The following is a duel list consisting of what will most likely win (my ballot picks) and then who I think should rightfully receive the recognition. Hopefully you’ll enjoy agreeing or disagreeing with the list and hopefully you’ll post your own to compete with my own ballot (last year I got 20 out of 24). Good luck!

Best Picture

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

Tree of Life

War Horse

Who Will Win: The Artist; Who Should Win: Hugo

Don’t get me wrong. The Artist is a fantastic crowd pleaser of a film that took me by surprise the first time I saw it. It’s a worthy best picture winner and probably will win after a Producer’s Guild, Director’s Guild, and Golden Globe win. However, I can’t get rid of this feeling that The Artist is just sort of a novelty for our time and age. It’s quite the throwback to the silent era and a fantastic homage to such great cinema classics such as The Thin Man, A Star is Born, Sunset Blvd., and Citizen Kane. But as reverential films go this year there is none more glorious, epic, and beautiful as Martin Scorsese’s adaptation of the graphic novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret. After seeing this film a couple of times now it truly gets better and more meaningful after more viewings. Compare this to The Artist and how each time it is seen it loses a little more of that magic that grabs you originally. Personally I would have liked to see the existential Drive or the meticulous spy thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy competing for the best picture slot instead of War Horse, The Help, or Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. But the Academy seems to go for more sentimental films instead of truly daring artistic pieces.

Best Directing

Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

Alexander Payne (The Descendants)

Martin Scorsese (Hugo)

Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris)

Terrance Malick (Tree of Life)

Who Will Win: Michel Hazanavicius; Who Should Win: Martin Scorsese

Again, Michel Hazanavicius is a deserving contender this year for best director and will most likely take home the prize after a DGA win. But Hugo was another film that Scorsese will inevitably be ignored for just like he has in times past for Raging Bull and Goodfellas (The Departed wasn’t necessarily deserved, simply long overdue). Watching the mixture of tightly planned tracking shots, actual sets amidst digital sets, and fantastic performances from adults and children throughout Hugo shows Scorsese as a master of the craft of direction. But this could also be said for Hazanavicius and his use of classic movie sets, intriguing framing, and capturing the paradoxically exaggerated controlled performances from his actors. I do think that Woody Allen is a bit out of place in this category despite how delightful Midnight in Paris was. It would have been better to see Swedish director Tomas Alfredson compete with his incredibly ambient yet undeviating direction of the complex spy thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Maybe even Nicholas Winding Refn for Drive. Both are up and coming directors who will get their chance in the spotlight for sure.

Best Actor

Damian Bichir (A Better Life)

George Clooney (The Descendants)

Jean Dujardin (The Artist)

Gary Oldman (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)

Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

Who Will Win: Jean Dujardin; Who Should Win: Gary Oldman

This is clearly a post that is beating up on The Artist, which I can’t express my love for it enough. Jean Dujardin is a worthy recipient and any day that George Clooney doesn’t win is a good day (probably one of the most overrated actors of our day). If it wasn’t for Dujardin’s fantastic control and charm on the screen The Artist would not have been nearly as good as it ended up being. This category does show us what is really wrong with the Academy and their picks for Best Actor revealing that it’s more about drastic displays of emotion rather than fierce control and understanding of a character. I’m glad to see Gary Oldman up for such an incredibly understated performance that is usually not recognized by the award season (look at the Golden Globes and SAG nominations). This is why Michael Shannon, Michael Fassbender, and Ryan Gosling all didn’t get recognized because all of their performances were more internal than acrobatically external (Brad Pitt’s rage, George Clooney’s crying, and to a lesser extent Damian Bichir).

Best Actress

Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs)

Viola Davis (The Help)

Rooney Mara (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)

Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)

Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

Who Will Win: Viola Davis; Who Should Win: Tilda Swinton

I’m one of those stubborn negative Nancy’s who thought The Help was a very pleasant film but really forgettable. This isn’t to say that Viola’s performance wasn’t good because it really was and she deserves the nomination well before some of her competitors such as the phoned in contrite performance by Meryl Streep or the moody, over the top performance by Rooney Mara (see Noomi Rapace in the Swedish adaptation and you’ll see where the character needs to find that balance of control and anger). But the true staying performance from this year by a lead actress was from Tilda Swinton in the deranged British drama We Need to Talk About Kevin who was up for the Golden Globe and SAG award but was neglected by the Academy. And I won’t stop there because there were plenty of other performances that were far more impressive or possess more staying power than Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs or Michelle Williams in My Week with Marilyn. How about the narcissistic character study that Charlize Theron took on in Young Adult? Even Olivia Coleman in the brooding Tyrannosaur sticks with me more or Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy May Marlene (not a fan of the movie personally but her performance was more impressive than Meryl Streep’s). Very different nominees than what I was expecting but then again this category seems to always be relatively unpredictable.

