A movie needs a hook, a quick little sentence or two description of what to expect in the film in order to sell it to studios. More than a premise, but less than a summary. Non-Stop’s hook is that an Air Marshall receives threatening text messages while on a transatlantic flight that promise a death on the plane every twenty minutes unless $150,000,000 is transferred into a bank account. If that hook sounds promising, it should be possible to elaborate on it in a way that further entices an audience to see the movie. In Non-Stop, this hook is honestly all you get. It tries to build on this premise by throwing in some plot twists and trite character traits, but they only serve to complicate and muddle the movie. 

Liam Neeson plays the protagonist Bill Marks in true badass fashion. I’ve always been a fan of his acting, but only in the right movies. Non-Stop takes itself far too seriously to have someone like Neeson in the lead role. The script contains some witty action movie one-liners for him to chew on, but they feel so out of place in a movie this dark. Terrorism is a serious topic; a movie like United 93 really understands how to treat this subject with the reverence while still making for a compelling story. You better not try to tackle a topic as serious and heartbreaking as terrorism if you’re going to make a fast-paced action movie starring Liam Neeson. By the film’s end, it becomes a “message movie” that tries to make a point about American security policy in an attempt that made me cringe while watching it. In this respect, Non-Stop failed miserably. 

When texts start to show up on Marks’s phone, he pretends that there’s a random search going on so as not to freak out the passengers about a possible terrorist situation and starts searching for someone with a phone. Here’s where the movie started to get really annoying: all of the passengers are annoyed by this “random search” in such a “First World Problems” kind of way that makes them extremely unsympathetic. As things begin to escalate and passengers start to die, they start to get more and more angry at Marks for trying to figure out what’s going on. One guy wants to sleep, another is annoyed that he’s being made to keep his hands visible, everyone is startled and upset about how seriously Marks is taking his search. I can’t even begin to imagine being angry with an Air Marshall for making sure that a plane is safe. But the plot rides on this; the major twist in the movie is that the terrorists plan to frame Marks for the crime. Therefore, as more and more fake evidence comes out that Marks is about to hijack the plane, the passengers start to turn on him as he reasonably becomes more and more freaked out by the notion of passengers being killed. 

Ultimately, Non-Stop is a movie that that relies too much on misunderstandings between characters that we simply don’t care about. I can tell the producers had that same thought because they try adding moments of character development for Neeson’s character that just fall flat. They make him an alcoholic and give him a daughter that he failed many years before, so they spin the idea of saving the plane into a way to redeem his past wrongs. It’s a good idea on paper, but he randomly brings up his daughter in the middle of interrogations and searches, which makes no sense. There’s no denying that some of the plot developments are clever, there are some well-filmed action sequences, and the ways the terrorists frame Marks are shocking enough, but when the plot rides on boring, flat characters, it’s impossible for it to have any substantial impact.

Grade: C-

Every year a lot of great films aren’t eligible to be nominate for an Academy Award. This happens because some companies don’t bother making sure to be eligible because they know they have no shot at nominations. Three films that I would’ve strongly considered for some of the awards below, that weren’t eligible this year, are Beyond the Hills, Laurence Anyways and Upstream Color.


Best Picture

Best Picture is the award each year, above everything else. I rarely find myself agreeing with The Academy on their choice. In fairness, I usually find that to my surprise, my #1 film is at least nominated (three of the last five years). This year, my #1 film, The Past, has been completely left off from The Academy. This is not much to my dismay though, as Gravity was a very close second place. As for what will win? I don’t know, it’s a very hard year to predict. The stats suggest Gravity with a slight advantage, but logic sways towards American Hustle for its fun nature (i.e. Slumdog Millionaire, The King’s Speech) or 12 Years a Slave for importance (The Hurt Locker, Schindler’s List). I really just don’t know, but I’m betting on 12 Years a Slave or Gravity because, well, I just can’t believe that The Academy could award Best Picture to American Hustle. Between the two, my money would be on the prestige picture.

Will Win: 12 Years a Slave
Should Win: The Past or Gravity

Best Director

It is extremely rare that Best Picture and Best Director don’t go to the same film, but this year could be a rare exception (over the last 25 years, the two have matched 19 times). Since Gravity won the DGA award, it will probably win Best Director. Honestly this year, who knows? I’d follow history and choose the DGA winner. Even beyond that, Gravity is recognized for having tremendous beauty and for its director’s fierce battle to make the film he wanted to make by working in difficult strange conditions and creating new technology.

