WILL WIN are in bold

SHOULD WIN (where i have an opinion) is underlined 

 Did Win are BIG 

MY SCORE: 17/24

well, the oscars have come and gone and i had an average go with my predictions this year. it wasn't my most impressive performance, but it wasn't awful either. where i messed up this year was with the shorts (animation, live action, documentary). normally i get at least one of those right and this time nothing. and then, missing both screenplay winners is just awful. but, i went  17/19 for the rest of the awards and a perfect on the top 6 categories which isn't bad.... so, how did you all do?

• Avatar
• The Blind Side
• District 9
• An Education
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Precious
• A Serious Man
• Up
• Up In the Air

• Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
• Helen Mirren (The Last Station)
• Carey Mulligan (An Education)
• Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
• Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia)

• Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
• George Clooney (Up In the Air)
• Colin Firth (A Single Man)
• Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
• Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)

• Matt Damon (Invictus)
• Woody Harrellson (The Messenger)
• Christopher Plummer (The Last Station)
• Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
• Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

• Penelope Cruz (Nine)
• Vera Farmiga (Up In the Air)
• Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)
• Anna Kendrick (Up In the Air)
• Mo'Nique (Precious)

• Coraline
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• The Princess and the Frog
• The Secret of Kells
• Up

• China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province
• The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner
• The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant”
• Music by Prudence
• Rabbit à la Berlin

• French Roast
• Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty
• The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)
• Logorama
• A Matter of Loaf and Death

• The Door
• Instead of Abracadabra
• Kavi
• Miracle Fish
• The New Tenants

• Avatar
• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• Nine
• Sherlock Holmes
• The Young Victoria

• Avatar, Mauro Fiore
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Bruno Delbonnel
• The Hurt Locker, Barry Ackroyd
• Inglourious Basterds, Robert Richardson
• The White Ribbon, Christian Berger

• Bright Star, Janet Patterson
• Coco before Chanel, Catherine Leterrier
• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Monique Prudhomme
• Nine, Colleen Atwood
• The Young Victoria, Sandy Powell

• James Cameron (Avatar)
• Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
• Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)
• Lee Daniels (Precious)
• Jason Reitman (Up In the Air)

• Burma VJ
• The Cove
• Food, Inc.
• The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers
• Which Way Home

• Il Divo, Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
• Star Trek, Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
• The Young Victoria, Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

• Avatar, Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
• District 9, Julian Clarke
• The Hurt Locker, Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
• Inglourious Basterds, Sally Menke
• Precious, Joe Klotz

• Ajami
• El Secreto De Sus Ojos
• The Milk of Sorrow
• A Prophet
• The White Ribbon

• Avatar, James Horner
• Fantastic Mr. Fox, Alexandre Desplat
• The Hurt Locker, Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
• Sherlock Holmes, Hans Zimmer
• Up, Michael Giacchino

• "Almost There" from The Princess and the Frog Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
• "Down in New Orleans" from The Princess and the Frog Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
• "Loin de Paname" from Paris 36 Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
• "Take It All" from Nine Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
• "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" from Crazy Heart Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

• Avatar, Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
• The Hurt Locker, Paul N.J. Ottosson
• Inglourious Basterds, Wylie Stateman
• Star Trek, Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
• Up, Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

• Avatar, Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
• The Hurt Locker, Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
• Inglourious Basterds, Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano
• Star Trek, Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

• Avatar, Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
• District 9, Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
• Star Trek, Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

• Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell (District 9)
• Nick Hornby (An Education)
• Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche (In the Loop)
• Geoffrey Fletcher (Precious)
• Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner (Up In the Air)

• Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker)
• Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)
• Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman (The Messenger)
• Joel and Ethan Coen (A Serious Man)
• Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy (Up)

BEST FILM: Inglourious Bastards

WELCOME BACK: robin williams

- last year this award went to woody allen who after an up and down decade brought us the excellent and back-to-form Vicky Christina Barcelona. this year we have robin williams whose last 4 comedies were: Night At The Museum I & II, Licence To Wed and Old Dogs. then this year he stars in a little seen, dark comedy World's Greatest Dad, that shows us he can still step away from the middle of the road and take a chance - which he really has only done in non-comedic roles, if at all, lately.

BEST REBOOT: Star Trek

- ahhh the reboot. the newest hollywood craze of taking film series' and just starting them again with no reference or need to honour the story lines from the previous films. they did it with james bond in Casino Royal, with batman in Batman Begins, with superman in Superman Returns and they are already doing it with the next spiderman film. 2009 didn't see a lot of rebooting, but we saw it done really well with Star Trek which was not just a good summer film, but one of the better films released all year.

