I recently saw an internet viral film spoofing the works of Tim Burton.  In it, “Burton” tells how the studio wants to make a new movie.  His employees sit up with excitement and ask will it be something original?  “No” Burton retorts.  “We’re going to take a creepy old story and make it even creepier…get me Johnny Depp and my wife on the phone!”.  “I can’t not do that”, sighs a disgruntled employee. 

Rather than being revered and heralded as one of the all time greats, it seems that in recent years Tim Burton has become more of a laughing stock and his visions have fallen below par from his usual high standards.  If there was ever a film that Burton was destined to make, it was Alice in Wonderland.  With it’s alienated main character and surreal world, it seemed like Tim Burton would rise to the top of his game once again.

The film follows Alice 13 years on from her last adventure.  And while she has some recollection of those events, she merely dismisses them as dreams and her own sense of fun.

While she is faced with the prospect of marriage, Alice is summoned back to Wonderland as all her old acquaintances such as The Hatter (Johnny Depp) the Tweedles (Matt Lucas) Mouse (Barbara Windsor) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) need help defeating the evil Red Queen, played by the brilliant Helena Bonham Carter.

As you would expect, the world of wonderland is vibrantly alive with the amazing visions of Tim Burton.  The sets are dark and brooding and the character design is fantastic.  The Red Queen is particularly good with her bulbus head and over the top mannerisms.

Some of the animation is excellent too.  I thought the motion capture and animation of their mouths was like nothing I had seen before.  The way they spoke was so lifelike, it was unreal.

While all this was initially a joy to look at, unfortunately these were the only things to get me excited in a 2-hour-plus film.  The rest of it just lacked that certain spark.

Take Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter for example.  Whereas most of the characters had some kind of physical manipulation, he was “normal” which simply gave him the appearance of a disheveled circus clown.  And his accent ranged from John Leguizamo’s Toulouse-Lautrec in Moulin Rouge and an angry version of his J.M Barrie in Finding Neverland.  All things that we have seen and heard him do before.     And there in lies the films biggest problem.  It feels like we’ve simply seen…it…all…before.

Johnny Depp is wacky, the trees curl like fingers, the colours are vivid and the music is orchestral, but i never felt fully engaged enough to care. Mia Wasikowska’s Alice is not a particularly likeable character and plays her with no emotion or feeling whatsoever.  Maybe she focused so hard on her English accent, she forgot about portraying her emotions.  However, like I stated earlier, Bonham-Carter’s Red Queen is excellent and I really enjoyed Hathaway’s White Queen and some of the other supporting cast.

Alice in Wonderland is a dazzling vision from one of the most innovative directors working today.  At times it dazzles and wonders, while at others it leaves you feeling deflated, bored and like you’re watching a repeat of some of his previous works.  You keep waiting for something to invigorate the experience or to be lost in the next big set piece.  Before you go to see Wonderland, maybe it is wise to keep in mind that the film is distributed by Disney and is rated PG.  So I doubt it will be as dark and as brooding as some Tim Burton fans had hoped.  For some, this film might not be Tim Burton enough to satisfy the die-hard fans, but for some relatively unfamiliar with him and the story of Alice, it might be a welcome introduction.

Movie Review - Micmacs

The following was first over on the recently formed film club The Electric Fleapit’s website (www.electictricfleapit.wordpress.com), hence the elaborate talk film club and deviation from a full on review. Have a look if you are interested…


Bonjour mes ami and welcome to the first film review from the Electric Fleapit. After great work over the last few weeks by our dear leader, Vicky Fabri, the film club has finally come together. Our choices were put up on the Electric Fleapit website and gradually we all made our voices heard and voted for what our first film viewing would be. With it being Oscar season, there were several quality options for us to choose.

Unfortunately, being the loser that I am, I had seen most of them so it narrowed my choices considerably. However, I hadn’t seen A Single Man and I really wanted to see if the hype surrounding Colin Firth was justified and see what Tom Ford had to offer. A Single Man was leading the vote for a good while, only to be usurped at the last minute by Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Micmacs. I was a little bit upset about this, as I had heard it wasn’t his best effort. Not to mention the fact that I am incredibly selfish. Much to my dismay, I believe in the democratic system we live in so went along for the jaunt. Even so, the thought of starting up my own film dictatorship did cross my mind. As did the thought of taking inspiration from my own personal favourite dictator, by kidnapping a film director to make a movie for me. Good old Kim Jong Il you commie fool!

Alas, Micmacs it was. 8.30 at the Barbican centre and there was quite a turnout. 14 in fact, so well done all. And in typical English fashion, we were quickly up the bar ordering Malteasers and booze faster than you could say ‘Micmacs à tire-larigot’. With snacks, booze and tickets in hand, we made our way into the theatre.

Now I am all for supporting independent cinemas and film, but I have to admit that I am a sucker for a multiplex. The perfectly positioned seats, the large screens, the surround sound and what not. Heaven. But don’t blame me for this, blame the society we live in, but as I walked into the cinema it instantly struck me as having the appearance of a university lecture hall. I thought the screen was too far away and there were no cup holders. NO FREAKING CUP HOLDERS, I TELL YOU! But once I sat down in those comfy seats and only had to sit through a few minutes of commercials, I was more than happy to be in an independent “fleapit” to enjoy Micmacs.

Prior to coming tonight, I did some research and was intrigued to see the film as it only came about after Jean-Pierre Jeunet abandoned his adaptation of Yann Martel’s Life of Pi due to budgetary conflicts. Jeunet said he needed $85,000,000 to tell the story of a boy in a boat with a tiger. The studio said “non”. Jeunet said “Au revior” and wrote Micmacs instead. Pretty impressive seeing as it has taken me almost 3 weeks to finish two recaps of Lost.