As for who should win, it’s hard to say. Every year when I sit down to ponder this question I’m befuddled by the amazing set of choices. Directing is such a wide-ranging job. Do I recognize being able to work well with actors? Do I measure them by the uniqueness and/or effectiveness of their images? Do they get extra credit for writing? This year I’m stuck between three directors. My third choice is Harmony Korine for Spring Breakers. What he does with this film is unique and remarkable. The images he crafted are so distinct and have stuck with me for the last year. It took incredible audacity to even try to make this film. Second, is Asghar Farhadi for The Past. Farhadi doesn’t have the uniquely remarkable imagery of films like Spring Breakers. As I said in my review of The Past, Farhadi has a quietly powerful presence with complexity of thought, depth of feeling, patience, and profound understanding that comes from the nuance of his camera movements, pacing, and ability to get amazing acting performances from less experienced performers. However my number one for this year is Alfonso Cuarón for Gravity. The images he constructed will stick with me for the rest of my life. I’m not even counting the lengths he went to in order to get the film made the way he made it. Cuarón is an asset to cinema history.

Will Win: Gravity
Should Win: Gravity (the rest of my nominees would vary significantly though – Farhadi for The Past, Cianfrance for The Place Beyond the Pines, Korine for Spring Breakers and Jonze for Her)


Best Original Screenplay

Writing is always a challenge to award because you’re essentially awarding your perception of the writing when thinking about the final film. You don’t know what the director/editor cut out, you don’t know what was ad libbed, and you don’t know what kinds of visual notes were in the screenplay. So how do you judge? It’s difficult. Judging by its success at previous awards ceremonies, I’m guessing Her will win the Oscar although American Hustle has strong support. I loved Her, and its sci-fi angle was surprisingly successful. Generally Jonze’s writing isn’t this intellectually stimulating as he’s just more interested in emotions, so it’s refreshing and exciting to know he’s capable of this. The most ingenious piece of writing this year was easily Upstream Color, so it kind of kills me not to choose it. However, I pick Derek Cianfrance’s The Place Beyond the Pines for its elegant three-part epic story. I know this film can be a bit obvious, but I’m okay with that. What it takes the time to illustrate is important and realized stunningly.

Will Win: Her
Should Win: The Place Beyond the Pines


Best Adapted Screenplay

The same complications for analyzing Original Screenplay apply here, but are compounded by the question of analyzing the adaptation process or just the screenplay. Is it fair to judge when I’ve experienced some of the source material but not all? For example, I’ve read Northup’s 12 Years a Slave and take issue with several changes that McQueen and Ridley made to the story (chiefly taking away Northup’s reflections and replacing them with events/thoughts/feelings that make it more of “the” slavery story rather than Northup’s story). That being said, it’s a mostly faithful and remarkable adaptation especially in terms of visualizing Northup’s text. By contrast, I have no idea how Philomena does or doesn’t differ from its source material.

All precursors suggest that 12 Years a Slave is a shoo-in for this award. My personal pick is Before Midnight, for many reasons. The way it builds on the first two films was perfectly done, its effective dissection of early middle-aged parenthood, its ability to be lyrical yet also realistic in its dialogue.  That said, I won’t be disappointed when 12 Years wins the award on Sunday.

Will Win: 12 Years a Slave
Should Win: Before Midnight


Best Actor

The acting awards aren’t as important to me as directing and writing. They are definitely important, and acting is difficult, but I’m personally not as passionate about this aspect of the art. My expectation for Best Actor must be McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club, since he’s the favorite. Who should win is a difficult choice between Oscar Isaac for Inside Llewyn Davis and Michael B. Jordan for Fruitvale Station. Isaac has the rare skill of being an amazing actor and performer. Jordan takes a very politically sensitive role and plays it with grace. My choice is Isaac for acting and singing at an A+ level, being necessary to the mere existence of one of this year’s best movies (without someone like Isaac, the Coens were going to drop the film).

Will Win: Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club
Should Win: Oscar Isaac for Inside Llewyn Davis

Best Actress

I can’t understand why the shoo-in pick for this year, since May, is Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine. It’s an excellent performance, but a little too exaggerated and movie-like for me. The one performance that I can’t shake, more than any other, is Adèle Exarchopoulos in Blue is the Warmest Color. Whether it was in one of the famous long sex scenes or eating spaghetti sloppily, Adèle is transfixing. She may be one of the finest actors of the upcoming generation, as she was 19 during the filming of Blue.

