Movie Review: Skyfall

Now, this was the James Bond I've been waiting for. Or, more accurately, I didn't know there would be a James Bond quite like this.

After 2006's masterful "Casino Royale" redefined the series, 2008's mediocre "Quantum of Solace" set it back another few years. 007 makes a major comeback yet again with "Skyfall." When James Bond was rebooted, the intention was to radically start England's greatest secret agent over from scratch. Now, everyone seems comfortable enough with Craig in the role to bring back some classic Bond tropes. I didn't realize how much I even missed them until "Skyfall."

The Reel Deal Goes to Cannes Update #9: Getting Your Film into Cannes in Five Easy Steps

I can't believe that today is the last day of the festival. I might need a little break from intense film marathons, but I wouldn't complain if I was stuck in the south of France for the rest of my life. It's very nice here.

The last day is reserved for repeats of all of the films in competition. I plan of an intense double feature of "Amour" and "The Hunt" later today, but I started the day off strong with Ken Loach's "Angel's Share." Most films that screen during Cannes are not happy affairs. So it was refreshing to see a comedy in competition. This British film is light-hearted yet very smart. It's shot like a drama, yet written like a comedy. It's a caper about a group of bumbling criminals who try to steal a cask of rare whiskey. Hilarity ensues.

"Angel's Share" is certainly different than what you will usually see at Cannes, as there is, in a way, a certain "Cannes film." After watching enough of them, I can say that I've found a sort of criteria. Despite the prestige of Cannes, getting a film in the festival isn't as hard as you might think.* Based on my observations, here is my criteria of how to make a Cannes Film Festival entry in five easy steps:

1. At least one, overly long, and awkward sex scene.
See: The Paperboy, On the Road, Excision, Rust & Bone

2. At least two hours in length (exception: .

3. If it's an American film, set in the South.
See: Lawless, Killing Them Softly, The Paperboy, On the Road (certain parts)

4. Cast an actor looking to be "taken more seriously."
See: Robert Pattinson (Cosmopolis), Shia LaBeouf (Lawless), Kristen Stewart (On the Road), Zac Efron (The Paperboy)

5. Cast Brad Pitt or Matthew McConaughey
See: Killing Them Softly, The Paperboy, Mud

*Note: Getting a film into Cannes is not actually this easy.

Movie Review: Submarine

Okay, everyone. Time to put on a scarf, thick-frame glasses, and turn your record player on. That's right, it's time to get quirky.*

"Submarine" is a very Welsh film directed by someone who is distinctly English, with a distinctly English sense of humor. Funny, as it begins with a note from the narrator Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) notifying the American audience that there is indeed a difference between being English and being Welsh. This is not the last time Oliver Tate will try and screw with your head in the most deviously playful way possible.

Movie Review: War Horse

The Magic Hour.

Many have remarked that the ending shots of "War Horse" evoke the feelings and beauty captured in the landscape of classic Hollywood films, from "Gone with the Wind" to just about any John Ford western. And rightfully so, as this feels like a movie straight out of another era, the kind that isn't made so often nowadays. It has the power to move any viewer, but it might just bring the biggest film admirer to tears.

Based on a play which was based on a book (I have not seen or read either), the cinematic version of "War Horse" could not have been brought to life by anyone except for Steven Spielberg. It might seem predictable from start to finish, but there is simply no other way to tell this story.

"War Horse" gets off to a slow start, but even the most impatient moviegoer will want to stick it through. In rural Devon, England just before the outbreak of the first World War, a farmer (Peter Mullan) buys a horse for a price more than it appears to be worth. While his wife disapproves, his son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) is infatuated with the horse, but not in an "Equus" kind of way. The horse, whom Albert names Joey, is small but distinctively beautiful, marked by four white socks on his legs and a large white spot on his face. At first, Joey can barely carry a plough but by the end of the movie's lengthy first hour, he has plowed an entire field. Joey may be smaller than the others, but he is fast and persistent.

Then comes The Great War and like most men in the area, Joey is enlisted into battle. He comes into the care of Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston, or F. Scott Fitzgerald in "Midnight in Paris"). After losing Nicholls in battle, Joey ends up in the care of the British, the Germans, and at one point, a young French girl. Albert enlists in the war, in hopes of being reunited with his beloved horse.

When it comes to depicting the horrors of war, no one does it better than Spielberg. It is stark realism to the highest, most detailed degree. If "Raiders of the Lost Ark" evoked a young boy playing with action figures in his backyard (as a critic once said), then "War Horse" evokes that young boy who is all grown up, knows history too well, and has sat through every action and adventure movie there is.

There have been few notable movies made about World War I, and the scenes in "War Horse" which take place in No Man's Land and the trenches could definitely give "Paths of Glory" a run for its money. It looks exactly like the post apocalyptic hell that it should be depicted as. When it comes to unflinching historical accuracy, no one beats Spielberg.

Even when Spielberg fails (and he has before), he never loses his uncanny eye for what elements truly complete a movie. In "War Horse," every little thing ends up having some sort of payoff. He knows what the viewers wants, but he also knows they shouldn't have to be cheated in order to get it.

Despite having a lot of plain human characters, "War Horse" makes an indelible impact. It is Joey the horse who truly makes it special. If there was an Oscar for animals, he would surely win it. Having Joey as the main character of this movie is something of a small relief, as it is nice to have a totally silent lead character sometimes, and I don't mean like Ryan Gosling in "Drive" kind of silent. Since horses can't speak, they use the purest form of acting: the emotions generated by their facial expressions and body language. You can tell when the horse is in physical pain but the more time you spend with Joey, the more you can see emotions that go below the surface. From Joey it is apparent that every living creature feels the effect of war and loss. Think of it as a minor "Consider the Lobster" effect.

"War Horse" is many things. It is an underdog story, a tragedy, and a love story in one. It displays Spielberg's great gift of always being able to shine the beacon of hope into the darkest of times. Spielberg gets to end "War Horse" with the big happy reunion he so often likes to conclude with. But here, it doesn't feel like schmaltz as it did at the conclusion of "War of the Worlds." It felt much deeper than that, and totally in place.

As many before me have pointed out, shades of "The Searchers," no doubt a huge influence on Spielberg's career, can be seen here. As Ethan Edwards stood outside the open doors of the house, feeling isolated and overwhelmed by the burdens of both the atrocities he's seen and the bigotry he feels, is an outsider not just to normal society but even to his own family. As Joey stands just outside the open gate of the loving family's estate, he probably can't help but feel the same way. He is loved and many strangers go to great lengths to save him but he is still an animal who has seen more than any can imagine, and in an instant could be traded from one owner to the next. Even if Albert raised him, he will never have one true master. "War Horse" in a sense, is a western, and Joey is its outlaw.

