A simple plot: 12 jurors are tasked with deciding the fate of a young man convicted of murdering his own father.

The reason this movie has grown to become my all time favourite film, the honour of which once went to the first two Godfather films, is because of how effective and honest a simple story like that can be told in a feature film. It just goes to show that one can tell a very engaging story with a single set production and a handful of actors. All twelve characters have enough time and focus to get their say in every matter and all are well portrayed by their respective actor. The tension is felt throughout as we get to feel the claustrophobia that some of these characters experienve being cooped up in that small room for essentially the entire film. As they try to prove the defendant’s guilt or innocence, they all must to put their two cents in and attempt to make sense of a very tough situation, given the little evidence and conflicting details they have.

The screenplay is as perfect as motion picture writing can demonstrate. As mentioned before, we do get to see all the jurors develop as their own characters throughout the course of the film, and their characteristics are in fact unique. All their arguments regarding whether the defendant is innocent or guilty may seem implausible and may come off as possible plot holes or even just plain idiotic nonsense in the eyes of many, but honestly, does it really matter? Nope, because proving what exactly went down and how it went down, is arbitrary and subjective. Their job is to decide whether they believe the man is guilty or innocent, based on their own intellect, as the law deems fair. Any facts they come up with, are open to interpretation, as they are just bringing hypothetical explanations to a scenario that they were not exactly around to witness.

In the end, the film is all about human character and different types of behaviour. What 12 Angry Men manages to do is show the best and worst of all human beings in a given situation, testing their judgement and ethics in a matter of life and death. Sidney Lumet did a great job in making this picture, bringing in a perfect, well-rounded cast to add more dimension to an already great screenplay. For my money, this should have won the Oscar for best motion picture.

5 out of 5

My god, what a powerful film! Do the Right Thing is Spike Lee’s best film to date, and possibly his most personal one too. The movie is very honest about what it wants to be, which is to say that it deals with the never-ending war on racism head-on and never holds back. The film is centred around a variety of characters who are for the most part African American, with the exception of a trio of Italian Americans: Sal, the owner of the famous pizzeria, and his sons. The main character of the film is Mookie (played by Spike Lee), who interacts with every other important character throughout the story, and ends up being faced with the ultimate ethical question that the movie builds up to until the very last act. The story is set on the hottest day of the year in Brooklyn, NYC, and all the main characters are out and about doing their own thing in a neighbourhood that we as the audience learn to appreciate as its own character. Events swing in motion after a very insecure African American, played by the always hilarious Giancarlo Esposito, gets really ticked off at Sal for not having any framed pictures of famous African Americans on his wall, as it is reserved for famous Italian Americans. He decides to boycott Sal’s pizzeria and tries to spread the message around and gather support. The character of Radio Rahim carries a boom box around with him which is only set to playing Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power”, which obviously defines one of the most important themes of the film with regards to fighting against the dominant hostile race. One great thing about this film is that Spike Lee allows you to hang out with his characters and understand who they are, which allows for the numerous set pieces and story developments to blend in well with the narrative. The film was released in the wake of numerous race-related violent incidents by white men on black people in the 1980’s (the film specifically refers to Tawana Brawley and Michael Stewart), as well as the history of poor treatment of African Americans in the United States. As if this writing, this is easily the best film that I have seen which deals with a serious issue, and it does not fall into the trap that most films dealing with that subject matter tend to. It is very ambitious and very serious about its themes and ideas, and I personally feel that it has stood the test of time and remains a classic.

4.5 out of 5

With the announcements of Anne Hathaway playing Selina Kyle/Catwoman, Tom Hardy playing Bane, and the casting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Christopher Nolan’s third and final Batman film, the story has been a subject of much discussion. With no official synopsis released by Nolan or Warner Bros., many wonder what kind of narrative Nolan will pull out to top the epic scale of The Dark Knight. The multi-billion dollar franchise will come to an end in 2012, while many other superhero franchises will be spawned later in 2011 and in 2012, and people are wondering: how will Nolan give us a conclusion befitting of the story he’s established in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight?

