BEST FILM: A Separation

BEST PERFORMANCE (male): Woody Harrelson (Rampart)

i know most people haven't even heard of this film, let alone seen it. and i wasn't expecting woody to get any oscar recognition. but, i can at least do my part in recognizing his great performance... he did get an independent spirit nomination.

BEST PERFORMANCE (female): Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)

i know, it's the obvious answer. but sometimes that's the right one, as is the case here. she really was incredible in the role!

BEST GROUP PERFORMANCE: A Separation

i was not familiar with the male and female actors in the film. but wow! the entire cast really is superb! just another reason A Separation is the best film of the year.

LEAST AMOUNT OF STORY: Battle L.A.

the movie starts with the aliens already attacking and the film is pretty much just about a group of soldiers fighting their way through L.A. very little back story. not much info about the alieans. just a Battle L.A. - and you want to know the crazy part. i didn't hate it.

BEST USE OF A MIRROR: Carnage

pretty much the entire film takes place in an apartment and the main room has a very prominent mirror in it. while this might scare some film makers, director, roman polanski uses it. and not just one or two shots either. polanski goes to the mirror many times.

BEST SCORE: Contagion

there were a bunch of really good scores this year, but for me, watching Contagion and how the score added such great dramatic value to the film, i really liked it... yes, i understand that there is a school of thought that says that if a score is really good than it shouldn't be noticed. well, that is true sometimes. but in this case it really worked with the film that soderbergh was creating.

BEST FILM WITH AN ANGRY BIRDS CONNECTION/REFERENCE: Horrible Bosses

there were two films up for this award. the first was Rio - which is so connected to angry birds that the latest angry birds game - released in conjunction with the film - was angry birds rio. as for Horrible Bosses, there is a scene in which charlie day's character is waiting in car and playing angry birds... and to put it simply, Horrible Bosses was funny and Rio was not good!

WORST TRAILER (AS COMPARED TO MOVIE): Larry Crowne

this award might seem a little confusing. what do i mean by 'worst trailer (as compared to the movie)'? what i mean is that the trailer - which i saw many, many, many times leading up to the films release, i could have sworn that tom hank's character, larry crowne, was a little mentally slow. now, when i finally watched the film, that wasn't the case at all.... am i the only one who thought that by watching the trailer?

OSCAR IS WAY TOO EXCITED ABOUT: The Help

i'm not saying it was a bad film. But, lets get real here folks! a best picture and three actress nominations (one lead and two supporting). it wasn't that good.

when you got films like The Ides Of March, Shame, Drive, Girl With The Dragon Tattoo all missing out on a 'best picture' spot and The Help getting one - something just isn't right there.

And as for the actress noms: where is carey mulligan's nomination (Drive, but even more so, Shame)? or jessica chastain's (The Tree Of Life)? or how about either, or both, leila hatami and sareh bayat (A Separation). foreign film actors have been nominated before and both those women were up there on the same level as meryl streep this year with their performances.

WELL DONE OSCAR: nominations for Tree Of Life/terrence malick and Midnight In Paris/woody allen

so, in the above award i told oscar where they went so very wrong. but here is what they got right and what happily surprised me a little as well. Tree Of Life is such a different film there is always the chance that oscar just wont get it. so, i was happy to see that they did get it and that they gave it two top award nominations (picture & director).

as for Midnight In Paris. i wasn't sure oscar would remember this one when it came time to hand out the nominations. and i thought that if they did they would give it a screenplay nod only. so when i saw it come up in both the best picture and directors sections i was very happy!

BEST BIKINI: Just Go With It

if you have seen the movie or at least the trailer, than you know exactly what i am talking about

BEST COMEDY: The Trip

it was a pretty week year for comedies. but The Trip was one of the few good ones - and the best of those!

BEST SEQUEL: Mission Impossible 4

it looked like Harry Potter 7 Part 2 was gonna take this award. That was, until i watched MI4.