BEST OPENING CREDITS: Watchmen

- the opening credits for Watchmen were some of the best i have seen in a long, long time. they were so engaging and visually pleasing and had me so psyched for the film - which, given that it made the 10 worst list, was pretty much all downhill from there.

BEST MALE PERFORMANCE: tom hardy (Bronson)

- you probably didn't see Bronson (#10 on my best of the year list), but you should, if for nothing else, for hardy's great performance.

BEST MONTAGE: Up

- the montage near the beginning of the film, that takes us through an entire relationship from the meeting as kids through their falling in love and marriage and life's happy moments and its trials and tribulations through the passing of ones soul mate and true love, is absolutely beautiful and funny and sad and touching and is pretty much worth the price of admission right there.

BEST #9 FILM: District 9

- in case you forgot about the other nominees in this category, also released in 2009 (there's another nine) were tim burton's 9 and Nine from director rob marshall.

BEST BIG HOLLYWOOD COMEDY: I Love You Man

- looking at the comedies that made my "best of the year" list, there are 3 small/independent films (500 Days Of Summer, Humpday and World's Greatest Dad) and one foreign one (In The Loop). but, just out of top 10 range you will find I Love You Man, which didn't get the kind of attention that The Hangover did, but to my mind was an overall better and more consistently funny film.

CRITICS LIKED IT WAY TOO MUCH: An Education

- this film made many a top ten list this year and got some very high ratings on rotten tomatoes and metacritic, but it shouldn't have. while carey mulligan is rightfully getting praised and nominated, the film itself is an okay movie that seems to be good for a while but then ends up letting you down with a standard, uninteresting, cliche ending.

THE AUDIENCE LIKED IT WAY TOO MUCH: Avatar

- i get it. the 3D is great and visually it is well worth seeing on the big, or better yet, biggest (imax) screen. but, for the film to make as much money as it has means that people are going back to see it again and again and again and again. and that is where i don't get it. the story is generic, the writing is mediocre and, besides the great visuals and a nice message about mankind and his need to be more connected and understanding of his planet and of nature in general, the film...........

THE MICHAEL CERA AWARD: michael cera

- it is only fitting that the first ever michael cera award goes to... michael cera. the award goes to the actor (male or female) who is type cast/plays very much the same character in all their film roles for that year. and mister cera wins that one hands down this year and the last few years even. but, in 2009 we saw him in Year One playing a caveman version of the shy/sweet/nervous/bumbling character he always plays. and in a small, and enjoyable, faux-documentary called Paper Heart he plays himself and is, well... himself.

VERY PLEASANT OSCAR SURPRISE: tie: District 9 & A Serious Man

- even with 10 nominations to hand out for best picture this year it was still a surprise to see District 9 and A Serious Man get nods. but, it was a very pleasant surprise i might add... District 9 was a hit, but not the kind of film that generally gets a nomination. A Serious Man was definitely not a hit (grossing just over $9 million) nor did it have a huge critics push/campaign behind it that i was aware of (although it did receive lots of critical praise). but, oscar did the right thing this year and gave both films place among their top 10. both films also got screenplay nominations that they deserve.

BEST WRITER: dave eggers

- there were some great screenplays produced in 2009 and if the award was going to just one screenplay then the winner would be different. but, in this case, dave eggers was involved in writing the scripts for two films that came out last year and both of them were really good: Away We Go and Where The Wild Things Are. so, for being two-for-two in 2009 the award is his.

BEST IMPROVISATIONAL PERFORMANCE: tie: mark duplass & joshua leonard

- you might be asking yourself, how much improvisation was there in films last year anyway? well there was a bit. you had soderbergh The Girlfriend Experience which was at least semi-improvisational. there was the great hungarian film that ended up at number 7 on my "best of the year" list, I'm Not Your Friend. and then there was Humpday, which was number 3 on my list and had two great performances from mark duplass and joshua leonard who basically improved the entire film and did so brilliantly.