Will Win: Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine
Should Win: Adèle Exarchopoulos for Blue is the Warmest Color


Best Supporting Actor

The distinction between supporting and lead roles is always somewhat controversial. What is supporting and what is lead? The distributor makes the distinction and chooses how to market the actors (Academy members get a DVD of the film in the mail, and on the package it will say “For your consideration: Matthew McConaughey for Best Actor and Jared Leto for Best Supporting Actor). Oddly this year is very uncontroversial. The heavy favorite to win is Jared Leto so that’s certainly who I’m expecting to win. There is no clear dark horse, which makes it even more of a shoo-in. As for my favorite, I’m choosing two. If I had to pick, it’s Michael Fassbender in 12 Years a Slave. He delivers a powerful performance that does something rare: he shows the true horror people are capable of, while also highlighting that the person committing that “evil” is in fact a human being. I’ve never seen a plantation owner depicted who really felt like a human being, not a caricature of evil.  A close second often unmentioned is Vithaya Pansringarm, who plays the villain in Only God Forgives. His performance is absolutely chilling; one of my favorite villains in years.

Will Win: Jared Leto for Dallas Buyers Club
Should Win: Michael Fassbender for 12 Years a Slave or Vithaya Pansringarm for Only God Forgives


Best Supporting Actress:

In terms of supporting performances, Michael Fassbender’s greatest rival is his absolutely stunning counterpart Lupita Nyong’o. She will win and deserves to win. As amazing as Lupita is, I can’t shake Pauline Burlet in The Past. As I said in my review of The Past, I felt this character so strongly that I haven’t been able to shake her. Burlet and Nyong’o were both nobodies a year ago, and now they have delivered two of the best performances I’ve ever seen. They’ve given us human beings.

Will Win: Lupita Nyong’o for 12 Years a Slave
Should Win: Lupita Nyong’o for 12 Years a Slave and Pauline Burlet for The Past

Best Cinematography

Cinematography has become controversial in recent years. Cinematography traditionally has to do with a human being working on lighting and stuff like that. People get upset that movies like Avatar and Gravity get acclaim in this arena, when much of their cinematography is “animation” and not “cinematography.” I couldn’t care less about traditional definitions. As far as I’m concerned, Best Cinematography should be awarded to the best motion picture photography regardless of how it’s created. There was a lot of remarkable cinematography this year, as always. Gravity is visual storytelling at its absolute best. It’s a movie whose success is deeply rooted in cinematography, and not because it’s gorgeous (which it is). The space setting is used to make the audience understand Stone’s feelings, her grief and suffering. There was a lot of outstanding cinematography, but for me nothing touches Gravity.

Will Win: Gravity
Should Win: Gravity

Best Documentary and Best Foreign Language Film

These categories are always weird. There are tons of amazing films in each every year and the choices feel somewhat arbitrary. The selection process is fairly suspect so I don’t take them very seriously.

In the Documentary category, I’m very disappointed by the set of nominees. However, my will win and should win is absolutely The Act of Killing. This film will shake you to the bone. Beyond that, I wish At Berkeley or The Crash Reel were nominated.

Will Win: The Act of Killing
Should Win: The Act of Killing

Foreign film is even more ridiculous than documentary. There are so many remarkable films each year that just don’t appeal to the Academy for reasons that are beyond me. How is The Past not nominated here? Blue is the Warmest Color? Blue wasn’t eligible, but for silly reasons. Sigh. The Past is of course my favorite foreign film of the year as it was among my “Should Win” choices for Best Picture. I can barely guess what will win. The Great Beauty seems too detached and vapid, The Missing Picture is too strange, The Broken Circle Breakdown is unrelentingly tragic and Omar is too pro-Palestinian (so I hear). For these reasons, I’m guessing The Hunt will win for being the most appealing as a straightforward moral drama. This too may be controversial for Academy members, as it relays a story in which a man is falsely accused of child molestation. For The Hunt’s relevance to the recent Woody Allen debate, some Academy voters will find it particularly engaging and others particularly disgusting. This category is difficult to predict, partly because it’s not made up of the top foreign films of the year. It’s a weird mix that is born by a weird and unusual selection process.

Will win: The Hunt
Should win: The Past
Haven’t seen: Omar

I am making my predictions based on the actual nominees (though, I will take the opportunity to complain about some of the eligible films and actors that didn’t get a nomination, but should have…).


Actor in a Leading Role

This year was really stacked in this category, with a list of noms that all could take the Oscar in less crowded years, and a list of eligible actors that also would make impressive noms, but didn’t quite make the cut. Quite frankly, I think that Joaquin Phoenix should have been nominated, and should win; however, I was indelibly impressed by Bruce Dern’s portrayal of Woody. He disappeared into the role, and was so heartbreakingly honest, making a dense and opaque loser loveable.

