
Alan Tudyk – Wreck-It Ralph

Writing In An Animated Feature Production:
Brave
Frankenweenie
From Up On Poppy Hill
ParaNorman
The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists!
Wreck-It Ralph

Editorial In An Animated Feature Production:
Brave
Hotel Transylvania
Rise Of The Guardians
Secret Of The Wings
Wreck-It Ralph

Studio: Walt Disney Pictures

Director: Brenda Chapman

Starring: Kelly Macdonald & Billy Connolly

Filmhipster Review: A “hip” protagonist, that you may or may not relate to, tries to forge a new destiny for herself and gets into a little trouble along the way…noticeable skill has gone into the making of Brave – it’s visually sumptuous, comes with a smart message but the story is far from Disney/Pixar’s best.

In the meanwhile I thought I would go slightly off topic with this post following the latest pronouncement from Mr Trump.

In case it escaped your notice Glenfiddich has just held its “Spirit of Scotland” Awards where they recognise various individuals across Scotland for their contributions over the past year. There were many notable winners in the different categories from sporting greats such as Sir Chris Hoy, Katherine Grainger and Andy Murray, musician and singer, Julie Fowlis and actress Kelly MacDonald.

Unsurprisingly however it was the public voting for Mr Trump’s arch-nemesis, Michael Forbes of the Menie Estate that caused his ire, proclaiming the result as an embarrassment to Scots and that the vote must have been rigged.

So my question is a simple one. Is Donald Trump correct? And I thought I would keep the question in a style that everyone is familiar with…

We open on a bunch of men with their hands in the air being machine gunned down, mercilessly. Al comes out of the darkness and delivers one final, killing bullet.

Mayor Bader, meanwhile, is taking some heat from the press about all this recent violence. He reassures them that he’s totally in control and the AC police force has the matter in hand. Oh, so there is still a police force in Atlantic City. Good to know. Of course, as he’s saying this, we get shots of drive-by shootings and violence all over the place, so maybe it’s not quite time to applaud the boys in blue. Chalky and Dunn are even getting in on the action, in broad daylight, no less. Bodies, bodies everywhere, and nobody knows what to think. Bader’s had to call a press conference on the steps of city hall. Did they actually used to do that? Somehow, I almost feel like I’m watching Chicago here or something, they’re hitting the 1920s tropes so hard. Machine guns! Men in fedoras! A microphone in front of city hall! The reporters want to know where Nucky is and Bader swaggers a step to far and tells them that Nucky doesn’t run the city, Bader does. Beat, and then they all burst out laughing. Poor Bader. Once a stooge, always a stooge.

Nucky’s chosen the lumberyard where Eli’s kid works as his base of operations, and he’s on the phone with Mickey Doyle, who’s still in PA, wondering what the hell is going on. Nucky asks for a report on Overholt, Mellon’s distillery. Mickey says the place is fabulous and once they get it running, it’ll be a hell of a moneymaker. Nucky looks out the window and spots a brawl getting underway. He hangs up and he and Eli go out to break it up. Seems Chalky’s guys and Al’s aren’t getting along. Nucky tells Al they need Chalky and his men, so Al threatens to go home. Nucky calls his bluff and Al backs down and offers to go to Margate and see if they can get Gyp to poke his head out.

At the House of T&A, Gyp’s men are getting restless. The girls have been sent away (to where? I’m amazed Gyp allowed that) and they’ve been told to lay off the booze, so they have nothing to do, all cooped up. Masseria shows up and tells Gyp he’s getting a lot of guys killed for nothing. Gyp claims it’s not for nothing, because he has the town, the casino, and the warehouse, but Masseria says he doesn’t have the big prizes: Rothstein and Nucky themselves. He reminds Gyp that Nucky’s playing on his home turf, which can give one a hell of an advantage. Gyp, being completely mindless, doesn’t seem to understand that. I honestly don’t know why Masseria doesn’t just pull his guys now and let Gyp deal with his own mess.

Gillian, looking tense, has to ask for permission from a goon to go into Tommy’s room with milk and cookies. The guy eyes her really creepily, so I can see why she’s anxious. He lets her in and she calls Tommy out of the teepee he has set up in the room to have his lunch, but he refuses to emerge. This poor child’s going to be sooo messed up. He’s, what, four? Five? Think of all he’s seen and gone through so far. Gillian offers to come in and join him, but he won’t have that either, so she backs down, sad, but understanding.