Now first things first, and the answer to the question which we almost went to war over is “non”. Audrey Tautou was NOT in this film! Despite the Tautou argument, the general consenus and scores of the group varied from 6 out of 10 up to 8.5 out of 10. There was a cheeky 7.7 out of 10 from Fabbri thrown in for good measure to give an average score of 7 out of 10. Upon reflection, I feel my own mark of 6.5 out of 10 was unfair, as I thought Micmacs was a delightful little film and it’s occasional brilliance far outweighed whatever initial misgivings I might have had.

For those of you that didn’t see the film, the premise revolves around Bazil who is a victim of two arms companies. One produced a landmine that killed his father, which subsequently sent his mother mad, and the other produced a bullet that has become lodged in his brain 30 years later and could kill him at any moment. This in turn forces him on the streets where he is subsequently “adopted” by a family of weird and wonderful characters who want to help him get his revenge in a series of humorous capers.

Micmacs is at times amazingly inventive and visually quite stunning. Jean-Paul Jeunet has to be one of the most artistically creative directors working today. Even though they may appear simple to construct with minimal camera set-ups, there is nothing simple about the content of his scenes. Whether it be the use of animation to show Bazil’s “random question” technique to stop himself from passing out. Or putting real life thought bubbles into people’s heads, his use of editing and his well thought out compositions make him a standout director, in my opinion.

The acting is also particularly good from the whole cast. Be it a minor comedic cameo from an airport security guard or our hero, Bazil, played by Dany Boon. Boon’s performance is extravagant and has a youthful charm. I couldn’t stop likening his performance to that from the silent movies of old and Charlie Chaplin in particular. However, it is the supporting cast that really steal the show, with the odd-ball characters such as the uptight human cannonball or the contortionist who hides herself in fridges whenever she is scared. My personal favourite is the African poet who has a flair with words in the worst situations. He steals the scene in every one he is in. Not forgetting the man who invents all kind of weird and wonderful contraptions out of junk. One in particular had me laughing out loud, or “LOL’ing” if there are any kids reading. Some of the best characters, however, are the sets. The junkyard where the Micmacs live is so grandiose and contains so many nick-nacks, that you could probably look at it for hours and still find something new.

The initial problems I had with the film were down to pacing and my own expectations. After the first 15-minutes I thought I was going to be watching one of the best films I had seen this year. I could feel all the old magic of Amélie returning. But for all the set pieces and quirky-ness the film inspires, it never really reaches the heights that you would come to expect if you have seen any of Jeunet’s previous work. It just feels flat in places and like it never really gets into gear until the finale. But like I said earlier, despite what I see as weaknesses in the film were more than made up by many of the films moments of ingenuity. And after recent viewings of Precious and Brothers, it was quite refreshing to just see a nice uplifting, genuinely positive film in which the little guys win.

So my fellow fleapitters, I open the forum up to you. Do you agree with anything I have said? Disagree? What were your thoughts on the film? I will leave you with several questions to ponder…

* Did you think the film was a case of style over substance or are his OTT techniques justified by the story?

* Did it have anything serious to say about the buying and selling of arms?

* In what ways was the film like or unlike any of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s previous films?

* I said that Jeunet is one of the most visionary directors working today, can you think of anyone else that is equal or surpasses him?

* Do you still think that it was Audrey Tautou on the video store? Come on! Really?
Right, until next time, I will bid you adieu. The next Fleapit evening is on March 13^th in Hackney and the theme is ‘Time Travel’. Go to the voting section and vote for your choice of film. So far Dreamcatchers is leading the way and my preferred options of Primer and Donnie Darko and languishing far behind.

Hmmm, I wonder if I still have Kim Jong Il’s number….

There are generally two types of Coen brothers film.  On the one hand you have your comedies.  They are extremely dark in tone and humour, but are still comedies none the less.  Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty and O’ Brother Where art Thou? Are perfect examples.   Then you have your more serious type of Coen Brothers film.  Blood Simple, No Country for Old  men and The Man who wasn’t there.  A Simple Man is smack bang in the middle of these two styles.  It is humourous, without being too funny, it is serious, without being depressing, and it might well be my new favourite Coen Brothers film.

The film centres around Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Sthulberg, who is going through some what of a mid-life crisis.  The film starts off with him getting a medical.  His son get’s in trouble for listening to rock music.  Right of the bat, his wife asks for a divorce because she is involved with another man, even though there is no “whoopsy doopsy” involved.  What follows is his journey to find his place in life and to be closer to his family even though his wife is pushing him further and further away.  He has to deal with his childlike older brother, problems with his job, his lust for his next door neighbour and his distant children.  Not too mention his money problems due to his impending divorce.

I know I am a bit late in writing about A Serious Man, - I just never got around to seeing it as I live in Watford and they don’t tend to show many art films (though they are still showing Alvin and the Chipmunks 2, I kid you not!) -    but I am glad I finally caught it as I thought it was brilliant.  I just loved everything about it.  The direction, the writing, the acting, the production design, the music,…absolutely everything.  All the elements that make the Coen brothers modern great auteurs were there.  For example, the seemingly normal characters with abnormal undertones, or the Odd characters and plain strange incidents.

On the surface, A Serious Man is a film about faith as we follow Larry through the film whilst he feels like he is being tested.  He tries to talking to Rabbis for advice but they are no help.  Larry is losing his faith just as his son is about to get his.  Larry is a strange mix by being deeply religious but a man of science at the same.  When we first see Larry teach, he is describing Schrödinger’s 1935 hypothetical experiment that consisted of a cat in a sealed box with a vial of poison that could break at any random time. Until the box was opened, since no one knew whether or not the poison had been released, the cat was considered both dead and alive at the same time.  This is how we feel about Larry.  He is alive, yet he is dead.  He cannot find his faith.  His family treat him as if he isn’t there and no one is taking him seriously.  As Larry gets his life back together again, you feel he might have finally found the right path.  It appears as if his wife will take him back, his son has been confirmed and his job is safe.   Unfortunately for Larry, his fails final, and probably fatal, test.  He caves in to monetary pressures and decides to take a bribe.  At this precise moment, the phone rings.  It’s his doctor.  He wants him to come in right away.  What will happen?  Like Larry, we don’t know.  Like Schrödinger’s  cat, he is both dead and yet very much alive at the same time. One thing we do know however, is that a storm is coming.

