Black Swan is the story of New York ballerina Nina Sayers, played by Natalie Portman. She is the most disciplined dancer in her company, which we see takes a tremendous, joint-popping toll on her body. When the opener of the season is decided by artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) to be Swan Lake, the chance to be the new Swan Queen is looked upon by every female dancer now that the aging star of the company (Winona Ryder) is retiring, or being forced out. Nina is given the role, as her technical proficiency is unparalleled by any other. However, constant disappoint is hitting her as she is unable to tap into her dark, seductive side to bring to life the Black Swan. Added on to this, a new dancer named Lily (Mila Kunis) joins the company who is wild, lively, and sexy, everything the Black Swan needs to be. Nina becomes convinced that Lily is trying to sabotage her in order to take her role. This packs onto the physical stress she is taking from her dancing, and the psychological control Thomas is holding over her, and I haven’t even mentioned her overbearing, crazed mother (Barbara Hershey) who is trying to relive her life through her daughter.

Darren Aronofsky has crafted a genuinely unique horror film that is unlike anything else that has come out the past ten to fifteen years. The film does not rely on jump scares and slasher cliches to make the film scary. Aronofsky crafts the film to where each and every second the mood that has been set slowly crawls underneath your skin to make you feel uncomfortable and, eventually, frightened to your very core. It is the small details that he is able to do this, usually through sound design. Occasionally, there will be a quiet, subtle sound in the background that you may not even notice, but it effects you subconsciously. For instance, Nina may just be walking down the street with the camera, of course, directly behind her head, and you’ll hear the sound of wings fluttering. Through these little nods, he successfully chills his audience, not to mention what he does in the last thirty minutes, which I won’t talk about here. The gritty, realistic look to the film also adds a whole new layer of atmosphere to the picture. The blacks and whites are everywhere in the film and are battling your eyes attention. It is truly mesmerizing production design. All these technical elements, added together, really create a terrifying, intense, real world.

I also would like to spend this next paragraph talking about one of the most spectacular performances I have ever seen: Natalie Portman as Nina Sayers. It is a complete immersion from one person into another. The toll her character has to take, physically and psychologically, is one of the most interesting and disturbing I have seen in a picture. Her character starts off as the mind of a little girl trapped in the body of a woman in her mid-late twenties. The people around her, such as her mother and dance instructors, only try to hold onto this persona instead of letting her come into fruition as a woman. Thomas Leroy is the first one to try and get her to break free from this little girl mindset, but he only tries to liberate her sexually, not mentally. When Lily shows up, she gets a glimpse of what an actual woman her age is like. Granted, it is to a completely opposite extreme, but Nina gets sucked into it and partly leads to her downfall. Natalie Portman completely shocked me that she was able to go through all of this in a more than convincing portrayal. I knew she was a good actress; you only have to watch Closer or Brothers to realize that, but I had know idea she was able to go through all the emotional highs and lows of a seriously troubled and disturbed person. If she does not win the Academy Award for this, I will shocked. Also, the supporting cast is magnificent as well, particularly Mila Kunis as her rival.

Black Swan is a true masterpiece. I understand I did not articulate well why it is, but it is. All the elements that make a great film are in place to form a perfect film. Going back through it, I can not distinguish one flaw or problem I had with the entire runtime. A film that shocked me, made me gasp, and surprised me, which, by this point, is quite an accomplishment to do. Certainly will enter my top 100 films of all time, perhaps top 25. It is a masterpiece. Please, do yourself a favor and go check out this film if it is playing in your town. If it isn’t, then go to the nearest town where it is. You will not regret it.

Grade: A++

The film lives up to the anticipation I had from the trailer. Actually, it surpasses it my light years. Everything I thought the film would would end up being happened, plus surprises and insights that I was completely unprepared for, leaving me on the edge of my seat the entire running time. This is an instance where all of the stars align to form one of the perfect film. Yes, I feel that this is a perfect film. After seeing it twice, I can not find one flaw throughout it. It is artistically and technically brilliant. The acting is outstanding. The cinematography is stunning. The score is beautiful. The script is incredible. The direction is breathtaking. It is a perfect movie. In the coming paragraphs, I will explain why exactly each of these aspects stand as the adjectives I described them as and, when combined together, form a film that is my favorite of the year and will enter my top one-hundred films of all time the next time I compile that list.