Bane is definitely a natural choice for the concluding chapter of this trilogy, as he represents a threat to Batman in a way that past villains have not. Ignoring everything introduced in the skull-fuck known as Batman and Robin, Bane is actually a very intelligent man. In the comics he does not have a very well known history, but there were alot of references and reveals by the man himself about his past. Cast away in a Pena Dura prison located in the mythical island of Santa Prisca, where Bane lived to pay for the sins of his father, he grew up hating “the system.” He wanted to be free, intelligent, and all-powerful. He built himself to be a military man, strategist and philosopher, reading works of many notable leaders and thinkers all over the world. As far as physicality is concerned, he worked out like hell, and signed up for the lab experiment that featured a strength enhancing drug known as “Venom”. That power gave Bane his chance to get the hell out of Dodge, and he became a freelance assassin. Then he saw Gotham City as an opportunity. He saw a city so corrupt and so overrun by crime that he just could not resist spinning his, no pun intended, venomous web around it. Many people know that Gotham City was filled with chaos because of Bane when he made his appearence there. When he arrived in Gotham, he and his soldiers spied on the Batman, whom Bane admires in a way, studying his moves and the city’s infrastructure. Then he struck the Achilles heel and staged a breakout in Arkham Asylum, releasing almost every inmate in there, including the Joker, Scarecrow, Two-Face and Killer Croc. With many sleepless nights and continuing battles with the murderers of Gotham, Batman grew tired and weaker. Bane managed to deduce that Bruce Wayne was the Bat, which led to a confrontation at Wayne Manor where Bane beat Batman and broke his back. This concluded the first act (out of three) of the “Knightfall” comic saga. Now that was an epic story. I have a feeling Nolan will come up with something along those lines but reformat and modify it to go along with his universe. I also think that Nolan will rework Banes’s origin story, which I believe will be ambiguous like the Joker’s.

IGN has previously reported what they think will transpire in The Dark Knight Rises, with Catwoman playing the part of a Gotham vigilante, cleaning up all the crap the Joker left behind in the wake of Batman’s disappearance. It seems plausible enough, but I’ll only believe it when Nolan confirms it. One interesting thing that IGN mentioned is the possibility of Bane being recruited by the police to find the Batman, which would probably set him on the path to darkness. If Bane’s storyline involves him being used as a test subject for the United States government to wipe out the Batman, I say bring it on! I am very interested in seeing how Bane actually appears on screen, size wise. I mean this is Nolan, not Burton; you can’t expect some random height increase in the middle of the film…or can you? The interesting things to consider are how the rumoured roles of Talia Al-Ghul and Dr. Hugo Strange would play in the film assuming they are both in it. My opinion on Talia Al-Ghul is that she would bring in her army from the League of Shadows to Gotham to finish what her dad started, and Bane would be her general; her very own Dark Knight. What I think will happen will be a mix of the themes and ideas explored in the first two films of the soon-to-be trilogy, which included fear and chaos, with a few other components added in: heroism, justice and all that kind of stuff. Still, the themes mean so much with Nolan’s films, as he is a man of literature, he would know how to substantiate these ideas. As far as the idea of spreading chaos is concerned, this could be a tricky feat to pull off. I mean, Arkham did have its own breakout in Batman Begins so it might be superfluous to go down that route again. Plus, with the Joker supposedly locked up in Arkham Asylum, and with him not returning for the film for obvious reasons, a breakout like that c0uld not be possible without raising so many questions.

Maybe The Dark Knight Rises will just be a full-on war in Gotham. Hell, I could easily see this f those post apocalyptic films or something, I mean who really knows, even with IGN’s synopsis. Interestingly, Joseph Gordon Levitt has been reportedly cast in the film in an unknown role, and many tabloids (keyword) have been reporting that Robin Williams may be cast as Dr Hugo Strange. But I have to ask: are we sure they’re not thinking of the upcoming Batman video game? I mean, sure, Batman: Arkham City would be a great marketing tool to get more people are interested in Batman, since it’s being released almost 10 months before Nolan’s film will be released, but do you really think Hugo Strange will be in both mediums? Its possible, I suppose. He definitely has a potential substantial role in the story, but how would that come about? Is he going to be Wayne’s doctor? I don’t see him being an Arkham player just yet, since the Scarecrow already covered that angle in the first film. We’ll see. However, the JGL casting is interesting. Would he be a cop? A criminal? An anarchist (perhaps the comic book character Anarky)? Some people are speculating that Gordon-Levitt might be playing the Joker in a small cameo, which would be interesting, but I have my doubts that it will happen. Speaking of Scarecrow, I wonder if he will be in the last hurrah that is The Dark Knight Rises. He could be connected to the Talia Al-Ghul character (just because of the connection with Ras Al-Ghul in the first film), which might be a fun little twist.

Regarding Anne Hathaway, I think she genuinely is a good actress, but I don’t see her in the Catwoman role. I’m sure Nolan might have the right vision and idea for her. I just hope it does not turn into a cheesy cardboard performance, as many actresses tend to with the role (I’m sorry, I liked Michelle Pfeiffer’s performance, but it was soooo over the top). Her character is an interesting choice for this particular franchise, and the vigilante angle seems cool as it does in the comic book, but unless Nolan gives her more ambiguity and Hathaway takes things seriously, then I won’t be totally sold on the idea. I am sure Tom Hardy will be great, though, and if anyone has not seen Bronson, please check it out, as it really showcases his talent as an actor.