"War Horse" is also the best looking movie to come out this year. From the red sunset to a shot in which an entire army emerges from a field of tall grass, "War Horse" is like looking at a constantly morphing painting. Despite the horrors of war, the beauty of the natural world does not cease to exist.

"War Horse" is especially different because of the unique perspective it is told from. It shows that when war breaks out, everybody feels the consequences. It takes a series of contrived coincidences and two and a half very speedy hours to arrive at this point, but when a movie is able to suspend you from disbelief during its entire running time and keep you in that state, it has ultimately done exactly what its supposed to do. I cannot justify the poignance I felt once the movie ended, but the fact that this emotional state stuck with me long after the ending credits rolled shows the subtle and outstanding power of this movie. Just as Joey is not some dumb horse, just as "War Horse" is not some war movie.

Harry Potter: From an (In)different Perspective

WARNING: This article contains a brief, but pretty major spoiler for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2," If you care that much, I suggest you stop reading now.

When "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two" concluded, a saga that had lasted over a decade had ended. Some people in the audience cried, others cheered, and pretty much everyone clapped wildly. For these people, it was a truly emotional moment.

Me? I made a fart sound with my mouth.

Maybe my reaction was a little bit immature. However, it summed up why I could just never get into this series. No matter how eye popping or imaginative "Harry Potter" could be, it just never clicked with me, whether in novel or film form.

My indifference to "Harry Potter" was never too personal. I read the first two books, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I saw the first two movies, enjoyed those, too. The series started to lose me around the fourth film, though I have always appreciated the increasingly dark tone of the series. Looking back on it, the "Harry Potter" series did many good things. Most importantly, J.K. Rowling inspired children not only to read, but to enjoy reading, and to want to read, and to finish a book that was over 800 pages in one sitting. Even Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl would have had trouble pulling that off.

I never made it to the seventh book, and after giving up on movie number four, I only saw the second half of the seventh film (longest second act, ever). Harry's original story, as a misfit who doesn't understand his potential power is easily relatable to any young teen trying to figure out who they are. I could relate to this (no, I am not a wizard and no, my parents never forced me to live in a closet under the stairs). Yet, no real emotional connection ever forged between me and the young witches and wizards of Rowling's universe.

When I was younger, I became attached to certain sagas and passed over all others. The world of "Harry Potter" never appealed to me. I tried "The Matrix" for one film and while I love "Star Wars" I could never call myself a fanboy. Rather than obsessing over Potter, I spent most of elementary and middle school as a "Lord of the Rings" geek. Later on, it was the two part universe of "Kill Bill" that somehow got the best of me and made me embark on my never-ending journey to watch every movie I could find at the public library.

"Harry Potter" has always felt strangely cartoonish to me. Even in its most serious moments, I never got a grasp in my mind that this world of magic could actually exist, that Hogwarts was a place I could put myself into. As far as the movies ago, I was never a fan of its mentality of making a gripping and dark action scene and then trying to end it with a light-hearted moment. That one little one liner would always devalue some of the previous scene's seriousness. That's just taking the idea of comic relief too far. Maybe it's just an English thing.

At this point you are probably wondering: where the hell is my review? I just spent $10.50 and two and a half hours of my life on this movie, so shouldn't I have some clear, formulated opinion? Well, here it is: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 2" is a highly entertaining summer blockbuster. Its special effects are dazzling and show the very best Hollywood has to offer in the latest CGI. This film shows how much the series has changed since its humble roots. However, if this is your first "Harry Potter" film, or your first "Harry Potter" film in quite some time, then you will not find yourself enjoying it so much. I would offer another big blockbuster for you to see but unfortunately, the only other ones currently out are sequels. So instead, I'll request you go watch the pristine images and dinosaurs in "The Tree of Life." That's what you get for not liking "Harry Potter" more, you resentful jerk.

Anyway, there are some things I really do like about "Harry Potter." I really like what the series did with Snape. I also admire the film's special effects, which are the moviemaking equivalent of magic. The CGI felt organic, not forced. But because this film took place in the middle of a story that I was never involved in, I don't feel I can properly review this film to the highest degree. Therefore, I leave you with these last two paragraphs.

All in all, not feeling an emotional connection with Harry and his friends doesn't mean you're missing a piece of your heart. Those tears that people felt once future Harry, Ron, and Hermione sent their kids away to Hogwarts is the exact way I felt after watching Andy give away all of his toys last year in "Toy Story 3."

When some people walked out of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2," a piece of their childhood ended along with the franchise. Everyone my age grew up alongside the "Potter" kids. Their awkward changes once they hit puberty only rivaled our own.

For me, once the screen faded to black, I just continued living from where my life had left off right before the film. However, I did feel an immense sting of disappointment that I didn't stick around for the trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises" that played following the credits.

Movie Review: Paul

Comedies that have been made since, let's say the 90s, have been strongly derived from science fiction. It seems odd to think that the people who were raised on "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" went on to make "Clerks" and "Knocked Up." I never really connected the dots until I watched "Paul." Sci-fi, in either the best or worst sense, can also be comedy.

"Paul" is one of those satires that's a little mocking, yet very loving, at the same time. Only someone so in love with sci-fi and comic book culture could ever make fun of it in this way. "Paul" is one of those movies that was much better than it had any right to be, or at least much better then I ever thought it would be.

"Paul" begins in a place where the new heroes of the 21st century seem to dwell: Comic-Con. Best friends Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) come all the way from England to experience the convention. On the way back, they stop off at some alien landing sites and come across Paul (Seth Rogen), a foul-mouthed, weed smoking alien who just wants to go back home. Now, the duo must help Paul safely meet his ship, while avoiding some very sinister FBI agents (including an intentionally robotic Jason Bateman, along with the much more ridiculous Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio). Along the way they also pick up a Jesus freak (Kristen Wiig) and flee her psychotic father (John Carroll Lynch).

"Paul" might not land my 10 best list for the year, but I will say that it's probably the best put together comedy I've seen so far this year (though the competition is pretty slim). Though this shouldn't be surprising, based on the people involved. Pegg and Frost have already gracefully mocked zombie movies with "Shaun of the Dead" and action movies with "Hot Fuzz." In both cases, they wrote movies that both mocked the genres while becoming entries into them. "Paul" is no exception. These people have obviously partaken in enough sci-fi to know how to make fun of it correctly.

"Paul" has such a sprawling cast of comedic talent, and each actor contributes exactly the way they should be. Pegg and Frost have been practicing British bromance for close to a decade now, and they really know how to do it right. Though this time, their relationship had a much difference balance. It was a little less of one actually trying to get things done, and the other being a total idiot. This time, their friendship was basically played up as a romance, with hilarious effect.

