This one didn't quite work for me. It was kind of boring. I think this is up for a foreign language Academy Award but I'm too lazy to go check on that right now. I haven't seen any of the other nominees but I can tell you that this one will not win.

The animation style was good, the music was good. Everything set he mood very well. But the characters were pretty weakly drawn so I couldn't have cared less whether or not they ever got together. The writing just wasn't that strong. My wife fell asleep and I wasn't that far off from a nap, either.

Whenever we watch the Oscars, we wonder 'Who sees these shorts? And where do they see them?' I'll tell you, they seem them at a movie theater that is showing them in the artsy-fartsy town they live in. So we headed out on date night to see the shorts, and they were good! There was one in particular that was kinda dumb and un-memorable, but the rest all had their charms. Pixar had an entry that was pretty fantastical. A lot of Canadians spend the cold winter animating, apparently. Anyway, it was eight bucks well spent. If you live in a city that shows this program, it's worth checking them out.

I didn't realize this until just now but I guess, just as in the special effects category, they nominate a larger list that is pared down over time. There were around 10 shorts but I see online that there are only five in the final list. Here's what I thought about the final five:

1. Sunday - This one was simply drawn and humorous just to look at. It told the story of a little boy in a small town, and what he did on a Sunday. There wasn't much more too it but I think the point was to decide whether this fantastical stuff really happened to him, or if it was in his imagination.

2. The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore - I was shocked to read just now that this short was a combination of live sets, and 3D and 2D animation. The entire thing looked digitally animated. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the sets and locations were actually miniature models. If the Oscar goes to the short with the most technical merit, this one wins hands down. But over all, I didn't 'get' the story, really. It wasn't as strong as it was in some of the other shorts.

3. La Luna - This was Pixar's entry, and it was about two men and a kid (I assume three generations of the same family) that are tasked with maintaining the moon. As you might expect from Pixar, it was well-animated and charming. I expect this one to win.

4. A Morning Stroll - This was probably my favorite because it involved a chicken strolling down the street. The short was presented in three parts, each depicting the chicken in different eras: 1959, 2009 and 2059. It got a little weird at the end, but the animation style of each segment fit the era it was supposed to be in, and it was pretty clever overall.

5. Wild Life - This one was interesting. It was about an Englishman around the turn of the 20th century, being sent to Alberta to try his hand at ranching. As funny as that might sound, and as funny as some of it was, this short was not a comedy. The look of it was pretty interesting, too. It looked hand painted, and it was to an extent. The animators drew the outline of each frame on a computer, printed it out, hand painted it, scanned it back in, then composited it together. They were aiming for a folk-art look and they definitely hit it. Old-school and new-school at the same time.

This one was better than I thought it was, but let me say that if I were single I'd never see something like this. This was a simple romance kinda thing. Channing Tatum still can't act but Rachel McAdams made up for it. They also gave equal screen time to Tatum ass and McAdams ass, so it all evened out. I've already seen one movie this year that I liked less, and I suspect I'll see many more. It wasn't bad, just not something a 40-year old dude would normally want to see.

This documentary by Gene Roddenberry's son had some potential, but it just didn't come together the way I had hoped. It was touted as a father/son sort of story, but there just isn't that much material out there on Roddenberry's personal life. Even his widow wasn't very forthcoming. What this movie did end up being was a good primer on the history of the show itself, without too much focus directly on trekkie nerds and whatnot. So it was interesting to see how it came together and how it was received (abysmally) at the time. But it didn't blow me away.

What I can say about this one is that the movie is still the movie. The point wasn't to improve the story or anything, that was still weak. The acting was still weak in places. Some of it just didn't make sense (still.) But the draw was the 3D. I'm not really a fan of post-converted 3D. You can usually tell because the characters look flat. If it's not done right the sets lack depth. Plenty can go wrong. However, if someone is going to do it right, it's ILM. I think it helps that a lot of the film was digital to begin with, so the major set pieces, especially the pod race, looked fairly spectacular. There's a shot of Obi-Wan hanging off a pipe in a big pit kinda thing when he's fighting Darth Maul that also looked pretty damn good.

Jar-Jar is still Jar-Jar. There's probably still too much going on. But the new look was well done. It looked like they cleaned up the rest of it, too. Colors were very vibrant. The image was sharp. It probably helps that I saw this at work on one of the best theaters on Earth, but I was surprisingly impressed with how it turned out.

If you're a 3D fan like I am, it's worth checking out. If your kids like the Clone Wars, it might also be worth checking out so they can see some live action cloning. Huh huh.

Did not like. This movie reminded me why I've barely gone to any 'horror' for about two decades. I get it. Sudden, loud noises and things jumping out of places are startling. Startling, not scary. If you want to go to a movie to be startled, then The Woman in Black is an A+. If you want a movie with some tension, mystery or plot, you should just move on.