Matthew McConaughey has pretty much swept the awards circuit up until now, and I don’t predict a change. McConaughey did deliver the best performance of his career this year, and he’s sitting in a great position to win his first Oscar. If anyone could upset, though, it’s Leonardo DiCaprio, who was also was at his career best, and it’s about time his efforts were rewarded. I wouldn’t be mad with either.

Who Should Win: Bruce Dern/ Joaquin Phoenix
Who Will Win: Matthew McConaughey/ Leonardo DiCaprio


Actress in a Leading Role

If anyone can steal this award away from Cate Blanchett, it’s Amy Adams. She was outstanding as Sydney Prosser. However, Blanchett pretty much had already won from the moment Blue Jasmine was released. She’s been dominating the awards circuit, and I don’t predict a change.

Who Should Win: Amy Adams
Who Will Win: Cate Blanchett


Actor in a Supporting Role

Yes, I am still mad about James Franco not getting nominated for his portrayal of Alien; his was the best and most important performance of the year, period, in my opinion, but I’ll digress… This was also a great year for this category. I was so deeply struck by Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of Edwin Epps; he brought so much depth to the character, avoiding the flat, vacuous villain trap that so many succumb to. However, Jonah Hill also gave the best performance of his career, so far, as Donnie Azoff: he was such a scumbag, pure filth, yet I loved him, the character, and performance as a whole.

Jared Leto has also pretty much swept the awards circuit, and I think he’s set to take this one home. I just wasn’t as in love with his performance as everyone else seems to be; I mean, it wasn’t bad, he was great. Rayon as a character just didn’t strike me as much as some of the other noms. However, Oscar voters don’t necessarily have to agree with me…

Who Should Win: Jonah Hill/ Michael Fassbender/ James Franco
Who Will Win: Jared Leto


Actress in a Supporting Role

All the noms in this category were great. June Squibb was unrelenting as Kate Grant, and Jennifer Lawrence was just everything and more as Rosalyn Rosenfeld. However, neither quite captured the amount of gritty poignancy in Lupita Nyong’o’s portrayal of Patsey. 

Nyong’o has been getting it right all awards season in all facets. The general population is in love, and I believe that Oscar voters will reflect that sentiment.

Who Should Win: Lupita Nyong’o
Who Will Win: Lupita Nyong’o


Directing

I really think that Spike Jonze should have gotten a nomination, and subsequently, the win, but I also really did love Alexander Payne’s Nebraska, and what he was able to accomplish with that story.

Gravity was a spectacle, and a good one at that: I think voters are going to want to see the film take away at least one more award outside of the sound and effects categories.

Who Should Win: Alexander Payne/ Spike Jonze
Who Will Win: Alfonso Cuarón


Documentary Feature

I am just in love with this movie. It was beautifully shot, the story was soberingly real and tenderly uplifting, and the characters were transparent and surprisingly noble. I cried at the end, just because of its heartbreaking beauty. It didn’t need loud bells and whistles or extreme circumstances to paint a moving and brutally honest picture about life. Oh, it should win, it really should…

However, despite all my passionate belief in Cutie and the Boxer, I’m picking either 20 Feet from Stardom or The Act of Killing to win. The former is definitely the most popular of the noms, box office-wise, but voters may pick the latter because of how assaultingly powerful the story is. I’d be happy with either, maybe I’m leaning toward The Act of Killing, though, for the win…

Who Should Win: Cutie and the Boxer
Who Will Win: 20 Feet from Stardom/ The Act of Killing


Best Picture

Out of all the nominees, Nebraska and Her are my favorites, but I still feel that I am a little more in love with Her. Jonze’s love story for the postmodern world was unexpectedly grounded, fantastically true, and as perfect as it possibly could get. It was successful on all fronts, with some of the best acting, production, writing of the year; a victory is in order.

12 Years a Slave was also incredibly triumphant as a film, with viewers walking away with a deep realization of its importance. I feel that this realization, in one way or another, will affect voters’ decisions, leading them to place this film in their top 3, not exactly because they feel it’s the best, but simply because they are supposed to like it. Either way it gets there, I’m fine; I loved the film, and I think it and Steve McQueen are definitely worthy of the win.

Who Should Win: Her
Who Will Win: 12 Years a Slave

I’m not making any “Will Win” picks because A) I haven’t seen enough of the nominees to accurately judge all of them, B) I don’t feel very passionate about many of the nominees, and C) Let’s be real, it’s a pretty locked-in field already.