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn)

Jonah Hill (Moneyball)

Nick Nolte (Warrior)

Christopher Plummer (Beginners)

Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close)

Who Will Win: Christopher Plummer; Who Should Win: Albert Brooks

If we were going to go for an award based on age than we should note that Max Von Sydow is just as old as Christopher Plummer and gives an equally heart-wrenching performance. Plummer is the favorite to win the award for his portrayal as a late out of the closet father in the partially flat drama Beginners. Plummer is deserving of an award considering how long he has been around in the movies and has only been nominated once before. But no performance stood out more in a supporting role than the Academy snubbed nomination of Albert Brooks in Drive. His commanding presence, gallows humor, and playing against type was both frightening and surprising all at the same time. It’s a real shame he got overshadowed by Jonah Hill playing…well Jonah Hill and Nick Nolte whose ability to be unintelligible is mistaken for deep acting. Over the previously mentioned two I would have considered either Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method, Benedict Cumberbatch or Mark Strong in Tinker Tailor, or Patton Oswalt in Young Adult.

Best Supporting Actress

Berenice Bejo (The Artist)

Jessica Chastain (The Help)

Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)

Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs)

Octavia Spencer (The Help)

Who Will Win: Octavia Spencer; Who Should Win: Berenice Bejo

Another film it looks like I’m beating up on is The Help. Octavia Spencer will win so don’t worry those who haven’t seen her in other films and seen how she acts the exact same way in all of them. She grabbed hold of a well written part (probably the best character to portray in the film) and rode with it in her typical acting fashion and is getting recognized for doing it because it had a civil rights/cultural context. If the Academy is going to give it to Spencer they might as well give it to Melissa McCarthy who was just as on point if not more so in Bridesmaids. It was a shame to not see Shailene Woodley for The Descendants or Carey Mulligan for Shame for consideration over Janet McTeer.

Best Original Screenplay

The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius)

Bridesmaids (Annie Mumolo, Kristin Wiig)

Margin Call (J.C. Chandor)

Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen)

A Separation (Asghar Farhadi)

Who Will Win: Midnight in Paris; Who Should Win: A Separation

Perhaps I’ll upset Midnight in Paris fans here but there is something all too familiar about the script when you know Woody Allen’s 1985 film The Purple Rose of Cairo. There is a similarity of escapism and the idea of throwing things out of balance when you dabble in two unfamiliar worlds. It will win and it’s a well suited win considering how well the idea was executed in a slightly different way. But I’m a little too partial to the Iranian film A Separation that really tackled complex characters, varying perceptions, and moral questions in a mere two hours. It was a drama that was positively riveting even if you didn’t have subtitles explaining what they were saying. Really A Separation should be up for Best Picture this year and it’s a shame that the Academy doesn’t take advantage of their new up to 10 nominations to recognize some really great foreign titles.

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants (Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash)

Hugo (John Logan)

The Ides of March (George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon)

Moneyball (Steven Zallian, Aaron Sorkin)

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Peter Straughan, Bridget O’Connor)

Who Will Win: The Descendants; Who Should Win: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Hugo

This is a difficult category to really pin down since it really isn’t about how well the screenwriters adapted the source material but rather how well the drama unfolds on the screen. The uncomfortable truth about The Descendants is that it’s a rather lazy film coming from the capable talent of Alexander Payne and the more you see it the drama becomes more and more pointless to experience. Everything in the film is put together relatively well but if you ask yourself, “what’s the point?” then you’ll find there really isn’t one. Not that my opinion matters anyway because it will certainly grab the adaptation prize giving Payne his second Academy Award for that category (and third nomination). Considering how difficult the source material is for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy it’s incredible they were able to chisel it down to a palpable two hours. And perhaps it was the film’s epic power hold over me but Hugo’s source material is quite a delightful Dickensian tale that was masterfully brought to life.

Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris (Alain Gagnol, Jean-Loup Felicoli)

Chico & Rita (Fernando Trueba, Javier Mariscal)

Kung Fu Panda 2 (Jennifer Yuh Nelson)

Puss in Boots (Chris Miller)

Rango (Gore Verbinski)

Who Will Win: Rango; Who Should Win: Rango

If The Adventures of Tin Tin had grabbed a nomination it would have been the favorite to win leaving me to explain why Rango deserves a Best Animated Feature win. Quite simply it was the most unique, visually commanding, and whimsically fun of the all the films up for the award. From its Ennio Moricone-esque score to the use of Western homage, Gore Verbinski certainly knew how to make an Animated Feature that was entertaining to both children and adults which is what Pixar used to be known for until they made the abomination Cars 2 (you’ll notice this is Pixar’s first time not being nominated ever since the category was introduced).

Documentary Feature

Hell and Back Again (Danfung Dennis, Mike Lerner)

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (Marshall Curry, Sam Cullman)

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (Joe Berlinger, Bruce Sinofsky)

Pina (Wim Wenders, Gian-Piero Ringel)

Undefeated (TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay, Rich Middlemas)

Who Will Win: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory; Who Should Win: Pina, Senna, Buck, Project Nim

This was surprising to me because I had seen a lot of good documentaries this year yet most of them did not make the Best Documentary Feature cut. I’m asking myself where is Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams or his other documentary that came out this year, Into the Abyss. Project Nim or Senna certainly were Academy worthy and probably could have secured a win here if they had been nominated. The experts tell me that Paradise Lost 3 will win the award (almost a guarantee they say) and yet I see myself rooting for the beautifully shot Wim Wenders’ documentary Pina. We shall see who comes out on top here.