Every shot in the film feels like it has a purpose.   Even though the film is slow and well crafted, there is never a point where you feel bored or like you want to do anything other than stare at the screen to see what is coming next.  Every camera angle intrigues you, whether it be a blurred haze of pot smokers, or the slow crafted long shot looking into the head Rabbi’s office.

We are purposely not told what year the film is set in, but it is comfortable middle America where most of the Coen Brothers work take place.  Just as in Fargo, or The Man Who Wasn’t there, we are presented with the typical white picket fence houses and blue skies, but deep down all is not well in most peoples lives.  In the surreal nature of A Serious Man, dreams are blurred with reality.  Whether it be conversations with Koreans, his sexy lone neighbour to his left or Rabbi’s reciting Jefferson Airplane, there is something going on beneath the façade of humility.

Michael Sthulberg is excellent as Larry Gopnik.  He is indeed the serious man while everyone around him appears to be losing their cool or appear to be slightly off key.  It is heart breaking to him constantly try and do the right thing.  You really feel his pain as he tries to do what’s best, but much to the credit of Michael Sthulberg, it can be infuriating watching him do so.  You just want to scream at the screen “STOP! STOP IT! YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR WIFE’S NEW LOVER’S FUNERAL! YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE SO NICE ALL THE TIME!”

There were some great performances from the supporting cast.  Larry’s brother, Arthur, is a loveable but flawed buffoon.  The kids are believable.  ‘Curse bus boy’ had me in fits everytime he was on the screen and his son, who is his parallel in the film, does a good job at being spoilt and cares about nothing except weed, TV and music.  But it is Fred Melamed who excels as the new love of Larry’s wife, Sy Abelman.  He is a strange mix exuding charm, authority and at times sleaziness.  He doesn’t even need to be on screen to cast a presence.  Even when we only hear him on the phone it is still a joy.

While A Serious Man might not please everyone with it’s surreal nature and quirky characters, not to mention the outright Jewish-ness of the film, I found it a joy reveling in the downright oddities of the film.  It is brilliantly crafted, looks great, is perfectly edited and has a great soundtrack and score.  Do not be blindly by it’s overt religious nature, as this is a story for everybody, and it asks everyone who watches “How will you deal with your own crisis?” and “How will you cope if you feel you are being tested?”.  When that time comes it will ultimately be up to us, but for now, I’ll happily watch Larry Gopnik go through his.  As happy as you can be about that sort of thing, of course.

Lost Recap – Season 6 Episode 2: What Kate Does
By Dean Crawford

Last weeks episode ‘LAX – Parts 1 and 2’ were an interesting affair.  It was heavily plot driven and full of action.  Whilst the episode answered a lot of questions, as you would imagine, it also raised several more.  Needless to say I was very excited about this week’s episode ‘What Kate Does’.  That was until I finally twigged that this episode would be about my least favourite character, Kate.  Then after 5 minutes, I lost all hope, as it would also follow my second least favourite character, Claire.   Oh the joy!  I know there is a lot of hate on the inter-web for Kate and the way she can come across as heartless in the show, and she gets a bad rap from a lot of die hards for the holy-trinity love triangle.  I don’t really care too much for that either, but that’s not the reason I dislike her.  I just think her story is boring.  As for Claire, I do actually find her story really interesting.  The whole first season “you alone must raise this baby” thing I liked.  I just can’t stand Emilie de Ravin.  She is so whiney and acts hysterical in every single thing she does.  And what is the deal with her accent?  I know she lived in Australia for nearly twenty years, but her Aussie accent sounds fake, with hints of American thrown in which led me to think she was American.  But then you see her in things like Brick, and her American accent sounds fake!  Hers isn’t as bad as her mothers accent on the show though.  She is supposed to be an Aussie, but keeps on running into hints of Eliza Doolittle!  “Ell-ohhhh DOC-TAR SHIP-ERRRRD, moi’ glass o’water is your sister…ya flaming mungrel” Speaking of fake accents, don’t get me started on the portrayal of English accents on Lost.  JUST GET A BLOODY ENGLISH PERSON TO PLAY THE ROLE!!  Phew.  No that’s over, onto the episode…

The episode begins with a close up on feet hurrying in the caves as John Lennon races to the Japanese leader and tells him that “He’s alive!”.  The look of shock on Dogen’s face is palpable and we know instantly that this is going to be a big deal.  Sayid awakes to the excitement of everyone in the cave except Miles who still can’t understand his journey.  Miles can tell something is up, as last week he couldn’t sense anything from Sayid after he died.  Jack tells Sayid straight up that he died.  Kate can’t fathom how this is even possible,  (but apparently the fact that they can travel through time isn’t that much of an issue) but Sawyer isn’t surprised at all and his first thought is escaping.  Perfect cue for a flashback on Kate.

Kate’s flash sideways is fairly straightforward but there are a few things to look into.  Firstly, Kate is still the same in this time line.  She is still running, still shouting, still getting into trouble.  As she orders the cab driver to speed off, she makes sure Claire stays with her, but something interesting happens when she sees Jack.  There is a long, knowing glance of recognition to her face.  It might be because of the fact she recognized him as the guy she stole the pen from on the plane, but I think we can safely deduce after Jack’s recognition of Desmond last week, that the Losties are remembering each other, and are remember things from their other lives.  The question that needs to be asked then, is why wouldn’t she have recognized him on the plane?  Creative reasons?  I read an interesting theory that suggested that in their original time line, Kate and Jack hadn’t yet met each other at this point and shared that moment on the beach stitching up Jack.  Therefore their parallel universe hadn’t kicked in yet.  So by the time she sees Jack in the taxi, they would met each other on the beach, hence the recognition.  But then you could argue why does Kate feel need to help Claire give birth like she did in season one when this also wouldn’t have happened for weeks?   I’m thinking destiny is destiny, and no matter what may have happened before, the end game is the same for everybody.  So no matter what, Kate will always be involved with Claire and Aaron.