I couldn’t narrow down any category to just one winner. It was a really good year for film and there are a lot of movies and people that deserve awards. Also, I’m indecisive and have commitment issues. So my multiple picks for each category are actors, actresses, or films that would make me happy if they won. For some, there are two I think deserve it. For others, there are significantly more than two. I’m also not sticking to the actual nominees and including any and all people and movies I feel are worthy.

I haven’t seen Philomena, Dallas Buyers Club, Blue Jasmine, Captain Phillips, or Nebraska.

Ben Garbow’s Oscar Picks (Sort Of)


Best Picture

There are five films that I feel deserve the award, all completely different but all fantastic for their own distinct reasons. Gravity, for its groundbreaking visuals and making me hyperventilate in my seat; Her, for its impeccable production and being wholly unique; Inside Llewyn Davis, for its heartbreaking perfection and amazing music; 12 Years a Slave, for its historical importance and fantastic performances; The World’s End, for its surprising look at alcoholism and being the best comedy I’ve seen in years; and The Place Beyond the Pines, for its breathtaking scope and story.

Gravity
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis
12 Years a Slave
The World’s End
The Place Beyond the Pines


Best Director

Gravity couldn’t have come from any filmmaker other than Alfonso Cuarón. It’s everything he does—insane long takes, uncompromising sound editing—taken to an otherworldly level (pun intended). Spike Jonze has established himself as one of the most unique filmmakers out there. Her is his magnum opus, bursting with heart, humor, weirdness, science fiction, and high-waisted pants. Finally, it takes quite a vision to hold together a two-and-a-half-hour epic spanning multiple generations, and the way Derek Cianfrance holds The Place Beyond the Pines together with dexterity and beauty is a wonder.

Alfonso Cuarón, Gravity
Spike Jonze, Her
Derek Cianfrance, The Place Beyond the Pines


Best Actor

This is such an insane year for male performances. Oscar Isaac, Joaquin Phoenix, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Leonardo Dicaprio were all unbelievable in their respective roles, and in a less crowded year they would all easily be front-runners in this race. Add in two criminally overlooked performances in a criminally overlooked film: Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper in The Place Beyond the Pines. But I want to talk about a performance that I think was just as good as all of these: Simon Pegg in The World’s End. Pegg was cast against type as deadbeat alcoholic asshole Gary King, and seeing him play a character his comedic counterpart Nick Frost would normally play is a breath of fresh air. The climax of the movie also brings a chance for Pegg to prove that he has dramatic acting chops—and boy, does he. But if I had to pick one, it would be Oscar Isaac as Llewyn Davis.

Oscar Isaac, Inside Llewyn Davis
Simon Pegg, The World’s End
Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
Joaquin Phoenix, Her
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
Bradley Cooper, The Place Beyond the Pines
Ryan Gosling, The Place Beyond the Pines


Best Actress

Adèle Exarchopoulos, for giving life to the sprawling three-hour romance epic Blue is the Warmest Color. Her performance has a brutal honesty to it—you can see it as she slurps her spaghetti, as snot pours from her nose as she sobs during a fight. Blue is the Warmest Color was like watching real people going about their daily lives, and Exarchopoulos was the character of Adèle. Oh, and she’s only 20. The only other woman I can see even coming close to Exarchopoulos is Amy Adams in American Hustle. She gave a performance with such a level of maturity—and that’s weird to say for an actress as experienced as her, but maybe I’ll always see her as the princess in Enchanted.

Adèle Exarchopoulos, Blue is the Warmest Color
Amy Adams, American Hustle


Best Supporting Actor

Again, another tough category. What a year for male performances. Daniel Bruhl is mesmerizing as the cold, calculating Formula One driver Niki Lauda. Michael Fassbender is horrifying as a ruthless plantation owner. Jonah Hill is ridiculous as a cocaine-addicted stock broker. How can you compare roles as different as these?

Daniel Brühl, Rush
Michael Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave
Jonah Hill, The Wolf of Wall Street


Best Supporting Actress

Léa Seydoux is deserving of just as much praise as her counterpart for Blue is the Warmest Color. Emma’s maturity and groundedness served as an excellent counterbalance for Adele’s spontaneity and innocence. I’m hesitant to even call Seydoux a supporting actress. There’s a reason the Palme D’Or was presented to both actresses as well as the director. Again, there’s only one other performance that was even close to Seydoux’s. Lupita Nyong’o nearly brought me to tears in 12 Years a Slave.