The best comedic minds in Britain blend with America's funniest comedians in "Paul." I guess someone who can make characters as awkward as Wiig can was destined to one day play a half blind hard-core Christian; I guess she fulfilled her destiny. Rogen meanwhile is good as ever, even in alien form. At times, Paul never seemed very alien, because no one bothered to make his character any different from the real Seth Rogen. This actually turns out to be a good thing, as Paul becomes a likable, almost human character. He's like E.T., if only E.T. could speak fluent English and chain smoke.

"Paul" nailed all of its sci-fi and pop culture references, from the never-ending mothership to the meeting spot at Devil's Tower. The film is directed by Greg Motolla, who impresses more and more with the range of comedies he can direct. He can go from gross out ("Superbad"), to a little dramatic ("Adventureland"), to one that has an FX alien as a main character.

What Motolla does best is make sappy ideas seem very sweet. Think about the power of the friendship in "Superbad." That's why I really wish "Paul" had a little more emphasis on the friendship between Graeme and Clive, because very little development and change occurs in it throughout the film. This is too bad, as this was always a strong and hilarious aspect in the other films Pegg and Frost made together. Nothing against Motolla, but perhaps frequent collaborator Edgar Wright would've been a good directorial choice here.

Then again, how do you fit a fully developed buddy comedy into a movie about a half naked alien? If Motolla, Pegg, and Frost could've pulled that off, they'd forever be comic geniuses. Maybe they didn't get there, but they still made a perfectly acceptable, unstoppably hilarious satire. They have certainly followed this rule of good satire quite well: if you want to make a good satire (especially of pop culture), you must be both familiar, and a little in love, with the content you are making fun of.

Movie Review: The Prestige

Only Christopher Nolan could turn something dumb into something smart, and something smart into something artistic. There have been a lot of movies made about magicians, but none quite like this. "The Prestige" makes magic seem real, and it portrays the ways to obtain it as truly genius.

"The Prestige" follows the same vain as films such as "Sunset Boulevard" and "American Beauty" and uses a narrator who speaks from beyond the grave. Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), an American magician, begins the film by being murdered by rival British magician Alfred Borden (Christian Bale).

From there on, the film flashes between many different points in time. All of the jealousy and obsession between the rivals is revealed to show how it all leads up to the film's deadly conclusion. If you think I've given away the whole plot just because I revealed the ending, you don't even know the half of it.

"The Prestige" is the maximum potential greatness that "Inception" could've been if it had a stronger screenplay. While "The Prestige" might not have had the budget or effects of "Inception," it is an underrated gem that outshines it simply for its story.

Writing is a small factor that matters much more than most people realize. "The Prestige" has just about as many twists and complicated layers as "Inception," yet it handles them in a much clearer way. "Inception" was like a puzzle where you were given the pieces, but had no clue what they were supposed to create. "The Prestige" is like a puzzle where you know what it wants to create, you just have to figure out how to piece it together. This is not meant to speak ill of "Inception," simply to try and understand why "The Prestige" fell so under the radar.

Like the characters in every single one of his films, Nolan is something of an obsessive. That helps give way to his strikingly accurate image of England in the 1800s. He also obsessively strives to make magic and the world of magicians not just performance, but art. Nolan puts the magic back into magic, which was taken away intentionally by Gob Bluth in "Arrested Development" and unintentionally by "The Illusionist."

In the world of "The Prestige," magic doesn't just involve a straight face; it requires the magician to be intelligent, innovative, and artful. Magic tricks should actually be magical. Although in this world, some of it could actually be real.

As for the acting, Jackman shows he is not quite as world class as some of his co-stars, but he is certainly trying his best. Bale meanwhile, is as wildly spot-on as always. Even in moments that seem genuine, he is always projecting a dark underside that is just waiting to be revealed at every moment. That is what truly makes Bale such a great actor: his unpredictability.

Nolan favorite Michael Caine also starts in "The Prestige" and for the first time in years, he plays a large, incredibly vital part of a story. While he usually plays the nice old mentor who helps the hero out, in "The Prestige," his role is less good and much more ambiguous. None of the characters in the movie would function without him. Also, for the sake of getting my hits up on Google, I thought I'd mention that Scarlett Johansson is also in this movie.

"The Prestige" reminded me of the recent "Black Swan," mainly in its final twist. Like "Black Swan," it pulled off an ending that could've been guessed and still makes it both shocking and exciting. Even if an end twist is obvious, it can always be good as long as the filmmaker isn't pretentious about it.

Some might call Nolan a modern day Spielberg for his ability to convert smart ideas in huge blockbusters. "The Prestige," meanwhile, is Nolan at his most Hitchcockian. Everything about it from the perils of obsession to the way the twists and thrills are laid out would make the British master of suspense proud.

"The Prestige" takes a genre that was stretched to its end and makes it fresh and captivating again. "The Prestige" is the best kind of psychological thriller: it actually makes you use your brain to enjoy it.

If You Liked This Movie, You'll Also Like: Black Swan, Fight Club, Inception, Memento, Moon, There Will Be Blood, Vertigo

Movie Review: Exit Through the Gift Shop

There can be a point in a certain film where it stops being a film and starts a living, breathing creature. Some call this meta. Some may think it doesn't even deserve a name. Whatever meta may be can be the only way to ever truly describe the riveting maybe real or maybe fake documentary, "Exit Through the Gift Shop."

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" that tells multiple stories and is, believe or not, multiple films rapped within one. The main focus of "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is on Thierry Guetta, an eccentric French-American man who is obsessed with filming everything he sees. Thierry's annoying filmmaking begins to find a purpose once he gets sucked into the world of street art, meeting such famed street artists as Shepard Fairey.

One day, Thierry is asked to become the personal filmmaker to the most famous, most elusive modern street artist: Banksy. Banksy also directed "Exit Through the Gift Shop." Discuss.

The interesting thing about describing "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is that it may sound like I'm describing a narrative film rather than a documentary. That's because "Exit Through the Gift Shop" does a better job than most modern documentaries at taking its parts and constructing a coherent whole.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" proves that Inception can be a real thing: once an idea is planted in someone's head, it can never be eradicated. Once the idea that this movie might be a hoax comes to mind, it makes almost too much sense. "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is either the best documentary or the funniest comedy of the year, or both.

However, Guetta seems almost too strange to have ever been invented. At first, he is likably ambitious. After a little twist, he begins something more of a psycho who has absolutely no clue what he's doing. Nevertheless, it is fascinating to see this man somehow become an extreme success in the world of street art.

