Django Unchained Review

Sorry about the long break from posts. I'll try to play a little bit of catchup within the coming days. For now, though, I'm coming back with a review of the action-packed new film from Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained.

Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. Pulp Fiction is deservedly a classic, although I believe that Inglourious Basterds is his true masterpiece. Basterds especially showed the amount of influence spaghetti westerns have had on the director, as that film was basically a spaghetti western with a different setting. Now he's made an actual spaghetti western, or more correctly Southern, with Django Unchained, the story of an escaped slave who teams up with a German bounty hunter to free his wife from a sadistic plantation owner.

Now, slavery is a huge and dramatic issue, and this film handles the issue with all of the tact and respect that can be expected from Quentin Tarantino, which is to say none at all. A certain racial slur is thrown around like the word "the" and the violence shown is swift and brutal and bloody. However, it doesn't feel cheap. Tarantino is showing slavery from his, admittedly stylized, viewpoint, and it is effective at showing the horrors of owning another human being, as well as the casual racism that was around at the time.

As for the quality of the film, Django again greatly succeeds. It feels just like any other Quentin Tarantino film, focusing first on entertainment, second on great filmmaking, but containing both in droves. It is quite possibly Tarantino's most fun film, if not his best. Tarantino pays no attention to normal story structure, which is not unusual for him, but it creates an effect that is slightly jarring in the third act. However, the film is never boring, and, despite its length, is actually one of the most fast paced movies Tarantino's ever made.

As for the performances, there are really only for to even discuss. Jamie Foxx is great as the protagonist Django. He performs well in his action scenes and in his more dramatic moments, and he is a very entertaining character to watch. Unfortunately, his performance is hindered by the fact that he spends almost every scene with Christoph Waltz who is expectedly phenomenal as Dr. King Schultz, Django's partner in bounty hunting. A far cry from his Oscar winning role in Inglourious Basterds, Waltz nonetheless manages to nearly steal the entire movie again. Leonardo DiCaprio also does well as the villainous Calvin Candie. It is strange to see DiCaprio as a villain, but he has fun with the role, and hams it up suitably. Though it is a departure for DiCaprio, the role is a fairly standard villain role, fun, but nothing an avid filmgoer won't have seen before.

The most surprising performance in the film is that of Samuel L. Jackson. The very moment he steps on screen he steals the film. He is very funny, but there is always the sense that he is hiding something, making him simultaneously one of the most dramatically intriguing, and comedically entertaining characters in the entire film, and it's all thanks to Jackson.

Overall, Django is a great film. It's more of an entertaining action film as done by Tarantino, a la Kill Bill, than a one of a kind film experience, as Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds were, but it truly succeeds at everything it was shooting for. It's one of the most fun and brutally satisfying films of the year, and it is at times laugh out loud hilarious to boot. Just be prepared for the long haul, as the film is nearly three hours in length, but it is fun from beginning to end.

Grade: A-

Sleepwalk with me Review

     The best way to describe Mike Birbiglia's semi-autobiographical film "Sleepwalk with Me" is to say that it functions as sort of a more light hearted and sentimental movie version of the television series "Louie."It retains the stand up comedy segments and the feeling of subjective realism, that is things told as they are to the character if not exactly how they truly are. The differences between the two are that Sleepwalk With Me is silly where Louie is bizarre and it replaces Louie's cynical indifference with a more hopeful and emotional feeling. The final similarity is that both works are very entertaining and meaningful pieces of film defined by their unique vision.
     Sleepwalk with Me is about Matt Pandamiglia, an aspiring stand up comedian who has been in a relationship for the past eight years. When his sister gets married he must deal with the expectations that he will get married while also trying to make it as a stand up comedian. This is not to mention the fact that he is starting to have a serious problem with sleepwalking.
     This film, though fictional, gives a sense that most of the events are based on fact. Weird things happen in the film, but people in general act the way that people would act towards certain situations. This is in contrast to many comedies in which people act however moves the story forward. It allows us to connect more with the characters, because they feel more like people who could exist in the real world. This is important because, while the film is very funny, one gets the sense that it is a story that is very personal and meaningful to Birbiglia, who not only plays a barely fictional version of himself, but also writes and directs the film.
     Some of the finest segments of the film are those in which Birbiglia speaks directly to the audience, breaking the fourth wall. These scenes give the sense of a story being told, and they provide some of the funniest lines of the film. The storytelling format seems to be something that is very comfortable to Birbiglia, who, as a stand-up comedian, is very comfortable with this way of getting an idea across.
     So in the end this film does tell a nice story with fine performances and an entertaining and accessible sense of humor. Maybe it doesn't have the edginess that comedies nowadays seem to strive for, but it is a film that remains funny and heartfelt throughout, and is a very well made and realistic movie. And I can further respect the fact that it can be funny without offending anybody. It is a film that may be hard to find, but that I recommend to all, even those who don't know anything about stand up comedy.
Grade: A-