Best Cinematography

The Artist (Guillaume Schiffman)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Jeff Cronenweth)

Hugo (Robert Richardson)

The Tree of Life (Emanuel Lubezki)

War Horse (Janusz Kaminski)

Who Will Win: Tree of Life; Who Should Win: Hugo, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Probably the only award Terrance Malick’s philosophical film The Tree of Life will actually receive since it really was the film’s strong suit. Tree of Life as well as two of the other nominees are epic pieces of photography (War Horse, Hugo) so it really should be noted that Hoyt Van Hotema should have been recognized (as he was for the cinematographer’s guild prize) for his moody and atmospheric work on Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. My personal choice though would be to award the exceptional 3D cinematography in Hugo, which was diverse, colorful, deep, and exquisitely planned.

Art Direction

The Artist (Laurence Bennett-Production Design; Robert Gould-Set Decoration)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 (Stuart Craig- Production Design; Stephanie McMillan-Set Decoration)

Hugo (Dante Ferretti- Production Design; Francesca Lo Schiavo- Set Decoration)

Midnight in Paris (Anne Siebel- Production Design; Helene Dubreuil- Set Decoration)

War Horse (Rick Carter- Production Design; Lee Sandales- Set Decoration)

Who Will Win: Hugo; Who Should Win: Hugo

No contest. Hugo’s vast sets, period locations, and re-imagining of an old movie studio should give this film a win for how well it was all seamlessly constructed.

Costume Design

Anonymous (Lisy Christl)

The Artist (Mark Bridges)

Hugo (Sandy Powell)

Jane Eyre (Michael O’Connor)

W.E. (Arianne Phillips)

Who Will Win: The Artist; Who Should Win: The Artist

Period pieces always get nominated and they all usually have great uses of old costuming. Here it will probably go to The Artist for bringing to life the class and spectacle of the silent era through costume in a pitch perfect way.

Film Editing

The Artist (Anne-Sophie Bion, Michel Hazanavicius)

The Descendants (Kevin Tent)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall)

Hugo (Thelma Schoonmaker)

Moneyball (Christopher Tellefson)

Who Will Win: The Artist; Who Should Win: Hugo

Foreign Language Film

Bullhead- Belgium (Michael R. Roskam)

Monsieur Lazhar- Canada (Phillipe Falardeau)

A Separation- Iran (Asghar Farhadi)

Footnote- Israel (Joseph Cedar)

In Darkness- Poland (Agnieszka Holland)

Who Will Win: A Separation; Who Should Win: A Separation

Original Score

The Adventures of Tin Tin (John Williams)

The Artist (Ludovic Bource)

Hugo (Howard Shore)

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Alberto Iglesias)

War Horse (John Williams)

Who Will Win: The Artist; Who Should Win: The Artist

Original Song

“Man or Muppet” from The Muppets (Bret McKenzie)

“Real in Rio” from Rio (Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, Siedah Garrett)

Who Will Win: “Man or Muppet” Bret McKenzie; Who Should Win: “Man or Muppet” Bret McKenzie

Best Make Up

Albert Nobbs (Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston, Matthew M. Mungle)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 (Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, Lisa Tomblin)

The Iron Lady (Mark Coulier, J. Roy Helland)

Who Will Win: The Iron Lady; Who Should Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2

Short Film (Live Action)

Pentecost (Peter McDonald)

Raju (Max Zahle, Stefan Gieren)

The Shore (Terry George, Oorlagh George)

Time Freak (Andrew Bowler, Gigi Causey)

Tuba Atlantic (Hallver Witzo)

Who Will Win: Pentecost; Who Should Win: Who Knows

Short Film (Animated)

Dimanche/Sunday (Patrick Doyon)

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (William Joyce, Brandon Oldenburg)

La Luna (Enrico Casarosa)

A Morning Stroll (Grant Orchard, Sue Goffe)

Wild Life (Amanda Forbis, Wndy Tilby)

Who Will Win: La Luna; Who Should Win: Who Knows

Documentary Short

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement (Robin Fryday, Gail Dolgin)

God is the Bigger Elvis (Rebecca Cammisa, Julie Anderson)

Incident in New Baghdad (James Spione)

Saving Face (Daniel Junge)

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (Lucy Walker, Kira Carstensen)

Who Will Win: Incident in New Baghdad; Who Should Win: Who Knows

Sound Mixing

Drive (Lon Bender, Victor Ray Ennis)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Ren Klyce)

Hugo (Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl)

War Horse (Richard Hymns, Gary Rydstrom)

Who Will Win: Hugo; Who Should Win: Drive

Sound Editing

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Bo Persson)

Hugo (Tom Fleischman, John Midgley)

Moneyball (Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco, Ed Novick)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin)

War Horse (Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson, Stuart Wilson)

Who Will Win: Hugo; Who Should Win: Hugo

Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 (Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, John Richardson)

Hugo (Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman, Alex Henning)

Reel Steel (Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Dan Taylor, Swen Gillberg)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, Daniel Barrett

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew Butler, John Frazier)

Who Will Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Who Should Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

How Hollywood tries to distract its devoted droves known as their audience is with typical thrills and Man on a Ledge follows this list in highly expectable fashion. Instead of building tension through meticulous planning and execution such as the highly influential film from Jules Dassin Rififi we’re left with anticipated plot movements and typical time constraints that actually feel infinite rather than urgent. Instead of characters that feel real such as in Kubrick’s classic The Killing we’re left with characters that are all too familiar, incredibly obtuse, and resemble animatronics instead of real human beings. For the typical movie audience you will get your car chases, your bullets flying, and your high flying stunts but what you won’t get is any resemblance of a film you’ve never seen before. Everything in Man on a Ledge has been done before and surprisingly far better from equally unmemorable films.