First off, I am going to give a plot rundown for those who may not know what the film is about, and if you don’t, shame on you. This is the mostly true story of Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, who is the creator of Facebook and the world’s youngest billionaire. Through legal depositions, we learn how Facebook came into fruition and prospered, all the while hurting quite a few people in the process, including his best friend, fellow Harvard students, and, to an extent, himself. The film shows us these events from a varying degree of three points of view, almost simultaneously. The first is through the eyes of Zuckerberg. The second through Eduardo Saverin’s (Andrew Garfield), who was the co-founder of Facebook and Zuckerberg’s best friend. The third from Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer, with some assistance by Josh Pence), and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella), who are Harvard students who claim that Zuckerberg stole the idea of the Facebook site from them. What follows is the interconnecting of all these perspectives to get a wonderful suspense film in the vain of All The President’s Men.

I want to start off where the film started off, the script. Aaron Sorkin has written a screenplay which is quite extraordinary. On the one hand, it has the fast-paced, quick-witted dialogue of a classic screwball comedy from the 1930s and 1940s, and on the other, it is a suspense thriller that feels like it could be from the 1970s. In most cases, this blend would never work, but in Sorkin’s case, being the great writer he is, makes it work. The words that come out of the character’s mouths feel very authentic and add a lot of tension. This has to happen because it is very much a talkers movie. Every scene, basically, is people talking. Thankfully, this bodes well for me because I love films where people are constantly talking because, for the most part, I find conversations in films to be very engaging, as most are in real life. If two people are talking about a subject that they both care about, there is no reason what they say should not be interesting. In The Social Network, every conversation feels real, complex, and totally riveting.

The script does raise one particular issue that may be a difficult one to handle: what actors can pull this stuff off? Well, in my opinion, they chose the best people for their respective parts. Jesse Eisenberg, who usually is known for playing a gawky but smart kid in comedies such as Adventureland, steps up to the plate and gives one of the best leading performances of the year as Facebook’s “CEO, bitch.” His character is very detached from people, very smart, and very motivated. The man just wants to do something interesting with his life, and if hurting a few people is what needs to happen, then he will do it. Eisenberg portrays this in every sentence, every word, every facial expression, every mannerism, and every tick. His supporting cast is just as good with Andrew Garfield (Oscar nod?), Armie Hammer, Max Minghella, and Justin Timberlake of all people. One actor who I want to talk about very briefly is Rooney Mara. She plays Erica Albright who, at the start of the film, is Zuckerberg’s girlfriend and basically leads him to starting the website. She is probably on screen for about eight minutes and is staggeringly good. She can give off several emotions in her face at once and can deliver that Sorkin dialogue beautifully. I wanted to mention her because she is Lisbeth Salander in David Fincher’s remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and after seeing her in this film, I am very excited for it.

David Fincher previously worked with cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth on the film Fight Club, which I maintain as one of the most beautiful films every shot. Here, they definitely outdo themselves. Each frame of this film is absolutely gorgeous. It is one of those where you can take each frame and hang it on a wall because it is so breathtaking. It is very clean, very dark, and very crisp in its image. The tracking shots and framing are masterfully done. There is one scene that involves a crew race (people who have seen the film now what I am talking about) which is seriously one of all time favorite scenes, mainly from the way it is shot. It helps that it also has a fantastic choice of music and very skilled editing to go along with it. I hope that more people recognize the brilliance of this films look.

Trent Reznor and and Atticus Ross are the ones responsible for the film’s score. What is great about the score is that enhances the film, rather than call attention to itself. This is something I did not expect when Reznor is one of the founders of the industrial rock group Nine Inch Nails. The music is very calm and soothing, without using too many notes or instruments. This is because the story does not call for a large orchestral score. Thankfully, Reznor and Ross understood that it needed to be a bit underplayed. If more small, suspense dramas were scored like this, I feel as though the film would be elevated to a much greater level. I say “Bravo” to these wonderful composers.

I am immensely grateful that David Fincher decided this was a story he felt like telling. He was the man who brought all of these perfect aspects together to form an amazing film. Fincher knows what he is doing when it comes to creating a memorable and important piece of art. He can make a film that sticks with you and makes you think, which is what a film should do. If you go into the theater and just sit there, what is really the point? A work of art should be discussed and contemplated upon. It is made for the interpretation of a person as well as its craftsmanship. Thankfully, David Fincher does not create empty entertainment. He wants you to care and be invested, emotionally and intellectually, in what is happening on screen, and in my opinion, he succeeds in achieving all of these points.