WORST MOVIE WITH A NUMBER IN THE TITLE: I Am Number 4

BEST ROMANTIC DRAMA: Like Crazy

there was junk like One Day that was predictable and uninteresting and manipulative. and then there was Like Crazy that was improvisational, and genuine and a good film.

BEST TITLE: Cowboys And Aliens

i didn't see the movie and everyone i know thought the title was ridiculous, but i like that about it!

BEST COMIC BOOK/SUPERHERO MOVIE: X-Men: First Class

this award came down to 'First Class' and Thor. and i felt that X-Men was the one i enjoyed a bit more.

BEST "friends with benefits" MOVIE: No Strings Attached

in 1997 we had two volcano movies (Dante's Peak & Volcano). in 1998 we got two "meteor is going to hit the earth movies (Armageddon & Deep Impact) and two WWII movies (Saving Private Ryan & The Thin Red Line).

in 2011 we got two "friends with benefits" movies (No Strings Attached & Friends With Benefits). although, neither one was great, i gotta say that i preferred No Strings Attached.

BEST KICK-ASS CHICK MOVIE: Hannah

the 'solo dude kicking ass' genre is one we have seen for years and years, but the 'solo chick kicking ass' genre seems to have come into its own more recently. just a few weeks ago we got the release of Haywire and last year we had Colombiana and Hannah throw their hats into the ring.

and with those two films up for the award, it was very easy one to pick a winner. Colombiana kicked ass, but the film was not good. as for Hannah, this one made my honorable mention list for the year, so you do the math.

BEST ANIMATED MOVIE: Rango

it wasn't a great year for animation, but Rango was great.

BEST MOVIE WITH AN ACTOR FROM "The Office": HESHER

and the nominees were: Something Barrowed (john krasinski 'jim'), A Little Help (jenna fisher 'pam'), Terri (creed bratton 'creed'), Hesher (rainn wilson 'dwight') ... besides the mediocrity that was Something Barrowed, i didn't dislike any of the three other films, and Terri is one i would recommend. but Hesher made the honorable mentions list and at one point had a spot on the best of the year list, so it had to win this award.

WORST COMIC BOOK/SUPERHERO MOVIE: The Green Lantern

The Green Hornet was average, Captain America wasn't great, but The Green Lantern wasn't just a bad comic book movie - it was one of the worst films of the year!

2011 was an interesting year as far as determining the "best of" list. most years there is one, or maybe two, films that jump out at me the moment i see them and i know they are going to be top of the list. this year was different. while there wasn't one film that had to be number one the minute i saw it, there were five that all felt like they could be number one at one time or another... in fact, the top 5 on the "best of" list all gave me 'number 1 spot' thoughts and those 5 spots were all being adjusted right up until the moment i recorded the podcast.

as always, before we get to the lists, i will mention some of the films i just didn't get a chance to see and so, obviously couldn't be considered for the list: The Descendents, The Guard, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, The Adventures Of Tin-Tin, Melancholia, The Skin I Live In, Martha Marcy May Marlene, A Dangerous Method, War Horse, Young Adult

DON'T FORGET (BEST)

1. A Separation

2. Hugo

3. Drive

4. Shame

5. Certified Copy

6. Submarine

7. Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

8. Ides Of March/Midnight In Paris

9. The Tree Of Life

10. The Artist/Meeks Cutoff

don't forget (honorable mention): Hesher, Rampart, 13 Assassins, Cedar Rapids, Being Elmo, Wrecked, Like Crazy, Margin Call, Moneyball, Fast Five, Take Shelter, Contagion, Rango, The Trip, Beginners, Win-Win

FORGET (WORST)

1. Abduction

2. The Resident

3. The Green Lantern/Killer Elite

4. Tactical Force

5. The Roommate

6. Beastly/I Am Number 4

7. 5 Days Of War

8. Trespass

9. Final Destination 5

10. The Smurfs

YEAR:

WRITER: Ramona Barckert, Kris Booth

DIRECTOR: Kris Booth

BUDGET: $CAD40,000 (estimated)

GROSS: ?