Now finally, the single most important question: what happens to the Batman? As he takes the fall for Harvey Dent’s murders, the police are on a manhunt for him. Will the U.S. government actually get involved? Will they commission Bane to fight fire with fire? I also wonder if Batman will meet his end. I know the title says he rises, but that could be temporary. I mean he could rise, and then just fall for good. I’m just spitballing here, but it is possible, since this is Nolan’s universe. Maybe the Dark Knight will become Gotham’s savior and a martyr for Gotham’s crimes. As cliche as that sounds, it’s a timeless idea.

A word to Christian Bale, though: CHANGE YOUR FUCKING GODAWFUL ABOMINATION OF A BATMAN VOICE. Or I promise you, Kevin Conroy (the real Batman) will come and dub all your lines come the film’s test screening. I was fine with the voice in Batman Begins because he still seemed like a character struggling with identity, but what he did in the second film was borderline idiotic. It was just odd when the Joker sounded more intelligent and sophisticated than Batman. I hope that Bale, Nolan and the post-production crew rectify that problem.

By now, I definitely trust Christopher Nolan. I liked every single one of his films (surprisingly, Memento is my least favourite, if my, hehe, memory serves me) and I am damn sure The Dark Knight Rises will not be a cop out or some cheap finish to the franchise. Nolan has far too much dignity for that. I imagine that the film will be about war, as it fittingly ties in with all the issues that the world has experienced in the last decade. Not even a physical war between countries, but a war of intellects branching from religion to politics to business and to philosophy. Everyone has their own ideals and morals, and I think, like the first two Batman films, The Dark Knight Rises will explore these themes. Bane definitely encompasses aspects of war and identity, and will be a worthy opponent for Batman’s final fight (in this franchise). I hope the film is as well written as its predecessors and does not become too convoluted to follow, too crowded, or too over the top. There is so much opportunity here for entertainment for both the eyes and the mind, and I’m sure Nolan will deliver on that front. Stay tuned for more updates on The Dark Knight Rises as we get closer to its release date!

I’ve always liked lists of great villains, great heroes, great comedic performances, and the like, but I can never quite put my favourites in a coherent enough order to make such lists myself. So I’ve decided to start my own lists of my favourite show stealing performances in movies. These lists will not only feature supporting roles – some of them do feature some of the main characters who managed to leave an impression on me or entertain me a great deal to the point where I found myself invested in the character (even if the film was crap). These will not be limited to live-action performances – depending on the film, some of the performances may be spread out through animation, both traditional and computer animated. These are not “greatest performances of all time” lists. I have alot of admiration for many actors, but I find it really hard to rank or even narrow down what I consider to be the “best of all time”. I am here to pay tribute to the characters, actors and roles that made the movie they were in memorable. So with that, lets get to the list: F.J.’s favourite show stealing performances!

Tom Waits in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

It is always a treat to see someone from a musical background to give a great acting performance, and Tom Waits is one of those musicians who consistently delivers. He is no stranger to film and has appeared in the films of Jim Jarmusch, Terry Gilliam, Tony Scott and Robert Altman. In Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation of the classic Bram Stoker novel, Waits gives a great performance as a man gone insane under the mystical influence of a vampire – the character being Thomas Renfield. Waits does not hold back at all. He is unshaven, he eats insects, he changes his voice tone but still keeps the same hint of madness throughout, and he is just bat-shit crazy! He really is very comical and over the top, but it works in the context and overall tone of the film. A very small room in a mental asylum provides the perfect location for a such a character thrive. And man is he creepy. He really is one of the scariest mental patients to ever grace the silver screen. The character’s obsession with life is well captured and Waits does a terrific job displaying a form of instability associated with the character’s fear and loyalty to Count Dracula. I was very impressed by his acting, and he really does stand out in a film with a great ensemble cast (save for Keanu Reaves). Kudos to Tom!

Kevin Smith in Clerks (1994)

Before you roll your eyes, you shouldn’t be surprised that a small performance like this would be mentioned. Kevin Smith’s very low-key performance (he himself admittedly said that he cannot act) stood out for me in Clerks. It works. Smith cast himself in his first film, just in case it would have been in his last film, but he carefully chose a role where not much would be required of him. I know the obvious actor to talk about here is Jason Mewes (as Jay) but I have to give some acknowledgement to Kevin Smith. This character may be minute and unimportant without his loudmouthed, crude counterpart, but to me, his silence and appearance are golden. In the whole movie, Silent Bob gives the troubled character, Dante, one piece of advice, after his crazy sidekick gives him some very useless attempts at guidance. That, to me, is good enough to be a showstealer as far as that film is concerned – Silent Bob basically says the one kernel of truth in the whole movie. Smith plays the character well, probably because he does not have much to do, but it still adds something to the essence of Clerks and sets up the iconography and the mythology that would come to be associated with the View Askewniverse. One important thing that one should note is that Smith is, in reality, a real chatterbox and is the complete opposite to the very isolated and stoned Silent Bob. Jason Mewes does a good job, but Kevin Smith is the better of the two.

Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction (1994).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiQsM2xmEg

I know, you saw this coming. Can you blame me, though? Jules Winnfield is one of the best characters of Tarantino’s classic throwback to the pulp fiction magazines of the past. I have no idea how this role could have been played by someone other than Samuel L.Jackson. This was his time to prove his worth to Hollywood, and he did it. Jackson takes us on a journey through his character as we get to see Jules’ character change throughout the film. Although a lot of credit has to go to Tarantino’s writing, it is Jackson’s tone and reactions that make his portrayal of the character priceless. From the “let’s get into character” dialogue to the “Ezekiel 25:17” recitation to the religous discussion he has with his partner, Vincent Vega, Jackson displays his range as an actor as he portrays the emotions of the character and gives the audience enough reason to like him as much as we would hate him. I don’t think I can say anymore about the character that has not been talked about before, but I will end by saying that his Oscar nomination for that performance was well deserved.

Greg Dunham in The Lookout (2007).

Who? What? I looked at this guy’s IMDb profile, and was shocked to see that he has not been in many films. The Lookout, which stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Matthew Goode, is a film about a man who experiences short term memory loss because of a car crash, and who then becomes involved with some criminals who want to rob the bank where he works. Among these thugs is a goon known simply as Bone, played by Greg Dunham. I have to say, after seeing this guy, I am surprised that Goode’s character is the leader of the gang. I really feel like Bone was the true brains behind the operation based on his appearance and mannerisms. The guy barely talks, he sports a badass jacket, and just stares through his cool pair of shades, judging everyone. As obscure a character as he may be, he is just cool. Honestly, this character could have just been some random criminal in the film, but Dunham plays him so well. He creates an air of mystery surrounding the character. He really is one of the gems of the film and I was disappointed the movie ran for only about 100 minutes because I would have gladly watched the guy roll for another 20. This guy is the essence of badassery and I really want to see Dunham get bigger roles in the future, whether he plays a bad guy or not, because I am convinced that he will blow people away no matter who he plays.

Bobby Cannavale in The Station Agent (2003)

I have seen Cannavale in a few other films, but none of them contain a performance as vibrant and as heart-warming as his performance as Joe in The Station Agent. All he wants to do is be friends with everyone who passes his vending truck (where he sells hot dogs). Unfortuanately, it is a hard task when it comes to the title character, Finbar Mcbride, played by Peter Dinklage, a short man who inherits a small house in the Jersey countryside and wants to be left alone. Cannavale shows how fun his character can be, but also knows his limits. The character is so likable that you find yourself more on his side than on the protagonist’s. With Finbar’s mood and mentality, one can understand why he wants to be left alone and to not socialize with someone like Joe. At the same time however, with Joe’s fun personality and extreme zest for life, one cannot help but bash Finbar for his lack of courtesy and respect for Joe. This is definitely an underrated performance just as much as Dinklage’s performance. Bobby Cannavale should definitely get more acclaim for his acting abilities.

Nicolas Cage in Kick-Ass (2010)

Niccolas cage is a very interesting actor. He obviously has talent, but does not always do a good job in every film. Each year, there is usually about one film where he turns in a good performance (it’s probably a good idea to ignore 2007). Even in the not-so-great cases, however, he still manages to entertain for laughs at the very least. In his role as Big Daddy in the comic book adaptation known as Kick-Ass, Cage manages to get the audience on his side even though his character is basically insane. Honestly, this is one of his best acting jobs ever. The character of Damon Macready seems to have a happy attitude and a nerdy appearance. When he dons the “Big Daddy” guise, he becomes darker and more serious, and he is out to take revenge on the mobsters who once framed him for a crime he never committed while on the police force. Cage captures both the seriousness and goofiness of the character perfectly. I find his constant use of the word “child” when referring to his daughter Mindy, a.k.a. Hit-Girl, hilarious. Cage also employs a voice that parodies Adam West’s Batman but he manages to make it his own. He even blurts out lines that can be viewed as comical but are also very serious and sentimental. Basically, Cage keeps his character in focus, and because we find the character funny, we feel for him when he is in distress. Overall, Cage nails a great performance in both the comedic and dramatic sense, and we hope he avoids doing more movies like Ghost Rider and more movies like Kick-Ass in the future.

Omar Metwally in Rendition (2007)

Rendition is about the practice of governments to kidnap, interrogate and torture (if necessary) terrorist suspects. Omar Metwally gives a very impressive and mind- blowing performance as a victim of this suspicion, Anwar El-Ibrahimi, except that in his case he is wrongfully accused. The misunderstanding is ignored by American and Egyptian government officials as they continue to torture him for information. While the film itself is not very successful in getting its points across to the audience (in my opinion) and does contain many flaws in its story, the strong point of the film is the performances of the ensemble cast. Metwally himself met with victims of rendition and their families in order to prepare himself for the task of becoming a man who is helpless against a corrupt force. I cannot emphasize the quality of his performance enough. You really become involved in the film because of this actor and you sympathize greatly, especially knowing that he has a family in the United States who is worried sick about him. The torture scenes are very convincing, and the claustrophobic setting of the “dungeon” where Anwar is imprisoned becomes very hard to bear. You cannot stop rooting for this character and hope he gets out of this mess. A possible Oscar snub for Metwally? I think so.