Nucky spots Eli out in the yard working on a car that’s having problems, so he goes out to help and they reminisce for a bit before Nucky asks if Eli sent his family somewhere safe. Eli did, and he asks after Margaret and the kids. Nucky’s able to evade the subject by hurting himself on a part, so they take a break and share a cigarette. Nucky observes that they could have stopped when they were ahead, but he just had to keep grabbing for more. Eli tells him not to worry about it until after this Gyp business is taken care of. After that, they’ll pick back up again. Nucky tells him that’s doubtful, because no matter how this plays out, nobody’s going to want to work with him again. Eli has faith, because he knows what the title of this show is, and tells Nucky he just has to offer everybody something they want. Nucky looks thoughtful, like this hadn’t occurred to him at all.

Mickey soon gets on the phone with Rothstein, who’s not happy to hear from him but manages not to hang up the phone. Mickey tells him he’s taken over Overholt and that Nucky’s willing to hand it over to Rothstein. Rothstein’s attention: caught.

Remember how Lucky got not-so-lucky last episode? Time for him to be questioned. Physically. He gets knocked around a bit and is asked who his partner and suppliers are. Lucky clams up, so the guys tell him he could easily disappear if he doesn’t play nice. Lucky finally offers to tell them where they can find 50 pounds of heroin.

Gillian is show in to Gyp’s office, where he’s buffing his fingernails. She tries to forge a parenthood bond with him and brings up Tommy, whom she’s worried about. Gyp tells her she’s doing a great job, and he’s got plenty of company at the house, which is great for kids! She suggests she and Tommy go somewhere else to stay for a while, but Gyp’s not pleased with that idea, because for some reason he wants them around—as hostages, I guess? But to use as leverage against whom? He sweetens the deal by telling her they can work together and he’ll set her up on a pedestal, with him crawling around amongst her toes. Gillian, professional that she is, immediately twigs to his sexual proclivities and suggests a little get-together.

The phone rings at the lumberyard and Eli picks up. It’s Rothstein, asking to speak with Nucky. He has an offer for him: he’ll get Masseria to pull his support out of AC in return for a stake in Overholt. A 99% stake. Woah. Nucky does not seem shocked by the number at all and agrees to the deal. “Big bait catches big rat,” he tells Eli.

Hey, Margaret! She’s visiting with a couple named the Hollises, whom she doesn’t seem to know very well. She’s hanging out in Brooklyn, and after some pleasantries, Mrs. H shows Margaret ‘the room’ so she can make her decision, as Mr. H (or maybe Dr. H) suggests. Mrs. H briskly explains that her husband sees all sorts of patients. Margaret tells the woman she needs to have an abortion, and it’s clearly not the first time the woman’s heard that. She reassures Margaret that her husband does that, and that he’s careful and thorough. Keep in mind, abortions were illegal in the United States at this time, so I’m quite amazed that Margaret was actually able to ferret someone out who would do one. Margaret admits that she’s completely lost and the woman softens a bit and says she’d never tell anyone what to do. Margaret looks around, and then seems to come to a decision.

Lucky meets with Meyer and tells him that he got pinched, but it’s ok, he worked out an angle so he won’t have to do time. Like that’ll make him all that popular and useful in the criminal underworld. He thinks they can just pick up where they left off and he’ll cover the financial hit. Meyer seems to doubt that but says nothing, until Lucky prompts him and Meyer snaps that this is worth $100K. Yeah, Lucky’s going to be paying that off for a while.

Turns out the boys are waiting to see Masseria, and when they’re ushered in, they see their 50 pounds of heroin stacked up on his desk. Ooooh, burn! Masseria genially says he’s glad to see Lucky’s ok. He shakes both their hands, and then Rothstein comes in. Oh, wait, looks like they were originally supposed to meet with Rothstein, this is his office. Sorry about that. Rothstein tells them that he and Masseria have come to an agreement. The ‘arrest’ was no such thing—the two guys were in Rothstein’s pocket, and so Rothstein has the heroin now. I’m honestly not quite clear how Masseria figures into all this or what he gets out of it. The long and short is, Rothstein set Lucky up, and he’s seriously pissed off about that. Meyer holds him back and tells him to shut up already, or they’ll both be dead. Lucky starts to calm down and Meyer smooths the waters with Rothstein and Masseria. Rothstein says he thought he was having a civilizing effect on Lucky, but there’s only so much one can teach a person. He knows that Meyer gets it, though. Next, Rothstein turns his attention to Masseria and asks if he’s interested in joining Arnold in the heroin business. Ahh, I guess this is what Masseria gets out of this. Masseria asks what he’ll have to give in exchange.