clicking away through netflix suggestions based on my ratings and previously viewed films and randomly browsing through genres i came across a bunch of titles that caught my eye, the first one of which was At Home By Myself... With You. i saw that it was a canadian film and feeling all patriotic i clicked play, streamed it to my tv and sat back on the couch...

now, don't let the "quirky" "romantic" netflix qualifiers scare you off. we all know that romantic comedies - quirky or not - are generally predictable by nature, not always that interesting and often not really that funny." but, it doesn't have to be that way, as At Home By Myself... With You proves.

also, i clicked the "quirky" link and saw that netflix had also tagged And Justice For All, Adaptation and Young Frankenstein with said tag. so, who really knows what "quirky" means to them?

romy is a women who, as we learn from the opening voiced-over animation, has many phobias. from opening boxes to going outside. and by "going outside" i mean literally taking one step out of her apartment - something she hasn't done for six years. then a guy moves in next door... okay, so you know where this is going. but, as predictable as the destination may be, the ride is enjoyable.

the filming style, the voice-overs, that opening animation, the score and the supporting characters all created a feel to the film that is like a children's story - or some kind of fairy tale? a story about the girl stuck in her apartment who falls for the charming and sweet always-on-the-go guy across the hall.

kristin booth (who you may have seen on a really good film i talked about a couple years ago, Young People Fucking) is great as romy. she is sweet and quirky (ya, i said it), but without becoming a caricature. it's interesting: romy is the "oddest" character in the film and yet she, and the guy across the hall, are what keep the film grounded in reality and make the emotional moments valid for the audience.

also, in case you were interested in the quirky-factor, but wasn't sure how it compared. it is a little quirkier than Easy Rider (another film that, for some ridiculous reason, was listed under my netflix "quirky" suggestions).

YEAR:

WRITER: Bart De Pauw

DIRECTOR: Erik Van Looy

BUDGET: €3,200,000 (estimated)

GROSS: $7,075,161 (Belgium)

i found Loft during one of my browsing-through-netflix movie days. Except for the very brief synopsis i knew nothing about the movie besides the fact that it was a dutch-language belgium film. then it started playing and although there were subtitles, i understood what the characters were saying. did i speak dutch all of a sudden? was i like george in that episode of Sienfeld when he stops having sex and becomes a genius and is able to learn portuguese in a few minutes? nope, i hadn't somehow osmosised the dutch language into my vocabulary... they were speaking french. for some reason, netflix is presenting this dutch-language film, dubbed in french with english subtitles. go figure.

now back to Loft...

Loft is a mystery/crime/thriller about five married friends who share a loft that they use as a place to take their mistresses and female encounters. one day they find a dead women in the loft... what happened? well, i could tell you, but i won't.

the story is told mostly through flashbacks as the men are questioned by the police and the film does a nice job of revealing enough, but not too much too soon. and i will admit that i had certain suspicions, but until all was revealed, i wasn't able to figure out how it had played out. you will be trying to figure it out though.

the story is well put together and it isn't, as is sometimes the case with mystery/thrillers, so convoluted that when certain things are revealed you feel cheated. although, i wasn't sure who had done it, or why, as the pieces came together, i saw that the clues had been there and i had ignored them (actually, i had picked up on a few of them, but then dismissed them and allowed myself to be misdirected). the film builds nicely and the director does a good job of creating an ambience of tension with the score, the editing and the cinematography.

ridiculous language/dubbing issues aside, Loft is worth a look next time you are browsing through netflix wondering what to watch. although, if you could find it in it's original language with subtitles than of course go for that one.

p.s. it looks like there was a 2010 remake of the film made in the netherlands. and an upcomming, 2012, american remake that is being directed by the director of the original film, erik van looy

YEAR:

WRITER: Spencer Susser & David Michôd, Brian Charles Frank (story)

DIRECTOR: Spencer Susser

BUDGET: 7 million (estimated)

GROSS: $382,946

t.j. and his dad have recently suffered a tragic loss. then one day hesher comes into their lives. actually, he does more than come in to their lives. he literally moves in - without asking.

hesher is a loner with long hair, who lives in his van, listens to heavy metal, smokes cigarettes and pot, likes to set things on fire has a tattoo on his back of a hand giving the finger and one on his chest of a stick man blowing his brains out.