Beasts of the Southern Wild Review

     I was starting to get worried about 2012 as a year for film. There were many good movies released this year, but there weren't really any that reached that certain level of greatness that a few films every year usually reach. The Dark Knight Rises was emotionally strong, but plagued by script issues. The Avengers was fun, but lacked the emotional weight to get to that next level. I was worried that there wouldn't be any films like that this year, then I saw Beasts of the Southern Wild.
     The story of Beasts of the Southern Wild is simple enough. A young girl living in a poor bayou called the bathtub must survive with her father when a flood destroys their hometown. What is remarkable about this movie is the way that is told. The filmmaking style and script are so intimate that they force you to have an emotional connection with these characters. It really feels like you, as an audience, are getting to know these people and the world they live in. This has a great effect for the audience. By the end of the film, these aren't just characters in a movie, they're people, and they're far from perfect, but you become so attached to them and their struggles that you're willing to forgive them for their flaws.
     Part of the reason that this is able to work is because of the level of the acting. Quvenzhane Wallis is a true revelation as the protagonist, Hushpuppy. She shows a surprising strength and confidence as the character, which is truly surprising for an actress who turned 8 just a few days ago. Her performance is so brilliant and emotional that it's easy to forget that she's an actress, since she seems so real. Dwight Henry is also great as her tough, but loving father. He is able to convey the love he has for his daughter. Even when it seems like he's being rough with her, you can tell that he's doing everything out of love and care.
     The focus of the film is not on creating a straightforward narrative, though it does have one. It focuses more on creating characters, and themes of human strength and love. There are many aspects of the story that don't seem to fit in with the plot, but they serve a greater purpose, driving home the themes in such a way that doesn't seem too forceful, all at the same time being shown in a very cool way.
     I only hope that I am not making it seem like a super-serious and depressing meditation on life, because it's not. While it primarily functions as a character study, these characters are so rich and developed, even the minor ones, that it is fun just to watch them. The movie is not only emotionally resonant, but entertaining and, at times, truly funny. But the one constant is that it constantly feels real. The characters, the setting, everything feels so real that I was truly surprised to find out that The Bathtub, the area that these characters call home, does not actually exist.
     The film is satisfying on almost every level. It also connects to its protagonist in its confidence and bravery. It doesn't try to make itself accessible to a wide audience. It knows what it is, and goes for that full force. If you like it, then you like it. If you don't, you don't. But like it or not, it is a powerful exercise and one that is a full product of the people involved. The film didn't have a huge budget, but it didn't let that hold it back. Director Benh Zeitlin told the story that he wanted to tell, and that is something that is truly inspirational.
Grade: A

Paranorman Review

     Paranorman, from the makers of Coraline, continues the trend of stop-motion animation being a home for scary movies for kids. I'm not sure what it is about the medium, but it seems like, while CGI animation is dominated by cute, kiddie fare and hand drawn animation is all but dead, stop motion seems to deal almost exclusively with creepy, but kid friendly, stories. It is also the most consistant of the animation mediums.
     There must be a reason for this consistancy. My guess is that it's the amount of effort that goes in. Computer animation is easy, or at least easier. It's regularly used, even in live action movies, over practical effects because it's easier and cheaper to just do things in post-production. Stop-motion animation, however, requires a ton of effort. The animators have to move the characters and objects into position for every single frame. If they're putting that much effort in, you can be sure they're going to make sure its for a product they can be proud of.  And the good news is that they can be very proud of Paranorman. They have created a wonderful film that should please both children and adults just the same.
     Paranorman's premise is cute, but creepy: a bullied child who can see and speak to ghosts must save his town when the dead begin to rise. The film starts of as a gleefuly macabre exercise, using its premise largely for humor which is actually very clever. As the story moves forward, however, the film's tone changes. It gets much more dramatic and thoughtful. It's wonderful and surprising that a film with these animated characters can have this level of heart and intensity, while simultaneously remaining fun for the audience no matter their ages.
     And that's an important thing to stress. This is a family film, not a kids film. The difference is that kids films are made solely for the very young, with little care as to whether or not their parents will enjoy it, since the parents have to buy a ticket anyway. Family films, however, are meant for a whole family to enjoy together. This means that it has jokes and a story that are simple enough for children to enjoy, but it may have more mature themes and layers so that older children and adults can still enjoy it. Paranorman very much fits that bill. It has some very easy, broad humor, but it also has some mature themes and some truly creepy moments that will easily scare younger kids. (things do get very intense towards the end) All of this comes together to make Paranorman a great film for a whole family to enjoy, with good humor, cool animation and a mature and creepy story that will engross everyone who sees it.
Grade: A-

Ted Review

     Ted is a funny movie. for many of you reading this, that last sentence is enough of a recommendation for you to go see it. It's also true. If you go see Ted, chances are you will laugh. And since that's all Ted really set out to do, it must then be called a success.

     But how successful is it. Coming from the maker of Family Guy, it had a lot of potential. Family Guy, in its heyday, was a truly clever show that disguised itself as a thoroughly stupid show. It had plots that served very little purpose and were thus given very little attention. The jokes were the reason that people watched the show, and Seth MacFarlane knew it and provided them, no matter how much sense they made in their context. Because of that, there was hope that Ted could somehow function as a return of the 80s style of comedy that treated plot as a loose connection between the never-ending barrage of jokes. 

     However, Ted never quite achieves that level, settling instead to function as a standard, if above average, comedy film. A lot of the jokes are very random, and very funny, but there is always the plot looming in the background, which is given too much focus and, simply put, distracts from the laughs. This is only a minor gripe, until the third act, when almost all sense of comedy is lost in favor of tying up the story. If it had just been about a living teddy bear, and been just an hour and a half of jokes related to that, then this could have been a perfect and special comedy. However, in the end it's just a standard comedy with some above average jokes. 

     But you will laugh.

Grade: B

The Dark Knight Rises Review

    

     Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of my favorite movies of all time. I think it is perfect in almost every way. I know I am not alone in this, which means that "The Dark Knight Rises," the follow-up to "The Dark Knight" and conclusion to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, had an impossible set of standards to live up to. So did it live up to them? Well, that depends on what you mean by "live up to."

     "The Dark Knight Rises" is not as good as "The Dark Knight." That doesn't mean that "The Dark Knight Rises" is bad, or even less than great, because it's not. "The Dark Knight" was a virtually flawless film. Some complained that it wasn't enough about Batman, but to me, Batman was merely part of an ensemble in that film, which worked to its benefit. Those who had that issue, though, will be happy to learn that in "The Dark Knight Rises" Bruce Wayne/Batman is back to his position in the front and center of the film. Other characters have large amounts of screen time as well, giving this a continuing ensemble feel, but the story is much more directly related to Bruce Wayne, if not quite to the same level as Batman Begins. 

     This is good because it means that Christian Bale spends more time out of the costume. Christian Bale has always been a better Bruce Wayne than Batman. Maybe it's the voice he uses, but Batman in this series has always felt like a different character entirely. This film changes that. Christian Bale's performance has a more unified feel to it which connects Bruce Wayne and Batman more conclusively.

