Questionable Review: Bridesmaids

I'm not sure what the reason is, but there seems a terrible detriment of comedies powered by a predominately female cast (good ones, anyway). Whether this is due to some Hollywood politics or whatever is beyond me, but out of the void to fill this... er... void comes Bridesmaids.

Can it shatter preconceived notions?

WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

Bridesmaids centers around Annie Walker (Kristen Wiig), a woman whose own mid-life troubles are compounded when her best friend Lilian (Maya Rudolph) gets engaged. Floundering in her own life, Annie tries desperately to earn her keep as Maid of Honor, usually resulting in her just making things much worse. Throw in one terrible relationship (with an uncredited John Hamm), a pair of horrendous roommates, and a rivalry with one of Lilian new, and extremely wealthy friends (Rose Byrne), and Annie's life looks to be headed downward at an alarming clip. Of course, this being a comedy, Annie's implosion is as entertaining as it is distressing.

WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Bridesmaids has almost unbearably long segments of unstoppable funny. Where many comedies tend to build up to a single big laugh in any given set piece, Bridesmaids had me rolling in the aisle as each one of the movies many train-wreck-like scenes went down. This is thanks to an amazing ensemble cast, specifically Kristen Wiig leading. She's likeable, relateable, but still indescribably funny. Melissa McCarthy also provides a breakout performance as Lilian's sister-in-law to be, Megan. Those train-wrecks I was talking about are typically anchored by her during their build-up, and even as solid as the rest of the supporting cast is, she tends to regularly eclipse them.

WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

All those incredibly long comedy bits inflate Bridesmaids to the point that, when it is time for the serious narrative bits, the points at which we see things really go to shit for Wiig's characters, the audience is so mentally exhausted that they seem tiresome. That's partially because this kind of sentimentality is a bit cliche' and we KNOW things are going to end up alright for all our ladies. This makes the last bit of the movie leading up to our finale drag a bit, but it's nothing too terrible.

ANYTHING ELSE?

I credit this movie with inventing my new favorite term... calling any and all sub sandwiches "big ol' bear sandwiches".

WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

Bridesmaids is a film that's difficult to describe and to rate in a traditional sense. This is just a hilarious movie with great performances from top to bottom. It has some bits and some segments that are sure to surprise most, and delight even more. If you're looking to laugh (and why wouldn't you be) Bridesmaids should be your first choice if headed to the theater. It's a movie that needs to succeed.

Check out my other recent movie reviews:

The Hangover: Part II

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Thor

Black Swan

Questionable Review: The Hangover: Part II

2009's The Hangover was undoubtedly a funny film. That might be one of the most noncommittal statements one could put in a movie review, but it's really the only thing I can say for sure about it. It was one of those movies that combined so many unique elements that shouldn't have worked, and yet somehow did. It avoided being too cliche' while being wholly familiar. When a sequel was announced, I wondered how the writers, director, and cast could continue to evolve the series into new horizons.

After watching Hangover: Part II, it's obvious they didn't ponder that same question. Does that make this Hangover any less funny?

WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

The Hangover: Part II takes place two years after the soul branding trials the Wolf Pack of Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) went through in Las Vegas. Now, it's Stu's turn to get married and attempt to settle down, but first he must survive the pre-wedding nuptials that have proven the bane of him and his comrades. This time, the venue has changed to Thailand, but the predicament remains the same. The boys wake up, lose someone with a trail of destruction and debauchery as the only clues to what happened, and must make things right before their friend gets married. If that sounds identical to the events of the prior film, that's only because it is.

WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Once again, the film is driven by its characters and the performances behind them. Cooper anchors the cast with his half douche/half straight man Phil. Ed Helms provides the unstable wild-card who you cannot help but relate to when he begins freaking out about the revelations the group makes. Of course, more than anything, though, The Hangover is Zach Galifianakis' show, and he does yet another phenomenal job here. His character is innocent, yet sociopathic, and Galifianakis plays it so convincingly that he mesmerizes whenever he does anything on-screen. Paul Giamatti also does a great job in a very limited, but very intense role that he's given. It also must be credited how well The Hangover: Part II is filmed and scored, especially for what is essentially fodder for dumb teenagers. The licensed music juxtaposes perfectly with the movie's ridiculous situations, and there is some surprisingly avant garde direction going on.

WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Many sequels suffer from being too similar to the movie that came before. The Hangover: Part II does not avoid this. Although it doesn't commit such grave sins as something like Austin Powers II, in which the same exact jokes and dialog are shoved awkwardly and lazily into the film as if to say, "HEY, REMEMBER THIS?", it still makes the movie feel a little more than tired in certain parts.

As I said, so many things shouldn't have worked in The Hangover, but somehow managed to come out successful overall. Here, those parts don't come together quite so well. Bits seem more aimed at straight shock rather than shockingly funny, and the flow and pacing is much more sporadic this time. The Hangover was not a realistic or a serious film in the least, but the amount of deus ex machina that the movie tries to get away with and drag the audience along with are a bit much. Also, a couple of performances that are meant to hinge the movie, Mason Lee's Teddy and Ken Jeong's Mr. Chow, are just sub-par. Lee is just not a strong enough actor, and Jeon isn't as likeable as he was in the first film (probably because of over-utilization).

ANYTHING ELSE?

I know I'm not the only one who heard that when the plot of this movie would revolve around Ed Helms' character getting married, they instantly thought he'd be getting married to Heather Graham's character from the first. And just what DID become of her character and that inconclusive plot thread? NEVER EXPLAINED!

WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

The Hangover: Part II is not a bad film by any stretch. It attempts to replicate the feeling and plot arc of the first and, for the most part, succeeds. The problem is that it re-treads a road that its previous installment only barely escaped unscathed. This time, the polish has come off, and what we're left with is a good, if not underwhelming comedy movie that is not only eclipsed by the first, but has already been thoroughly bested by other movies in theatres right now.

Check out my other recent movie reviews:

Bridesmaids

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Thor

Black Swan

i-Rix Review: L.A. Noire

The case that makes ya... and the case that breaks ya...

Rockstar Games doesn't miss. When it comes to creating games based around characters and the worlds they inhabit, no developer does it better. Although pure gameplay has never been the draw of these games, the developer usually does enough creatively or content-wise to make up for this sleight. In the case of L.A. Noire, the story elements are more greatly realized than ever. While this would logically make it Rockstar's greatest effort, the gameplay elements sag so far as to make it questionable as a proper game sometimes. The fact that, then, L.A. Noire still manages to be entertaining is a testament unto itself.

Story

The story of L.A. Noire takes place in the burgeoning Los Angeles of the post-WWII 1940s. You'll take on the role of Cole Phelps, a supposed war hero who works his way up the ranks of the LAPD. Los Angeles at this time is not only dangerous, giving Detective Phelps plenty of wrongs to right, but it is also irreparably corrupt. The corruption digs so far at the heart of the city that each case that Phelps takes has an overwhelming dread that the straight-laced cop is just a bit too honest for his health. Of course, this being a Rockstar game, the characters and their extremely human portrayal drive the story and, despite the occasional lull into repetition, it is truly the driving for of the game itself as Phelps takes on murderers, crooks, and swindlers. The full scope of the over-arching story isn't revealed until the game's closing hours, but if you're able to piece together the tapestry Rockstar has created here, L.A. Noire just might be the most well-constructed and satisfyingly pessimistic story effort in the developers long history.

Content

Although part of a long lineage, where L.A. Noire really starts to deviate (and not for the better) from its open-world brethren is with content. Noire isn't a short game by any measure, but outside of the main line of cases Phelps undertakes, there just isn't much there. After an introductory "Patrol" set of missions, Phelps will take on the responsibility of four desks throughout his LAPD career. Each desk has around four cases to take on, and while some are lengthier than others, they tend to even out at a few hours per desk for a total of about 12 hours of gameplay.