Kate disposes of Claire and manages to find another ex-com who just so happens to understand the complexities of removing handcuffs.  Lucky for her!  Even luckier for Claire though, is that Kate happens to be driving by as she is waiting for a bus to see the prospective adopters who haven’t come to pick her up.  Unfortunately for Claire, they have ditched her so it appears Claire will have to raise the baby herself.  This again raises similarities to her on story in Season one.  If you recall, it was the Psychic, Richard Malkin, who insisted that Claire raised the baby herself.  When he felt like this might not happen, he bought her a ticket to LA as he knew of a couple that would adopt the baby.  This is why she was on the plane in the first place.  We were lead to believe that Malkin knew the plane would crash, hence forcing Claire to raise Aaron herself.   Malkin later admitted he was a fraud to Mr. Ecko when he visited his daughter who drowned.  But I think this was for Ecko’s benefit and is a psychic.  As for this timeline?  We are still yet to find out what brought Claire to the island. 

Fate rears its ugly head as Claire goes into labour forcing Kate to see her through labour just like she did on the island.  And destiny is at work once again as Ethan is a doctor at the hospital and will take care of Aaron before he is born.  Under duress, Claire blurts out Aaron’s name for the first time.  It just came to her.  So it seems Aaron’s destiny was to always be named so, and to always have Kate and Ethan involved in his birth.  And it seems that Claire’s destiny, is to scream, shout and be hysterical every chance she gets.

The police arrive to look for Kate, but Claire throws them off the scent.  The two biggest things to come out of this scene, and the whole flash sideways in my opinion, are A) Kate tells Claire that she should raise the baby herself, which I think she will now do.  And B) Kate brings up the possibility that she may be innocent.  This could be Kate’s attempt at trying to con Claire to get her onboard somehow, but as we have already seen in this timeline, things are drastically different.  Take Hugo for example.  He is now the luckiest man alive, which is the total opposite from his original timeline.  So maybe Kate is innocent.  I still feel like she would have had to have done something wrong to have the Feds after her, but something is definitely different. 

As Kate leaves, one thought remained in my head the whole time, which was “would we see another Kate and Claire reunion?”   If the characters are all going to repeat their actions over and over again no matter what, then doesn’t Kate have to be the one to assist in Aaron’s birth? 

Now, back on the island.  Sayid is alive, but not for much longer you would think after the look like Sawyer gave him.  Sawyer is obviously deeply upset because if  the ‘Iraqi torturer who shoots kids’ deserves a second chance, why not Juliet?  There might be a philosophical answer to that question, and one that many people theorized back from day one.  If you know your bible, and I don’t, Revelation 21:27 states that nothing unclean will enter Heaven.  To cleanse oneself you have to enter purgatory, which is a lot how the island feels.   What if Sawyer is wrong in thinking that Sayid has been given a second chance whilst Juliet has been left to die.  What if Juliet has been allowed to pass on as she has come to terms with everything she has done and has absolved herself.   She made amends for all her sins by sacrificing her own life in pushing the reset button and detonating the bomb.  She has served her purpose and is allowed to die, much in the same way Michael wasn’t allowed to leave/die until he fulfilled his purposed and sacrificed himself.  Sayid was terrified last week of dying, and was sure he was going to hell.  So what if Sayid still has one more task to complete before he can be let go?  Now I don’t believe that the island is purgatory itself, but the allusions that are being made and the similarities are striking. 

Sayid’s joy at returning from the dead is short lived however, as the other’s have plans for him and need to ask a few questions.  Unfortunately for Sayid, their style of questioning is unlike anything you would find Bamber Gascoigne attempting on University challenge, as it involves black ash, electrocuting the nipples and a hot poker on the chest.  Now I am sure there are a few people reading this who would pay for a service like that, but our man Sayid is faithful to Nadia.   The ensuing fight gives Sawyer the chance to escape as he tells them he is leaving and there is nothing they can do to stop him.  This scene is very significant as it is the first time Dogen publicly speaks English, adding gravitas to his words.  The fact that Sawyer tells them he’s leaving and they just let him is also significant, but more on that later.  Sawyer tells Kate not to come after him.  So this means that Kate is going to go after him.  Yawn.

But in the words of poor old Sayid “Why…?  Why are you doing this?”.  What are these tests for?  What do they want to know and how will their methods help them achieve their results?   I think the second they blew the dust on him, we could tell that they wanted to see if he had returned from the dead “bad”.  The ash has been used to keep the smoke monster out, so were they trying to test if the smoke monster is inside him?  I can’t think what the electricity or hot poker where for, maybe to test his reaction to pain?   The smoke monster can’t travel through the Dharma Initiative’s sonar fence, so maybe electricity is a way of catching him out.  Either way, it turns out that Sayid is sick.  He has been infected or “claimed” as Dogen puts it.  If it is Jacob or The Man in Black inside Sayid, there have been hints to this already.  Sayid just isn’t acting like himself at the moment.  I found it very strange when Sayid became frightened and scared, not like his usual bad-ass self when they were torturing him.  The way he said “I don’t have any secrets” seemed rather odd, therefore leads me to believe he does have secrets!  Tell us those secrets, Sayid.  TELL US! 

Jack goes to find answers from Dogen and John Lennon, but in typical Lost fashion, he doesn’t get a straight answer.  He tells the guards to let him through and they part for him like Moses parted the red sea so can talk to Dogen who finally reveals himself.   Their conversation goes as follows.

Jack:        Who are you?
Dogen:        My name is Dogen.
Jack:        Are you from here, the island?
Dogen:        I was brought here, like everyone else.
Jack:        What do you mean, brought here?
Dogen:        You know exactly what I mean…

I find this conversation interesting because why should Jack know exactly what he means?  Jack was brought to the island by Desmond.  He subsequently came back because of his new found faith due to John Locke.  Didn’t the rest of them come to the island through the Dharma Initiative?   Or is he talking about Jacob bringing him to the island?  Dogen seems to be quite old school, so I get the impression that he might have been around for a long time.  Longer than most.  So did the black Rock bring him here?  I see him as a Richard type character?