     The supporting cast is strong as well, if not quite to the level of The Dark Knight. That's not a knock against this film, it just means that the Oscar worthy performances of Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger, RIP, are not in this film, and that, in order to give time to Bruce and the new characters, returning characters are given significantly less screen time. The new characters are strong also, especially Joseph Gordon Levitt as John Blake, but they can't quite fill the hole left by Eckhart and Ledger. Anne Hathaway is much better than expected as Selina Kyle, proving to be very entertaining in the role and not without pathos. Tom Hardy's Bane is very intimidating as well, although his voice is strange. There are moments where it works, but it is difficult to understand at best and distracting at worst. 

    Unfortunately, this film also has a few writing flaws. There are some moments that really stretch the suspension of disbelief. I understand that in these instances they are meant to keep the story arc strong, but it's tough to accept at times, including at some very major moments. The general plot is very strong though, if a bit confusing in the first half, and it is satisfying. It feels like a final chapter instead of just another sequel. It also lightens things up a bit and adds some humor, which was largely missing from the last two films. However, the conclusion of the film does feel like a bit of a stretch in the tying up of loose ends, but ultimately most of the script issues are relatively minor once the story comes together at about the halfway point. 

      So enough of where this film fell short, lets focus now on everything it got right. The visuals are as good as they've ever been. Gotham's design is different than in the last two films, cleaner, and that is reflected in the editing. The editing is improved over the last film, especially during the action sequences. Rather than containing many quick cuts that confuse the action, the editing is calmer, allowing us to see the events that are unfolding. This helps the action sequences in this film to be the best of the series before. Though they are still aiming for a realistic style, the fact that, for the first time in Christopher Nolan's films, Batman has an adversary who is a physical challenge for him allows for the action to be more exciting, as there is a level of doubt as to whether or not Batman will win his fight. 

     The tone of this film is also perfect. It is not quite as dark as the previous film, and actually allows itself to have some fun at points. These moments mesh in surprisingly well, even if the represent a slight departure from this deathly serious franchise. That doesn't mean that the film is less serious, though. The stakes are the highest they've been, and the film doesn't forget that, putting the characters in constant danger. The fact that it feels like a conclusion from the beginning also means that there is more of a feel that the filmmakers are willing to take bigger risks. This means that we are now worried about several characters who, otherwise we'd have assumed were completely safe. It is also very rousing at times. The film builds brilliantly to its exciting and, for the most part, satisfyingly epic conclusion. 

     So, in the end, "The Dark Knight Rises" lives up to the hype and provides a satisfying and exciting conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy. It might not have the same flawlessness as "The Dark Knight" did, mostly due to some confusing plot points and stretched believability, but it is still a great film in which the things it gets right are so well done that all of the flaws feel very minor in comparison. It is currently my favorite film of the summer so far, and is a film that I recommend everyone to see.

Grade: A-

The Avengers Review

     Well, all of the years of buildup have finally come to a head. After the absolute success of Iron man, the slight disappointment of The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2, and the pure entertainment value of Thor and Captain America expectations were high for "The Avengers" which brought them all together. The question remained, however, could Joss Whedon, mastermind of Buffy and Firefly, actually pull of this impossible mission? The answer: Yes

     Joss Whedon achieves this by focusing on one thing above all others: fun. These movies are meant to be entertaining. They are not intended to bring up moral ambiguities, they are intended to serve as an escape for a few hours. That is something that this film does very well. It keeps its tone lighthearted enough so that it can be enjoyed for what it is, but it does take itself seriously enough that we actually care about what happens and feel that there is some danger. 

     The writing is also integral. It should come as no surprise to fans of Joss Whedon, but the dialogue here is top notch. The characters are witty, and there banter works well, simultaneously being funny and moving the story forward. There is also a great sense of pacing at play that moves the story along at a good pace, ratcheting up the tension at the right times to have the greatest effect on the audience. It also manages to give almost all of the characters a chance to shine, no small feat with a cast this big. Iron Man definitely gets the biggest role, with Hawkeye and Thor somewhat shafted, but for the most part the characters coexist as an ensemble without a true main character.

     The performances are also great. Mark Ruffalo makes the best Bruce Banner yet, though admittedly there isn't much competition on that part. As far as the rest of the Avengers go, they were well cast in their own films, so that doesn't change here. Their performances are all good, and mesh well together, without anyone really trying to hog the spotlight. (even Robert Downey Jr. avoids hogging it. mostly) The real surprise, though, is Scarlett  Johansson. Though she existed merely as the sexy butt-kicker in Iron Man 2, here she is a fleshed out character. Sure, much of that can be attributed to Joss Whedon's talent at writing strong female roles, but it can't be denied that Scarlett takes what she's given in stride, and creates something very pleasantly surprising.

     And of course the film doesn't drop the ball when it comes to its visuals. The effects are wonderful, the editing adds to the film and the music and sound are very up to par. "The Avengers" is all around a perfect summer film. Sure, it's not as weighty as something like "The Dark Knight" but it's as much fun as one can have on the movies, and is a truly great experience, which is really all that one can ask for.

Grade: A

Spider-Man vs. The Amazing Spider-Man

     Now that Marc Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man" has been released, it has begun to face the inevitable comparisons to Sam Raimi's original "Spider-Man" film from 2002. I have decided to answer, once and for all, which is better, Raimi's version, or Marc Webb's version. To do this, I will look at a variety of categories and compare the two films. At the end, I will look at the information and decide which is the better version of Spider-Man's origin story. This will sort of function as a review for the two films, so I will grade each of them at the end. Without further ado, lets get started

Best Hero

    The first category to look at is who makes the better Peter Parker. I won't say who makes the better Spider Man, because a lot of that has more to do with special effects than performance. Peter Parker is where the actors really get to show their chops. 