Hopefully, I have done at least an adequate job of explaining my thoughts on this film and why it is so brilliant. If I have not, do yourself a favor and check out the film as soon as humanly possible to see for yourself. Because art is a completely subjective medium, I shall understand if you do not agree with my enthusiasm for the picture, but I will take issue if you simply dismiss the film as simply “that Facebook movie” as I originally did. This is because the film is so much more than that. As for me, I have been clear in that I love the film and hope that it gains a large following, critically and commercially. This is a visual, visceral, suspenseful, and intellectual masterpiece that will most likely be studied in film classes around the country for years to come as a prime example of what filmmaking of our time is all about and as a staple of life in the early 21st century. Thank you David Fincher for reminding me why I love to go to the movies.

Grade: A+

Twenty years ago, a little director, maybe you might have heard of him, named Martin Scorsese released THE definitive gangster flick to ever grace across the silver screen. A film that was nominated for six Academy Awards, seven BAFTAs, and five Golden Globes.

As anyone who knows the work of Martin Scorsese, you know that he loves two subject matters. The first is crime. This film is all about crime and is a genre he has redefined time and time again. The second is New York City. This is Scorsese’s stopping ground that he has covered from just about every era you can think of. The film breathes with authenticity as it is obvious Scorsese knows every last detail that the Big Apple has to offer. With the perfect mix of these two entities, you get the story of Henry Hill, Tommy DeVito, and Jimmy Conway, along with the countless other memorable and vivid gangsters of the era.

The question is: what makes this film a masterpiece? I do not think you can get a definitive answer to that question. You can come up with your theories and ideas, but it can never be pinned down. There are things that make the film unique to other gangster films, with its shot compositions, camera moves, amazing performances, incredible vulgar dialogue, and take no prisoners violence, but it is nearly impossible to say that these specific elements combined together make the perfect film. Even with all that, it IS a perfect film. It is incredibly hard to deny that. The film is made with such technical proficiency and pizzaz that it is impossible to deny that.

Currently this film sits at number eight on my all time favorite movies, right between Young Frankenstein and Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb?, and I have no indication of bringing it down further than that. A film of that high quality needs to be honored in some special light. I figured the best way I can do that is placing it in my top 10 and writing this article, however small that commemoration may be. It is the best I can do for one of the best films. My most recent experience with this film was on the big screen, and it was one of the most breathtaking experiences I have ever had in a cinema. Hearing that classic tune “Sunshine Of Your Love” blare through the speakers as Robert De Niro looks directly into the camera is one of the most heart pounding, bring a smile to your face in glee moments you will ever have in a theater.

I know this article is not adding up to much except for me saying that GoodFellas is amazing, but do I really need to write more than that? It is a film that will live on for hundreds of years for it craft, style, and substance. It has made it twenty years and not a day goes by that someone is not watching this film, whether it be in a revival house, on DVD, on HBO, or on some other television station. Its legacy has impacted every crime film that has been released since 1990, and that trend will continue as long as crime films are made. It is masterpiece. Don’t believe me? Then go out and see it for yourself. You will NOT be disappointed.

One of America’s most beloved genres of film is the romantic comedy. The boy meets girl and initially do not see eye to eye, they spend more time together and fall in love, an incident occurs that breaks them apart, and they get back together formula has delighted audiences since the 1930s with classics such as Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night. However, as of now, the genre is, for the most part, dead. We will occasionally get something worth the ticket price, like (500) Days Of Summer, but every other weekend we get the dreadful 90 minutes of The Ugly Truth or The Proposal or Leap Year.

The first thing that makes a good romantic comedy is funny, interesting characters, which, as of late, seems to drift away from the minds of writers. The reason films like The Philadelphia Story succeed and are remembered is because they are able to take the characters you get in every rom-com and give them three dimensions and personalities. Whereas, now, many of these films have these cookie cutter personas like the self-important woman, the bohemian guy, etc. Once you delve into these characters a few times, they eventually churn out into boring faces with no personality, and we are supposed to be invested in these people? I think not.

The plot of any romantic comedy is basically the same formula in every film. This causes a problem when one is released every week and the viewer realizes, “Wait! I’ve seen this film before.” This is why this convention in cinema needs a jolt of excitement or deviation from the traditional format. I know I have mentioned this film before, but (500) Days Of Summer is able to do this brilliantly by shifting the days of the two leads relationship to keep you guessing on where it is headed, all the while still being funny, charming and has interesting characters that you do care about.