Al Pacino in Dick Tracy (1991)

Seriously, fuck Dick Tracy. Who needs that guy? Warren Beatty’s adaptation of the classic comic strip is visually stunning and atmospheric and is entertaining to a certain degree, but the director does a poor job of putting the proper focus on the title character (whom he portrays himself, but to be fair, he did ask Robert De Niro at one point). This is the film where all the other characters from the original stories get their chance to shine. I mean, there are about twenty five villains in this film and they are all darkly grotesque and very colourful. Among these goons is their leader: mob boss Big Boy Caprice, played by none other than Al Pacino. This film is essentially a cartoon, as seen by the comical performances and by the blandness of the main protagonist. And that’s what Al Pacino succeeds in doing in this film: playing a cartoon character, and playing him well. He really lights up the screen with his performance, as do many of the other eccentric characters you get to see in the film. He can be threatening, though, of course more so in the very old fashioned moustache-twirling villain sense, but he still gives a very funny and entertaining performance at the same time. I actually wanted him to beat Dick Tracy. I’ll even go a step further: I wanted him to kill Dick. Again, who’s gonna miss him? Beatty devoted too much time to the film’s visual aesthetics, supporting characters and the musical interludes that he seemed to be rather apathetic towards the story. This could have been a great film had it been helmed properly, but that aside, Pacino is one of the best actors in the film, and does a great job of capturing a cartoony character. This film is worth a rental at least, and should be fun to watch once, if not only for the visuals and Al Pacino’s fun performance.

Jeffrey Jones in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a fan of this film. I just don’t get it. I am not engaged by the humour and I do not like its pacing. It could have easily been a good 25 minutes shorter. Maybe I will learn to like it and appreciate it better someday. For now, however, I will talk about what I feel is the best thing about Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Principal Rooney. While his whole story about trying to catch Bueller faking his illness in order to ditch school is greatly exaggerated, it is still very fun to watch. Jones, an actor of theatre, really knows how to move between subtlety and complete overtness and he turns what is basically a gimmicky, stereotypical villain into a very memorable one. I just love how serious and determined this guy is to get one of his students in trouble. What’s even funnier is that he’s actually right to be doing so. How many principals in the American public school system do you see go out of their way to prove to a student’s parents that their child is skipping school? I can only give you one name: ROONEY. I also love how Jones exaggerates his facial features at times, making him a very evil character, and yet one that you enjoy watching. Even though I do not like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off as much as most of the world does, I still recommend it for a viewing. Also, try to forget that Mr. Jones has been arrested as a sex offender and appreciate him for the artist within.

Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny (1992)

Marisa Tomei really is a good actress and knows how to balance being cheeky and insightful. She does a great job as the girlfriend of title character, a lawyer named Vinny (played by Joe Pesci). She assists him with a case where he defends his cousin and his friend from a murder charge for a crime they didn’t commit. As Vinny tries to adjust to the otherworldly town while working through the case, Lisa tries to keep him balanced and occupied so that he does not collapse mentally. She tries to support him and keep him grounded. Tomei gives a very passionate performance as Lisa and has impressive comedic timing. She really is a funny and cute person, and it’s just wonderful to see her behave the way she does with Pesci, who also nails his role. The great thing is, Tomei plays things straight – or rather, straighter than Pesci, anyway. We get to see her happy, angry, loud and really excited throughout, and Tomei avoids becoming one of those cliched stock characters that are just there to show off the movie studio’s star power. This character is well-written and well-explored, and Tomei does her justice. She makes a very memorable character out of something that could have easily been forgotten, and for that she deserves praise.

Coming Soon: F.J.’s Show Stealing Performances, Part 2!

The Oscar nominees have been announced, and as always, there are some disappointments and some surprises. I will only be covering a selection of the main categories and nominees, because I really don’t have something to say about everything…but whatever. Lets get right to it!

Best Supporting Actor:

The only surprise here for me personally was John Hawkes for the film Winter’s Bone, which I have yet to see. It’s nice to see someone unpredicatable get the nomination this time. Good choices for all the other actor nominees.