BEST FILM IN WHICH MIKE TYSON APPEARS: Tyson

- while The Hangover was funny as was tyson's bit in it, the documentary Tyson was the better film and one of the better films i saw all year (it made "honorable mention" on the best of list)

GLAD THE GENERAL PUBLIC KNOWS HIS NAME NOW: zack galifianakis

- you may not be able to pronounce it or spell it, but thanks to the huge success of The Hangover, zack galifianakis is kind of a household name now (or at least "that fat guy with the beard from The Hangover" is). i am a huge fan of stand-up comedy and have been a fan of zacks for a while (if you have a chance to catch his special that plays on the comedy network sometimes you should check it out. it is very funny stuff) and its nice to see him getting some attention.

looking back, 2009 was a good year overall. however, that overall positive average comes from a rather okay to disappointing big blockbusters and general cinema-near-you fair, to a good to great smaller film and surprise blockbuster year...

the summer blockbuster season was generally a disappointment with films like Watchmen, Terminatore and Transformers all ending up on the "worst of" list. and how can we forget Avatar (i know it wasn't a summer release). sure, it was a huge sucess money-wise and with many critics, but it wasn't a good movie... there were some successesthough, like Star Trek, Inglourious Basterds and District 9 - but even then, you look at the budget for District 9 at $30 million and that is almost independent film budget level.

on the other hand, many of the smaller/foreign/independent/less-publicized films that grabbed my interest ended up living up to expectations - which is often not the case (with the exception of the painfully disappointing The Limits Of Control of course).

like i always say: i can't see everything. so, now is time to list some of the films that have been making the rounds on other list, and garnering awards nominations, that i hadn't seen when i put mine together. they include:

Crazy Heart, Up In The Air, State Of Play, Bright Star, A Single Man, Moon, Anvil: The Story Of Anvil, The Cove, Public Enemies, Me And The Orson Wells, Food Inc....

with all that being said, let the listing begin......

DON'T FORGET (BEST)

1.  Inglourious Basterds
2.  A Serious Man
3.  Humpday
4.  Hunger
5.  500 Days Of Summer
6.  In The Loop
7.  Distric 9 & I'm Not Your Friend
8.  Fantastic Mr. Fox
9.  World's Greatest Dad
10.Bronson

don't forget (honorable mention): Up, Where The Wild Things Are, Away We Go, Precious, Star Trek, I Love You Man, Tyson, Adventurland, The White Ribbon, FAQ About Time Travel

FORGET (WORST)

if you want to read some short discussions on these crappy films, you can see a write-up on some of them at www.notgoodmovies.com 

1.   Terminator Salvation
2.   Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
3.   Surrogates
4.   The Limits Of Control
5.   G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
6.   Watchmen
7.   Angels And Demons
8.   The Invention Of Lying
9.   Gamer
10. Avatar

Year:

Writer & Director: Bobcat Goldthwait

Budget: ?

Gross: $219,719

if you were asking yourself, "when is robin williams going to make a great comedy again" then it must be because you haven't yet seen World's Greatest Dad. and you wouldn't be alone considering how little money this film made at the box office. but, that's why i'm here folks. to tell you about great movies like this that not only have you probably not seen, but might not have even heard of.

World's Greatest Dad is a dark comedy from the mind of bobcat goldthwait who you might remember from his role in three of the Police Academy movies or from his infamous appearance on the Tonight Show with jay leno back in 1994 when on impulse he set the couch on fire. or maybe you are familiar with his first film, 1991s Shakes The Clown? no? well, it doesn't matter, cause based on that resume one would probably not be expecting much from World's Greatest Dad. but, much is exactly what we got (and i mean that in a very good way).

robin williams plays a high school poetry teacher who wants to be a writer. he has written multiple novels and had them all rejected. then, through an unlucky turn of events he gets his wish, but the way he gets it might not be something he can deal with.

yes, i know i am being vague. that is on purpose. and, anyone who decides to check out this film should know as little about the story as possible going in.

watching the film and the way the dark humor was presented made me think of todd solondz and films like Happiness and Welcome To The Dollhouse. films that will make you laugh and will make you a little uncomfortable as well (although "Dollhouse" and "Happiness" more so then "Dad"). rather then laugh out loud satire, these movies take on ideas and subjects from a slightly different angle. i guess we could call it dark satire, but i'm not sure if that would be mixing my metaphors so-to-speak.

if your only images of robin williams these days are from films like Old Dogs, Licence To Wed and the Night At The Museum series and was wondering what had happened to a guy that has been in some great films in the past... well, allow World's Greatest Dad to restore your faith in him and his ability and willingness to step away from the middle of the road and explore what is beyond the curb.