Al and some of his guys return to the lumberyard and find Dunn pissing on one of their cars. Al pulls out his gun, but Dunn’s completely blasé. Chalky observes that Al’s pretty jumpy with the pistol and asks what he’s so scared of. Al chuckles that it’s nothing he’s looking at now. Chalky calmly removes his hat and offers to see what Al’s made of. He’s made of fighting dirty, but Chalky recovers and is ready for him. But before things can really get started, Eli discharges a couple of shotgun shells into the air to get everyone’s attention and Nucky announces that Gyp’s losing his support, which he doesn’t know yet, and is at Gillian’s. He calls Al and Chalky in for a private meeting.

Gillian and Gyp are having their date—she in some sexy lingerie, naturally. Things start to get hot and heavy, but he stills her hand when she starts to remove his jacket, because only he removes the suit. While he gets undressed, she asks him what he intends to do to her. He tells her he wants to break her in half, until she begs him to stop, which he won’t do. Sexy. She looks a little sickened, but keeps playing her role, even when he calls her a worthless piece of shit who looks in the mirror and knows she deserves everything she gets. She plays along, calling herself an ugly little ape. He asks if she’s laughing at him and she smirks and says that everybody does. He takes off his belt and she asks if he wants her to whip him. He doesn’t respond, but he flexes his muscles and arches his neck back ever so slightly. She takes the hint and slips the belt around his neck, pulling him to the bed, where she has a needle full of heroin ready. But when she goes to jab it into his neck, he catches her hand, wrestles the needle free, and pushes it into her arm instead. He hears something outside and rushes to the window, where he sees Masseria’s guys packing up and taking off. Leaving Gillian (dead, presumably) on the bed, he runs downstairs and demands to know what’s going on. One of the remaining goons just says the other guys have left, and then Two Face walks in, armed to the teeth, and starts firing away, a one-man killing machine. He’s so scary some of the remaining guys pack up and flee, while Two face continues to shoot his way through the house until he gets to Tommy’s room, where he finds the last goon (the creepster) standing holding a gun to the poor child’s head. Goon tells TF to put the gun down. After a while, TF complies, telling Tommy to close his eyes. Tommy does, and at the last possible second, TF shoots the goon in the head.

On the road out of AC, Masseria’s guys run right into an Al-and-Chalky-organised trap. With much machine-gunning, they’re slaughtered and Al kinda makes friends with Chalky before heading back to Chicago with his boys.

Nucky and Eli arrive at the House of T&A and are amazed by the slaughter. How lucky that TF picked this very night to go on his rampage. Nucky finds Gillian in the hallway, not dead but pretty out of it on heroin. He asks her where Gyp is, but all she can seem to talk about is the Commodore. She’s having flashbacks of Nucky sending her up to him back when she was a child. Nucky has a moment to look appalled before he takes off.

TF carries a sleeping Tommy to Julia’s house. Luckily she comes to the door and not her father. She asks what happened and if he’s all right, and then she catches sight of his bloodied face. He reassures her that it’s not their blood, as her father shows up, apparently sober for once, and tells her to take the boy and go upstairs, put him in her brother’s room. Wow, this is a hell of a turnaround. He also tells her to turn the light off. Once she’s gone, he sternly but kindly tells TF he can’t be coming home like this. He starts to say he’ll have a talk with Julia, but TF tells him not to bother. All he cares about is Tommy’s safety. He turns and slowly walks away. Please, God, don’t send yet another character on this show on the road.

Esther Randolph’s phone rings and she finds Andrew Mellon on the other end. He tells her that a certain business of his has been taken over by a criminal enterprise. He wants her to shutter the place and arrest anyone involved in it. She’s a bit confused that he wants her to arrest Nucky, but apparently it was Nucky who brought this to his attention. He wants her to arrest Rothstein, a name he only remembers with some prompting from Means. Well, now! This is indeed a dangerous game Nucky’s playing these days.

A car pulls up by a beach somewhere where Gyp and two guys are hanging out. Out of the car comes a third goon—I think it’s the one whose cousin Gyp beat to death a few episodes back. He explains he hid in a closet and asks what the hell happened. He adds that they’re not going to be able to go to New York. Laying low in the woods might be a better idea. Gyp…for some reason starts talking like a cartoon character and goes full-on crazy, saying he’ll only sell hooch every other Thursday, because he’s an important person with important socks. I half expect this to turn into the end of Who Framed Roger Rabbit here, what with the crazy Cartoon Judge Doom voice and the general weirdness. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if suddenly his eyes comically bugged out or his arms stretched or something like that. He dials it down a notch and says he’ll just start over, head west, find some hick town where they can open a few speakeasies. He stupidly goes to take a piss, and while he’s exposed in every possible way, Goon 3 stabs him right in the back while the other two watch. See? I figured eventually these guys would decide he was more of a liability than he was worth. It’s amazing it took this long. Goon drops the worst villain this show’s ever had into the sand and reports to Eli and Nucky that it’s been done. Nucky tells him to take Gyp to Masseria and tell him this could either be the beginning or the end of their problems with each other. He adds that if the goon ever returns to AC, Nucky will kill him himself.