     In Webb's version Peter is played by Andrew Garfield. If you look purely at resumes, Gafield certainly tends to be a better actor than Tobey Maguire, who played Peter Parker in Raimi's version. Most know him especially from his wonderful role in "The Social Network" so he is a great actor, but is he a great Peter Parker. In a word, no. He's too cool and confidant. He looks like a movie star, which is good if you want to attract a female audience, bad if you want to believably sell someone as an awkward nerd. Also, he has this weird sort of twitch that shows up a lot in his performance, which is very distracting. It's meant to show his nervousness, but it just looks like he's bouncing his head around all over the place.

     Tobey Maguire, on the other hand, isn't really brilliant either. He's kind of boring to watch in most of his movies, and this film doesn't change it all that much. The big difference is that this all works for Peter Parker. He's supposed to be this boring, awkward kid that nobody notices. We really believe that he's an outcast, so when he gets his power, it's much more exciting. Garfield's Spider-Man is snarkier and funnier than Maguire's, but Maguire's is one who feels more like a real person with real problems.

Winner: Tobey Maguire

Best Villain

     Integral to any superhero film is the villain. In this comparison, two different villains are used. The Green Goblin was used in Raimi's version, and is usually considered to be Spider-Man's arch nemesis. However, the Lizard, who was used in Webb's version, is also a very popular and very cool villain in the comics. But which one was used better in the films?

      Rhys Ifans plays Doctor Curt Connors in Webb's version. He does a great job of creating a tragic villain. His Curt Connors is a good man, who merely wants to make himself whole again, and Ifans conveys his turmoil very well. However, when the plot takes him forward and turns him into a giant lizard, the character leaves Ifans hands. This is very unfortunate, as Rhys Ifans was doing very well, and the CGI creature that replaced him was actually pretty silly looking, as opposed to threatening. All sympathy for the character was lost also, as he just turned into a generic villain that needed to be stopped.

     In Raimi's version Norman Osborn, or the Green Goblin, was played by Willem Dafoe. Anyone who's seen him in a film before just knows that he makes a great villain. He is a truly intimidating man with a wonderfully frightening voice. He seems to have a lot of fun with his role as Norman Osborn, and he conveys the madness of the character very well. However, he too suffers from a silly look, as the costume he is given is very poorly designed and unitimidating. However, the fact remains that, even in the costume, he is being played by Willem Dafoe, and the voice is still there, haunting our dreams. By leaving control of the character to such a brilliant actor, Raimi's "Spider-Man" created a much more intimidating and interesting villain than Webb's "Amazing,"  which shows missed potential.

Winner: Willem Dafoe

Best Love Interest

     Also very important to Spider-Man is the love interest. In Raimi's films, Kirsten Dunst played the ever popular Mary Jane Watson, while in Webb's new film, Emma Stone plays the somewhat less well known Gwen Stacy. 

    I have always been a much bigger fan of Mary Jane Watson than Gwen Stacy, but I must admit that Emma Stone did a great job with the character. She is very attractive, so it is believable that Peter would be in love with her, but she is also somewhat geeky and awkward herself, so it is made more believable that she would also like Peter. It also makes the love story between the two work more, since Peter know obviously likes her for more than her looks. However, the downside to this is that there's no wondering how Peter will get her to like him. It's obvious that she will, so it's never even an issue, she's just there to be the girlfriend character, not to add any conflict to the plot.

     Kirsten Dunst's Mary jane, on the other hand, is more of a reach for Peter. She is the hot girl that he'd never have a chance with, which works better story wise. It gives hims something to reach for, and makes it that much more satisfying when she does fall in love with him. And Kirsten Dunst in the role is... ok. I mean, she's not bad, she's just not great. She's attractive, and that's why everyone likes her. However she has no personality, whereas Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is a more charismatic and likeable character, who can do much more than just scream and wait for Spider-Man to save her. The way they use the character has some issues, but Emma Stone's performance is definitely an improvement.

Winner: Emma Stone

Best Supporting Cast

     I'll be quick with this one. The supporting cast of characters helps to add atmosphere. It is a difficult comparison, though, since both films had very good supporting casts, and also because they largely used different characters.

     Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man" definitely has a more famous supporting cast. With Martin Sheen, Sally Field and Denis Leary around, it seems like it would be the better cast. And Martin Sheen makes a great Uncle Ben, even a little better than Cliff Robertson, though his death is handled more poorly, but that's in the writing, not the performance. Sally Field, on the other hand, is miscast. She just doesn't feel right in the role. It also doesn't help that Rosemary Harris was absolutely perfect in the role in Raimi's version. She was exactly who Aunt May is supposed to be. 

    Denis Leary is fine as Captain Stacy, although he does feel like he's playing Denis Leary at times. All of this is moot, though, for one reason: J.K Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. He is a true embodiment of the character, and arguably the best part of Raimi's films. He just injects so much life into such a small role, and makes it just so much fun. The character wasn't even attempted in Webb's film, though I have a suggestion for the filmmakers: don't recast. When they do decide to bring the character into their new series, they should do everything they can to keep J.K. Simmons. They won't find anyone better and any attempt to will just lead to disappointment.

Winner: J. K. Simmons

Best Action Scenes

     Of course the action is extremely important to Spider-Man. They are action films after all. And this is a tough category, because both films have a lot of exciting action sequences throughout their runtimes. 

     Webb's action scenes have a very cool fluidity to them. They really make full use of Spider-Man's powers as he leaps and webs around his enemies, trying to incapacitate them as quickly as possible. He is a very agile character, and this plays into the fights as his strategy reflects dodging and quick, unconventional attacks. 

     Raimi's films however, have great setpieces. The areas where the fights are staged are great, and have a huge influence on the sequences themselves. However, the fights themselves mostly consist of the traditional punches and kicks. There is a great amount of design that goes into the sets for the fights, but the choreography itself is not bad, just somewhat unimaginative, which really falls short when the choreography for Webb's film makes full use of all of the powers at Spidey's disposal

Winner: Amazing Spider-Man

Best Tone

     Difficult to define, but essential. Basically, this means "which film 'feels' the best?" Both directors took their films in different directions, making this somewhat easier to decipher. 