Best Director:

Alright, this is what bugs me. David O. Russell gets nominated, but Christopher Nolan is out? Seriously? No really! Are you fucking kidding me? Am I in Wonderland? Am I the star of The Truman Show? Without praising Nolan too much, let me put my frustration this way: The Fighter is one of the most overrated films of this year. Yes, even more so than Inception. Why? Because all The Fighter had going for it was the acting. Seriously, the acting clouded people’s judgement of the other aspects of the film. The script is cliched, even for a biopic, and there is not enough attention payed to Mickey Ward, the lead character whom Mark Wahlberg portrays. Wahlberg might have nabbed the Best Actor Oscar nomination if his character was not underwritten to give Chrisitan Bale the bigger spotlight. But please don’t think I’m dissing too much on Russell. He is a fine director, but I out of all the best shit that came out this year, including The Town, Inception and Buried, The Fighter ends up being among the five films nominated for their direction? I seriously hope that this is only a political move, because it might have something to do with Russell’s odd relationship with the Academy, and Nolan may be a shoe-in for later nominations (The Dark Knight Rises, perhaps? Here’s hoping!). Even with that future possibility, the fact is that Russell is not among the best directors, in my opinion. As much as the Coens piss me off occasionally, I can’t help but love many of their films, and True Grit was a very well directed, well adapted western. Russell definitely knows how to work with actors, which is an important aspect of direction. An Oscar nomination, however, is too much. This rant will not mean a flying fuck to anyone anyway, though, since God loves David Fincher.

Best Supporting Actress:

Ridiculous. I mean, I am happy with the nominees, but I really wish Amy Adams had been replaced with Julianne Moore. Amy Adams was good, but Julianne Moore was stronger and gave a very raw performance in The Kids Are All Right. I really hate that she is not being nominated along her co-star Annette Bening, who gave a really good performance as well. Either way, that is not the reason for me hating these choices. My beef is with placing Hailee Steinfeld in the “Best Supporting Actress” category as opposed to the “Best Actress” category. You may think it is a minor thing, but True Grit was practically her film. It was more her film than The Dude’s. The Academy did this before with Kate Winslet. Remember when she won for The Reader? What she was supposed to win for was for Revolutionary Road. I don’t understand these changes. I truly don’t. If you don’t want to put Steinfeld in the “Best Actress” category over someone else, than don’t bother nominating her at all. Oh, and one surprise for me was that there was no nomination for Barbara Hershey for Black Swan. She was really good, and I felt she was much more worthy of a nomination than Amy Adams.

Best Actress:

Nothing to complain about. Natalie Portman was nominated, I’m happy, and everyone loves her.

Best Actor:

Ok, Jeff Bridges did an awesome job as Rooster Cogburn. If you ask me, however, he should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor. I know what you might be thinking, but the truth is, Cogburn is a character who helps the lead character find her father’s killer. Thats how it is. Don’t “dude” me out of this argument, its true. Now, with the John Wayne version of the film, it’s different. That film was directed differently, and even written differently…essentially it was the lesser film of these two adaptations. John Wayne’s lead role nomination was right, because it really felt like Cogburn’s story as far as Hollywood marketing is concerned. The Coens did the right thing though and they gave the focus of the film to Mattie Ross.

Best Animated Feature:

I am very happy with the choices here. I never saw Tangled, though, and frankly am not really interested. It just looks like a bland fail of a Disney film. I will say this however: Alan Menken….just retire dude. Seriously.

Best Foreign Film:

Very interesting selection of nominees, and there will be no complaints from me. I was curious as to how Of Gods and Men did not make the cut, however…

Best Writing – Original Screenplay:

Why has The Fighter been nominated in this category too? This is where problems all started! This is where it could have been improved! Russell could have made a great boxing film, if there had been more effort put into the script. My buddy, M.T, pointed out that Melissa Leo’s character was one-note. I agree. As much as I want Melissa Leo to get the award (if Jacki Weaver doesn’t get it), her performance has little to do with the writing of her character. Bale’s character, however, was well written, and it seems obvious to me that the writer had so much fun with his character that he got sidetracked from what was supposed to be the real deal. On the plus side, for me anyway, I’m certain that The Fighter will not win in this category, but it still does not mean I can’t complain.

Best Picture:

Before the nominees were announced, I tried to guess what would appear on the lists, and I was almost right on all counts. I even guessed that Winter’s Bone would be among them. I was hoping, though, that the Academy would do the right thing and ignore The Fighter and give that nomination to The Town instead. I’m sorry, but that’s how it should be. I don’t see why people are blinded by The Fighter‘s influence. Nominate Bale, nominate Leo, nominate Adams as well, fair enough but just stop covering up the movie’s flaws. All of that being said, the world loves Facebook, or maybe even King George VI, so you can just forget my entire rant.

Conclusion:

Despite my animalistic rage, I am pretty happy with this year’s Oscar picks. They certainly beats last year’s, and the awards should be a fun, albeit very predictable time. See you at the Oscars, and be sure to check out my picks for the ceremony in the week leading up to it. Oh, and am I the only one who thinks Gervais should replace Hathaway and Franco despite all the controversy?