After the man goes, Nucky tells Eli that they need to set up some serious firewalls in the future and make sure the only people who ever come near them are people they trust. Eli agrees.

Late at night, Margaret wakes in the bed she’s sharing with the kids and finds blood on her fingers, presumably from the abortion. She goes to the bathroom and, after she comes out, is shocked to find Nucky there, once again nattily dressed with his usual red carnation in the buttonhole. He tells her he just wants to talk, and that he won’t hurt her. He agrees to forgive her for whatever she’s done in the past (which is rich, considering Billie and all) and urges her to come home. He looks around at her humble surroundings and tells her to stop trying to submit herself to such penury to prove a point that doesn’t even matter. Because this is Nucky we’re talking about, he holds out a wad of cash and tells her to take it for the kids or herself, because it’s only money, it doesn’t mean anything. She tells him it does and moves past him, going back to bed.

Nucky returns to AC and walks down the busy Boardwalk. The door to the Ritz is held open for him, but he ignores it and goes to the railing to look out at the ocean. A random passerby recognizes him, but Nucky scares him off with a stink eye before pulling the carnation out of his buttonhole, dropping it to the ground, contemplatively smoking a cigarette for a bit, and heading off to wherever.

He’s back, folks.

So, that was season three. I had some misgivings going in, and I’m sorry to say they all seemed to come to pass. First off, I was worried that, with the loss of Jimmy as a foil for Nucky, the show would lose momentum, and man was I right about that. The whole Jimmy/Commodore deal last season had some issues, and I wasn’t terribly sorry to see Jimmy go, but his alliance against Nucky did at least bring some interesting dimensions and dilemmas to the story, considering their close ties. Going from that to Gyp was like falling down a hole—just dark, endless, and painful. Gyp was a failure as a character and as a villain. He was completely one-note, just completely insane, doing insane things for no real reason at all, other than to just be crazy. And don’t get me wrong, I know there are some truly crazy people out there who’ll parade around in tricorn hats given the opportunity, but they don’t make interesting characters on a TV show. Nor do they usually manage to lead others, even for a little while (though there are some historical exceptions). How did this guy ever make it up the ranks in Masseria’s organization? Why would anyone ever follow him? Why did anyone continue to trust him? He was nothing but a liability, all wrapped up in a stereotype (oh, look, a henpecked Italian tough guy!) with some random weirdness thrown in. Note to writers: bizarre behavior does not make a character more interesting.

There’s also the issue of the show starting to spread itself too thin. Show of hands: does anyone care about the Further Adventures of Nelson Van Alden? Anyone? I sure don’t. His whole plotline went nowhere, and honestly, I feel like his time on the show has long passed. He’s just not necessary. We spent all this time following him and Al in Chicago, and all the boys in New York, and while there were some threads there that led back to AC, they were few and far between, and I feel like we’re starting to lose the whole idea of what this show’s supposed to be about. It’s called Boardwalk Empire, folks, not The Rise and Fall of Al Capone or Arnold Rothstein or any of these other guys we can just look up on Wikipedia (yes, yes, I know, we can look up Nucky Johnson too). This is supposed to be Nucky’s show, and Atlantic City’s show. These other guys are famous; we already know their stories. Focusing on them seemed like a distraction, though Nucky’s relative uselessness throughout most of the series (he only really picked up every now and then until about episode 9) didn’t make for very compelling television either.

So, there were some problems. The cast really needs to be thinned out and the story refocused. All the actors are fantastic, but give them spinoffs if you must.

Don’t mistake me, there were things to like about this season. It was nice to see Margaret get pretty badass and even better seeing Two Face enjoy some semblance of a normal life (for a while, at least). And his relationships with Julia and Tommy were sweet and wonderful to see. I hope they continue to use him going forward, because he’s an intriguing character played by a fantastic actor who really deserves more accolades than he’s getting. I don’t know why he hasn’t been nominated for any awards yet. Speaking of sweet things, it was also nice to see a whole other side of Eli. I don’t think we’ve ever really seen him with his family, and his tenderness towards his wife and his rather humbled behavior with his brother were interesting and started to make him a more complex character. About time, too. I’ll be interested to see where this relationship between the brothers Thompson goes next season, and what the fallout will be from Nucky pulling the rug out from under Rothstein with Mellon’s distillery. You know that’s not going to go over well.

Thanks for tuning in, folks. Until next year!