Of course there are side activities, but these are reserved to a series of 40 "Petty Crime" calls you can answer whilst driving 'round the city. There are also a bunch of hidden cars to unlock and city landmarks to spy, all of which give you more XP towards your overall detective rank, but hunting for these seems overly superficial and gamey. Yes, you're a detective with a job to do, so I wasn't expecting to be doing favors for anyone or to be able to amuse myself with wanton destruction, but is looking for random garages with non-standard police vehicles hidden inside of them REALLY a more convincing side activity? I don't think so. And I don't think it's fun.

Gameplay

Sadly, that feeling of shaky quality transcends onto the gameplay. At its heart, L.A. Noire is an adventure game in the vein of the Ace Attorney series with action sequences thrown in. Each case proceeds in a similar fashion; you'll receive a case and jet over to the crime scene to investigate. You'll usually question a witness, then head off to another location and repeat the process. If you fail to get accurate information either from your shoddy investigatory skills or your inability to read the witnesses' lies, the case will change dynamically, and this will often lead you as Phelps to pursue it at a different angle than had you done your job correctly. This all plays into your case rating once you've got your suspect behind bars.

While this whole "M-rated" Phoenix Wright has amazing potential, and at times Noire's blending of interrogation, investigation, and shooter...gation(?) feels perfect, it all becomes a little bit too linear after a while. When you first step onto a crime scene, survey the grizzly evidence and cut through the deception to the truth, using your keen observation of the facts and the human face, there's nothing quite like it. However, once you're introduced to the Homicide desk, and the cases cease to contain any level of variety, you start seeing the limitedness of the systems. To put it bluntly, unless you PURPOSELY do so... it's nearly impossible to do poorly in the investigation portion of the game.

This is because, not only are most of the clues hardly, if ever, concealed, but the game actually cues you with music if there are still clues to find. Music still playing? Keep looking. This skews the value of the gameplay inexorably on your interrogation skills. And just like the Ace Attorney series it is so much like, this means lots of leaps in logic, lots of trial and error, and lots of frustration. The final third of this gameplay triangle, the shooting and action sequences, are serviceable. As I stated before, this Rockstar games aren't necessarily driven by their action mechanics, but when the redundancy sets in during your detective duties, you can take some solace in the fact these segments are at least solid. Too bad they can get just as repetitive as everything else.

Presentation

At least the majority of L.A Noire's presentation is stellar. If you've read thus far, you probably wanna know what I think of the face motion capture. In short: IT'S INSANE. The level of detail the game captures is one thing, but the intangible human quality that its characters's have is something that can't be described. This is, of course, also due to a stellar cast. Yes, this video game has a proper cast, with actors who deliver a performance with both their voice and their face. They're bolstered by an appropriately period-looking Los Angeles which sports a similar meticulousness in its design. Topping it all off is a soundtrack with licensed 40s music and fantastic original music included. In short, this is a good looking game.

Final Verdict

In the end, L.A. Noire is a fine experience. It's got interesting takes on various game genres that are boosted up by a stellar story and presentation. However, similar to games like Metal Gear Solid prior to it, too often did I find more pleasure in watching exposition the game had set forth for me than in the actual act of playing it. That isn't to say its gameplay is devoid of fun, and if played in a more spread out/ less deliberate fashion, its repetition can be greatly lessened. The point remains that Rockstar has achieved a fantastic feat in electronic media. They just haven't created the funnest game.

L.A. Noire gets 4 stars out of 5...

COMICS!! Review: X-23 #10

Heart to Heart

Thanks to some intervention from Daken, I've found myself finally completely on board with the X-23 series. After such a big event, you'd figure that Laura would need some time to decompress. Not so. Even as Laura moves towards finding atonement for her past sins, she finds herself opening old wounds.