They tell him that Sayid is sick and give him the pill that will make him better.  I wasn’t sure whether to believe him or not as I knew something was up with Sayid.  They tell Jack he has to be the one who gives Sayid the pill as he wouldn’t accept it from them, and it has to be his choice to take it.  Choice seemed to be an issue flowing through the whole episode.  Sawyer wanted to leave, so they let him.  Kate has to be the one to bring Sawyer back as it has to be his own choice to return.  Dogen and John Lennon wanted Jack to come and see them on his own.  Sayid has to take the pill willingly.  This has been a reoccurring theme for a while now, because if you remember when it came to Ben’s spinal surgery, he couldn’t just force Jack to do it.  He wanted him to “want to do it”.  Again, when Ben didn’t want to let Jack and Juliet leave in season 3, he couldn’t stop them.   But John Locke blew up the sub for him.  I think there is something going on in the island that has to do with free will and choices and influence, but I am not too sure what that is yet. 

Jack does not trust the others, and thankfully demands some answers.  In showing Dogen an alternative method of Seppuku, he swallows the pill himself to gaze Dogens reaction.   Yep, it was poison all along!  Take that Dogen!  The conversation after goes as follows.

Dogen:        We believe he has been claimed.
Jack:        Claimed?  By What?
Dogen:        There is a darkness growing in him, and once it reaches his       
heart everything your friend once was will be gone.
Jack:        How can you be sure of that?
Dogen:        Because it happened to your sister!

DUM DUM DUM!!!!  I thought this was a great way to end the temple part of the episode, as you would almost be forgiven for forgetting that Jack and Claire are siblings.  I’m hoping the return of Claire will mean that we are finally going to get a meeting between Jack and his father.  It better bloody happen otherwise there is a very strongly worded letter that is going to be sent to somebody, I can tell you!! 

The way Dogen was talking about Sayid’s symptoms was very similar to the way Rousseau used to describe her crew when they first arrived on the island.  We even got to see this first hand last season when Jin ran into Rosseau and her crew during his adventures in time-travel.  They too became “sick” and “infected” and it seemed as if a “darkness” came over them.  This was caused by an encounter with the smoke monster.  So is it the smoke monster’s fault again that Sayid is being possessed?  This sounds a lot like what Richard said to Kate when he cured Ben.  He said he would never be the same again.  It looks as if the same can be said of Sayid.  Is it the island as a whole that causes the sickness?  The spring?  Jacob?  How did it also happen to Claire?  Did she die at the barracks back in season 4 then come back to life infected? Once again, more and more questions.

While al this is going on at the temple, Kate escapes from the others to find Sawyer.  She reveals that her intentions are to find Claire and try to make up for what she has done.  Jin’s intentions are to find his wife.  Apart from the game of cat and mouse, one thing of interest is said.  Aldo, whose sole purpose was to act like a total arse hole the whole episode so we would be happy when he got shot, wants to kill Jin.  He partner, Justin, tells him not too as he might be “one of them”.  Hmm, very interesting?  One of whom?  Someone special?  Is this going back to the days of Jacob and his lists?  Does “them” mean the people on Jacob’s list?  The people Jacob has seen during the years?  Are they “candidates” like Ilana spoke of last year?  We know that Sayid’s name was on the list given to Dogen, and we presume the rest of our Losties names are on there also during their role call.  It seems that Sawyers name is on that list also, as this would explain his desire for him to stay at the temple.  If so, what could Jacob want them for?  Is there an end game that requires them all and if so, what is it?  I couldn’t fathom a guess at the moment, as I’m not even sure if Jacob is one of the good guys are not. 

Just as Jin was about to get shot, Aldo and Justin get smoked.  By who?  Well none other than Claire!  There are several questions to be asked about Claire.  For example, where has she been this time?  Has she been traveling through time with the rest of the Losties?  What about this darkness that has taken over her?  Is she good or bad?  To be honest, I don’t really care.  I just want to see how her reappearance has affected the people around her ie. Christian Shepherd, Locke, Jacob.

So, not a terrible episode, but not a great one either.  The lack of Locke (or Flocke as he is now known as Fake + Locke) was a real downer but we still got some more answers there are some more questions raised.

1.    Where has Claire been this whole time?  How did she learn so many of Rosseau’s tricks?
2.    In the alternate timeline, what brought Claire to LA?
3.    Will we see a Kate and Claire reunion?
4.    Who or what has claimed Sayid?  What is the darkness?
5.    What does “one of them” mean?
6.    How will it end?

How will it end?  How will it end?  How will it end……

Movie Review – Precious

By Dean Crawford

Now I am no stranger to a tough life.  I was born on the mean streets of Canning Town, East London and subsequently moved to the even meaner leafy suburbs of Romford, Essex.  We only had the one parking space each on my road.  Times were tough.  My school had a cap of 25 people per class and we could do as many extra curricular activities as we liked.  Tines were hard.  I remember one particular time when I was around 7 or 8, I had to endure a grueling 45 minute journey to Toys ‘R’ Us.  It was so hot in that car, it was like torture.  We finally arrived and I couldn’t wait to get my hands on a new Leonardo from The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle’s.  They sold out and I ended up getting a Raphael.  How I despaired.  Oh yes my friends, I thought I had it pretty rough growing up and one could argue that the song “Hard Knock Life” was written about me.  That was until I saw the film Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.