Thierry Guetta may be the film's main star, but "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is always surrounded by the idea of Banksy. After all, this is a Banksy production. Even though he is nothing more than a man in a black hoodie with a muffled voice, he still feels so real and powerful. He also proves here that he is a multi-talented artist, not just mastering the world of street art, but also the world of filmmaking.

Real or not, "Exit Through the Gift Shop" does exactly what it's meant to do: explore the world of street art. It gives us a look at how street artists function in a way that is so close and exclusive that the viewer begins to become enveloped in the world itself. Notice the film barely uses the term "graffiti." Instead, all the artists say "street art." "Exit Through the Gift Shop" will make you more open minded about what art can be.

What "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is really trying to answer (besides who its own director is) is this age old question: what is art? Nearly any object in the world can be taken and turned into art. What Banksy is really asking is this: maybe it isn't. Could we be living in a world where the idea of artistic expression has been taken too far? That seems possible, especially in a world where people like Thierry Guetta can pick up a camera or a paint brush.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" becomes meta in that it is a film about the making of the film. It is like a behind the scenes documentary that is way more informative than the average behind the scenes documentary you'd find on Showtime. It is not really about the stars, but about the art that the stars create. What Banksy has created a behind the scenes look not about himself, but about his art. In that art, maybe the real Banksy can be found.

I could be thinking to myself right now that it is a real shame that I didn't see "Exit Through the Gift Shop" earlier on, for its brilliance deserves a spot on my list of the ten best films of 2010. However, I find it impossible to say that. "Exit Through the Gift Shop" doesn't even deserve to be on a list of its own. Its unique, reality-bending view on art defies the entire idea of lists.

Movie Review: The King's Speech

It must be hard to make a speech to an entire nation, but I imagine it's even more difficult to have to do it with a speech impediment. "The King's Speech" manages to bring history's most insecure king's struggle to life, one oblique angle at a time.

"The King's Speech" does the extraordinary by making British royalty both sympathetic and not at all boring. I guess people are just more interesting when they're facing total ruin from an evil foreign power.

For those who need to brush up on their history (like me), "The King's Speech" is a biography on King George VI (Colin Firth). It begins in the days when he was still Duke of York, to his rise to the throne in the wake of World War II.

George's path to power is blocked by his speech impediment, a problem which prevents him from speaking in public. So, his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) hires speech doctor Lionel Lougue (Geoffrey Rush) to help him get rid of his confining stutter. Throughout the years, Louge becomes both a doctor and a life coach to George.

That man playing the king is someone who has hopefully become a household name by now, because his acting ability is too good to ignore. Firth turns a character that might've been cold and unsympathetic into someone who is both warm and funny, a man who under his problems is radiating with personality and life.

Firth is also one of the most emotional actors working today, and Hollywood's best crier. I still remember that first scene in "A Single Man" when he breaks down into silent rage. Nobody knew anything about this character, but still, we wanted to cry with him.

As an actor, Firth does best when given as little to say as possible. Even in a film about the importance of rhetoric, Firth's silence is a dominating factor.

Not only is "The King's Speech" wonderfully acted, it's also wonderfully told. What could have been dated and stale historical nonfiction feels so alive and modern; the characters of the past feel as tangible and relatable as characters in the present would. The fantastic screenplay, written by David Seidler, brings fascinating historical depth and great moments of comic relief when needed.

The man who deserves the biggest praise for the success of "The King's Speech" is director Tom Hopper. The rookie British director directs like an old pro. It is both claustrophobic and emotionally shot. The best example of the superb directing would be that first scene. Everything from the way the camera is slightly tilted to how the frame is slightly blurred represent a nervous tension leading up to the opening speech. You could look at that, or the subtle imagery, like the way the microphone is placed in front of George's mouth to look almost like a muzzle, or a cage. The best directed films are the ones you have to look at with the keenest eye, and find the greatest little details.

"The King's Speech" is even better than the Oscar-begging period piece it appears to be. It will be raking in the Oscar nominations this year because it deserves it, and that is a rare find nowadays.

Halfway Through: The Best Films of the First Half of 2010

There has been an unreasonably large amount of articles lately chronicling the best films of the first half of 2010. As a journalist, I need to stay relevant. So, why not chime in as well.

So far, this year in cinema has been quite odd. So far, trash has just been piling on and on. Big films have either been disappointing or flat out awful. "Robin Hood" was an example of Hollywood desperately trying to market off an existing franchise. That one failed, miserably. Another movie, "The A-Team," is an example of the death of both originality and intellect.

Yet, maybe the financial troubles of those two films could prove that the public is actually starting to search for quality, not crap. But then again, some really great films also had trouble finding an audience. And yes, there have been a few really great films so far this year, ones that will most likely make it onto my year end top 10 list.

The best films so far this year are a mixture of independent and mainstream. Some are ultra violent, and others are ultra silly. Since we are only halfway through the year, I will do only half of a top 10 list. Here are my five favorite films so far from 2010. They are listed in alphabetical order, as I still have half a year to decide what is truly best.

Fish Tank

Nobody can do Realism quite like the Brits can. "Fish Tank" is a gritty and unflinching look at the troubles of a rebellious teenage girl living in a London slum. It's documentary-like style is almost painful; it introduces to moments that perhaps we aren't even supposed to see. But we're looking at it for the better. Even from a removed distance, we feel with the characters, and change with them. Challenge yourself to watch it; you won't regret it.

Kick-Ass

The movie to end all superhero movies, though it probably won't. "Kick-Ass" manages to be so many things. While it's a social satire about why superheroes can't exist in reality, it's also a fine entry into the superhero genre. It's one of the best made films in a while, and it contains some amazingly shot action sequences. It's also not afraid to get gory. In a world where few things seem taboo anymore, "Kick-Ass" is the rare film that actually feels edgy for all the right reasons. Oh, and I have to mention Hit-Girl. Believe me, you'll never stop talking about her.

MacGruber

By far the most underrated film of the year. Most unfortunately saw "MacGruber" as dumb and unnecessarily vulgar. Vulgar indeed, but not stupid. What exactly is the essence of the brilliance of "MacGruber"? Is it how it managed to take a one minute long sketch and develop it into a feature length story? Or is it how perfectly it mocked the action genre without repeatedly winking at the audience? I would say a little bit of both. I think what made "MacGruber" ultimately so satisfying is that it's truly, originally hilarious. It might not have made as much as "Killers," but I think we all know which one people will be talking about 10 years from now.

Shutter Island

If there's one person on the planet who could make a mainstream film feel like art, it's Martin Scorsese. "Shutter Island" could've been a total disaster, but all it really needed was someone with as extensive a knowledge of film as Scorsese has. The film is a throwback to '50s noir. It utilizes cinematography and soundtrack to the highest degree in order to elevate the extremely creepy atmosphere. It's brilliant technically, but it's also given a heart by the emotionally complex performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, who proves himself a better and better actor everyday. And unless you've read the book, there's a nice little surprise waiting for you at the end. "Shutter Island" is a movie made for movie lovers.