X-23 #10 has Laura and Gambit in Paris. Remy tries to console a chronically depressed X, even attempting a birthday celebration for her. However, the knowledge she gained from her trip to Madripoor has forced Laura to retreat back within herself and the memories of her time as a living weapon. Deeply troubled by (and almost killed because of) Laura's current state, Gambit gives a call to Wolverine to come talk to his surrogate. But when Wolverine brings along Jubilee, who herself has recently gone through drastic changes, it forces Laura's own introspection into even more dangerous places.

The Power of the Soul

Seeing as Collision just finished up week or so ago, I truly expected this issue to take on the role of filler; as a way to set-up a future arc for X-23 whilst not providing much validity on its own. For all intents and purposes, #10 does seem to be the start of a transitional arc, but the level of character interaction is phenomenal. I once questioned Gambit's purpose for being in this book at all, but Marjorie Liu's writing in this issue reaffirms his purpose. Gambit here is just as much, if not more, of a father figure to Laura than Wolverine. While Wolvie attempts to lead by example, and let Laura find her way as he once did, Gambit is there to nurture, and there are really a lot of touching moments in this issue. Combined with the beautiful and ethereal artwork of Sana Takeda, this start down yet another dark road in X-23's is one that readers who enjoy comics that play on emotion will love.

Strangely, though, the one thing I find fault in is the appearance of the force that'll probably drive this arc, Jubilee. It made complete sense that Wolverine would show up and (in vain) try to get through to Laura. Heck, I even liked Gambit's questioning Logan for taking Jubilee so quickly under his wing and leaving Laura to fend for herself. Jubilee's appearance, however, seems forced. Liu doesn't give her much to say and the only reason she seems to be in the issue is for the final page suspense splash.

A No Brainer

That's a small gripe, however. It's also one I'll probably be proven to be way off-base with when ish #11 comes out. This is an emotionally charged story with one of the more humanly interesting characters in Marvel. The series will live and die by Liu's writing, but she's truly in her element here. Bolstered by great artwork, anyone with a passing interest in the character should pick this up.

X-23 #10 gets 4 stars out of 5.

Check out my most recent COMICS!! reviews:

Daken: Dark Wolverine #9 HERE

Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters HERE

Questionable Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I'm gonna provide full disclosure. I'm a big Pirates of the Caribbean fan. While I don't think anybody will begrudge me being a fan of Curse of the Black Pearl, it being a wholly fun and self-contained bit of swashbuckling cinema and a pretty good film to boot, I have a hard time defending my support of the last two films of the trilogy. With On Stranger Tides, Pirates has a rare opportunity; to start anew with a fresh adventure for Captain Jack Sparrow to sink his gilded teeth into.

Is it rough tides or smooth sailing?

WHAT IS THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

Following the events of At World's End, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) has since abandoned his quest to the Fountain of Youth and gone aground once more. However, when someone in London is using his good (or shall we say, bad) name to recruit a crew and a ship, Sparrow cannot help but be pulled into another piratical adventure. Forcibly employed by the fierce Captain Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and the captain's illegitimate daughter, Angelica (Penelope Cruz), Jack must use his special brand of cunning to stay alive and, if he's lucky, profit. Throw in the dogged Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) pursuing Blackbeard and his crew, vicious man-eating mermaids, and miles of treacherous jungle, the path to the Fountain of Youth promises to be an eventful one.

WHAT IS GREAT ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Stripped of the weighty melodrama of the previous two (as well as most of the peripheral characters) this is a leaner Pirates movie that re-focuses the scope of the series on the fun. At the center of that, as always, is Johnny Depp as Sparrow. With the plot no longer hinging on his own motivations, Depp is allowed to do what he does best; become an absolute torrent of energy and silliness. It helps that he's bolstered by a dynamite cast.

McShane shines as Blackbeard. His utter callousness and coldness both contrasts with and puts him shoulder to shoulder with the memorable baddies of the Pirates franchise. Cruz also provides an interesting new dynamic, taking on the strong female presence of the film. However, as a hardened pirate herself, she doesn't contain the same naivety of the Elizabeth Swan character, and her past with Sparrow gives new situations for Depp to bounce off of. Speaking of actors with good chemistry, Geoffrey Rush is perhaps the most fun to watch here than ever before, and when his Barbossa and Depp's Sparrow cross paths, they are an absolute riot.

WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

As much fun as I found many of the action sequences in this, I can't help but feel director Rob Marshall wasn't quite sure how much attention to give each of them. As such, while I did truly enjoy early sequences involving a carriage chase and a lengthy sword fight between Jack Sparrow and his doppelganger, they seemed like overlong padding following the film's lengthy runtime. Fighting mermaids and pilfering Spanish camps provide for great action fodder, but is it really necessary to insert "action" scenes into every possible space? As such, the pacing of film is affected, and even Pirate fans may find themselves finding Jack's adventure a tad too long.

Speaking of mermaids (and the superfluous), the romance between the missionary Philip and the mermaid Syrena isn't a worthwhile sub-plot. Though both characters are fine in their supporting roles, too much time is given to just the two of them and, again, this leads to bloated scenes where not much progress is made. This is a better paced and leaner Pirates adventure, to be sure, but it could have been even MORE so if some of the fat had been trimmed.

ANYTHING ELSE?

It's my understanding there are going to be more Pirates films. If they go the route of Tides, being wholly self-contained adventures for Jack Sparrow, I'm in full support. Still, given the ending of this film, hell if I know where the franchise is headed. Maybe that's the fun part...

WHAT IS THE FINAL VERDICT?

If you're not a fan of the Pirates franchise, or fell out of love with series after Curse of the Black Pearl, this is probably your best chance to get back into the spirit of piracy since that first fantastic film. On Stranger Tides is flawed, yes, but it's also a lot of fun. Good action and set-pieces are bolstered by an undeniably talented cast. Don't expect On Stranger Tides to be the stuff of legends, but its got enough memorable moments to make it worthy of a trip to Tortuga (or the theatre).

Check out my latest reviews:

THOR

BLACK SWAN

COMICS!! Review: Daken: Dark Wolverine #9 (Collision Part 4)

Daken and X-23. Both are relatively new characters with family ties to Wolverine, with very similar struggles with inner strife. Both have risen to mainstream prominence in their own individual series penned by Marjorie Liu. Most importantly, both personalities collide in this crossover mini-series which comes to a close with Part 4. Did the series live up to the potential of having these two unstoppable forces clash and, more importantly, does the mini-series end in a satisfying manner?

Sibling Rivalry

Collision sees X-23 and Gambit travelling to Madripoor in search of one Malcolm Colcord. Followers of Wolverine and other Weapon X alumni will likely recognize Colcord as the man behind the project, and X-23 has a sneaking suspicion the mad scientist intends to start the project anew. This leads X-23 to seek out the help of Daken, the nation's new kingpin, who tentatively agrees to help after battling Laura to a standstill. Several double-crosses and brutal revelations lead to Part 4, where the duo of Wolverine spawn must join forces to finally expose the true nature behind Colcord's schemes.

The Beauty in Brutality

For the Daken portions of this mini-series, Liu is joined by Daniel Way, and the combined strength of their storytelling might makes the final issue of Collision absolute gold. It's brutal, while maintaining the human element that remains dormant inside these two characters through most of their adventures. It also really plays up the similarities between the two, but also their differences, with Laura being an engineered killer seeking a purpose beyond that which she was made for, and Daken using his god-given gifts to prove he has the strength to achieve just about anything. The dialog between the two, particularly towards issue's end, is inspired.

Speaking of inspired, the art by Marco Chechetto is fantastic here. He really captures the savagery and carnage that would result in getting in a fight between these two, as well as the grim and gritty feel of the seedy Madripoor underbelly. It can't be easy to make an image of a pair of people being incinerated by an explosion appear beautiful, but somehow Chechetto pulls it off.