Year: 2009, Writer: Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida, Director: Sam Mendes, Budget: $17 million (estimated), Gross: $9,430,988

so, i just finally got around to seeing Where The Wild Things Are and it was great. And, as i sat there watching the credits pop up at the end of the film i saw the name dave eggers appear as co-writer. eggers wrote one of my favorite books, You Shall Know Our Velocity, and i had totally forgot that he had written the script for this film with spike jonez.

it did remind me however, that he had written another screenplay and while i couldn't think of it at that moment sitting in the theatre, when i got home i imdb'd it and remembered that it was the sam mendes film that had been released earlier in the year, Away We Go. so, i sat down a couple days later and checked that one out as well. and i gotta say... bravo! to both films.

while i, like most people of my generation, had a fondness for the Where The Wild Things Are book, i went into the film not having read or looked at the book in many many years. so for me it was pretty much a clean slate. And, to see what spike jonez does with that slate, i don't know how anyone can't like this film.

it is funny and sad and dramatic and it will make you cry and laugh and imagine. and it will make you feel and smile and wonder. it never talks down to us or to the kids that might be watching it. in fact, you may have noticed that the advertising for the film was mostly playing to a young adult crowed as opposed to children.

the wild things are incredible. the costumes and the voice acting and the way they all move creates such a believability to all of them. they are true characters and you will love some of them and not like others.

the set design and art direction and the world that jonez has created here is spectacular. you feel like if you walked into the woods and walked far enough you too might come across the wild things and their world. and, on that note, i thought it was great that the wild things world is never discussed as fake or imaginary.

max gets there by boat and leaves by boat, but besides that the film makers and writers didn't feel the need to explain it all to us (i will admit i don't remember how it goes in the book). it is about us believing in it all the way max does and that just makes his experience and his return home that much more meaningful.

i hadn't planned this segway, but now that i think of it, Away We Go has a meaningful return home as well. the film is a great little romantic dramady that takes our main couple (burt and verona) on a road trip of sorts, as they try to decide where to make their life with their baby that is due in three months.

sam mendes, known from much darker and dramatic fare (American Beauty, Road To Perdition, Revolutionary Road...) does a really great job with this film and the script from eggers and vendela vida (eggers' wife) is great.

what i found interesting about the writing was that, based on the novel of his that i read, eggers' writing is very modern and witty and quick and hip, but that isn't the case for both Away We Go and Where The Wild Things Are. for both films he, and his co-writer, were really able to write for the characters and the story, rather then fitting them into a writing style or attitude. not to say both films aren't smart and witty and such, but they are so in the ways that fit each experience and film.

and finally i have to mention the casting of maya rudolph and john krazinski as the leads in Away We Go. i don't know if they were the first choices or not, but i will say that they should have been. they are both great at the comedic stuff - as one would expect - but the drama and the rest didn't phase them either. they also had chemistry - which, given the fact that they are in 99% of the film together really would be a deal breaker no matter how good the script and the directing was.

i'm sure at this point you have all heard of Where The Wild Things Are and either seen it or want to see it or have decided that you don't want to see it. Whereas, Away We Go hung around in the theatres for a couple months, but didn't do much. however, besides both having dave eggers attached to their screenplays, they are both really good films that you really should see.

Year:

Writer and Director: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

Budget: $7 000 000 (estimated)

Gross: $3 196 496 (as of October 25th, 2009)

in 2007 the coen brothers gave us No Country For Old Men which was a masterpiece and made the number one spot on my best of the year list for that year. then last year they gave us Burn After Reading which was kind of fun and entertaining, but ultimately disappointing and unsuccessful as a complete film (and ended up at number 10 on my worst of list last year). this year they have given us A Serious Man and i am very happy to tell you that this one has the coen brothers back on track.

A Serious Man is an incredible film and one that has put itself in the running for best movie of the year in my books.

what's interesting is that, just like Burn After Reading, A Serious Man is a little random at times, can be confusing to anyone trying to make sense out of all the various symbols and ideas as well as the opening prologue and closing image. and yet, where Burn After Reading left me empty and unsatisfied, A Serious Man blew me away.

the funny thing is, i'm not sure that everything is supposed to make sense or connect to each other in some grand meaning beyond the general ideas. maybe everything isn't supposed to "make sense" in that way?

there is a great scene in the film in which the main character is talking to a rabbi, trying to get some help with his life that is falling apart. the rabbi tells him this story about a dentist who saw something on a patients teeth once and became obsessed with figuring out what it meant. when the story ends the man asks the rabbi what ended up happening and the rabbi basically responds, "nothing. he just went on with his life."