Toy Story 3

Few movies have the capacity to both make me cry and feel like a child again. Congratulations, "Toy Story 3," on getting nostalgia down right. "Toy Story" captured two very important moments in my life: the beginning of my childhood, and the end of it. I remember seeing the first one in theaters, and I'll never forget when I saw the third one. But if you didn't grow up with "Toy Story," then see it because it proves why animation is officially a respectable form of art in society. It's fun and it's filled with more actual jokes than just pop culture references. Pixar, keep being you.

A Few Other Good Ones: Hot Tub Time Machine, Greenberg, Cyrus, Winter's Bone, Splice, The Ghost Writer

Movie Review: Get Him to the Greek

Hollywood loves sequels. They love it. They're a little too in love though. If Hollywood wants to continue banking off of franchise-worthy films, they should consider spin-offs over sequels. "Get Him to the Greek" shows that perhaps individual characters, and not entire plots, were meant to be seen again.

"Get Him to the Greek" uses the 2008 instant classic "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" as its starting point. It pulls away Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), the self-absorbed English rocker. Snow still exists in the same universe as "Sarah Marshall." After the success of such songs as "Do Something" and "Inside of You," his career was almost totally destroyed after the failure of the accidentally offensive "African Child." And don't worry, you will get your music video.

Snow also got married and divorced. After seven years of being sober, he took up drinking and drugs once again. Across the pond and an entire land mass over, Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) is a rising executive at a record label with a doctor girlfriend (Elisabeth Moss) that he rarely has time to share a moment with. Green is what Hill's character in "Sarah Marshall" (who is totally different) would have become if Snow actually ever listened to his demo.

But the music business is changing. Green's boss Sergio (Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs), who is always mad about something, wants a game changer. Green suggests the winning idea: bringing back Snow to do a show at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles. The only catch is, Green has to get him himself and bring him from London to New York to Los Angeles in just 72 hours. Basically, it's a good set-up that makes room for even better jokes.

The humor of "Get Him to the Greek" stems from a mixture of awkwardness and over-the-top gags. Sometimes, these two styles interact with one another. The awkwardness works because the actors play the characters that way, and the slapstick works because it's well directed.

Yet, the one comedic aspect of "Get Him to the Greek" that could be considered close to brilliant is its satire of the music world and entertainment industry in general. Snow's songs are always laced with innuendos. At another moment, Sergio plays the music he thinks will sell right now. It's basically just a string of curse words, but it sounds nearly identical to modern mainstream rap. Satire is at its best when it seems too ridiculous to be true, but too truthful to be just a joke.

Like most of the other films in the Apatow oeuvre (Judd produced this), there is a strong reliance on the actors. And the actors deliver. This is Hill's first true lead performance (in "Superbad" I'd say it was a co-leading performance), and with it he proves that he's more than just the creepy guy in the background who does cringe-worthy things. What this kind of comedy needs to work (besides good jokes) is relatable characters. Green's uptight nature feels genuine and not forced. Hill works to make him not only likable, but also hatable. He's nice when he should be, and extremely selfish when he should be. Moss is essentially playing Peggy from "Mad Men" yet she adds a dash of humor to it which makes it very effective.

So Hill may be a great leading man, but there are two absolute scene stealers here. I thought from the time I first saw "Sarah Marshall" that Aldous Snow was a character worthy of his own movie, and he finally got it. He is transformed from ex-druggy musician to a character worthy of being in "Spinal Tap." Some might call Brand's performance effortless, because he is essentially playing himself. However, I enjoy performances like that because what it really means is that no other actor could play this character. It belongs distinctly to someone.

Brand makes the character real by adding little distinct features to him such as a pretentious way of pronouncing words and an even more pretentious walk. While his character is a huge jerk most of the time, there are little moments that make him seem relatable. Making a caricature relatable is what should be defined as fine acting.

I agree with many who are saying that Diddy's Sergio deserves a movie of his own. His character is too big, bloated, and hilarious for one film. Diddy channels the angry boss role flawlessly. His performance reminded me of a variation of Malcolm Tucker from "In the Loop" with less of a good reason for being so angry all of the time.

"Get Him to the Greek" is written and directed by Nicholas Stoller. Like he also displayed in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," Stoller has this amazingly rare talent of creating a huge ensemble full of three dimensional characters.

While some of the backstories in "Greek" certainly don't feel as original as the ones in "Sarah Marshall," they no less bring understanding to the characters. And why, do you ask, is backstory so important in a comedy? Because it's easier to laugh with people you like than people you despise. Green could've been nothing more than a selfish, cold businessman. Snow could've been nothing more than a self-absorbed and emotionless rock star. Yet, "Greek" is better than that. It doesn't need to stoop down to that level.

"Get Him to the Greek" lacks some of the finer points of its predecessor, yet I find few things here I could really complain about. In a summer season that has so far been pretty tepid, "Greek" seems less interested in trying to sell something to you and more interested in actually trying to give you a good time at the movies. At that I say, it nobly succeeds.

TV Review: Skins

I never thought I'd say this, but the world has found a new "Freaks and Geeks." The late, great show has found its self reincarnated in the British show "Skins." It's "Freaks and Geeks," uncensored.

"Skins" is so different from most shows today portraying high schoolers in its realism and dimensionality. It follows a large group of friends at a British high school, with each one getting their moment in the sun. There's Tony (Nicholas Hoult), the cocky, obnoxious pretty boy. Tony's best friend is Sid (Mike Bailey). Sid lacks the confidence of his best friend. He's both the kind of guy everyone defines simply as "nice," and the kind of guy who cares less about his own problems than everyone else does.

Sid is also deeply in love with Tony's girlfriend, Michelle (April Pearson), who wonders whether or not there's an emotional being under her boyfriend's sleaziness. Sid might love Michelle, but he is constantly pursued by Cassie (Hannah Murray), an insecure but sweet girl with eating issues.

The rest of the important players include immature Chris (Joseph Dempsie), kind and musically gifted Jal (Larissa Wilson), and Anwar (Dev Patel), a Muslim grappling with his religious identity, so much so that it leads him to troubles with his gay friend Maxxie (Mitch Hewer).

The rest of the story typically just involves the teens navigating through a world of teenage angst. That could involve screwy relationships, embattled friendships, school work, and drugs. But then it also arches out to broader, everyday issues, like how to cope with getting hit by a car while trying to confess your love for someone.