Even with all this basic knowledge of what goes into a good romantic comedy, Hollywood doesn’t seem to really care. For them, it isn’t about enjoyment, it is about the box office. And Hollywood has always been a male driven world, so they think that every woman will go out and see these films, no matter how dreadful they are. I know that sounds a bit stereotypical, but it is true. It has never been about quality for the studio executives, it is about quantity, which, as a fan of movies, is a horrible mindset. I urge people not to shelve out $7 a weekend to sit through this less than subpar material. Go out to a Blockbuster or go on Netflix and watch quality romantic comedies. It might show these executives that the public needs a little more to hold on to than some pretty faces.

The film centers on a little peasant village that is going to be overrun by bandits. For protection, they seek out the help of samurai to help defend their land, crops, and women from the evil bandits. It is a pretty simple, straight-forward story. So now you are wondering to yourself, “How could that possibly be 3 and half hours?” Well, they stretch it out as far as it can possibly go, believe me. They have scene after scene that drag on and accomplish nothing. There are unnecessary subplots, one in particular which I will express my distaste for in a minute. There are pointless characters who stop the action and pace of the film entirely. It really does not need that full runtime, but it does. Given to the proper editor, I am sure he would manage to take off about an hour rather quickly.

Okay, I want to get to the characters and performances now, because it is a big problem I have with this film. Kurosawa may be a visual master, which I will express my admiration for in a forthcoming paragraph, but it seems as though he does not know how to get a good performance out of his actors. Only one delivers a really great one, and that is Takashi Shimura, who is amazing as the veteran, lead samurai of the group. He understands the power of subtlety, which no one else seems to get. The one person who REALLY does not get that is Toshiro Mifune. Granted, I know his character is there to be the bumbling, horny clown who will do something heroic at the end, but Mifune is SO over the top that it is really distracting to what is going on. It is partly him and partly the character. This blubbering idiot is not needed in this film. Whenever he is on screen, the film comes to a screeching halt. All he does is screw around and make funny faces, trying to give some unneeded comedic relief. Most of the peasants, particularly the actor who plays Yohei, are terribly overdoing it to the point of mugging for the camera that would fit in nicely with Ernest Saves Christmas, but not here.

There is a love interest subplot in this film involving Katsushiro (Isao Kimura, who really needed some acting lessons) and Shino (Keiko Tsushima, a high pitch squealer) that I have a HUGE problem with. My biggest problem is that the two together are complete blank slates. I do not give a flying flip about the two of them, or if they end up together. They have no chemistry together whatsoever. All this plot serves to do is add padding for the film and, I guess, get a role for a female. However, it, much like the scenes with Mifune, completely stops whatever pace the film has built up. It is about as useless as the Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler subplot in Armageddon.

The action scenes really could have been better. They are cut in the way most are in today’s realm. This where the shots cut so quickly that you have absolutely no idea what is going on. Not to mention everyone has got on similar clothes, and it is dark, and occasionally raining, that you have no idea who is fighting who and who you are supposed to be cheering for. Occasionally in those scenes you get a shot that makes sense, but then it cuts again and you are wondering where you are.

Aside from those scenes, Kurosawa knows how to work a camera. Every shot is usually gorgeous to look at. He does very interesting things with his lighting and his framing. It is all very artistically done and well thought out that you cannot help but admire the craftsmanship that went into most of the scenes. I have no problem with the way it was shot. I just have a problem with the editing. How many wipe cut transitions can you fit into one movie? I bet this one definitely has the most. The wipe cuts, for some reason to me, felt like it just cut all the tension. I just feel the constant use of this type of cut is quite comical. You know it is a problem when you start to pick it up and it becomes distracting.

Overall, it is a well crafted film that needed to intensify what it was doing and just stick to its main story. It is a very compelling one that we want to see what happens. Like I said before, this film needs an editor to trim down its runtime by getting rid of unnecessary baggage. I still enjoyed the film quite a bit but I wanted it to be a masterpiece, like it has been hailed as. This is a good film, not a great one.