Even though I knew a little bit about Precious before I went to see it, I was simply not prepared for this film at all.  The film revolves around Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones.   She is an illiterate 16 year old student who is currently pregnant with her second child by her own father.  Her first child has Down’s syndrome.  Precious is transferred to an “alternative school” and is surrounded by students who have problems of their own.  With the help of inspirational teacher Miss. Rain, played by Paula Patton, she is encouraged to express herself through her writing, eventually learning to read and write whilst learning to better herself and become a good mother.  But while all this goes on, there is everything else in her life that she has to deal with. People in the street abuse her because of her size.  Her mother is angry with her because of the “relationship” with her father.  She feels she instigated the molestation so treats her like a piece of dirt every chance she gets and is only concerned about her own well-being.  Her mother beats and also molests Precious, and at one point tries to kill Precious and her new grandson.  To top it all off, she finds out that her father has died of the AIDS virus and has infected her with HIV.  Still with me?

First things first, despite the bleak nature of the film, Precious is a brilliantly acted piece that invites us to look at the more horrific aspects of our society head on and watch to see how one can deal with these atrocities.  In a perverse way, Precious is a story of hope, of never giving in despite the odds, and shows us that with the right encouragement, anything is possible.  Rather than let the cruel hand of fate decide her outcome, all Precious wants is to be able to read and write, so she can be a good mother to her children and this says a lot about the films moral message.

The performances are mesmerizing and it is no surprise that both Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe as Precious, and Mo’Nique as her mother, Mary, have been nominated for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress respectively at the Oscars.  Sidibe is wonderfully poignant as Precious, who has the weight of a world resting squarely on her face.   Her weight will be brought up at most opportunities no doubt, but it is her body language and facial expressions that really allow you to feel her pain.  She is like a cooped up ball of rage that is just waiting to explode, and it isn’t until one of the final scenes where she finally releases all this pent up aggression that you realize how good Sidibe is.

And no matter what you might think of her Oscar credentials compared to some other actresses, there is no doubt that in this role, Mo’Nique is brilliant.  She is just so evil and disturbing as the mother.  Every glance, every puff of her cigarette, every sneer just oozes hatred. Even though she just stood back as her partner raped and impregnated her daughter, and even though she beats and molests her own child, Mo’Nique brings a tiny amount of vulnerability to her performance that makes you feel sorry for Mary, if that is at all possible.  There is a part of her character that let’s you realize that she is just as disturbed and upset as anyone else in the film.  In some perverse way, she feels as if she is the victim and it was her daughter that took away her man.  She is actually jealous that he wanted to have sex with her own daughter and that he gave her more children.  Every time she looks at one of her grandchildren, she can’t help but feel hurt and rejected.  For a split second, you too can almost feel her pain and feel sorry for her.  This culminates in the final scene in which Maria Carey’s caseworker mediates a meeting with Mary and Precious.  You’ll have to watch this scene for yourself, but I think it should win Mo’Nique the best supporting actress award.  It is quite brilliant and you do feel for her.  But then you take a step back, listen to what she is actually saying and remember for all her misgivings, she is still no better than the father as she molests and beats own her child.  And after seeing how easily she can change her personality to deceive the welfare office, you fail to believe that anything she is saying could be real and her emotions are nothing but a lie.

Another positive to this film is the directing from Lee Daniels.  I really appreciated what he did with the material, and how he tried to be original and extremely creative with his directing.  Some might say it was flashy and over the top, but I thought it fit perfectly…but then I am a bit of a sucker for great visuals.  For example, during Precious’ rape sequence, it could have been so easy to so easy to raise the camera to the sky to not get too involved.  But instead we travel inside Precious’ mind and escape with her as she tries to blot out what is taking place. She imagines she’s a movie star signing autographs, or on-stage singing.  Or at one point, beamed into a TV show where her mother speaks softly and lovingly.  It doesn’t feel like flashy camera work for the sake of it.  In only a few shots, and without showing too much, I thought the rape was one of the most harrowing scenes in the film.  Precious wants to escape all her harrowing moments during the course of the film into highly stylized reality.  So Lee Daniels takes us with her highly stylized way too.  That’s not too say that the whole film is like that.  There are certain moments where it almost feels like you are watching a documentary.  I felt like Lee Daniels let the material dictate his style.  His use of music is also another positive I took from the film.  There are so many heart-breaking moments that are juxtaposed with hauntingly melodic childish tunes, it’s hard to know how you are supposed to feel.

One of the few negatives of Precious might be the fact that it is a little too onerous, or may seem over the top and unrealistic.  You do get a sense watching the film, that there might just be a bit too much going on.  She is raped by her dad, she is molested by her mother, has two children by her father, is beaten by her mother, is overweight and the list goes on.  The author of the original novel “Push”, has stated that she was once a social worker, so put several stories into Precious, which is why it might seem a little full on for the sake of it.  There were a few times a found myself thinking “whatever next?”.   But that isn’t necessarily to say that these things don’t exist in one person’s life.   Every one of her problems are a direct result of her fathers actions.  So even though Precious’ situation might not be a common occurrence, it is by no means implausible.

You could talk for hours about Precious, with several other issues arising that could warrant essays by themselves.  But ultimately it is a film which presents it’s viewer with a harsh look at a cruel and alien world.  And if the film does feel over the top, or at times like it has become a little too difficult to watch, so what?  Surely film as an art form has a duty to not only produce romantic tosh with pretty people (*COUGH* Valentines Day *COUGH*!!) or films that are made purely for money and the sequels (*COUGH* AVATAR *COUGH*!!!) but to challenge and stimulate debate.  Surely film is there so we can look into the lives of others and be confronted head on with issues and subjects we wouldn’t necessarily get involved in.  It forces us to have an opinion.  Despite the harsh world Precious inhabits and the terrible life she leads, the film is still an allegory for hope.    It’s about striving to succeed despite all the odds.  It shows us that no matter what obstacles are put in front of you, you can still succeed. And if Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones can be positive and try to strive for a better life, surely anyone else out there can too.

Below is a Q&A session with Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof who answer a few questions regarding the premiere of Lost Season 6. Very interesting!  But please do not read if you haven’t yet seen the premiere or do not want anything spoiled for you!!