"Skins" is one of those shows that wants to give every member of its large ensemble time to reveal their stories. Yes, it's about redemption. Yet, not every character will immediately receive redemption in their assigned episodes. When one character is given an episode, it is their chance to realize their flaws and maybe think of how to change them later on. On "Skins," redemption is never just given; it has to be earned.

Despite the fact that most of the characters get to redeem themselves, that doesn't mean everyone is necessarily likable. Unlike most modern American shows, "Skins" doesn't push to make any of its characters likable. In fact, some of them could be considered detestable. Yet, that's what makes them human; not every person has the ability to be a totally great human being of any sort.

Unlike many high school stories, "Skins" is not just about its teens. The plot stretches into the lives of teachers and parents. When we see the lives of the parents, we are allowed to experience both the anger and angst that is passed down to the children, and through this we get an even more complex and detailed character study. Basically, everyone has a problem.

"Skins" is most engaging with its fascinating characters. It also manages to grab attention with its unique storytelling devices, the kinds that are atypical for this type of show. Many episodes will end right in the middle of an action, denying its audience of seeing the one action the episode has built up to. It's a way of saying that the final action doesn't matter; it's the path the character took to get their that truly matters.

At other times, the show might even break the fourth wall. In the final moments of season one, rather than having a huggy-kissy moment, "Skins" opts for a very "Magnolia" moment. I won't tell you how, because that would ruin the strange magic to it.

One extremely noticeable thing about "Skins" is how wildly uncensored it is, and sometimes how casually, yet seriously, it tackles some of its more controversial subjects. But hey, maybe swearing and partying are just casual hobbies for kids. Another thing that makes "Skins" great is that it never cuts corners or tries to be a clean version of reality. While it might heighten reality at times (like the episode where they go to Russia, or that whole ordeal with the submerged car), it never veers from its intended vision.

Whenever I review TV shows, I often look at them from the perspective of film. That is, the ones that have episodes that seem cinematic in quality. "Skins" has made me realize that that simply isn't what makes a show great.

While most episodes of "Skins" can work as self-contained stories, this overall story could never work as a film. The character development that takes place could happen over several seasons, not 90 minutes or so. It's amazing how we're not only how deep the show goes, but how many characters it is able to so fully develop. "Skins" will impress not by gags and gimmicks, but simply by a deep and detailed fascination with how people behave.

Movie Review: Robin Hood

Ridley Scott, where are you? The credits for "Robin Hood" say your name, but not a single one of your directorial trademarks are at all present. "Robin Hood" is not a movie, it's a mess. It makes "The Room" look coherent.

The story of Robin Hood is folklore that's been passed down for generations. It's the famous "steal from the rich, give to the needy story." Even Scott can't seem to get that straight.

What can be deciphered from the muddled plot is that "Robin Hood" is the story of Robin Longstride, a.k.a. Robin Hood (Russell Crowe). Robin Hood is a skilled archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) during the political instability of 13th century England. After King Richard dies, Robin Hood travels to a small English village where he encounters corruption, a crippled taxation system, and a lonely yet strong widow (Cate Blanchett).

Besides encountering love, Robin Hood makes time to return a sword to his rightful owner, and battle the pesky French, all while managing to be one of the least engaging Medieval warriors I've ever seen.

Robin Hood is a mythical person, but he is one that has been emphasized over the years with so much detail that some might think he was real. You wouldn't know it from this version, though. The free-spirited, anarchic outlaw that this film wants to portray is not visible once. In fact, the title character at times seems to disappear in the background. At times, he's rendered totally insignificant. If a film wants to portray its hero as such an important figure of its made up world, than it should actually try to do just that.

I look back at "Robin Hood" and I realize, there wasn't one redeeming feature to somehow lift this movie up. I always try to find that one redeeming feature of every poorly done film to prove that no matter what, nothing is perfect. Yet, I still can't find it here. Maybe the one redeeming feature is the potential. "Robin Hood" holds a talented cast, and a talented director, yet nothing holds up.

The weakest point of "Robin Hood" is definitely its screenplay. No plot points seem to connect, no characters are related to each other in important ways, and not a single line of dialogue is the least bit memorable. The film ultimately amounts to two hours and twenty minutes of British people arguing about tax code in the dullest way imaginable.

"Robin Hood" is a summer blockbuster. I know that, and the film knows that. It looks like a summer blockbuster, but it just isn't one. There is barely a battle sequence to be found here. Then, whatever action that is to be found here is impossible to even follow. Not to mention, every kill seems meaningless because Scott seems to prefer going into battle without much context. Why are the British battling the French? Why are the British now battling each other? Taxes, I guess.

There is a difference between a good summer blockbuster, and a great one. A good one contains the kind of action that is entertaining and satisfying. A great one contains action that is enthralling and sometimes mesmerizing. "Robin Hood" falls into neither category. This is bizarre, as this comes from the mind of a truly great action director.

There is not a single moment in which "Robin Hood" feels like a Ridley Scott film. It lacks the graceful action that won "Gladiator" Best Picture. It also lacks the amazingly realized universe of "Blade Runner" and the truly brave and three dimensional hero of "Alien."

Instead, "Robin Hood" tries way too hard to capitalize off of the success of "Lord of the Rings." Rather than coming off like "Lord of the Rings," or even "Braveheart," it feels more like "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" meets an intense LARPing match. Yet, the characters in a LARPing match are more well defined.

The one thing that continues to bother me about "Robin Hood" is the wasted potential. Besides the great director, it contains a sprawling cast (which contains the legendary Max von Sydow, who's been around long enough to work with both Martin Scorsese and Ingmar Bergman). Even Crowe and Blanchett are reduced to merely mumbling. There is even a scene where Blanchett gives an unimaginably unrealistic response to the death of a family member. Crowe is forced to do the cliche "NOOO!" scream. Is that how two Academy Award winners are supposed to be treated?

I will try my best now, to give the film some sort of praise. It might be a little backhanded, but its something. The barrage of arrows at the end was pretty well done, even if it was a blatant ripoff of a stupid scene from "300." Meanwhile, Kevin Durand (Keamy from "Lost") does a fine job in his role as the oddly named Little John. He is the only one who seems to be enjoying his role, and the only one who seems to be in the right movie.

Besides that, the rest of the movie is basically the Knights Who Say Ni. I'd have given the film some sort of pass for effort but for a director who's known to be an intense perfectionist, its shocking that so little effort has been put into this version of "Robin Hood." Whether this is the fault of an intrusive studio, or a lazy director and writer is up to interpretation, but one thing about the legend of Robin Hood can be said: the version with the fox is better.

Movie Review: Trainspotting

At this point, I should not be surprised to see a Danny Boyle film that starts and begins with action. Or, in the case of "Trainspotting," begins in the middle of action. That's the pace of the film, the mood of the film, and the setting of the film, all introduced in a few short seconds. If you can't keep up, you were never meant to watch this film. If you can, be prepared for one of the most rewarding viewing experience you might ever have.