In the end, the only problems I had with this mini were minor. I certainly would like to say, as an X-23 reader, I'm beginning to question the point of Gambit in this series. Certainly he provides a break to the tension and gives Laura someone relatively "normal" to talk to, but I find I'd rather have Laura's inner-monologue reveal to the reader what she's thinking. I feel it'd help the reader connect more to her. Also, and this is just a personal thing, this mini has shown the potential that these two have as a combination. I feel the X-23 and Daken series could be even stronger if they were combined into one.

Animal Magnetism

And that's what makes Collision such a good storyline. Fans of either character are sure to enjoy it, and it has enough good old knockdown drag out action that new readers can easily get into it. If you've been thinking about reading either X-23 or Daken: Dark Wolverine, you may want to give Collision a look to give you a feel for each character.

Daken: Dark Wolverine #9 (Part 4 of Collision) gets 4.5 stars out of 5. It's the comic equivalent of a crowd pleaser.

Questionable Review: Thor

This here review was originally posted on my ComicVine.com and Screened.com profiles. Check those out, HERE and HERE, respectively.

Since the so-called "Avengers Initiative" was put into place by Marvel Studios; building up characters and franchises in anticipation of the huge crossover film directed by Joss Whedon; they've been putting out consistently solid film efforts. Many of these could even be called great. However, where Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk are somewhat grounded and based in technology and science, Thor concerns itself with deities and Shakespearean melodrama. Does this dramatic shift in tone sink Marvel's latest superhero romp?

SO WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

Thor follows the titular Norse god of thunder and the struggles in both his home realm of Asgard and the human world of Midgard (Earth). It seems that years ago, the Asgardians thwarted an invasion of Earth by the Frost Giants of Jotunheim. Now many years later, the leader of Asgard, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is ready to relinquish his throne to his son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth). However, after a band of Frost Giants invade Asgard, threatening the long held truce between the two nations, Thor takes it upon himself to deliver swift justice unto Jotunheim. Odin is none too pleased with this. As punishment, he strips Thor of his godhood and his magic hammer, Mjolnir, and banishes him to Earth. There, he becomes intertwined in the affairs of the scientist, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and attempts desperately to regain his status. Asgard faces its own problems in Thor's absence, as traitors in the ranks threaten to tear the realm apart from within, and Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) ascends to the throne in the wake of grave misfortune. Thor must prove himself worthy and return before great evil befalls his beloved home.

SO WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Director Kenneth Branagh brings Thor's world to the big screen beautifully. As I stated earlier, what could have been Thor's biggest crutch was its tonal difference between the previous Marvel films (IE, Thor being decidedly sillier in source material). However, Branagh pulls off the look and feel of Asgard with aplomb, grounding it enough to fit in with the established Marvel Universe while keeping the connections to Norse lore and mythology that make it so intriguing in the first place. Hemsworth, in his first major role, is astounding as Thor. He exudes an incredible charisma, and more than has the physicality and intensity to portray the god of thunder. His Asgardian cast, particularly Hopkins,Hiddleston and Idris Elba as Heimdall, are almost equally strong. Even Portman, who only occasionally is able to anchor the Earth scenes, succeeds because of her natural chemistry with Hemsworth. Lastly, the action scenes in Thor are good fun. The punchy choreography and grandiose battles are a joy to watch, and the first time Thor channels lightening through Mjolnir, cratering a huge chunk of Jotunheim, I got genuine goosebumps.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

As great as the action and drama surrounding Thor's home of Asgard is, the Earth scenes are only serviceable. They aren't terrible or unwatchable by any means, but when the script lapses into the casual and Thor's adventures devolve into wacky slapstick, it feels a tad uneven. This isn't helped by the fact that Kat Dennings' character, in particular, does her darnedest to derail every single scene. I get that she's supposed to be the "ice breaker"; the one to cut the tension when Portman and Stellan Skarsgard's character are talking about science and what not; but she comes off as too annoying. Also, although the history and lineage of Asgard is summed up admirably, I feel it may be a bit much for people to take in one shot. I'm somewhat familiar with Thor's mythos and found myself fumbling a bit at the start, trying to get a bearing for Asgard and its people.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Thor used to have a terrible cartoon show. This... this isn't it...