EW: The whole idea of flash-sideways and the plan to use season 6 to show us a world where Oceanic 815 never crashed — how long has that been in the works? Why did you want to do it?
DAMON LINDELOF: It’s been in play for at least a couple of years. We knew that the ending of the time travel season was going to be an attempt to reboot. And as a result, we [knew] the audience was going to come out of the “do-over moment” thinking we were either going start over or just say it didn’t work and continue on. [We thought] wouldn’t it be great if we did both? That was the origin of the story.
CARLTON CUSE: We thought just doing one [of those options] would inherently not be satisfying. Since the very beginning of the show, characters started crossing through each other’s stories. Part of our desire [in season 6] is to show that there’s still this kind of weave, that these characters still would have impacted each other’s lives even without the event of crashing on the Island. Obviously, the big question of the season is going to be: How do these [two timelines] reconcile? However, for the fans who have not watched the show closely, that’s an intact narrative. You can just watch the flash sideways — they stand alone all by themselves. For the fans who are more deeply embedded in the show, you can watch those flash sideways, compare them to what transpired in the flashbacks and go, “Oh, that’s an interesting difference.”
LINDELOF: Right out of the gate, in the first five minutes of the premiere, you get hit over the head with two things that you’re not expecting. The first is that Desmond is on the plane. The second thing that we do is we drop out of the plane and we go below the water and we see that the Island is submerged. What we’re trying to do there is basically say to you, “God bless the survivors of Oceanic 815, because they’re so self-centered, they thought the only effect [of detonating the bomb] was going to be that their plane never crashes.” But they don’t stop to think, “If we do this in 1977, what else is going to affected by this?” So that their entire lives can be changed radically. In fact, it would appear that they’ve sunken the Island. That’s our way of saying, “Keep your eyes peeled for the differences that you’re not expecting.” Some of these characters were still in Australia, but some weren’t. Shannon’s not there. Boone actually says that he tried to get her back. There are all sorts of other people that we don’t see. Where’s Libby? Where’s Ana Lucia? Where’s Eko? These are all the things that you’re supposed to be thinking about. When our characters posited the “What if?” scenario, they neglected to think about what the other effects of potentially changing time might be and we’re embracing those things.

That said, are you saying definitively that detonating Jughead was the event that created this new timeline? Or is that a mystery which the season 6 story will reveal?
LINDELOF: It’s a mystery. A big one.
CUSE: We did have some concern that it might be confusing kind of going into the season. To clear that up a little bit: The archetypes of the characters are the same and that’s the most significant thing. Kate is still a fugitive. If you were to look at the Comic-Con video, for instance, that now comes into play. There was a different scenario in that story. She basically blew up an apprentice plumber as opposed to killing her biological father/stepfather. Those kind of differences exist, but who the characters fundamentally are is the same. If it becomes too confusing for you, you can just follow the flash sideways for what they are. It’s not as though there’s narrative that hangs on the fact that you need to know that this event was different in that world, in the flashback world versus the sideways world. That’s not critical for being able to process the narrative this season.

Is there a relationship between Island reality and sideways reality? Will they run parallel for the remainder of the season? Will they fuse together? Might one fade away?
LINDELOF: For us, the big risk that we’re taking in the final season of the show is basically this very question. [Lindelof then explains the show has replaced the trademark “whoosh!” sound effect marking the segue between Island present story and flashbacks or flash-forwards, thus calling conspicuous attention to the relationship between the Island world and the Sideways world.] This is the critical mystery of the season, which is, “What is the relationship between these two shows?” And we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real.
CUSE: But the questions you’re asking are exactly the right questions. What are we to make of the fact that they’re showing us two different timelines? Are they going to resolve? Are they going to connect? Are they going to co-exist in parallel fashion? Are they going to cross? Do they intersect? Does one prove to be viable and the other one not? I think those are all the kind of speculations that are the right speculations to be having at this point in the season.
LINDELOF: But it is going to require patience. We’ve taught the audience how to be patient thus far, so while they’re getting a lot of mythological answers on the island early in the season, this idea of what is the relationship between the two [worlds] is a little bit more of a slow burn.

Did Jughead really sink the Island? And is it possible that the Sideways characters are now caught in a time loop in which they might have to go back in time and fulfill the obligation to continuity by detonating the bomb?
LINDELOF: These questions will be dealt with on the show. Should you infer that the detonation of Jughead is what sunk the island? Who knows? But there’s the Foot. What do you get when you see that shot? It looks like New Otherton got built. These little clues [might help you] extrapolate when the Island may have sunk. Start to think about it. A couple of episodes down the road, some of the characters might even discuss it. We will say this: season 6 is not about time travel. It’s about the implications, the aftermath, and the causality of trying to change the past. But the idea of continuing to do paradoxical storytelling is not what we’re interested in this year.

Here is a list of the nominees for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards^® Winners to be announced on Sunday, March 7th.  I’ve put my early choices as to what I think will winn at the bottom of the category in bold.  I’m sure this will change as I haven’t yet seen all of the films.

Best Motion Picture of the Year

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): James Cameron, Jon Landau

The Blind Side (2009): Nominees to be determined

District 9 (2009): Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham

An Education (2009): Finola Dwyer, Amanda Posey

The Hurt Locker (2008): Nominees to be determined

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Lawrence Bender

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness, Gary Magness

A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Up (2009): Jonas Rivera

Up in the Air (2009/I): Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman

My winner from what i’ve seen:  District 9 

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees:

Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009)

George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009/I)

Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)

Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)

Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)

My winner from what i’ve seen:  George Clooney

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees:

Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)

Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)

Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)

Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)

My winner from what i’ve seen: Not seen anything, but i’d go for Gabourey Sidibe

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

Matt Damon for Invictus (2009)

Woody Harrelson for The Messenger (2009/I)

Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (2009)

Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones (2009)

Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

My winner from what i’ve seen: Christoph Waltz

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

Penélope Cruz for Nine (2009)

Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air (2009/I)

Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart (2009)

Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air (2009/I)

Mo’Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

My winner from what i’ve seen: Anna Kendrick (but Mo’Nique is a shoe in or this…)