It wasn’t a bad awards show. There were very few disappointments, but also few surprises as far as the winners were concerned. A lot of phoneys and wannabe humorists, perhaps inspired by the relentless skewering by host Ricky Gervais. But overall, it was an enjoyable evening, and I really feel like those nominees who truly deserved to win, did. Except for Inception. No awards for Inception! What the heck?

Those wannabe humourists include one of my favourite actors: Robert De Niro. When recieving his honorary award, he made some “jokes” about deportation, to which I respond:

It made me happy that De Niro got the Cecil DeMille award, though, since he really is great. Was the Rocky & Bullwinkle clip supposed to remind him of how far he often mis-steps, though?

As most people predicted, The Social Network won Best Picture. As much as I like that movie, I personally didn’t want it to win, even though I knew it probably would. The only sad thing about this year’s Academy Awards is that there really is no hope of enjoying the surprise of which picture will win the night. Last year saw The Hurt Locker beat Avatar, which made for a very enjoyable underdog victory – compounded by the fact that it was the ex-wife of Avatar director James Cameron taking home the award that I’m sure he thought was going to be his. The Social Network has a lot of great qualities that are missing from Black Swan, Inception, True Grit and Animal Kingdom, that make it perfect Oscar bait for the best motion picture of 2010, though. So I say an early congratulations to the cast and crew of the film, especially David Fincher, who will also get his first Oscar just before March 2011, I’m sure.

I’m happy with all the actors who won. Natalie Portman earned her award justly. While I liked Nicole Kidman’s performance in Rabbit Hole, and her character more relatable than Portman’s, the power in the latter shocked many and I think everyone could understand the effort Natalie put into that performance. I don’t doubt that Colin Firth was good (I still haven’t seen The King’s Speech), and he has proven his diversity in comedies and dramas. The King’s Speech clearly allowed him to show that range. I’m happy that Christian Bale won, and I want to know if he can give a better speech at the Academy Awards than he did at the Globes. Melissa Leo was another deserving winner and it really made me smile when she gave her acceptance speech. Jacki Weaver, however, strikes me as a show stealer, and I unfortuately have not yet seen Animal Kingdom, but based on that one line in the trailer, “You’ve done some bad things, sweetie,” she makes me think she could win at the Oscars. Of course, it is a toss-up between her and Melissa Leo.

I’m glad The Kids Are All Right won. While not a great film in my eyes, it certainly was solid, and far better than the other films in that category (I haven’t seen Burlesque or The Tourist – as Ricky Gervais said “Who has?”). I would have liked to have seen Easy A, Due Date, Four Lions (especially) or even Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale take up the other nominee slots instead. Also, I did not see Annette Bening’s win coming. Not that she was bad – she was great in the film – but so was Julianne Moore. As they both played life partners in The Kids Are All Right, I thought that they both did a great job supporting eachothers’ performances. It’s like they were inseparable. One reason I was hoping Emma Stone would win, other than her being funny and cute, was so that it wouldn’t come down to this choice between Bening and Moore. At the Academy Awards, however, even if they are both nominated in two different categories, I doubt either of them will win. In fact, I’d put money on it.

I’m really glad Paul Giamatti won, he looked so depressed.

I am admittedly not as much of a television viewer as I was a few years ago. I guess the tables sort of turned when I started discovering the beauty of film and began to kind of shun TV. I usually watch shows or mini-series based on recommendations these days. I have not watched many of the shows that were nominated at the Globes (some with good reason, some out of my own ignorance) so I usually go with my old, tired gut as well as all the rabble I keep hearing about online when it came to my opinions on the television nominees. I was glad to see that Steve Buscemi and Boardwalk Empire itself got some recognition, as it’s one series that I follow regularly. Mad Men is another show I have gotten into and am working through its second season at the moment. I like it very much, but Boardwalk Empire is definitely my show of preference. I am also glad that my prediction of 30 Rock winning the award was wrong, because like I said, I just don’t get the show. But as I said, I don’t watch a lot of television, and if there’s one thing this year’s Golden Globes showed me, it’s that I need to start watching more. Also: Al Pacino, it’s nice to see you back in the saddle again!

There was a seriously hostile vibe running throughout this awards show. There was a lot of impatience, and a lot of nervous looks. I don’t think many people really cared about eachother’s successes or misfortunes. I really feel like they just wanted to get their award and get out of there. One thing I know for sure is that the only truly honest person at the awards show that evening was its host: Ricky Gervais. I hope he continues to serve as court jester for many evenings to come at the Golden Globes, Baftas, Emmys and the Oscars (but you and I both know, that it will never happen). I enjoyed that he didn’t hold anything back, and on an evening filled with self-congratulation, he wasn’t afraid to remind the celebrity’s in attendence that they aren’t perfect.