Léa Seydoux, Blue is the Warmest Color
Lupita Nyong’o, 12 Years a Slave


Best Original Score

Mike Patton’s score for The Place Beyond the Pines shifts between moods and genres with almost manic qualities, but it has one main theme running through the entirety of the score that reappears in different incarnations. This is also one of the very few times a description of a film’s music could also serve as a summary of the movie’s plot, and that is no small feat. The other standout musical score this year for me was one that everyone has been talking about: Steven Price’s Gravity. For Alfonso Cuarón, sound is important. (For further information, see Children of Men.) And for an Alfonso Cuarón film set in space, where there is no air for sound waves to vibrate, sound is everything. Price’s intense, paranoid score for Gravity only amplifies the craziness we see going on before us. And it would be remiss not to at least mention Arcade Fire’s understated yet gorgeous music for Her.

Mike Patton, The Place Beyond the Pines
Steven Price, Gravity
Owen Pallett and Win Butler, Her


Best Scene
(Spoilers for Gravity, The Act of Killing, Her, The World’s End, The Place Beyond the Pines, and Inside Llewyn Davis)

This is a category I made up. This is my list. I can do what I want. Best Scene is exactly what it sounds like: the best scene in a movie this year. It’s a scene that made you cry, that made you cry with laughter, that took your breath away. There are six I’d like to mention: the nauseating, horrifying, anger-inducing final 20 minutes of the groundbreaking documentary The Act of Killing, from when Anwar finally comes to terms with what he’s done, through the really, really fucked-up waterfall scene, through the dry heaving on the balcony; when Theodore and Samantha have sex for the first time in Her, when the camera fades to black and we only hear the sounds of two lovers on equal terms; when Gary and Andy tell The Network to “fuck off back to Legoland” in The World’s End; the final motorcycle chase in The Place Beyond the Pines, for producing a real sense of speed better than any film I’ve seen in a while; the circular finale of Inside Llewyn Davis, from when Llewyn kicks the cat back inside the apartment, through his emotional rendition of “Fare Thee Well,” through his getting the shit kicked out of him (again?) in the alley; and, of course, the entire opening continuous shot in Gravity, in all its mind-blowing glory.

The first 20 minutes, Gravity
The last 20 minutes, The Act of Killing
The first sex scene, Her
The Network, The World’s End
The motorcycle chase, The Place Beyond the Pines
The end, Inside Llewyn Davis

There are thousands of words in the English language. They can evoke almost any given image or feeling. So if a movie has to make up its own word for a title, it better be worth it. Birdemic does not warrant its own made-up word. But when director James Ngueyn (about as much a director as Chef Boyardee is Italian food) decided that his portmanteau of “bird” and “pandemic” didn’t quite describe his film the way he wanted, he decided that the subtitle “Shock and Terror” was necessary to reinforce the fact that birds attacking humans is a shocking, terrifying event. (Maybe it’s shocking and terrifying in some other movie, but not this one.) Made up or not, words can’t describe this trash heap. A movie this comically inept needs to be seen to be believed, but I’ll do my best to make words work in my favor. Most of them won’t be made up.

Set in Half Moon Bay, just outside San Francisco, Birdemic: Shock and Terror is about a man named Rod, portrayed by Alan Bagh with all of the nuance and skill of cardboard cutout. Honestly, the movie would probably be better if Rod was played by an actual cardboard cutout and tape recorder instead of a guy doing his best cardboard cutout impression. The movie starts off with Rod asking out Nathalie, a girl he knew from high school. Why there’s an ‘h’ in her name is beyond me; it’s pronounced like “Natalie.” Then again, this is probably the smallest thing wrong with the movie.

Introducing the main love interest is a totally logical way to start a movie. But beyond that, the first half of the movie is random, mind-numbing shit. He goes to work, goes on a date, and watches the news to learn about important things, such as seals. We basically follow Rod as he goes about his daily life. Not in the way that French New Wave films do, which can make having a normal day thrilling and compelling, but in a way that reminds you how painfully boring life can be. And not in an artistic, thoughtful way. There’s also a strange fascination with the environment in Birdemic. Rod and Nathalie go on a date to see An Inconvenient Truth, Rod’s car gets 100 miles per gallon, and Rod starts a solar panel company. Nguyen wants to make sure you don’t forget that the environment is going down the tubes. It comes back in a big way later.

Now, let’s reflect back on the title and the words that James Nguyen chose to describe his film. “Birdemic?” There haven’t been any birds or pandemics so far. “Shock?” Not in the way he intended. “Terror?” None. We’re halfway through the movie and we have no idea what birds have anything to do with a romance. Maybe it’s some kind of strange surreal title? Shock and Terror about the environment? Come on, Nguyen. Don’t make us think this hard about a movie this bad. You better do a 180 as fast as you can.