The sad part was that with a little more writing and plot, and with the loud noises taken out, this could have been a decent movie. It looked great. The actors were great. The sound was otherwise good. If the loud noises (do I sound like I'm 80 or what?) were taken out, there was still enough on screen to scare you and jostle your nerves. But instead, it was just a cheap cop-out, a shitty device that horror directors have been using in movies since the 1950's as a replacement for substance. 'Hacky' comes to mind.

Go see the original or remake of 'Let Me In'. I don't recall a lot of extra sound editing in those. The story and mystery of it all was enough to be scary. That shit is well done. This crap just burned me.

OMG, did you know that they haven't stopped making Nutrageous candy bars? I haven't been able to find them in stores for some time, and the liquor store a block away finally got them. That's what's on my mind right now.

Anyway, this is a little catching up movie for awards season. There was nothing in the commercials or previews that really said 'see me', but it's up for some awards, not least of which is an Oscar nomination for screenwriting by Dean Pelton. How crazy is that.

It's a nice, taut little movie. Well written, well acted, well-told story. It didn't blow me away but I'm glad I saw it. It is the kind of movie 'The Academy' likes so I can see why it got so many nominations, but I don't know if it'll win any. Though The King's Speech won all those awards and it wasn't *that* good. Anyhoo, you could do worse this year so far.

Also, it's good to see Matheew Lillard getting work. That guy was supposed to blow up but never did. He's a likable guy but never really found his place in Hollywood. Too bad.

This action thriller wasn't too bad. It had some pacing problems. Actually, I'm not 100% sure I want to call it pacing. There were just some scenes where there was too much of nothing going on. I mean, I like to look at Gina Carano as much as the next hetero guy, but I don't need to watch her walking down the street for two or three minutes. Get on with the case already.

What I think I really want to complain about is the narrative. Yeah, I complained about this in other action movies. But to really work, you need a good narrative. The story was good in this one, but I just didn't like the way it unfolded. You have your requisite story lines running in parallel, then the crux of the whole thing is 'Who is the bad guy?' It's fun to speculate in your mind. But all the threads don't come together until the very end. I guess I prefer that layers of the onion are peeled away as we go (see Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy) instead of the onion just being chopped up into little bits at the very end. The out come is less effective for me that way.

In spite of that, there was a lot to like. There were many good performances from good actors, albeit many of them in small parts. Ewan MacGregor, Michael Douglas and Antonio Banderas all show up and put in some quality time. There were two particular kills that were jarring and surprising. And Gina Carano definitely has a presence on screen. She can't act very well, and she isn't called upon to do so. Actually, she was better that C-Tates. I don't know how that guy gets jobs. Probably his looks. Anyway, there was one scene the had with Douglas that really accentuated her lack of experience, but she gets a pass since this is her first outing. She held her own otherwise. Even if you didn't know she was an ass-kicker in real life, you believe that she could whale on just about anyone else in Hollywood. It helps that she doesn't need a stunt double and you see her face the whole time. It also helps that she can kick people in the face in real life.

This is in contrast to other action movies starring women that I've seen over the past few years. Case in point, Angelina Jolie in Salt. She looks like she weighs 85 pounds and we're supposed to believe she can overpower a 250 pound man? Not buying it. I didn't see Colombiana, but Zoe Saldana beating people up? Please. Carano looks like a seasoned killer and it makes her performance that much more realistic. If she takes a few acting lessons she could have a nice second career in Hollywood as the new female Arnie or Van Damme.

Which brings up an interesting question. I briefly talked to my wife about this. Why is it that we can accept a terrible actor in male action stars, which is almost universal (save for Jason Statham), but not here? Perhaps it's his charisma and tonge-in-cheek performances, but in some of his films (True Lies, Eraser) he was 100% serious, and somehow it worked. For whatever reason with Carano, it didn't. Not sure why that is. Probably a double standard in there. In any case, as an action star she shows some promise and I'm looking forward to what she does next.

This one was ho-hum. Not terrible. Not awesome. I bit cheesy. A bit corny. This is just George's style. I feel like it couldn't decide if it was trying to be over-the-top stylized and exaggerated (in the acting) or 100% serious. There were many lines in the movie where I literally pictured in my head a comic-book panel. On that level it would have worked great. In some ways I wish it would have went further into that realm and went all out. Instead, the tone seemed sort of uneven. I also wasn't buying Cuba Gooding Jr. in the role of a guy that smokes a pipe. Maybe Lawrence Fishburne, but not Cuba.

The CG was pretty good, as you can imagine. The aerial battles were well-done with the appropriate amount of explosions and whatnot. Those were on the verge of being exciting, but I think because we see so much action, so much CG in movies these days, it didn't blow me away. 10 years ago maybe it could have.