Grade: B+

Top 10 Films:
1. Inception
2. Toy Story 3
3. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
4. The Secret In Their Eyes
5. Harry Brown
6. Winter’s Bone
7. Shutter Island
8. Cyrus
9. The Girl Who Played With Fire
10. Kick-Ass

Top 5 Male Performances:
1. Michael Caine in Harry Brown
2. Tom Hardy in Inception
3. Ricardo Darín in The Secret In Their Eyes
4. John Hawkes in Winter’s Bone
5. Leonardo Di Caprio in Inception and Shutter Island

Top 5 Female Performances:
1. Marion Cotillard in Inception
2. Noomi Rapace in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo in The Girl Who Played With Fire
3. Ellen Page in Inception
4. Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone
5. Chloe Moretz in Kick-Ass

This is a hard film to dive into. I guess I will start off with a basic plot synopsis. Well, nothing about this film is basic, but this is a plot synopsis none the less. The film centers on Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a hired thief who infiltrates people’s dreams to steal, or extract, secrets and information from their subconscious. He is hired by Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to perform inception, which is where instead of taking an idea from someone’s mind, you plant one. If he successfully performs this task, Saito will arrange for Cobb to return to the United States to be with his children. There, I think that was basic enough. It is in the forthcoming paragraphs where the spoilers will run amuck.

With this being a Christopher Nolan film, everything is multilayered. The story, characters (well, some of them), and the dream space itself are all fully realized. Everything serves a purpose in order to go from one place to another. As is also the case with many Nolan films, the mastery of subtle foreshadowing is everywhere in the film. This is where in the first viewing you do not even realize you have already been given a clue and upon future viewings, you realize they had already given something, or part of something, away. For example, in the scene where Cobb, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and Nash (Lukas Haas) try to extract information from Saito, they awake on a train. After they realize they failed in extracting all of the necessary information, the three men quickly try to remove themselves from his presence, going separate ways. Cobb is first to leave in a hurry stating tat he does not like trains. Later in the film, you realize it was a train that was the kickstart to Mal’s (Marion Cotillard), Cobb’s wife, delusion in the real world. Like I said, every line serves a purpose to the story, and this is just one of the many.

A complaint that I have noticed spring up from what I have read is that the supporting characters are not fully formed characters. I disagree with that statement. I do agree that maybe one or two are not very well delved into, namely Yusuf (Dileep Rao), but the rest, I got a full sense of their personality and how they operate. Also, in most cases of heist films, and this film is a heist film, the team members who help the leader achieve the goal are never fully realized. Had the film gone on to explain who all these people were, what are their private lives like, etc., the film would have bogged down to much more expository dialogue than it already had. Besides, for those characters, it is all about the job in this story. It is in the character of Cobb where the backstory is crucial in what is going on. The film delves deep into his grief and remorse over the suicide of Mal, for which he is partly, if not solely, responsible.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives what is one of his best performances. He is one of the few actors who can portray grief and sadness so honestly and emotionally resonant that you would swear it was real. This was the first time I have actually liked Ellen Page in a movie (take that Juno lovers). Her character, Ariadne, has the difficult task of being thrust into this world of the dream to be an architect (someone who designs the layout of a dream), not to mention function as Cobb’s psychiatrist. Aside from Cobb, she is given the most difficult character, having to deal with Cobb and look out for the other team members, and Miss Page pulls it off. I know have a new found respect for her. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Cobb’s right hand man, Arthur. He specializes in the research of the subject to which they will extract information from. The way I interpreted the character is that he is so devoted to Cobb that he almost wants to be him. They even have the same slicked back hairstyle. JGL also gets to take part in one of the most breathtaking fight scenes I have seen, which I will get into in a bit. Tom Hardy, who gave my favorite lead performance of 2009 in Bronson, almost steals the movie as Eames. He is the fun loving forger who can impersonate others in dreams. Almost every scene he is in he commands. He can deliver the very funny one liners and has a great comedic chemistry with Gordon-Levitt. He is just a ton of fun to watch on screen. If you hadn’t noticed, this film has quite a large ensemble cast and I am trying to hit everyone, so sorry if this section seems quite long. Cillian Murphy, a Nolan veteran, is the target for their inception. He can play the smug stereotype of an heir, but is also able to break down into raw emotion. He is quite a staggering figure on screen, which I did not expect. I have never been too taken with him, but this film changed that. Ken Watanabe, also a Nolan veteran, is quite good as Saito, the employer and tourist. His trouble is that he is shot in one of the levels of the dream and almost becomes a burden to deal with. He is still very good in his small role. This brings me to Marion Cotillard. Anyone who has talked with me about her knows she is about one of four actresses working today that I will see anything she is in. Every film I have seen her in she has been captivating from start to finish. This film is no exception. I think she is the only actress working where you can feel drawn to her/detested by her/hate her/love her/feel sympathy for her/be scared by her all at the same time. I have absolutely no idea how she can capture that kind of range in a single glance, but it is truly something special to watch. I am so glad she has become somewhat of a staple in mainstream film because she deserves it.