The only exclusive aspect of Man on a Ledge that could have been exploited was the mere fact that they are outside at great heights and cinematographer Paul Cameron does what he can to make it visually interesting. However, the lack of visual acrobatics and wasted potential of audience inducing vertigo leaves a drastic hole for enjoyment. There are only a couple of moments where the ledge appears slim and dangerous but it’s never consistent to the point where it demands our own sense of danger. Surprisingly this film could have benefited from the usual novelty known as 3D, though that could never have fixed the two dimensional script and cast so it’s probably a good thing they didn’t spend the money. These examples show that first time feature directors coming off of doing documentaries might not have the best sense for thrilling visual storytelling.

And now for a moment about the supposed talent of Sam Worthington who was destined to be the next true action star. After James Cameron picked this unusually stoic and consistently awkward actor to be in Avatar Worthington’s schedule seemed to be full of all kinds of career making projects. Yet Worthington has been the single worst aspect of every single film he touches, including Terminator Salvation, Clash of the Titans, and even last year’s relatively enjoyable remake The Debt. In Man on a Ledge he is only consistently unconvincing as he even breaks accent from scene to scene. Worthington is an anchor on any film he is cast in and though the script and direction for Man on a Ledge was beyond sub-par it could have been slightly better with a lead who had conviction and appeal.

Some people were probably wondering if there was anything more to the simplistic and laughable title Man on a Ledge, but as with other horribly titled films it leaves nothing to be desired. The so called twisty plot reveals itself in such a slow pace that the only work your brain will be doing is trying to figure out why this movie was made in the first place. Ultimately the film has no visual delights, no interesting or appealing characters, or even a fulfilling ending. The only tension that you’ll feel is the anxiousness to vicariously watch the bland Sam Worthington actually jump bringing this horribly written film to end prematurely. Luckily it is January so these films are expected to be terrible but if this is the tone being set for 2012 then fret for a quality entertainment year.

Grade: D

At the center of this cast is Liam Neeson who has turned into an unexpected modern day action star. This almost 60 year old actor has really broken barriers with his willingness to do the daring and though not all of his action films are very good, such as Unknown or The A-Team, he is still a force on the screen that demands your attention. While The Grey is no Taken, Neeson controls the screen with his confidence, control, and mostly through his eyes, which showcase a man full of emotions trying to restrain them all at once. He really has become a modern day Charles Bronson and that is by all means an incredible compliment.

But that doesn’t mean the film is without fault. It is tightly directed by Joe Carnahan (Narc, Smokin Aces) but unfortunately follows a fairly predictable script. Though the film isn’t completely predictable it does sort of fall prey to its own conventional lay out making the experience a little less thrilling than it otherwise could have been. But perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and The Grey certainly knows its strong points and Carnahan’s direction brings those out in full force, either with an ear ringing plane crash or the fear of death in the cold night as you hear wolves howling in hunting anticipation. Where the film is weak in original plot (The Edge meets Predator) and dialogue, which is constantly vulgar and simplistic, it makes up for in carefully planned action sequences and tension building surprises that bring out your own fears and definitely your sympathies for the party who is trying desperately to survive.

And this idea of survival being the grey area between comfortable life and encompassing death is explored throughout the film. Each of the men express their fears in different ways and all have their reasons to want to survive (family, pleasure, etc.) but it is when death creeps up that reveals their true character. While it isn’t as high concept as a Von Trier or Terrance Malick film, The Grey is an admirable attempt to give a little more thought provocation to an otherwise unsophisticated or narrow-minded genre. The crowd who explicitly go to the theater for an all-out action experience will indeed be disappointed with how the ending is handled but will intrigue those who enjoy a little bit of contemplation at the movies. It’s just rather unfortunate that The Grey appeals to neither of the two spectrums since it doesn’t fully embrace either.

Overall, The Grey is an intriguing film experience one that you wouldn’t have expected simply judging from the trailers. The film tries to explore not only the acceptance of death but what happens in the moment right before it and is described as warmth that allows one’s loved ones to take them away. Unfortunately it only broaches this large concept as it retreats back into tightly planned action sequences, which are mostly enjoyable if it weren’t for the lingering sense that you know what is exactly going to take place. For a January film, which are otherwise known as the dregs of the studio releases, The Grey is an interesting film experience that won’t exactly please pure action simpletons or pompous art-house intellectuals. Ironically it is somewhere in between and hopefully it gives studios the courage to try and tackle more of these types of semi-intellectual action films.

Grade: B-

14. Argo- the third directing project from Ben Affleck is worth anticipating since his last two, Gone Baby Gone and The Town, have successfully highlighted his new (or actual) talent behind the camera.

13. World War Z- a long awaited adaptation led by Marc Forrester…could be very entertaining but also poses risks for the Quantum of Solace director.