     Webb's film is a little darker. It is also more sequel focused. It has a character who has more internal angst about being an orphan, as well as a lot of mystery that is not dealt with, being obviously saved for a sequel. It tries to feel more realistic, with Peter creating web shooters rather than having them organically come from his wrists. However, this clashes with the second half of the film, most of which is fully drenched in science fiction, some of it feeling even more like pure fantasy. 

     Raimi, however, took full advantage of the comic book roots of the character to create a brilliantly campy atmosphere. This film showed an awareness of how silly the story was, which turned out to be a big benefit. It felt more fun, and more like it's silliest moments were entirely intentional, whereas "Amazing Spider-Man" at times feels unintentionally funny. Raimi's feel is just perfect for the story. it feels natural, as opposed to the grittiness of Webb's film, which is very forced when it comes to the character. 

Winner: Raimi's version

Best Story

     One of the more important aspects, both of these films share a very similar first act, though they branch out into different directions later on. Webb's film puts a huge amount of focus, however, on Peter's parents, who are barely mentioned in Raimi's films. This focus is intriguing, and is cool in connection to what the story may become in sequels, but it does take away from some important points, such as the death of Uncle Ben, which feels rushed and less emotional than it does in Raimi's film. Also, it is a plot point that is never finished, as Peter never actually finds Uncle Ben's killer after this happens. I realize that it's probably something they're saving for the sequels, but it's an important moment in the development of Spider-Man and it is very much missed. 

     Raimi's version on the other hand handles this origin perfectly. The death of Uncle Ben feels like a tragedy, all the more because it truly feels like Peter is somewhat responsible. In Webb's version, it feels so much more like an accident that Peter doesn't get any of the blame, since there is not much he could have done to stop it. Also, Peter indirectly killing the killer is an important moment, and it helps to create his character. Being completely missed in Webb's version is a disappointment, and a missed opportunity.

     Raimi's version is not without its script issues, though. The film almost feels like two different movies put together, as the origin story and the Green Goblin story, which dominates the second half of the film, feel unfortunately distinct. However, each of the stories is very strong in their own right. The conflict with the villain in this film is very personal, as he is specifically attacking Spider-Man. This, along with the frightening origin of the character, make for an exciting conflict, which, though we know Spider Man will win, allows for some cool psychological tension. 

      The script for "Amazing Spider-Man" feels very weak in comparison. The conflict with the villain, rather than being personal to Peter, is very silly and generic. The Lizard in this film wants to turn everyone in New York City into reptiles. I am not making this up, that is literally his plan. What's more suspenseful: a personal vendetta that could very well cause death and pain to come to the hero's loved ones, or a silly plan to attack a city that never really puts anyone the audience cares about in danger and is solved with a generic race against the clock?

Winner: Raimi's version

Verdict

     So it should be obvious by now that I find Raimi's version to be the better film. That isn't to say that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is bad, because it isn't. It's a fun movie that is satisfactory as a piece of storytelling. It's plain to see that everyone is trying their hardest, but they're trying too hard to make it different, when Sam Raimi really hit the nail on the head with his version. The fact is that there wasn't really anything to improve with Spider-Man's origin story. The better option would have been to pull a James Bond. They could have kept the Spider-Man franchise going, simply switching out actors every few films. He has enough villains that they could actually keep going for a while. Point being, I'm interested to see where this new series is going, but as an origin story, the tone is too forced and the writing is too silly to come anywhere near the brilliance of the original "Spider-Man" film.

Winner: Spider-Man

Spider-Man: A-

The Amazing Spider-Man: B

Oscar Winner Predictions

So the Oscars are tonight. By now I have seen all of the Best Picture nominees, heard the chatter, and I feel confidant in picking the winners. But I don't claim to be all seeing, and I will be wrong in a few categories. If you don't feel like trusting me blindly, I will also explain my predictions and give descriptions for my reasoning in each category.

BEST PICTURE

This is one easy category. The writing is on the wall, it's all good and done. I wish the final category had some more drama, but the question is "How many Oscars will The Artist win?" not "Will The Artist win Best Picture?"

Will win: The Artist

BEST DIRECTOR

Look at the last category. I had been holding out hope that there was a possibility for Scorsese to win, but since he has been rewarded, I don't think they'll feel the need to give him an Oscar here. Another boring category.

Will win: Michel Hazanavicius-The Artist

BEST ACTOR

This is a little more interesting. George Clooney was the frontrunner for a while, but then Jean Dujardin made a last minute surge. I think this surge was helpful, and Dujardin should find himself victorious, but you can never truly count out George Clooney.

Will win: Jean Dujardin-The Artist

Could win: George Clooney-The Descendants

BEST ACTRESS

This category will likely be won, deservedly so, by Viola Davis. However, Meryl Streep is a respected Actress who hasn't won in almost thirty years. Some people may consider her overdue, but since that hasn't helped her the last several times she's been nominated, I think Viola Davis should still wind up on top.

Will win: Viola Davis-The Help

Could win: Meryl Streep-The Iron Lady

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Yawn. boring. This has been locked up since May

Will win: Christopher Plummer-Beginners

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Octavia Spencer will have no trouble winning this.

Will win: Octavia Spencer-The Help

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Alexander Payne does well in the writing categories, and so The Descendants will probably end up with this award. However, the screenplay was the best part of Moneyball, so it could cause an upset, as could Hugo if the Academy decides to prove that it was in second place for Best Picture. Both scenarios are possible, but highly unlikely. This should be The Descendants with ease.

Will win: The Descendants

Could win: Hugo, Moneyball

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Ah, Bridesmaids. A popular film, probably the most widely seen of any of the nominees in this category. And this is a category where comedies can easily reign victorious. However, there is another comedy in this category that has a better shot, and less pooping in a sink. That is Midnight in Paris. This is the Woody Allen category, and he has won here several times before. His biggest competition is The Artist, which could win here due to its Best Picture status. However, I think that too many people will not vote for it because it's silent, allowing Woody Allen to win another Oscar

Will win: Midnight in Paris

Could win: The Artist, Bridesmaids

BEST DOCUMENTARY

Oh god. This category could go almost any direction. I've heard a lot about Undefeated, so I'll pick that, but truly I have no idea.