The visual aesthetic of this film is unparalleled by anything I have ever seen before. I remember how people were immersed in the world of Jim Cameron’s Avatar. I never was. I had that experience though with this film. From the obviously beautiful cinematography from Wally Pfister, I was brought into the different layers of the dreams. What did this was not the 3D, because there was none. What did it was that most of what was happening were practical effects. Nolan hardly implements CGI in the film, and it feels that way. Everything has a texture to it that can not be reproduced with computers. I mean, obviously, there is some CGI (i.e. the city folding over on itself), but that is the only prominent way it is used. The hallway fight scene that I mentioned before has no use of CGI. It was filmed on a hallway that stretched 100 feet long which rotated on 8 circles to give it the effect of shirting gravity. The actors were able to maneuver from the floor to the ceiling to the wall without the use of computers. Nolan jut used his camera to follow the actors. It feels real because it is.

Another criticism of the film I have seen pop up is that there is too much expository dialogue. I do agree that it is there, but I do not think it is a criticism of the film. I have racking my brains to find out another way to reveal that under heavy sedation, being killed in a dream will send you into Limbo. That fact has to be explained. Also, most of the exposition is warranted because it is Ariadne learning the rules and ways of a dream. It is told to her in a classroom setting, probably the most logical way to teach someone something quickly. I think the actors handle the dialogue extremely well too. It never comes across as forced or awkward. It may be unwanted exposition by some of the viewers, but it is ultimately necessary for things to make sense in the already complex story. And on multiple viewings, the exposition hardly seems noticeable. I think this complaint is just nitpicking on the part of the viewer who wants to find something wrong with it.

I want to get to a hot button issue: the ending. I have now seen the film three times and after each one, the audience reaction is the same. They are aghast that they do not get to know whether or not Cobb’s top stops spinning to determine if he is in reality. Here is my take on it, and I go much further than the top. On the third viewing, I noticed a tiny detail that you would only really catch on that viewing. Throughout the film, Cobb’s character has a slight shift in appearance from reality to the dream world. In the real world, Cobb does not wear a wedding ring. Whenever he is in a dream, he does. In the last scene, he is not wearing a wedding ring. Also, now I get to the top, whenever the top is spun in a dream, it consistently spins without any sign of altering. So, the last scene is the only scene, where we don’t see it fall, in which it wobbles. Combining these two elements, I believe that the ending portrays him in reality and not a dream. But, that is definitely up for interpretation.

If you had not guessed by my overly long and overly enthusiastic response to the film, I really liked this movie. In fact, it is my favorite movie of the year and one of the best from the 21st Century. I have this same eclectic response to a film about once a year. 2009 was Inglourious Basterds. 2008 was In Bruges. 2007 was There Will Be Blood. And so on and so forth. This film has already penetrated my favorite top 25 films, and, who knows, after more viewings, it may proceed to move further up on the list. I want everyone to go out out and see the film, at least twice. Also, if at all possible, see this in IMAX. It is the full experience that this film deserves. I hope you all enjoyed my review, if it was even that.

Grade: A+

Top 10 Films:
1. The Presitge
2. V For Vendetta
3. The Deprated
4. Pan’s Labyrinth
5. Volver
6. Children Of Men
7. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
8. Letters From Iwo Jima
9. Inside Man
10. Little Children

Top 5 Male Leading Performances:
1. Christian Bale in The Prestige
2. Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
3. Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed
4. Hugo Weaving in V For Vendetta
5. Ken Watanabe in Letters From Iwo Jima

Top 5 Female Leading Performances:
1. Penélope Cruz in Volver
2. Kate Winslet in Little Children
3. Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada
4. Natalie Portman in V For Vendetta
5. Helen Mirren in The Queen

Top 5 Male Supporting Performances:
1. Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children
2. Clive Owen in Inside Man
3. Michael Caine in The Prestige/Children Of Men
4. Sergi López in Pan’s Labyrinth
5. Alec Baldwin in The Departed