12. The Hobbit- only part one but it will be a Geekbananza for all of the Lord of the Rings fans highly looking forward to the prequel installment.

11. Cosmopolis- a David Cronenberg film that can only be brought down having cast the wax figure Robert Pattinson.

10. Lincoln- Spielberg and Daniel Day Lewis teaming up for a personal and epic tale focusing on one of our most beloved presidents should make for an interesting film to say the least.

9. The Wettest County- the next film from Australian director John Hillcoat (The Proposition, The Road) this film is written by Nick Cave and has an all-star cast including Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, and Mia Wasichowska.

8. Prometheus- obviously a prequel to Alien (although there is some dispute over that) it is a return to a genre Ridley Scott helped define and should have some thrills, shocks, and intense action.

7. Cogan’s Trade- the third film from New Zealand director Andrew Dominik following the violent study of Chopper and the movie as poetry Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, should provide for an interesting film also starring Brad Pitt.

6. Stoker- South Korean director Chan-Wook Park’s English speaking debut, which will be quite intriguing considering his filmography—Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Thirst, and Joint Security Area.

5. Moonrise Kingdom- Wes Anderson returning to his live action style of awkward family dramatic comedy which is always a promising and unique cinematic adventure.

4. Django Unchained- another violent, darkly humorous, and pseudo-historical film from the twisted mind of Quentin Tarantino about an ex-slave hunting down the man who killed his family that has an all-star cast featuring Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kurt Russell, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Don Johnson.

3. Only God Forgives- another Nicholas Winding Refn film starring Ryan Gosling should make for another great film especially after the surprise that Drive was this past year.

2. Inside Llewyn Davis- the Coen Brothers bringing us a drama about a fictional folk singer during the Greenwich Village period, which should show their versatility as well as stars Carey Mulligan and Oscar Isaac.

1. The Master- probably a controversial film about Scientology but what makes it such a draw is because it’s directed by the master himself Paul Thomas Anderson and stars Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Pheonix.

19. War Horse-though not at the caliber of his previous works and definitely has some chapters in the tale that are weaker than others, Spielberg does deliver a touching and epic tale of a boy and his horse that has some extremely memorable imagery (barbed wired No-Man’s land or the wheat field mount) and a highly manipulative score that will sway you to joyful tears.

18. Meek’s Cutoff- A surrealist and atmospheric interpretation of a John Ford western that director Kelly Reichardt guides in delicate fashion giving the film an experimental yet human quality glorifying independence that is rarely seen in movies these days.

17. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close- trying to find meaning in the meaningless is at the center of young actor Thomas Horn’s journey throughout the film and it becomes increasingly emotional, heartbreaking, and life affirming all in the same picture.

16. Melancholia- deserves recognition for its prologue alone (features apocalyptic imagery rooted in German Romanticism) but could be the most divisive film this year, which has ignited discussion, frustration, and deep reflection and that is probably what more films need to try and accomplish.

15. Shame- while not as strong as his previous work, director Steve McQueen still delivers a risky and raw drama about a sex addict that is hauntingly personal and forebodingly tragic becoming a film that will stay with you long after it’s done.

14. Margin Call- probably the best film from a first time director this year, this in house drama that takes place before the financial collapse of 2008 takes focus on personal character and moral decision making delivered in an apolitical way that invites many people to have deep personal contemplation and reflection in the aftermath.

13. Certified Copy- an independent film that embraces full on conversations on art, philosophy, and truth which reminds us of great character dialogue driven dramas from the likes of Lynch and Linklater bringing us a very thought-provoking work of art.

12. Take Shelter- a fantastic thriller brought to us by director Jeff Nichols, this film is built upon a subjective outlook that might be unstable due to the character’s history of mental illness and becomes a haunting film experience.

11. Win, Win- Director (and Character actor) Thomas McCarthy brings another funny yet dramatic film to life about a lawyer and volunteer wrestling coach who finds more stress and revelation in his life with the arrival of the grandson of a client he has morally deceived.

10. The Descendants- Alexander Payne brings another intriguing and poignant character drama to the screen, which features strong performances and Payne’s signature ability to make his characters seem paradoxically alien yet relatable.

9. Midnight in Paris- Woody Allen’s hit or miss track record delivers a hit reminiscent in style to his previous work The Purple Rose of Cairo but offers plenty on its own merit, including romanticized longings of times in the past (with a Woody Allen realization there would be no penicillin) and ingenious uses of authors, painters, and filmmakers from the 1920s that walks the balance between pompous and whimsical very well.

8. Point Blank-  this Hitchcock-esque French thriller designed around the idea that a man was in the wrong place at the wrong time becomes an adrenaline filled mystery that seems as though it belongs right in the 70s guerilla filmmaking era.

7. The Guard- the funniest movie you didn’t see this year filled with exceptionally rude dialogue, out of place philosophical ponderings, and a glorious performance from Brandon Gleeson who ignites the screen with unrestrained offensiveness.

6. Tree of Life- extremely ambitious in delivery yet simple in concept Terrance Malick is able to blend attainable philosophy, autobiographical propensities, and visual stunning tapestries for a film that is quite surprisingly religiously reaffirming.