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

Thor is another great offering from Marvel. While some may stumble over the more outlandish premise, and indeed the movie itself stumbles in places, it is another worthwhile addition to the pantheon of superhero films. It is grandiose and fun in a way that many films are not, let alone films of this genre. It isn't high cinema (at least the Earth scenes aren't), but if you've got one bone of affection for superheroes, mythology, or muscular blonde men, your money would be well spent by seeing Thor.

Questionable(y Late) Review: Black Swan

Despite my assertion of being a fake film critic, there are just some films regardless of notoriety that I can't get around to seeing. One such film was Oscar darling, Black Swan. Directed by Darren Aronofsky (who captivated me with his direction of The Wrestler) and starring Natalie Portman (whose acting, and... erm... acting I've been a fan of since the days of Phantom Menace), does this haunting and horrifying ballet drama deserve the praise it received from the Academy?

SO WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

Black Swan explores the seedier side of performance art, and the ravaging effects that the obsession with perfection can bring about to the performers. Nina (Portman), a technically meticulous ballerina, is vying for the lead in her struggling company's adaptation of Swan Lake. Nina, however, is an extremely sheltered and frigid individual raised by an overbearing mother (Barbara Hershey), whose own obsession with her daughter's success only adds to the overwhelming nature of her undertaking. However, Nina soon finds that being "perfect" doesn't just mean dancing perfectly, as she's drawn into going "above and beyond" in an attempt to assure her place as the company's new star, leading to less-than savory encounters with the company's trashy director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel). Tensions continue to rise as a new dancer, Lily (Mila Kunis), whose more free-spirited nature threatens to steal Nina's spotlight. From here, Nina spirals further and further into her obsession, eventually leading to signs of growing madness as the once sweet girl becomes pulled inside the role she so desperately wants.

SO WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Aside from practically everything? Truly, I have a difficult time just how excellent I felt this film was. For starters, Darren Aronofsky's direction is amazing. The way he balances the juxtaposition between the elegant art of ballet with the film's exceedingly dirty underbelly is masterful. It provides a roller coaster of emotions for the viewer, who is taken along with Nina on a dizzying descent into madness. Indeed, I've never been a performer myself, but through Aronofsky's direction, I felt the dread, the pressure, and the guilt that the ballerina experienced to the point where even I felt a bit crazy at points.

Of course much of the credit for this also goes straight to the fantastic acting abilities of Natalie Portman. Not only does Portman physically encompass the role she's given, but convincingly transforms as her character transforms; becoming an entirely different person from who she was at the start of the film and exuding an almost otherworldly presence. Of course, Kunis and Cassel do a great job in their own roles, ones that clash with Portman's character at just the right times. However, Barbara Hershey perhaps steals the supporting cast spotlight as the maddeningly overprotective mother to Nina, and Winona Ryder does a great job with her own limited role. Lastly, the film's soundtrack which combines the haunting melodies of Swan Lake with contemporary music and horror movie stings fits perfectly with the film's tone.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Very little, actually. I would only say that maybe the advertising campaign for Black Swan fails to convey just how dark and how dirty this film goes. Unprepared audiences may be downright shocked the levels of sleaze this ballet movie sinks down to. Also, the disorienting nature of Aronofsky's direction can do just that, disorient the idle film viewer, so Black Swan definitely isn't a film you're going to watch to relax in the evening. This is a mind trip.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Aronofsky was in line to direct a Wolverine move for a while. He's since left that project, but given his work here and on The Wrestler, I'd say his grim and gritty style would have fit perfectly with the old Canuckle head. Just sayin'...

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

Occasionally, Oscar-nominated films fail to live up to the expectations that go along with that status. Black Swan is not one of those films. This is a wholly disorienting, often surprising, and extremely dark film about obsession, madness, love, and performing arts. It surely isn't going to hit home with all audiences, but for those willing to let Black Swan sweep them away, they'll find themselves lost to the tale of one performers struggle to keep her role and herself intact. Go see it.