Will win: Undefeated

Could win: Hell and Back Again, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, Pina

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Rango. Nuff said.

Will win: Rango

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

A Separation has a ton of support behind it. I won't say a loss is impossible, but since I have no idea what could possibly take its place, I would be absolutely shocked.

Will win: A Separation

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

This is a frustrating category. There is no reason why The Tree of Life shouldn't be a lock. It has some of the greatest Cinematography of all time. However, it has to fight for its victory. I'm guessing it will be victorious, but lately the Oscars have gone for technical achievement over visual beauty, so Hugo could take it. Or this category could fall into a sweep for the Artist. Tree of Life is hopefully too notable to ignore, but there is a part of me that is worried.

Will win: The Tree of Life

Could win: The Artist, Hugo

BEST EDITING

This category usually seems to go hand in hand with Best Picture. However, The Artist isn't a film with notable editing. Logic would then say that Hugo could walk away with this, although its loss at the Editors guild to The Descendants is worrying. The Descendants is too subtle to win the Oscar, but it is still a close contest between Hugo and The Artist. I've been predicting The Artist for a while, but I'm going to take a risk and say Hugo triumphs. I'm probably wrong but I can't play it safe in every category.

Will win: Hugo

Could win: The Artist, The Descendants

BEST SOUND MIXING

This category and Sound Editing boil down to Hugo vs. War Horse. Hugo is a Best Picture player, while War Horse is a war film. This reminds me of Slumdog Millionaire vs. The Dark Knight, with the Best Picture player facing the loud war/action film. I'm predicting the same result, with Sound Mixing going for the more nominated film while Sound Editing goes for the louder film.

Will win: Hugo

Could win: War Horse

BEST SOUND EDITING

See Sound Mixing.

Will win: War Horse

Could win: Hugo

BEST ART DIRECTION

Hugo should have this in the bag. It is colorful, lively and the art direction is vital to the film. However, in the case of a sweep this could be a category that goes to The Artist. I'm guessing a sweep won't happen, so this category should be safe, but if it looks like The Artist is winning everything, watch out.

Will win: Hugo

Could win: The Artist

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

This category seems completely up in the air, with only W.E. safely out of the competition. This category coincides with Art Direction a lot, so Hugo could take it, but for Costume Design they like to go VERY far back, and 1920's might just be too recent for them. They only go for something that recent if it has to do with showbiz, so The Artist is still in competition. Anonymous is the earliest, so it can't be counted out, but feminine films tend to rule this category, and Anonymous is very masculine. Jane Eyre seems perfect. Far enough back in time, female lead. It should be an easy winner. However, it may have been released too early. That could come to bite it if enough people don't remember it. In the end, I think that, due to weak competition, The Artist's Best Picture status should propel it to a win here, but almost no result in this category would surprise me.

Will win: The Artist

Could win: Anonymous, Hugo, Jane Eyre

BEST MAKEUP

This year falls into the standard trio of period (Albert Nobbs) aging (The Iron Lady) and fantasy/creature (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II). Period almost never wins, so Albert Nobbs is out. Aging wins occasionally, but fantasy/creature most commonly winds up victorious. Add onto it that this is the final film of a franchise that has yet to win any Oscar, and I think Harry Potter will walk away with an award tonight.

Will win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

Could win: The Iron Lady

BEST SCORE

Score may be more important to The Artist than to any of the other nominees this year. Being a silent film, the score is often the only thing the audience can hear. It is very constant and noticeable, and thus should easily walk away with the award. It also helps that John Williams will likely split between his two nominations.

Will win: The Artist

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Wow did this category get fucked up. Two nominations only, and snubs for several songs that were much better than either of the nominees. I should be calling this a lock for "Man or Muppet" since it is a much better song, but after the fuckup with the nominations for this category I don't feel confidant about anything having to do with Best Original Song

Will win: Man or Muppet-The Muppets

Could win: Real in Rio-Rio

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been the frontrunner for this category all year. Considering that, and that it does have the best visual effects this year, it should be an easy victory. However, it is rare that a Best Picture nominee loses this category to a non-Best Picture nominee, so Hugo could conceivably get it, although its effects are likely too subtle to be noticed by the Academy. Harry Potter could also slide in if they want to give the series a victory, but my guess is that they'll do that in makeup, where there's less competition. Rise of the Planet of the Apes will deservingly win this.

Will win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Could win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II, Hugo

So there you have it, my predictions for tonight's Oscars. I didn't predict the Short film categories because there's really not an accurate way to pick them. You'd do just as well picking out of a hat. So I hope this helps. I'm sorry if I'm wrong. Enjoy the show and good luck in your Oscar pools.

Oscar Nomination Predictions

The Academy Award Nominations will be announced tomorrow. Because of that, I decided to make predictions in many of the categories. Below are my predictions for what the nominations will be, in order of likelihood, with a couple of possible upsets predicted in each category. I think these are what all of the nominees will be, but of course there will be some surprises that I simply don't see coming.