5. Hug0- Scorsese’s love letter homage to the early years of cinema is done so with a delightful Dickensian tale of a boy fixing the clocks in a train station trying to uncover the last mystery and piece he has of his dead father. It is a film that is pseudo-historical and is delivered with fantastic cinematography making it extremely poignant and memorable.

4. A Separation- delicately walks the tightrope of giving each character their own perspective reminiscent of the Kurosawa classic Rashomon; this Iranian film is one of those rare honest films that showcase all of the rights and wrongs of a family including aspects of morality, pride, and honor.

3. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy- a pitch perfect thriller, one that is minimalist in delivery yet exceptionally complex in the details. Director Tomas Alfredson gives the proper tone and ambience this Machiavellian thriller deserves and also brings out the subtle best in underrated actor Gary Oldman.

2. The Artist- a full out audience pleaser that director Michel Hazanavicius tactfully presents in the style and mood of the silent era that will have you crying and smiling in equal swings of the pendulum and is complimented with graceful camera work, cinematic references, and a memorable score.

1. Drive- deeply involving, grittily violent and a pitch perfect neo-noir for the ages that challenges conventions, twists your expectations, and is a welcome American debut from visionary Danish director Nicholas Winding Refn

Honorable Mentions (in Alphabetical Order): 13 Assassins, 50/50, Attack the Block, Beginners, Bridesmaids, Cedar Rapids, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. II, Le Havre, I Saw the Devil, Like Crazy, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Moneyball, Le Quattro Volte, Rango, The Skin I Live In, Submarine, The Trip, Tyrannosaur, Weekend, Young Adult

Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy is an anomaly of spy movies because it is solely dependent upon realism, the understanding of people, and getting the intellectual upper hand, which throws out all of the unneeded expectations of distracting explosions, the non-stop gunfire, and the unsteady camera work. Instead we are placed in the gradual process of uncovering the mystery in the authentic step by step process of international investigative work that is complimented by a focused attention to characters as well as smooth, elegant camera work. The well planned tapestry of unique players is controlled by the great script written by Peter Straughan and Bridget O’Connor (RIP) and provides a puzzling guessing game of conspiracy, deception, and assumption. All of the assumed suspects to be the mole at the top of the circus, played by Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, and David Dencik, make you question all of their loyalty and interests as the investigative work moves in and out of their deeds and motives. But really it’s the scripts dedication to the protagonist Smiley that gives the film its melancholic tone and intriguing step by step procedural approach. Smiley is a master of his craft, whether he’s interrogating Toby Esterhase in Machiavellian fashion or keeping information secret to safeguard his team. Though he is physically lacking in perfect eye sight, utilizing glasses in the same way Miller’s Crossing uses hats, Smiley sees all around him when work is concerned but has a tragic flaw when it comes to his personal life. This personal sense of betrayal in Smiley reflects largely in the film as though catching the Communist mole will amend his personal weakness (or blind spot). Though supported by dazzling performances (especially Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong), an intelligent script, and stunning cinematography, the real strength of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a study of minimalism, either how much is revealed to an audience or what is stylistically chosen to be presented on the screen. With too many overstated dramas these days it is really a stunning achievement that a film with so much class, subtlety, and introspection could be such an involving and tense experience.

Too often there are films that showcase particular talents, whether there is a performance an audience walks away with or the stunning visuals that have impressed them throughout. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is one of those rare films where everything from the cinematography, the direction, the performances, the art direction, and the score come together for a pristine film. Certainly Gary Oldman’s performance is the highlight of the movie, but everything surrounding him from the colorful set designs, the detailed costumes, and the moody lighting must have aided in putting him in the proper mood. It might be too hopeful to believe that this movie could revitalize the longing for truly intelligent, mature dramas seeing as how it’s still considered such a risk. But every risk in this film, including the minimalist delivery, the incredibly implicit yet meticulous script, and the subdued acting were well worth the experience. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy return to thought provoking and audience involving thrillers gives it a sense that it will be a film that will be highly thought of years from now as a piece that is as manipulative, calculating, and void as its central protagonist and that is something to reflect about for a long while.

Grade: A

There are many positive attributes to McQueen’s Shame, including great performances from Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan as well as unique lingering shots that break modern composition standards which are edited in non-traditional ways (which sometimes means not at all). There is a light greenish tint to the shots outside of Brandon’s apartment as we see a jaded city in a jaded light giving the beauty of the concrete city a sort of cynical tone and presence. But the screenplay seems intent on just skimming the surface of Brandon’s addiction in an outline and bullet point style that is intentionally observational but inadvertently uninviting as to getting involved with the characters being presented to us. With addiction there is an undeniable reliance on the substance we are addicted to, which for Brandon is sex or rather sexual release. It is presented to us that he spends his free time with hookers, casual sexual encounters, pornography, and masturbation, but little is shown to us that it inhibits his work (just has a filthy hard drive) or his lack of communication or interaction skills. In fact, the only real work activity we see is him being praised for his pitch earlier in the day, which shows us a man who can confidently interact with people. He also has the charming ability to flirt and make an impression on some women at a bar while his boss and wing man is incredibly naïve and inept at the activity. When we are solely focused on Fassbender’s subtle acting as Brandon, such as his personal shame in regards to erectile dysfunction or an emotionally handicapped resistance to hearing his sister sing “New York, New York,” we begin witnessing truly divine excerpts of a film relating to an addictive human being. But that is all Shame possesses, just moments of artistic and directional brilliance in a story that seems as thin in substance as the paper it was written on. Most viewers who know what they are getting into will admire McQueen’s minimalist style, his beautiful capturing of New York City, and guiding a unique brother and sister relationship, but there will be an undeniable disconnected feeling in the aftermath to a film that doesn’t seem intent on speaking with its audience on an equal plane.