using that story as a metaphor for a reading of the film, one could take away that not every symbol or moment is connected with everything else and that there aren't always answers to the questions. sometimes there are just more questions (like the last moment of the film which left me exhilarated, but also left me with more questions rather than answers).

however, as i say that, i almost want to take it back, because i just have a hard time thinking that the coen brothers would do that. they are famous for their meticulousness in their film making (they storyboard every single frame of their films) and so a film without answers or a well though out meaning to every single image and scene seems almost silly to say. but, i said it.

i would tell you what the film was about, but that wouldn't do it justice. the basic plot outline is actually rather regular and uninteresting if narrowed down to a sentence or two. where this film becomes the magnificent thing that it is is in the execution of it all and in the brilliant writing that takes the simple outline to places that one would never imagine had they been given said plot summary and told to create a story out of it.

these guys are film makers at the top of their game. the camera work, the editing, the writing, the use of sound and music and imagery. it is all excellent and given their past films, it is not a surprise how good they can be.

Year:

Writer: Lance Crouther & Paul Marchand (ghostwriter) & Chris Rock & Chuck Sklar & Jeff Stilson

Director: Jeff Stilson

Budget: ?

Gross: $1 727 486 (as of October 18th, 2009)

who ever thought a documentary about hair could cause controversy? well, that is what Good Hair has done. the new doc from chris rock and director jeff stilson, about the history and industry surrounding african americans and their hair, has been getting lots of praise and lots of flack.

i have some of both to give it. but i do think the controversy heaped on it is a little unjustified, and has more to do with peoples interpretations of the film - or the mear fact that the film is talking about its subject - rather then what the film is actually saying... which leads into some of my "flack", so i guess we are starting with the negatives...

the film does try to take a more reporting/journalism/down-the-middle approach to its subject then we have been used to in recent years with the documentary format. in the case of this film, this is both good and bad.

while i appreciated the ability to listen to the interviews without feeling like the film was pushing or angling everything one way or the other, i also felt like some of the more interesting and important issues that were brought up were also kind of skirted over.

the idea that black women spend so much time and money and effort trying to make their hair straighter and silkier and "whiter" is something that the film brings up, but then doesn't really attack or delve into. some of the interviews mention it, but it doesn't get the treatment it deserves. the same is true for some other ideas that get brought up. really, what the film feels like, is the beginning of a discussion.

chris rock is taking this secret of the black community and putting it out there and making us all talk about it. and in that way it is really working. not only did it lead to an interesting conversation between me and my friends on the walk home from the theatre, but oprah, tyra, the Today Show, essence magazine, etc... have all been talking about "good hair" and what it means.

the movie is funny and chris rock is a great person to take us on the journey of the film which will definitely open up many eyes to the industry that is african american hair. it will entertain and inform and, what it's most trying to do, will start an interesting and important discussion.

Year:

Writer: Philippe Falardeau (writer) & Bruno Hébert (book)

Director: Philippe Falardeau

Budget:?

Gross: ?

i only heard about C'est Pas Moi, Je Le Jur! a little over a week ago. i was out at dinner with friends and one of them mentioned how she had seen this french-canadian comedy a few nights previous. she mentioned how she had watched the whole thing waiting for the "comedy" but it never came. but she also couldn't stop watching, because she was really enjoying it.

well, lo and behold i was home a few nights later around 6:50pm, flipping through my movie channels and what do you think i saw starting at 7 o'clock? you guessed it, C'est Pas Moi, Je Le Jur! i went and quickly made something to eat and at 6:59pm i was sitting in front of the tv ready to check it out. and am i glad i did. this film is great.

the film takes place in 1968. leon is a 10-year-old boy with some issues. he is like dennis the menace times 100. not only does he have a fertile imagination and is kinda suicidal. he seems to have no moral compass when it comes to his actions. especially when his unhappy mother decides to move to greece and he acts out even more.

while it isn't a laugh out loud family comedy, the film does have a dark sense of humor that permeates the film - as does a real deep and poignant sense of drama. the two are melded together beautifully into a film that, along with the music and the cinematography, creates a real mood and engagement in the characters and the story.

the film has many of the markers that one might expect: the rebellious kid, the fighting/unhappy parents, the girl next door, etc... but they in no way make the film predictable. leon's character goes farther than it is sometimes comfortable for the audience to go or what they might expect. thus keeping us "on our toes" and creating something familiar and original all in the same wonderful film.

french canada has a pretty strong film culture/industry and is well supported by its people. however, many of the films - with some exceptions of course - don't get past the border to reach a wider audience (even within the rest of the country). C'est Pas Moi, Je Le Jure! made quite a big splash at the toronto film festival and even picked up an award at the berlin film fest and is well deserving of said recognition outside of quebec.