BEST PICTURE

The Artist

Hugo

The Descendants

Midnight in Paris

The Help

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

War Horse

Moneyball

Bridesmaids

The Ides of March

BEST DIRECTOR

Michel Hazanavicius-The Artist

Martin Scorsese-Hugo

Alexander Payne-The Descendants

Woody Allen-Midnight in Paris

David Fincher-The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Steven Spielberg-War Horse

BEST ACTOR

George Clooney-The Descendants

Jean Dujardin-The Artist

Brad Pitt-Moneyball

Michael Fassbender-Shame

Leonardo DiCaprio-J. Edgar

Gary Oldman-Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

BEST ACTRESS

Viola Davis-The Help

Meryl Streep-The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams-My Week With Marilyn

Tilda Swinton-We Need to Talk About Kevin

Rooney Mara-The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Glenn Close-Albert Nobbs

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Christopher Plummer-Beginners

Kenneth Branagh-My Week With Marilyn

Albert Brooks-Drive

Nick Nolte-Warrior

Jonah Hill-Moneyball

Armie Hammer-J. Edgar

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Octavia Spencer-The Help

Berenice Bejo-The Artist

Jessica Chastain-The Help

Janet McTeer-Albert Nobbs

Shailene Woodley-The Descendants

Melissa McCarthy-Bridesmaids

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Descendants

Moneyball

Hugo

The Help

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

War Horse

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Midnight in Paris

The Artist

Bridesmaids

Young Adult

50/50

Win Win

BEST ART DIRECTION

Hugo

The Artist

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

War Horse

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Captain America: The First Avenger

The Help

Anonymous

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Tree of Life

The Artist

Hugo

War Horse

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Drive

Moneyball

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Jane Eyre

The Artist

Hugo

My Week With Marilyn

Anonymous

The Help

The Iron Lady

Midnight in Paris

BEST FILM EDITING

The Artist

Hugo

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

War Horse

Moneyball

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The Tree of Life

The Ides of March

BEST MAKEUP

The Iron Lady

Albert Nobbs

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

The Artist

Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life

Hugo

Anonymous

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

The Artist

War Horse

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

The Adventures of Tintin

The Help

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Star Spangled Man-Captain America: The First Avenger

Pictures in my Head-The Muppets

Life's a Happy Song-The Muppets

The Living Proof-The Help

Lay Your Head Down-Albert Nobbs

Man or Muppet-The Muppets

Where the River Goes-Footloose

The Keeper-Machine Gun Preacher

BEST SOUND EDITING

Super 8

War Horse

The Adventures of Tintin

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Rango

Hugo

BEST SOUND MIXING

Hugo

Super 8

War Horse

The Adventures of Tintin

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Rango

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Rise of the Planet of theApes

Hugo

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

The Tree of Life

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Captain America: The First Avenger

X-Men: First Class

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Hugo and The Artist

One of the most interesting things about this year's Oscar race is that the two films most likely to win the award, The Artist and Hugo, are films that are so very similar, and yet, so different. They are films that tell different stories, in different ways, yet they both manage to get the same message across, a message that is especially important to film lovers like me.

The Artist is a silent film, made using very old techniques: black and white, title cards for dialogue, using music to show emotion. It tells the story of a silent film actor who finds the world around him changing as sound is introduced to film. The film manages to tell its story very well, without using any modern techniques, and is still an engaging and entertaining experience.

Hugo is a 3D film, made using all modern techniques and traits: color, sound, CGI and 3D. It tells the story of an orphan boy in France who gets drawn into a mystery that involves the beginning of film. This film uses all of these modern techniques to enhance its story and create an engaging and entertaining experience.

Both of these films show a love and appreciation for early films, as well as reflecting the constant changes that accompany the medium. They are also both brilliant films. They are fun and emotional and very well made. Individually, they are fun films that also make a statement about film in general.

However, taken together the two films have an even greater effect, they challenge a divide that has started to arise. There are many people that feel that film now is a shade of what it used to be, tainted by increasing technology. Others have been raised on films with these increases in technology, and have trouble going back and watching films that were unable to use these advancements, feeling like they're missing something.

Hugo and The Artist challenge both groups, and show that neither are right. Hugo shows that technological advancements aren't necessarily bringing film down, and they can actually be used to enhance a story and create a rich and unique experience. The Artist, on the other hand, shows that, when all of the bells and whistles of new technology are taken away, as long as there is a story and passion, a great film can always be made.

When put together, these films show the true versatility of the medium. The method of filmmaking is important, but there is no one method that leads to a great film. Filmmaking methods are paths through which the story can be delivered to an audience. A great film is determined by story and passion. The story and passion are the heart of film, beyond that, it's just about finding the right path through which to deliver it.

Best of the Year

This was a strange year for films. After a rather weak summer, which saw many good films but didn't have much that I considered to be truly great, fall more than made up for it. I already posted my Spearie awards, so those of you who looked at them already know what my number one pick is, but here I will not just be listing the films in order, I will be talking about just what it is I like so much about them. The ranking is purely for entertainment purposes, I don't expect everyone/anyone to completely agree with me, but I thought I'd take a moment to share my opinions.

Top 10 Movies of 2011

1. Drive

This was a very close year. There were several films that I considered to be my favorite at some point in time. However, looking back, Drive was very definitely my favorite. It has everything I'm looking for in a film. It is expertly crafted, very unique, and very entertaining. It is a film that I recommend one goes into without knowing too much about it. It is a unique film, the likes of which I have never seen before, nor do I expect to see again.

2. Hugo

This is a film that I felt very good coming out of. It is a brilliant experience for anyone who loves film. It has great performances and visuals throughout, and it is the film that truly made me realize the potential of 3D in film, a technique that I once thought to be an unnecessary fad, but now see can truly add to a film, if used correctly.

3. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I enjoyed this film way more than I expected to. It's a very complicated film, which not everyone will be able to follow on their first viewing, but for those who can, it is a very worthwhile experience. The entire cast is at the top of their game, especially the underrated Gary Oldman as George Smiley, who, as always, sheds all of the other roles he's played and makes you believe that he IS George Smiley. Also a standout is Benedict Cumberbatch, who is quickly, and deservedly, coming up more into the mainstream thanks to his constantly great performances in BBC's "Sherlock" and films like this. This film may have the greatest cast of the year, as well as the most brilliantly written screenplay.

4. The Descendants

I have yet to see a film more perfectly balance drama and comedy than this film. It uses this balance to great effect, taking a very dramatic storyline; the death of a parent; and uses the comedy at exactly the right moments to keep the audience from getting too bogged down in grief. I recently dealt with a death in the family myself, and I kept flashing back to this film, and I realized how brilliantly the writers handled this kind of experience.