Unfortunately the independent arena for cinema is lacking some true original voices as we continually see replications of Little Miss Sunshine and Juno since people see quirkiness and extraneous abnormality as unique. So we are truly lucky to have a serious artist such as Steve McQueen trying to tackle complex and extremely uncomfortable subject matters including sacrificial starvation and now sexual addiction. While there are criticisms to be made about his sophomore effort Shame it would be irresponsible to not recognize his stylistic risks, his paradoxically distant yet intrusive observations, and ability to work with actors that isn’t dependent on radical emotional changes but instead a subtle and elegant presentation. Shame might be unable to tackle the true consequences of addiction, including what happens to an addict’s behavior once they can’t find their release, but gives a competent enough presentation in artistic style that makes it an interesting experience. McQueen does have a lackadaisical approach to making his films but perhaps there is a self-criticizing nature in him that will lead him to perfecting his unique cinematic eye. Most people will walk out of Shame astounded by Michael Fassbender’s performance, which should be commended for its restraint but really isn’t as revealing or sympathetically connecting as we would hope (mostly the fault of the loose script). For all of the controversy surrounding the sexual nature of the film Shame, that controversy only relates to the explicitly sexual when there is an obvious hole relating to the subjective debilitating aspects of addiction. Ironically it is a film that is unabashedly bare yet hesitant, and that is the true weakness of the piece in its entirety.

Grade: B

Opening the film is an awe-inspiring shot that is as long as it is beautiful as it makes its way through the outskirts of Paris in the 30s and travels through a busy train station and eventually reveals our protagonist, Hugo Cabret. Hugo lives in the train station where he keeps the clocks running efficiently in the place of his drunken Uncle who took custody of him after his father died in a tragic accident. What’s left of his father is an Automaton, a self-operating machine that resembles a human, and is the allegory to the plot’s central figure, filmmaker Georges Méliès. As the film jumps from Dickensian orphan tale involving a hardened train inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) to revisionist film history study there is a fluidity that is uncommon in most films. Scorsese has the ability to give this children’s tale an additional layer, which is a love letter to the founders of cinema. This love is obvious as every shot, every sequence, and every set seems more detailed than the last. Yet the characters are not always as detailed as the story itself. There are, of course, a great amount of specifics for Hugo, the Train inspector, and Georges Méliès, but many of the side characters, even the immediate ones, just seem like circumstantial additions. But this tedious criticism, along with a sometimes relaxed pacing, is just hypercriticism for a movie that is ultimately incredibly delightful. Hugo brings out the best in Scorsese for two reasons, the first being his love for the movies as a student of cinema and the second is his newfound direction with children, probably because he’s a grandfather now and it gives him better understanding. Add all this with a script that is mysteriously multifaceted with a theme that is philosophically Aristotelian in how purpose, or what we do and its importance, is linked to human happiness. All of the characters, from Hugo to the Train Inspector to Georges Méliès wish to be important through their work and that is a virtuous lesson worth teaching children through cinema.

Scorsese isn’t necessarily known for his sympathetic side since most of his films range from the grittily violent (Mean Streets, The Departed) to the personally troubled (Taxi Driver, The Aviator). But in Hugo we’re seeing a filmmaker who has mastered his abilities and can transcend being pigeonholed as a director of the violent and the disturbed. Though Scorsese has every technical expert and budget opportunities at his disposal, he uses it with a delicate and dazzling vision that is aesthetically impressive and undeniably poignant. The deep shots and meticulous sets are all complimented by the 3D technology, which is a refreshing deviation from having the 3D be the center of telling a story as it is in other films. While the plot is incredibly complex and delivered at a leisurely pace, there is no denying the incredible visual ballet that follows our lonely protagonist Hugo Cabret that showcases the true feats of modern digital cinema. Hugo is a children’s tale that tries to recapture the magic that old Hollywood used to embrace, which was that dreams were worth having and that they were elaborate, detailed, and relevant enough to be expressed to others. Thanks to John Logan’s devoted script and Martin Scorsese’s cinematic talent, Hugo becomes a rare family film that has a relevant theme about purpose, a throwback to the Dickensian spirit, and a loving homage to the founders of cinema.