Writer: Jamie Mathieson

director: Gareth Carrivick

Budget: ?

Gross: ?

we are an audience that has seen it all. we know the conventions of genres and the way things have gone from having been exposed to decades of films and film making. we are a generation that knows it and has no problem telling people that we know it. so what do film makers do for audiences like that? well, they show them that they know it also.

these postmodern films, or is it post postmodern (i don't even know anymore) not only embrace the conventions of their genres, but they directly reference them and tell the audience they are doing it. and when it is done well we get films like Scream and Shaun Of The Dead. and what those two films did to horror and zombie movies respectively, Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel does to movies about... yup, you guessed it... time travel.

this little gem of a film from the u.k. brings us three friends: two are nerds (although, they don't like that word and prefer the term imaginear) and one guy who likes calling them nerds (he watched one Star Wars movie, hated it and hasn't looked back).

one night they are at their local pub talking about the latest piece of crap hollywood film they saw, writing a letter to hollywood telling them how they can fix things when ray, one of the imaginears who is obsessed with time travel, goes up to get three pints and runs into a hot babe from the future.... comedy, science-fiction and time-travel ensue.

the film is only 80-minutes long, but it does in those 80-minutes what many films don't do in 100-minutes or more: tell a good, complete and satisfying story (which is good, because in the letter the guys write to hollywood, they start off by saying that "story is king. always has been and always will be." so if the Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel story had been unsuccessful it would have been some sad irony).

i often take films to task for forgetting about the story or for feeling cut short and not providing enough development of character or plot to make the film feel complete, or the audience emotionally invested. however, FAQ About Time Travel does all that in 80-minutes. and, it will make you laugh all the way through.

given the wierd, random events and internet clicks that lead to me finding out about this film, i am going to assume that most of you haven't seen it, or even heard of its existence. regardless, you should find yourself a copy and enjoy.

Writer/Director: Buddy Giovinazzo

Budget: ?

Gross: ?

those of you who listen to the podcast (and if you don't, you should) will remember in the last episode during the "upcoming dvd" segment when, among others, Life Is Hot In Cracktown was mentioned. I, like possibly many of you, had never heard of this film before, but i was intrigued at the time and decided to check it out.

Life Is Hot In Cracktown is an interesting film for me to discuss because i am of two minds about it... on one hand it was just another film about drugs and violence and people living in tough niebohrhoods - some trying to get ahead, some trying to get out and some just in it. however, on the other hand it didn't rely on all the typical markers for these kinds of films either.

the film takes us into an inner-city neighborhood as we follow about four different groups of characters and their stories. you got the gangster kid working his way up the ladder. you got the family with two drug-addicted parents and a young son who has to be the one to take care of his little sister. you got the guy working two jobs trying to study and save up cash to take his wife and kid out of this place. finally you got the guy and his pre-op transsexual wife... caught you off guard with that last one didn't i? well that is kind of how i felt about the film in general...

some of it was standard fair for the genre: sad and rough and "real", but then you got the transsexual which isn't something that you see much - or at all - in these films. also, while the film is called Life Is Hot In Cracktown, crack/drugs isn't an in your face character in the film (as is often the case with these films), but rather a more just constant more general character that effects most everything and every storyline in various subtle and non-subtle ways.

also, these films tend to have some sort of redemption aspect to them. the triumph of the human spirit or the will of people to overcome, yada yada yada... not so with Life Is Hot In Cracktown. not only do things not all work out in the end for any of the characters, but most of the story lines end before they are finished - if you know what i mean... certain story lines climax, while others take another direction, but we aren't privy to the "end" of any of them. which makes the film feel very much like a true slice of life experience. a moment in time for these characters with much more to come after we have stopped watching.

and some of the directions certain story lines are going seem even more interesting then those same ones had been up to that point. like the film was the character development and set up for what was going to happen after - expect we don't see the after. don't get me wrong though... i did like what i saw. but i also wanted to see what happened next with a couple of the character story lines. do i smell sequel? probably not, but maybe i should read the book that the film is based on and find out more that way?