5. War Horse

This may be the most flawed film on this list. War Horse is by no means perfect, it is often old-fashioned to a fault. However, it is one of the most emotionally resonant films of the year. I was so involved with the characters and the story that I was very easily able to forgive the film its flaws. I understand why one may not enjoy this film, as it does not really belong in this day and age, but it shows that Spielberg still has talent left in him.

6. Hanna

This film is light on story and heavy on action. And that is fine by me. Hanna realizes that the audiences are interested in seeing action, so that is what it delivers. The story sets up the action, but otherwise lets it speak for itself. Mix the entertaining action sequences with the great performances, set to one of the greatest soundtracks in recent years and Hanna is a film that is much better than it truly should be.

7. Horrible Bosses

This, like Hanna, is a film that is great because it does exactly what it wants to do. Horrible Bosses intends to make its audience laugh, and it does a great job of that. What more is there to say?

8. The Tree of Life

This film truly is very difficult to place in this list. It defies rank and comparison to other films. It is just such a unique and intriguing experience. It is a flawed masterpiece. It is probably longer than it has to be, and certain moments don't seem to serve too much of a function, but the great moments of the film pack a truly powerful visual and emotional punch. It something that one has to be prepared for when going into it, because it truly such a different kind of experience.

9. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

It truly shows how great this year was for film that all of my top 9 films this year would be in the top 5 any other year. This film is perfectly crafted, and very entertaining. It's brutality is extreme, but I knew about that going in. This is a great mystery film for anyone who is able to stomach it, though I do not plan on watching it again anytime soon.

10. The Adventures of Tintin

This is one of the more entertaining films of the year. One might question the necessity of making the film completely animated, and I am not sure I can say that it was definitely better this way. However, it is a film that never stops moving, not allowing itself to become boring even for a second. It's a real throwback to a different era, and one that I couldn't welcome more.

TheWorst films of 2011

The Hangover Part II/Transformers: Dark of the Moon

These are not the films that I least enjoyed of the year, in fact, they each had moments that I did enjoy. I am calling these the worst films of the year because of what they mean for the film industry in general. These films were entirely unnecessary. They did not do anything new that their predecessors have not done before and they are entirely lazy. It makes me truly sad to see how frequently this is occurring, and that these films are making multiple times as much money as some of the truly great films that have been released. While I would probably say that Sucker Punch was worse than either of these films, I at least respect that it was trying to do something different, which, even though it pretty totally failed at that, is much more than the other two films can claim. I can only hope that people start to realize how lazy these films are and start to see films that actually have some effort put into them.

Spearie Award Winners

I originally had planned to do a two-part post later this weekend, which would include both the winners of the Spearie Awards, aswell as my best of 2011 lists. However, I will be away and possibly without internet this weekend, so I decided to split up this post, publishing the winners of my awards today, while the lists will be published on Tuesday.

So here they are, the winners of the Spearie Awards for 2011. The nominees can be found in the previous post. Again I welcome any and all comments and opinions and I would be interested to hear people's reactions.

BEST PICTURE

Drive

BEST DIRECTOR

Nicolas Winding Refn-Drive

BEST ACTOR

Ryan Gosling-Drive

BEST ACTRESS

Rooney Mara-The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Albert Brooks-Drive

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Jessica Chastain-The Tree of Life

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Horrible Bosses

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Hanna

BEST EDITING

Drive

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Tree of Life

BEST ART DIRECTION

Hugo

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Hugo

BEST MAKEUP

X-Men: First Class

BEST SOUND MIXING

The Adventures of Tintin

BEST SOUND EDITING

Captain America: The First Avenger

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Spearie Awards

So I started working on this blog back in August. I wrote four reviews, then just sort of stopped. This was the latest of several failed attempts to find a way to get my opinions out to the public. I have decided that this year, my New Year's Resolution is to keep up with running a movie review website. So I am going to start today by posting the nominees for my annual Spearie Awards, in which I pick the films that I felt were the greatest in several different areas. The nominees will be listed below, and feel free to leave any comments, whether you agree with my picks or not. Winners will be announced next week, along with my ranked top 10 movies of the year.

BEST PICTURE

The Descendants

Drive

Hanna

Horrible Bosses

Hugo

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

War Horse

BEST DIRECTOR

Tomas Alfredson-Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Terrence Malick-The Tree of Life

Nicolas Winding Refn-Drive

Martin Scorsese-Hugo

Steven Spielberg-War Horse

BEST ACTOR

George Clooney-The Descendants

Michael Fassbender-Shame

Ryan Gosling-Drive

Gary Oldman-Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Andy Serkis-Rise of the Planet of the Apes

BEST ACTRESS

Rose Byrne-Insidious

Rooney Mara-The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Elizabeth Olsen-Martha Marcy May Marlene

Saoirse Ronan-Hanna

Krisetn Wiig-Bridesmaids

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Albert Brooks-Drive

Benedict Cumberbatch-Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Charlie Day-Horrible Bosses

Ben Kingsley-Hugo

Brad Pitt-The Tree of Life

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Cate Blanchett-Hanna

Jessica Chastain-The Tree of Life

Melissa McCarthy-Bridesmaids

Carey Mulligan-Drive

Shailene Woodley-The Descendants

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Bridesmaids

Crazy Stupid Love

Horrible Bosses

Source Code

Win Win

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Descendants

Drive

Hugo

The Muppets

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Hanna

Insidious

War Horse

X-Men: First Class

BEST EDITING

Drive

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Hanna

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

War Horse

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Drive

Hugo

The Tree of Life

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

War Horse

BEST ART DIRECTION

Captain America: The First Avenger

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Hugo

Super 8

War Horse

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Captain America: The First Avenger

Hugo

Super 8

The Tree of Life

War Horse

BEST MAKEUP

Captain America: The First Avenger

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

X-Men: First Class

BEST SOUND MIXING

The Adventures of Tintin

Hanna

Super 8

The Tree of Life

War Horse

BEST SOUND EDITING

The Adventures of Tintin

Captain America: The First Avenger

Hanna

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

War Horse

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

The Adventures of Tintin

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Super 8

The Tree of Life