"Hesher is a "feel good" movie that doesn't want to be a "feel good" movie - and that's what makes it so good. it makes the drama and the pain and the laughter genuine and ergo our reactions to it all.

hesher isn't a bad guy with a heart of gold. you can look for the character clichés here, but for the most part hesher doesn't fit them (or at least not the "feel good" movie ones).

he is selfish and pleasure driven and basically, as the tattoo on his back indicates, he doesn't give a fuck! he just needs a place to stay and do laundry and eat.

so, in classic "feel good" movie form, how does he make everything better you ask? well, he doesn't. but he gets things started though. because "getting things started," that's really all anyone can do. you can't fix everything after a tragic loss like this. one person can't come in and make everything better in a week or two. but those that are suffering can have better days and can start to have moments when they see past the sorrow and that's often the hardest step to take. and in the case of t.j. and his dad, one they hadn't been ready to take or even know how to take it.  even if sometimes it is like taking one step forward and two steps back. at least it's steps taken.

it's interesting, because you want to like him. as an audience we like the kid and feel sad for him and his dad and we want to like hesher. we want to relate to him and see him do what we would if we were in that position. we want him to be a jerk with a heart of gold who helps the family. but for much of the movie he is just a jerk.

there is scene after scene where moments are available for him to be a good guy and help out. but he doesn't. sure, there are times when he isn't a total ass and it's obvious that he does grow to like the family. but in a very nice piece of writing, the big cathartic moment he initiates with the family near the end of the film comes from a selfish act on his part dealing with his own pain in the situation. t.j. and his dad just come along in the moment.

the final shot of the film is a great visual representation of all of it. on one side you have a meaningful gift that hesher has left for t.j. and his dad, and on the other side you have a large, self-indulgent sign that hesher has literally left his mark their home.

YEAR:

WRITER:George Clooney

DIRECTOR:George Clooney

BUDGET: ?

GROSS: $3,450,000 (as of October 7th, 2011)

a couple years ago, after the box office failure of a few films, all the talk was about the death of smart, adult fare. how, no one was going to see these movies and studios were going to stop making them. well, i guess george clooney didn't get the memo, because The Ides Of March is a smart, adult film and a really good one at that!

while i wouldn't call myself a political junkie (what's a step below "junkie?"), i do enjoy politics. actually, i enjoy it and am often very frustrated by it as well. but all that to say a good political thriller is always something that will intrigue me. but notice the word "good" in that last sentence.

the problem with some political thrillers is that they feel the need to really push the "thrill" part and to do so they end up getting convoluted and going to far: a murder and a cover-up and then a leak leads to another murder which brings in a secret uncovered from many years ago, etc... The Ides Of March doesn't fall into that trap.

the film takes us into the world of this campaign and in there we understand how high the stakes are and how important everything is to those involved. and given that, even a small (and believable) transgression can take on large importance and thrills and cause characters to change their views of things and act in ways they might not have otherwise (we don't need two murders and a secret organization to keep us interested or believing).

it also helps that the film is populated by great performances from all involved (clooney, gosling, giamatti, seymour hoffman, evan rachel wood, jeffrey wright marisa tomei). the film is filled with about six or seven one-on-one scenes between these various actors/actresses that had me transfixed to the screen. the performances and the writing create a palpable tension whether it be flirty or suspenseful or confrontational.

and let us not forget the direction here. clooney is quietly becoming on of the better directors out there. with this film, Good Night And Good Luck and Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind (i haven't seen Leatherheads) clooney has shows a real vision specific to each film in how he wants to tell the story and how he wants it to look. and with The Ides Of March he found in phedon papmichael a cinematographer to realize it beautifully.

i know the political thing will turn some people off. but, just to say... you dont have to be a political junkie or even a step below junkie to understand or enjoy this movie. so, don't let that hold you back.