Top 5 Female Supporting Performances:
1. Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada
2. Meryl Streep in A Prairie Home Companion
3. Carmen Maura in Volver
4. Rinko Kikuchi in Babel
5. Frances McDormand in Friends With Money

Top 5 Directorial AChievements:
1. Christopher Nolan for The Prestige
2. Martin Scorsese for The Departed
3. Guiellrmo Del Toro for Pan’s Labyrinth
4. James McTeigue for V For Vendetta
5. Alfonso Cuaron for Children Of Men

I am going to start off by saying that is film is not as good as the first in the series. As I mentioned in the intro, it was a tall order to fill. That does not mean that it is still a very good movie. I might even call it a great movie. The film picks up one year after the last one left off. Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) has returned to Sweden after being abroad. Mikael (Michael Nyqvist) is still a top notch journalist for the “Millennium”. The magazine has recruited a new investigator in order to bring down a sex trafficking operation. The following is a possible SPOILER so skip ahead if you so choose. After he and his associate are murdered, with Lisbeth’s fingerprints on the gun (a detail I will not explain here), she is wanted for the murder as she tries to find the actual killer, as is Mikael, who is the only one who believes Lisbeth is innocent. That is as spoiler free a plot synopsis I can give, and I even had to put up a spoiler warning.

As was the case in the previous film, Noomi Rapace remains one of the most captivating and intriguing performers I have seen in a long time. Throughout the film, she is given very little dialogue, but at every instance you can tell what she is feeling, thinking, and wanting. I believe I used this in the previous review, but she is fearless. She lets everything out on the screen to see and is not afraid of it either. It helps that the character is a truly fascinating one as well. Michael Nyqvist is also incredibly good in this role. He plays the part so subdued and real that it feels like an actual person. He does not need the big speeches or, really, even to raise his tone of voice. I mean he does hit the emotional scenes brilliantly too, don’t get me wrong. He is given the bulk of the screen time, but, of course, it is Ms. Rapace who will stick with you.

The murder mystery story of the one is much closer to the characters than it was in the first film. In fact, it directly involves the main characters. The main plot itself is carried out very well and it reveals constant surprise after constant surprise. Having said that, I think there is one surprise that really is not necessary and does not really serve anything to the plot. Perhaps, in the next film, that thread will come to life, but, in the context of this film, it falls flat. Other than that, the story essentially solid from start to finish. The cinematography for this film is much brighter than the in the first, considering a lot of this seems to take place in late spring/early summer and mostly during the day (contrary to most of the stills I have on the page). But when it needs to get dark, it does. It is still an overall gorgeous film to look at.

I think the main reason this film is not as good as the first is that the tension of violence was a huge part of that film. This film, I think, has a bit too much violence, especially towards the end. The first film had its share of disturbing images, but that was for a whole different purpose. I understand that the violence is needed in this film to progress the story forward, but it felt like there was just a tad too much. It is not a heavy complaint though. I also feel it was played a tad safe. The first film was not afraid to do anything, whereas, this one has some restraint. It is much more commercial in that respect. I do not think it is a fault. It is just an instance where I prefer one. Overall though, this is still a very great movie, and I am eagerly awaiting the third installment.

Grade: A

Top 10 Films:
1. There Will Be Blood
2. Zodiac
3. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
4. Hot Fuzz
5. Death Proof
6. The Bourne Ultimatum
7. I’m Not There
8. Atonement
9. Michael Clayton
10. Enchanted

Top 5 Male Leading Performances:
1. Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
2. Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
3. Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn
4. Casey Affleck in The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
5. Kurt Russell in Death Proof

Top 5 Female Leading Performances:
1. Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose
2. Amy Adams in Enchanted
3. Helena Bonham Carter in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
4. Julie Christie in Away From Her
5. Angelina Jolie in A Mighty Heart

Top 5 Male Supporting Performances:
1. Nick Frost in Hot Fuzz
2. Tom Wilksinson in Michael Clayton
3. Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood
4. Hal Holbrook in Into The WIld
5. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson’s War

Top 5 Female Supporting Performances:
1. Cate Blanchett in I’m Not There
2. Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton
3. Saoirse Ronan in Atonement
4. Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
5. Marisa Tomei in Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead

Top 5 Directorial Achievements:
1. Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood
2. Tim Burton for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
3. David Fincher for Zodiac
4. Edgar Wright for Hot Fuzz
5. Todd Haynes for I’m Not There