And boy, does he ever. One morning, Rod and Nathalie wake up to find that hundreds of birds have begun attacking people. And when I say attacking people, I mean hovering in front of people, but in the most totally menacing way possible. Also, in a stunning feat of evolution, the birds of Half Moon Bay have gained the ability to hover effortlessly, explode into a ball of flames like a kamikaze pilot, and excrete a strange yellow slime-acid. Also, they’re all GIFs.

Steve Wilhite, the creator of the GIF format, could not be reached for comment, but I can only imagine that he’d be more offended by their use in the film than their pronunciation. Nguyen, on the other hand, doesn’t care if it’s pronounced “GIF” or “JIF,” but they all must die. 

Rod and Nathalie head a ragtag team of coat-hanger wielding heroes on an adventure trying to survive the GIFdemic. Somehow, this second half of the movie still manages to be just as boring and flat as the first half despite constant bird attacks. They eventually meet environmentalists (how convenient!) who explain that the berserk birds are a result of the environment! Now it all makes sense! That’s the reason for all of the focus on environmental issues and green tech in the first half of the movie! It all comes full circle!

Except it doesn’t. Hell, Rod doesn’t react at all when the environmental causes are revealed, not even as much as an “I told you so!” At the end of the day, when all of the birds randomly stop attacking and fly away, we’re reminded of what makes this movie so much fun to watch: how completely random everything is. The characters act and react seemingly without any motivation or purpose, randomly-changing camera angles make scenes incoherent, and of course, it becomes an entirely different goddamn movie halfway through. If the best movies are more than the sum of their parts, then the sum of Birdemic’s parts is less than nothing. When a movie is as poorly made as Birdemic, it becomes our job as the audience to make the film into something else; a comedy where James Nguyen’s complete directorial incompetence is the star. 

This article is part of NUFEC's Bad Movies series. Find Birdemic: Shock and Terror on Amazon here.

When I sat down to watch Pompeii, I didn’t know what to expect (well, aside from a volcanic eruption, of course). I wasn’t sure how Paul W.S. Anderson would find or develop a story within the infamous event.

I was first struck by the beauty of the 3-D and general cinematography and effects. Through the second act they kind of forgot about the 3-D, but overall it added a beautiful depth to the picture, and was not kitschy or overwrought.

The rising action was very slow. The filmmakers decided to frame the movie as a weird kind of superhero-ish story, the underdog saves the day kind of stuff. There was a hint of a romantic story (that I think was supposed to hold much more weight than I feel it actually did): the princess (or whatever), Cassia, falls in love with the prisoner-turned-gladiator, Milo, who made it through unspeakable circumstances and survived ultimate hardship, etc., etc. His family was killed by the ruthless Roman senator Corvus long ago in then Northern Britannia, and, lo and behold, he randomly sees Corvus and his henchmen again years later and countries away, in Pompeii of all places, and has the opportunity to avenge his family. The story was weak, bland, and uninspired; they really could have developed a much more compelling and unconventional story to tell, with more consequence and that didn't feel so oddly simultaneously rushed and slow.

Though, the acting itself didn’t bother me (Kit Harington was inoffensive as Milo, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje probably gave the best performance as Atticus), the characters were dull and uninteresting and lacked nuance and depth. Kiefer Sutherland’s Corvus wasn’t as much a villain as simply a flat and vacuous pompous dick; Emily Browning’s Cassia had potential for interest, but never really got past the strong-willed royal daughter schlock - frankly, the characters generally were pretty boring, and I never had enough from them to really care about them or give them much thought.

If you'll allow me to be really dark and twisted for a moment (it's been long enough, right?...), the actual eruption was not gluttonous enough. It wasn't as epic as it could – and should – have been, and frankly not grand or climactic enough. Maybe one of the reasons factoring into that is that there was no sense of urgency: the build was too slow, and there was too much extra expository junk going on during the eruption besides dealing with the reality of the actual eruption! Again, there was not enough consequence: not enough emotion and feeling was elicited in the audience. We weren't compelled to care enough to make a rewarding watching experience. I mean, of course, you, as the viewer, have reconciled yourself to the fact that they’re all going to die at the end, but you should still feel with the characters, should still revel in the horror of dread and suspense, and that cathartic high was absent. The ending was also just ludicrous, such an obvious desperate ploy for some sort of pathos and empathy - I won't say any more about that...

Pompeii wasn't the worst, but it definitely wasn't great. A real missed opportunity here...