Best Achievement in Directing

Nominees:

Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)

James Cameron for Avatar (2009)

Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009/I)

Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

My winner from what i’ve seen: Quentin Tarantino

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Nominees:

The Hurt Locker (2008): Mark Boal

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Quentin Tarantino

The Messenger (2009/I): Alessandro Camon, Oren Moverman

A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Up (2009): Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Thomas McCarthy

My winner from what i’ve seen: Inglorious Basterds

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

Nominees:

District 9 (2009): Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell

An Education (2009): Nick Hornby

In the Loop (2009): Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Geoffrey Fletcher

Up in the Air (2009/I): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner

My winner from what i’ve seen:  District 9

Best Achievement in Cinematography

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Mauro Fiore

Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009): Christian Berger

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Bruno Delbonnel

The Hurt Locker (2008): Barry Ackroyd

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Robert Richardson

My winner from what i’ve seen: The White RIbbon

Best Achievement in Editing

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Stephen E. Rivkin, John Refoua, James Cameron

District 9 (2009): Julian Clarke

The Hurt Locker (2008): Bob Murawski, Chris Innis

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Sally Menke

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Joe Klotz

My winner from what i’ve seen: Inglorious Basterds

Best Achievement in Art Direction

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg, Kim Sinclair

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): David Warren, Anastasia Masaro, Caroline Smith

Nine (2009): John Myhre, Gordon Sim

Sherlock Holmes (2009): Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer

The Young Victoria (2009): Patrice Vermette, Maggie Gray

My winner from what i’ve seen: Avatar

Best Achievement in Costume Design

Nominees:

Bright Star (2009): Janet Patterson

Coco avant Chanel (2009): Catherine Leterrier

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): Monique Prudhomme

Nine (2009): Colleen Atwood

The Young Victoria (2009): Sandy Powell

My winner from what i’ve seen: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

Best Achievement in Makeup

Nominees:

Il divo (2008): Aldo Signoretti, Vittorio Sodano

Star Trek (2009): Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow

The Young Victoria (2009): John Henry Gordon, Jenny Shircore

My winner from what i’ve seen: Star Trek

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): James Horner

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Alexandre Desplat

The Hurt Locker (2008): Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders

Sherlock Holmes (2009): Hans Zimmer

Up (2009): Michael Giacchino

My winner from what i’ve seen: Up

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song

Nominees:

Crazy Heart (2009): T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham(“The Weary Kind”)

Faubourg 36 (2008): Reinhardt Wagner, Frank Thomas(“Loin de Paname”)

Nine (2009): Maury Yeston(“Take It All”)

The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman(“Down in New Orleans”)

The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman(“Almost There”)

My winner from what i’ve seen: Not seen any of these…

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson, Tony Johnson

The Hurt Locker (2008): Paul N.J. Ottosson, Ray Beckett

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti, Mark Ulano

Star Trek (2009): Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson, Peter J. Devlin

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Geoffrey Patterson

My winner from what i’ve seen: Avatar

Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Christopher Boyes, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle

The Hurt Locker (2008): Paul N.J. Ottosson

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Wylie Stateman

Star Trek (2009): Mark P. Stoeckinger, Alan Rankin

Up (2009): Michael Silvers, Tom Myers

My winner from what i’ve seen: Inglorious Basterds

Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham, Andy Jones

District 9 (2009): Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros, Matt Aitken

Star Trek (2009): Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh, Burt Dalton

My winner from what i’ve seen: Avatar

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

Nominees:

Coraline (2009): Henry Selick

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Wes Anderson

The Princess and the Frog (2009): John Musker, Ron Clements

The Secret of Kells (2009): Tomm Moore

Up (2009): Pete Docter

My winner from what i’ve seen: Up or Coraline

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year

Nominees:

Ajami (2009)(Israel)

Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009)(Germany)

El secreto de sus ojos (2009)(Argentina)

Un prophète (2009)(France)

La teta asustada (2009)(Peru)

My winner from what i’ve seen: Un prophete

Best Documentary, Features

Nominees:

Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land (2008): Anders Østergaard, Lise Lense-Møller

The Cove (2009): Nominees to be determined

Food, Inc. (2008): Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009): Judith Ehrlich, Rick Goldsmith

Which Way Home (2009): Rebecca Cammisa

My winner from what i’ve seen: Have not seen any of these…

Best Documentary, Short Subjects

Nominees:

China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province (2009) (TV): Jon Alpert, Matthew O’Neill

The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner (2009): Daniel Junge, Henry Ansbacher

The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant (2009) (TV): Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert

Królik po berlinsku (2009): Bartosz Konopka, Anna Wydra

Music by Prudence (2010): Roger Ross Williams, Elinor Burkett

My winner from what i’ve seen: Not seen any of these…

Best Short Film, Animated

Nominees:

French Roast (2008): Fabrice Joubert

Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty (2008): Nicky Phelan, Darragh O’Connell

La dama y la muerte (2009): Javier Recio Gracia

Logorama (2009): Nicolas Schmerkin

Wallace and Gromit in ‘A Matter of Loaf and Death’ (2008) (TV): Nick Park

My winner from what i’ve seen: Not seen any of these…

Best Short Film, Live Action

Nominees:

The Door (2008): Juanita Wilson, James Flynn

Istället för abrakadabra (2008): Patrik Eklund, Mathias Fjällström

Kavi (2009): Gregg Helvey

Miracle Fish (2009): Luke Doolan, Drew Bailey

The New Tenants (2009): Joachim Back, Tivi Magnusson

My winner from what i’ve seen: Not seen any of these…

I’ve got some films lined up to watch so I hope to have a better idea of what I think I will win some time soon.  I haven’t seen a lot of the big films up for nominations so far, so my choices so far don’t really count for much as even though I have selected some winners, i don’t necessarily think that they will be selected.  I think I will do a list of what I want to win, and what I think will win as i’m sure they’ll be different.

Do any of you guys have any opinions to the list of nominees?