"Trainspotting" was the breakthrough film of the energized British mind of Danny Boyle, perhaps best known for "Slumdog Millionaire." Here, the slums of Mumbai are replaced by the drug scene of Edinburgh, Scotland. Boyle focuses on a small group of heroin addicts, who live as a small, twisted, alternate family.

The circle of friends include the timid Spud (Ewen Bremner), honest Tommy (Kevin McKidd), almost pensive Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), borderline psychotic Begbie (Robert Carlyle), and Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor). Renton is the film's central character. The film mainly follows his quest from junkie to ordinary man. His conflict is to make it to sobriety without being pulled back into the past.

"Trainspotting" proves that Boyle brings a level of energy and thrill to cinema that few directors nowadays can match. He can achieve this high level of energy simply by tilting a camera, or adding a little light to a room. It might just be a way to shine a little bit of hope into a hopeless world. However, this doesn't mean Boyle is attempting to beautify horror. He never justifies his characters' actions. The film is meant to portray the world inside the mind of a heroin addict, and maybe one person might just beauty in their own mind where others see trash.

Boyle will always remain in my mind a brilliant visual director. He just truly knows what a good image would look like. And while some visual directors opt forr long stretches of silence, Boyle can let soliloquies run long over stunning images with no sense of distraction. Both of these things make one of those combos that just inexplicably work so well together. Boyle is the rare director who can be in-your-face without being annoyingly intrusive.

While Boyle is overwhelmingly a visual director, he still can stay in touch with emotion. Through many odd, trippy sequences, Boyle explicitly shows the inner workings of a drug experience. Then, he shows how these experiences have the power to dehumanize and tear people apart.

Of all the characters in the large ensemble of "Trainspotting," Renton is without a doubt the most important, and the most deep. He is the one character the audience can cling onto emotionally because he is the only one seems to have the ability to change. Renton is extremely dark; he rejects every aspect of materialism along with his own heritage. He doesn't seem to do drugs out of addiction but rather out of the pure thrill of life. He definitely adheres to the quote that opens up "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas": "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

The inner pains of Renton are brought out by the outstanding performance of McGregor. He disappears into his role and never steps out of it. He shows an untrustworthy inner demon. Yet, his capacity to change is utterly believable.

Some might compare "Trainspotting" to a modern film about the effects of drugs such as "Requiem for a Dream." However, I will instead compare it to one of cinema's greatest masterworks: "A Clockwork Orange." I am not saying "Trainspotting" is as good as "A Clockwork Orange," but I can feel that Boyle was trying to emulate Kubrick's classic and he does so well. The large white walls that engulf characters, the aloof parents, and the endless graffiti feels totally reminiscent of the world of Alex DeLarge.

Like "A Clockwork Orange," "Trainspotting" is about the possibility or impossibility of change in a world that's in a constant state of moral decay. This is a film that tells the typical anti-drug fable with a hip new eye. Sometimes that's just what the greatest movies are, they ones that tell the stories we've heard millions of times before and makes them brand new. Oh, and in the case of "Trainspotting," simply brilliant.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

This is not the Alice you were expecting. Or so we are reminded throughout. This is a new Alice, in a new Wonderland, for better, or for worse.

Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" gives you exactly what you'd expect in a Tim Burton film: weirdness, darkness, and madness. Although it misses out on some of the depth of his earlier work, "Alice" shows that this man still understands the concept of the fairytale.

Rather than making this "Alice" exactly like the original, Burton decided to give it a little twist. Thirteen years after first discovering Wonderland, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is curious teen, totally loathing her dull Victorian lifestyle. As she is proposed to, she follows that same white rabbit with the stop watch and falls down that same rabbit hole. She's back where she's been before but this time, she can't remember a thing.

While in Wonderland, she meets the very mad Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), who convinces her to team up with the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and defeat the evil, reigning Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) by slaying the Jabberwocky.

To this minute, I still feel split in my thoughts on this film. On the one hand, it was thoroughly entertaining. On the other hand, it's filled with flaws.

My biggest problem with "Alice" was that it felt as if Burton was rushing through the story. Even though Alice has existed for almost 150 years, this is obviously a different Alice than we've seen before. It's apparent that she's a bored free spirit living in the wrong universe. However, barely any background is given as to how she became this way. I thought one of the stronger aspects of "Where the Wild Things Are" (a film I use as a basis of comparison because they are actually very similar) was that it built up all of Max's anger and alienation into this alternate world. He earned his rite of passage into the Land of the Wild Things. Alice should've waited a bit longer.

"Alice in Wonderland" is perhaps the most ambitious experiment in converting a film into 3D. However, this story should've been kept in the second dimension. None of the visuals seem to pop out at you in an "Avatar" way. Seriously, that 3D cat food commercial that ran before the movie started used the technology better. A film that isn't shot in 3D isn't shot in 3D for a reason. Burton was probably trying to keep his vision two dimensional on purpose.

Despite the failed 3D, the set design and cinematography are nothing short of stunning. Burton creates a world that's been seen so many times before in a surprisingly unique way. He tries to turn Wonderland into his own land. Meanwhile, the lush yet dark photography perfectly matches the film's tone.

Rather than going with a known lead to play Alice, Burton went for newcomer Wasikowska. She's a welcome breath of fresh air, and certainly a promising future star. She takes a 19th century character and fills her with relatable, 21st century teenage angst. It's too bad she wasn't given a better script, though. Same goes for Depp. Based on interviews, it's obvious how much amazing work Depp did to portray the Mad Hatter. However, he's given such little time to do his thing. I think with a little less constraint, Depp could've done the same thing with the Mad Hatter that he did with Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean" and Hunter Thompson in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."

I think what this is all leading up to is an unfortunate amount of superficiality. That's disappointing for a director who's brought humanity to both a man with scissors for hands ("Edward Scissorhands") and the guy who directed "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ("Ed Wood"). Burton has always put much effort into the world he creates, but he never abandons the humans that inhabit it. And even here, Burton doesn't seem to relish the wonders that Wonderland provide. You stare, but don't gaze, at it.

I hope I'm not sounding too negative because overall, "Alice in Wonderland" is a good film, but just not the great one that it could've been. "Alice in Wonderland" might give us a new story, and a new Alice, but something about it just doesn't seem inspired enough.

Some Bonus Fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0

Movie Review: Fish Tank

Mia is always running. You would to if you lived a life like her's. Her life is hard. That might sound vague, but her plight is emphasized in almost unbearably vivid detail in "Fish Tank."