Grade: A-

To bring about a successful return of the Muppets there needed to be a suitable story to give us a valid reason to see our beloved Muppets re-united. Segal and Stoller’s script follows the close relationship between two brothers, one an actual human named Gary and the other a muppet named Walter (voiced by Peter Linz). Walter doesn’t feel as though he belongs and finds comfort in “The Muppet Show,” where he forms a borderline obsession with the characters and their talents. Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) invite Walter to join them on a trip to Los Angeles where Walter can visit the famous Muppet Studios. But instead of seeing a tour of his dreams Walter sees a rundown studio where there are no more Muppet antics and is set to be purchased by a Rich oil man named Richman (Chris Cooper) believing there to be oil under the land. In order to save the studio, Walter finds Kermit the Frog and together they find the rest of the group in first Muppet movie fashion for the sake of putting on a telethon show to raise the money they need to keep the studio. There are a few cliché elements in the story structure but the particulars that can be quibbled about aren’t necessarily detriments to the movie as a whole and to focus on them would just make us our own Statler and Waldorfs. Truth is The Muppets is at once a direct and whimsical homage to the original Muppet Movie while also being modern and refreshing in its parody and self-deprecating humor in relation to the musical numbers and the plot’s launching points. The characters throughout the film continuously break the fourth wall by directly recognizing how tiring a dance number might be, that a montage might be quicker to pass the time, or traveling by map instead of actual distance, making a truly clever play on familiar cinema conventions. But even putting aside the writing and technical cleverness, the presentation of the Muppets is done in such a familiar and classic way that it is truly delightful to experience. This tone and environment can mostly be attributed to the tradition of cameos (Mickey Rooney, Alan Arkin, Jack Black, Dave Grohl, and Zach Galifinakis to name a few), a comically timed cast, and sticking with the tried and true personalities of our favorite Muppet characters.

Looking around the cinemas there is truly a lack of quality family films and certainly a lack of films that take risks on presentation, technical precision, or script manipulation. Mostly we get kids films that are hyper, overproduced, and lack any sort of message to take away. It’s truly a wonder that one of the only quality family movies this year would be a Muppets movie considering the doubts surrounding the film’s completion. You never would have expected the writer and director of Forgetting Sarah Marshall to bring us not only a quality family movie but also a quality Muppets movie, which has a higher standard for success to devout fans. The Muppets certainly isn’t the best of the Muppets movies but it is far from the worst due to the director’s familiarity with humorous musical numbers and the writer’s dedication to the consistent comedic tone of previous Muppets favorites. And while there can be an appreciation for the technical achievements, the self-aware jokes on cinema elements, and the dedication to the previous Muppets films structure, The Muppets by itself is just a whimsical, all around good time for the family that is rare these years. Anyone looking to erase their worries this Holiday season and be reminded that believing in oneself is the most important quality one can possess then The Muppets is your guaranteed ticket to achieve that.

Grade: A-

The film Immortals is following the latest trend trying to lift the Swords & Sandals genre from obscurity with the likes of the graphically bloated 300, the abysmal remake of Clash of the Titans, and a rather unsubstantial television series entitled “Spartacus.” And despite taking some liberties with the core Greek mythology making for an unoriginal plot that has zero characters of any true substance, Immortals compares surprisingly well with the strangely admired plot-less 300 in its use of violence, its stunning visuals that actually use sets and locations, and an unquestionable intensity. The choreographed violence, either digital or real, meshes well with the chosen sets that are usually never brought to life via a computer. Instead the varying outdoor locations are incredibly vibrant and the in-door sets are impressively designed. Mix this with the colorful costumes, fantastic use of blocking and depth of field, and a camera use that is as graceful as it is diverse and you have a film that is spectacular for a viewing experience. But as the plot sluggishly drones on, introducing characters upon characters whom you don’t necessarily care for and who become increasingly simplistic as the movie continues, the visuals just become a couple of nice, in-tact paintings in a lackluster, unattractive home. Those venturing to the theaters looking for a movie that contains brutal and graphically poignant violence in a plot that doesn’t strive to make you bother using your brain then you will feel truly welcome in this home. But those looking for an intelligent adaptation of Greek concepts of free will, fate, or the Gods vs. man or dynamic, epic characters that grab your interest and inspire you as they do the people on the screen (think Gladiator or Braveheart) then you will be truly unsatisfied with the starved and basic plotline that becomes the antithesis of Tarsem’s visual substance.

What seems to be apparent is that Tarsem has a difficult time focusing on giving a plot the intricate details or due diligence that he utilizes with his visual planning. This was one of the biggest weaknesses in his debut feature The Cell and only slightly so in his second feature The Fall, though that explored an intriguing use of constantly changing plot based on mood and perception. The film Immortals as a blockbuster big budget action feature is incredibly typical of its breed, which includes strained dialogue, an uninventive and predictable plotline, and a lack of an intelligent conceptual arc. Some audiences seek out this substandard, immediately satisfying genre because of their devotion to thrills fed to them in loud and CGI plagued action sequences. Others want to be connected with who they are following and make sense of the fantasy world around them, either in relevant concept or sympathetic dedication. But truth is told when it’s said you could do a lot worse than Immortals when it comes to lackluster action filled films. Tarsem’s unique style of design and use of camera is simply unchallenged in this venue and makes Immortals artistically pleasing in vision despite a lack of complimentary elements in story or character that diminishes the film’s overall delivery. Perhaps Tarsem’s talents could be useful in other ways, maybe as a cinematographer or art director, instead of helming project’s that seem to have a disconnect with plot and relevance. But that might be a presumptuous conclusion for he might not have had a choice in the bland script he was given. There is no doubting his abilities to deliver truly unique visuals that are designed to complement every bit of detail, but there is a seed of doubt in his ability to follow a story in a way that makes sense or has characters that have substance rather than being like puppets moving for no purpose other than their master’s intentions.

Grade: C