YEAR:

WRITER: Hossein Amini (screenplay), James Sallis (book)

DIRECTOR: Nicolas Winding Refn

BUDGET: $15,000,000 (estimated)

GROSS: $21,417,373 (as of September 25th, 2011)

i'll admit that i haven't been as frequent a visitor to the local cineplexes this year as i was, say, last year. i say that because that might help explain why it has taken till now to find a film that has definite "top 10 of the year" potential. sure, anything is possible - and i do plan on catching up on movies i missed via the dvd route, but if Drive doesn't make my "best of the year" list this year i will be very surprised.

ryan gosling plays a nameless hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver for hire. he is a man without a past (at least not a past that we are ever told about). he is quiet and a loner. and then he meets his neighbor, carey mulligan, and her son. a bond begins to grow and when her husband gets out of jail and an event occurs that could threaten carey and her son, the driver must take matters into his own hands to protect them.

if the story and the characters sound simple and archetypal, that's cause they are. this is a "super hero" story. and it's funny (not funny ha ha, funny interesting) because just a day or so after i wrote this discussion i heard an interview with the director nicolas winding refn, in which he called the film a super hero story and a fairy tale.

while i get what he was saying about the "fairy tale" i personally kept coming back to the "super hero" thing. and even Unbreakable. now, while Drive doesn't take the same ode to comic books approach that Unbreakable does, both films are playing in that obvious and archetypal playground and doing it really well.

both films are genuine and earnest about it also. they aren't doing the ironic, winking or self-referential regular-guy-turns-super-hero thing like Kick Ass, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World or Super (all films that i like by the way).

i didn't think of it till a few days after i saw the film, but as the whole super hero thing and Unbreakable connection continued to play in my head another moment stuck out. in Drive's final act, as he goes after one of the bad men, he does so wearing this full prosthetic, pull-over face that he had used for some driving scene in a movie he was working on. you with me here? a MASK of course! this "ah ha" moment lead back to unbreakable and the poncho/CAPE that bruce willis is wearing when he finally realizes his climactic hero moment.

it's funny (again, not ha ha!) cause in the interview winding refn talks about his love for john hughes and such films from the 80s that were able to pull of corny and sweet. now, i wasn't thinking john hughes or pretty woman or any such films watching Drive. But it is impossible to miss the 80s reverence in the film. from the bright pink and cursive writing of the credits to the casio keyboard pop music of the soundtrack. ya, it is a little corny at times but winding refn knows it and owns it and is able to make it work.

if i was going to make any director comparisons it would have been michael mann. but not for the Miami Vice-like music and pink writing (actually, doing some web surfing made me realize that Miami Vice didn't have the cursive writing, but GTA: Vice City did - which is an ode to the 80s and Miami Vice so it counts right?). the mann comparison is most evident in how the film is able to capture l.a. at night and winding refn's use of quiet and his ability, one minute, to slow the pace of the film within an action movie and then, the next minute, create intense action and/or tension.

Drive is a film that, not only rises above the "action" genre, but above most other films you will probably see this year.

FINAL DESTINATION:

FINAL DESTINATION 2: 2003, BUDGET: $26 million GROSS: $46,455,802

FINAL DESTINATION 3: 2006, BUDGET: $34 million GROSS: $54,098,051

THE FINAL DESTINATION: 2009, BUDGET: $43 million GROSS: $66,436,248

FINAL DESTINATION 5: 2011, BUDGET: $47 million GROSS: ?

WRITERS:

1: Glen Morgan/James Wong (screenplay), Jeffrey Reddick (screenplay & story)

2: J. Mackye Gruber/Eric Bress (screenplay & story), Jeffrey Reddick (story & characters)

3: Glen Morgan/James Wong, Jeffrey Reddick (characters)

4: Eric Bress, Jeffrey Reddick (characters)

5: Eric Heisserer, Jeffrey Reddick (characters)

DIRECTORS:

1,3: James Wong / 2,4: David R. Ellis / 5: Steven Quale

up until a couple weeks ago i hadn't seen any of the Final Destination films, but with the fifth one on the horizon i decided this was going to be my next series discussion so i started watching them all leading up to number fives release.