"Fish Tank" is the next chapter in what I consider a British New Wave. Along with last year's "In the Loop," "An Education," and "Moon" as well as 2008's "In Bruges," "Fish Tank" is part of a series of incredibly well crafted (and entertaining) British films.

Of all these films, "Fish Tank" might just be the darkest. It is a gritty look at lower class life. With its shaky camera, "Fish Tank" at times feels like a documentary. The film follows the life of Mia (Katie Jarvis). Mia is a 15-year-old living on the outskirts of London with a tendency to get in trouble. On the outside, she's tough and reckless. On the inside, she's vulnerable and dreams of being a dancer.

Any hope Mia might have is crushed by her physically abusive and unloving mother. Her mother's new boyfriend, Connor (Michael Fassbender), is kind and caring. Mia soon falls in love with him, and begins a doomed affair with him.

"Fish Tank" introduces its audience to a world it is likely not at all familiar with it. By the end, you'll feel like you lived it. As mentioned, the constantly shaking camera makes the film feel like a documentary. When Mia sits, the camera sits. When Mia runs, it runs with her, shaking all the way, as if someone is directly following her every step.

The film's cinematography is just one thing to show that this film is alive. Not to mention, the constantly changing colors brilliantly match each shot and never get in the way of the story (this was a big problem for me in "A Single Man"). Then there is the music. The rap songs help make this film the most vibrant and energetic social drama I've seen since "Do the Right Thing."

It is amazing to say that I'm saying that a film like "Fish Tank," full of emotionally devastating abuse, could also be classified as energetic. It is a testament to the power of Mia, that she can still bring life and energy into such horrible circumstances.

Speaking of Mia, she's an interesting character to talk about. She reminds me in a way of a young, more destitute Madame Bovary for the 21st century. She seems to base her life in the idea of fantasy so much that she blends fantasy and reality. This can be seen in her affair with Connor. She might think she's finding true love, but actually, in a twisted way, she's really searching for a father figure in her life. Or maybe she just needs an intelligent and caring male to counteract the poor female role model in her life.

Newcomer Katie Jarvis is electrifying in her debut performance. She has no problem going down to the hardboiled truth of Mia's character. I was also thoroughly impressed by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender wowed me in his brief performance in "Inglourious Basterds" and in "Fish Tank" he brings that same tough yet relaxed geniality to make Connor a character who is hard to hate. Fassbender is blossoming into something of a great actor, and I'm expecting much from him in the years to come.

"Fish Tank" is a great movie because it takes a good story and uses a distinct directorial style to make it great. Director Andrea Arnold has a love of the surrounding world. She'll often focus on different objects around a room to directly reveal character.

Arnold also focuses heavily on the surroundings, like a giant wind turbine that lies right outside her apartment. It creates a direct contrast between two very different worlds within such close distance. Then there is the film's beautiful last image. I won't give it away, but I will say is that it nearly encapsulates the entire film in just one shot. Even in a film that seems to deny the idea that people can live out their wildest fantasies, this one shot shows that in a hard world love still exists if you actually try and find it. The title itself, meanwhile, shows how everyone is trapped into their own personal fish tank of an existence. Only the strongest can swim away.

Even though it's only February, "Fish Tank" is the first great film to be released in 2010, and one that will most definitely be a top 10 contender come December.

Movie Review: A Single Man

Ignore the posters that make this film out to be a romance between Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. Ignore the buzz that makes this film seem like nothing more than a "gay movie." "A Single Man" is much more than a romance of any kind. "A Single Man" is a film with amazing depth, but unfortunately, falls just short of perfection.

"A Single Man" takes place in Los Angeles in the early 1960s. It centers on the complicated life in and out of the head of British college professor George (Firth). The film begins at a climatic moment one would expect to see in the middle, rather than beginning, of a story. George's lover, Jim (Matthew Goode), dies in a car crash.

From there, the film becomes one of those films where the story is less a plot and more of an idea. George copes with the pain of losing his lover. He seeks solace in liquor, an old flame (Moore), and a curious young student (Nicholas Hoult).

Much praise has been heaped upon Firth. This is no surprise; he is able to express so much in so little. George is a character who keeps much of his true self hidden, and Firth always gives George a little less than a smile and a little less than a frown. We know he is not emotionless, and he eventually proves not to be.

Perhaps one of the most moving scenes of the year was made possible by Firth's incredibly real acting. After getting the call that Jim was killed, George breaks down and cries. However, it is not a loud, over-the-top reaction. Rather, he remains silent. His silence increases the intensity of his reaction more than any scream could.

The film also contains an excellent, yet too brief, performance by Julianne Moore. She revives her British accent from "The Big Lebowski" and brings something of an uplifting spirit to an otherwise saddening story.

It may sound strange, but one of the strongest features of "A Single Man" is also its only real weakness: the directing. The film was directed by Tom Ford, a fashion designer. For a directorial debut, it's somewhat impressive, and very promising.

Ford has already begun to establish a style. He directs the film like a fashion designer, paying very close attention to color and small details. He really loves color. Ford truly does embrace the aspect of style, and he tries to use it to enhance the substance. There are times when this works. For example, throughout the film, George is constantly shot with washed out colors. Meanwhile, every time Kenny (the young student) enters the frame, George's world lights up with warm, lively colors.

Details like this work because they are subtle. However, other overly artistic details in the film don't work at all. While the very strange way George looks at his neighbors serves to show how conflicted he is between lifestyles, the continuous freeze frames also take away some of the seriousness of the story. At other moments, George will be in the middle of experiencing an emotional breakthrough and Ford's over-the-top direction will give away exactly what we're supposed to get on our own from the complexity of Firth's performance.

The major problem of this film is that the director, the film's leader, is too present. While Ford is talented, he is also dealing with an extremely talented cast of actors. Without his constant intervention, their talents could have wowed us even further. While all of the best directors leave their personal stamp on every film they make, everyone else involved should be allowed to leave their mark as well.

Despite some small hiccups, Ford manages to get both the story and themes across effectively. In fact, George manages to come off as fully developed despite being someone who can barely express his true feelings. It seems that the whole point of the film is to do the best any film can to get inside someone's head from an outsider perspective. We see a fully realized world of confusion and uncertainty.

"A Single Man" is the first movie in recent years with a gay main character not to make a huge deal of the character's sexuality. The word "gay" is never used once in the film. Given the time period, most men were beyond closeted, and homosexuality seemed basically impossible. The relationship between George and Jim is used to convey the sense of freedom and openness that is trapped inside of him. The film becomes one about finding identity and reaching clarity.

The greatest thing Tom Ford does with "A Single Man" is that he makes it a love story that's neither a gay love story nor a straight love story but rather just a love story about understanding love and dealing with loss.