Rating: C-/D+

In Secret is the twisted Romeo and Juliet story of Thérèse Raquin (Elizabeth Olsen), a 19th century French woman who was abandoned by her father at a young age to be raised by her domineering aunt, Madame Raquin (Jessica Lange). Raquin eventually becomes trapped in an unemotional marriage to her sickly cousin Camille (Tom Felton), while engaging in a steamy love affair with her husband’s friend, Laurent (Oscar Isaac).

So, I will start with the good: there was beautiful cinematography throughout - the camera was always in an interesting place, and the lighting was soft and romantic. It was always lovely to look at and the acting was good. I mean, she's Jessica Lange, what else would you expect? Olsen and Isaac were good, Felton was believable enough. They and the rest of the cast, as actors, did what they were supposed to do.

However, though the film looked beautiful, it had absolutely no substance. The writing wasn't great, the story arc was weak, the pacing was forced and anticlimactic, the message was convoluted and forgotten. The director Charlie Stratton adapted the story from a book, and I could tell, but not in the good way; basically, this story should have stayed in novel format.

Also, the sex, i.e. the film’s main selling point, wasn't steamy at all: it tried so hard and failed. Nothing felt warranted, and there was little emotional impact on the audience. It was hard to feel with the characters; I mean, Lange did perform an epic mourning breakdown that tickled a couple of my heartstrings, but I felt little throughout the film besides that, and that speaks to the effectiveness of her performance and efforts, not to the effectiveness of the movie as a whole. Some of it even skewed comical and absurd, which I would say was unintentional. I don’t know what to say: should I call it a beautiful disaster, or a waste of my (and all those talented actors’!) time?

Rating: D-

The Wind Rises is the final film of animation great Hayao Miyazaki, one of the founders of Studio Ghibli. The project is different from many of his past films and animation in general because it’s a fictionalized biography of Jiro Horikoshi. Jiro was a Japanese plane designer known famously for the Zero Fighter that wreaked havoc on the US forces in the pacific theater. While the film alludes to the eventual consequences of his designs, its much more focused on Jiro’s passion for aeronautics and the difficulties of creating these planes in Japan where they still used Oxen to pull planes to the test runway.

The film employs a visual style that changes drastically based on location. Japan features many different locations, but the green grass and blue sky are maintained in focus except when the characters are in Tokyo. Compare this to a visit to Germany where the film’s colors become more bleak and grey which seems to represent the industrial boom and direction Germany was beginning to take before World War II. Then there is the style of Jiro’s dreams, which are colored with a beautiful display of pastels. The dream sequences also feature more classic cartoon like animation compared to the very detailed animation of the rest of The Wind Rises.

The dubbed U.S. version of the film was able to acquire good actors to voice the characters with Joseph Gordon Levitt voicing Jiro, and Elijah Wood and Emily Blunt also putting forth good performances as the two main supporting characters. The mesmerizing voice of Werner Herzog makes a small appearance as well. While I usually prefer to watch subtitled versions of foreign films, Disney and Studio Ghibli always do a good job finding talent for their dubs.

Overall the film was a joy to watch as it hits all the right notes. It has moments of romance, triumph, sadness, and at the end a major moment of retrospection.

Grade: B+

Tim’s Vermeer seems to have been constructed like a historical document, albeit an engaging and funny one. It follows Tim Jenison’s eight-year exploration of the hypothesis that Johannes Vermeer, painter of The Girl With the Pearl Earring, used an optical device in order to paint with such remarkable detail. Jenison wondered if this was the case, couldn’t Vermeer’s works be replicated? For 80 minutes, we watch Jenison go through an incredibly thorough process of developing his own version of a Vermeer painting using his astounding background of skills and resources coupled with an envy-inducing ability to learn new talents at will.

Much to my disappointment, the film is more interested in showing the evidence to prove Jenison’s discovery than explore the ideas that his discovery provokes. Tim’s Vermeer presumes to ask the question, is the separation between technology and art false? Or in other words, is it better for an artist to paint straight from their mind or to use technology to aid in accomplishing the goal of re-creating that imagination? Ultimately, the film merely asks this question out loud while documenting Jenison’s accomplishments, it doesn’t explore the ideas and their implications.

As a result of the decision to focus on historical accuracy rather than artistic exploration, the film becomes a bit shallow.  The facts this film presents are quite intriguing but you should expect to do the analysis on your own. Much of the entertainment of Tim’s Vermeer comes from its makers, famed duo Penn and Teller. Penn narrates and Teller directs. The result is an entertaining but limited documentary.

Grade: B/B-