i remember when the first one came out in 2000 and i saw the trailer and i thought, "huh, that looks like a kinda interesting premise, maybe i'll check that out." well, i didn't, but why that is important is that skip ahead to 2002 and the release of the second film and there i am watching the trailer for that one and thinking, "hold on a second. isn't that the exact same premise/story/idea as the first film?"

the same thing happened with the release and trailer of the third, fourth and fifth films, but i didn't believe my eyes. as much as each film, based on the trailers, appeared to be the exact same thing, just with different actors/characters, i couldn't imagine that was actually the case. as lazy as hollywood is and as unoriginal as much of what they give us is, this seemed to take it to a whole other level. so i went in to this marathon viewing of the entire series really curious to see how different the films actually were and how wrong my trailer assumptions had been. now, having seen all five films i can tell you that i was soooo NOT wrong! and when trying to think about how to discuss the films, the first thing that came to mind was mad libs!

the film Final Destination __(film number)__, begins with a __(type of huge accident)___. after witnessing the accident we are brought back to the present moment and see that it was all just a premonition seen/felt by the main character __(name of premonition-having main character)____. however, as the their premonition begin to occur for real they start to freak out and warn people what is about to happen. no one believes them, but in their freak-out they end up saving a few of the others from certain death.

in the days that follow the first couple of survivors end up getting killed by some pretty random chains of events, like ___(random chain of events, another random chain of events)___. at this point the remaining survivors figure out that death is coming after them in the order in which they were supposed to have died in the __(type of huge accident)___. the rest of the film is them racing around trying to stop it from happening while figuring out how to get around deaths plan as more of them are killed in even more random and gruesome chains of events, like __(random and gruesome chain of event, another random and gruesome chain of events)___.

as i watched all five films i had taken notes about things to talk about. things like how the second film makes reference to the accident in the first one. and how, the way the characters figure out how to get around death's plan isn't the same in all the films. also, in some of the films the "premonition" character gets clues as to who the next victim will be and how they will die, but in the other films there are no hints at all. i was also going to mention that the fourth film, called The Final Destination seemed very much like it had been set-up as the last film in the series (the opening credits recap all the various ways people had died in the previous three films. the use of "The" in the title The Final Destination). and there was some more. but to be honest after watching all five movies i couldn't get over how they were basically all the same film.

i talk sometimes about "big cojones" film making. the idea of a film maker taking some real risks with story or characters or style. and how they trust the intelligence of the audience to go with them, when it's done well, and appreciate not being talked down. well the makers of the Final Destination series have shown big cojones, but in the complete opposite way!

rather than do something new or different or go against the grain in some way, they gave us the same film five times! actually, that is going against the grain. i can't think of any other film series that has produced such replica films. they made one movie five times and what makes me even angrier is that it worked. none of the movies were huge hits, but they all made a profit - obviously enough of one that they kept making them.

and its not like they tried to hide what they were doing either. The trailers put it all out there. like i said earlier, i hadn't seen any of them and yet i knew, based on the trailers, that the films were all copies of each other. they were brazen and incredibly obvious about it. now that takes balls!

i picture the film makers/producers/studio like the two old guys from Trading Places making a bet over how many of these Final Destination movies they can make before people realize what they are doing and stop going. then when we, the audience, have wasted our money and time watching the same thing for the fifth time we overhear them talking and laughing about it as one of them hands the other a one dollar bill! (if anything, this should make you want to avoid seeing anymore Final Destination movies and should make you want to go watch Trading Places again).

YEAR:

WRITER: Christopher Dodd

DIRECTOR: Michael Greenspan

BUDGET: ?

GROSS: $4,821

Adrien Brody is a man who awakens to find himself in the passenger seat of a wrecked car at the bottom of a steep cliff. his leg is injured and there is a dead guy in the back seat.... it sounds like one of those brain teaser questions. you know the ones with answers like, "the doctor is his mother" or "he was standing on a block of ice.".... so, what happened? well, that's what we are going to find out over the course of the movie.

what i really liked about the film was how simple it is. the movie is basically brody and the forest. there are some flashbacks/flashes, but mostly we are in the present, in the woods crawling around as brody makes his way about trying to figure out who he is, what happened and just trying to survive.

before we even get to the crawling/limping around in the wood though we are in the car with him and we are there for awhile. the director michael greenspan and the screenwriter christopher dodd (i assume it was part of the script) make a pretty ballsy decision to spend the first 30 minutes of the film in the car with pretty much one solitary character.

while you might expect five or ten minutes like this, just to set up the character and the situation, 30 minutes is really taking a chance - and it is a chance that really pays off. i didn't even realize it was half an hour before he got out of the car until i went back after and checked the time. it really feels that it is as long as is has to be. and not as long, or should i say short, as they assume our attention span is these days.

to trust himself, the script, brody's ability to carry it and to not speed things up for a short-attention span audience i gotta give greenspan a nod to, what i like to call, some big cojones film making (check out my discussions of Hunger and Greenberg for definitions of "big cojones film making").

the end of the film does present us with answers and a bit of a twist on our assumptions, but not so much so that it feels ridiculous or forced. which is another way in which i meant the film is simple. amnesia/who-am-i films often feel the need to present us with this big elaborate story that the main character slowly figures out over the course of the movie with a bunch of twists and turns.

not to say that is always a bad thing, but in the context of this slow and quiet, basically one-man-play, it works so much better the way they did it. Wrecked isn't Unknown. and i appreciate the restraint. it makes the "ah ha" moment at the end of the film completely satisfying.

YEAR: 2010

DIRECTOR: Michael Winterbottom

BUDGET: ?

GROSS: $1,090,768 (as of July 17th, 2011)

When The Observer asks steve coogan to tour the finest restaurants he asks his girlfriend to go with him. she can't, so he calls a bunch of friends and asks them to go. but none of them are available so he calls rob brydon and asks him.

now, if the names steve coogan and rob brydon mean nothing to you, than i can understand why maybe you haven't been as excited about seeing The Trip as i have. however, that shouldn't stop you from seeing it now.

the film is a very simple road/buddy movie in which steve and rob travel through the north of england while - among other things - eating great food, checking out the countryside and trying to one-up each other with their michael caine impressions.

i will admit that while i have been familiar with steve coogan for many years - since i discovered his brilliant tv show I Am Allen Partridge and then in films like 24 Hour Party People and Hamlet 2 to name a couple - i only became familiar with rob brydon when i saw him and coogan in Tristam Shandy: A Cock & Bull Story. in that film they have some great moments playing off each other and The Trip just lets them take that to the next level.

the film began its life as a series on the bbc which director michael winterbottom took and edited down into a 100 minute film. he took out much of what wouldn't be understood by a north american audience - like references and the like. and i think he did a good job with it.

i haven't seen the tv series, but i think the film stands on its own and the characters are defined enough that any audience, even those with no reference point to coogan and brydon, will get it. although, there are moments that might go by without recognition as they did for me (there was a Flight Of The Concords reference i missed and a couple celebrities mentioned that i had no idea who they were).

so much of the film is the two of them improvising while sitting and eating or sitting in the car. and while the first big laugh comes with the battling michael caines, the funniest scene has to be the two of them riffing on the line "we rise at dawn!"

beyond the laughs, the film is about these two friends who are about the same age, but at two different places in their lives.

brydon has a wife and a kid. coogan has an ex-wife and a kid. he still dates and chases women and is on a break from his girlfriend and lives alone in a lonely apartment. brydon is well-known in the U.K. and is content with his career. coogan is better known internationally but is still looking for more fame and recognition. you get the idea...

for those who are a little more in-the-know about these guys and the history of their work, their careers, etc, their relationship in the film might bring with it even more recognizable layers and understanding. but for the rest of us - like i mentioned earlier - it isn't an issue. you don't sit there thinking you are missing out on anything. the film is put together really well and the ideas are simple and universal.