One final note about these awards that bothered me was the lack of authenticity, and it makes me dread seeing the list of 2011 Oscar nominations. As we all know, credit is usually assigned to a certain person or party based on politics and popularity. With Hollywood awards, it’s a no-brainer as to who should get credit for a film or a performance. While the Emmys have been praised by many, including the legendary George C. Scott, for their more honest approach to such matters, the Oscars refuse to do the same for some reason. Why? Doesn’t the Academy ever wonder why the number of late night viewers has dropped over the last decade? Doesn’t the Academy ever listen to all the bashing and badmouthing that people are firing at the Oscars online? Or does the Academy just choose to ignore all of that – the voice of its viewers? I mean, a movie can be both popular and an authentic choice, but we have never really seen that at the Oscars. There are never any surprise nominations, and the after watching the Globes, I feel like I’ve also watched all the movies and actors who will win at the Oscars too. The Academy always picks the most obvious films and performances to nominate. The great tragedy is that there are usually many, many films that are way better, way more affectionate and way more deserving of a nomination slot at the Oscars than the five (or ten, now) films that are chosen. That’s why I enjoy seeing movies like Black Swan and Inception getting made and nominated, because they show that new, original, interesting and unconventional films can still get made and garner recognition. Maybe there’s hope for the Oscars after all, thanks to the likes of Darren Aronofsky and Christopher Nolan. But I still feel like I know who’s going to be nominated and win in just about every category.

That’s all.

Well, maybe not. On a side note to January Jones: wow, you got balls, girl!

The Golden Globes are tonight, and since the Back Row is holding a contest to see who can correctly guess the winners (and this contest is restricted to people who aren’t contributors to the Back Row), I thought I should make my picks for the winners public. I should mention that all of these choices are who I think the Hollywood Foreign Press will choose to win and not necessarily my personal picks (though there are a handful of my own personal choices included). For every pick I get wrong, I will donate 25…cents to charity. Sound Fair? Sounds good to me.

Best Motion Picture – Drama: The Social Network
Reason: Come on, with all the hype, good press and Oscar buzz, this is obvious.

Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy: The Kids Are All Right
Reason: Easily the best of the nominees, and also the most critically successful among them.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama : Colin Firth for The King’s Speech
Reason: Its his year. He’ll clean up in the Golden Globes, the Baftas and at the Oscars.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama: Natalie Portman for Black Swan
Reason: I would be surprised if she does not win the Golden Globe and the Oscar for her performance. This is not just coming from the heart, this is what I think most people in Hollywood would be rooting for.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy: Paul Giamatti for Barney’s Version
Reason: Unfortunately for Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church stole the spotlight in Sideways, so its his turn to shine here.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy: Emma Stone for Easy A
Reason: She was genuinely good in that film, but I only feel like she will win here because she won’t recieve an Academy Award nomination, as the category will be filled up with dramatic performances this year (similar to the year when Sally Hawkins won for Happy Go Lucky).

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: Christian Bale for The Fighter
Reason: Again, another overdue award, and a very well deserved one indeed. As with Natalie Portman, I will be surprised if Bale doesn’t recieve both an Oscar and a Golden Globe.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: Melissa Leo for The Fighter
Reason: She was really good in the film, and while I want her to win. I’m also in favour of Jacki Weaver getting the award. Still, with politics, this who I think Melissa Leo is the most likely choice to win.

Best Director – Motion Picture: David Fincher for The Social Network
Reason: While it is the year for both Aronofsky and Nolan to get their rewards, Fincher has been in the biz a while longer, and has been long overdue himself. I really liked the way his film was directed and I won’t be cross if he wins the award. It’s practically a given anyway.

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture: The Social Network by Aaron Sorkin
Reason: Obviously.

Best Original Song – Motion Picture: Burlesque – Samuel Dixon, Christina Aguilera, Sia Furler (“Bound to You”)
Reason: A shot in the dark; mainly because I don’t think Alan Menken will win this year.

Best Original Score – Motion Picture: The Social Network – Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross>
Reason: The others have won or been nominated before, and this is Reznor’s first time. And the score is great.

Best Animated Film: Toy Story 3
Reason: Well duh.

Best Foreign Language Film: Biutiful
Reason: A joint production by a country and it’s former colony? Why not! I feel like it has been well recieved and popular enough to get the award. And yes, I am aware of the slightly low rating on RottenTomatoes.

Best Television Series – Drama: Boardwalk Empire
Reason: The new, very successful show on the block should pick up the award.

Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy: 30 Rock
Reason: I don’t get the appeal, myself. Apparently awards ceremonies do, though.

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television: The Pacific
Reason: HA!

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television: Al Pacino for You Don’t Know Jack
Reason: IT HAS BEEN A HELL OF A LONG TIME, MR. PACINO.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television: Romola Garai for Emma
Reason: Another shot in the dark. I decided to pick the most random choice.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series – Musical or Comedy: Alec Baldwin for 30 Rock
Reason: Again, award ceremonies have unusual taste.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series – Musical or Comedy: Jane Lynch for Glee
Reason: In the past, it seemed to alternate between Tina Fey and Toni Collette. I’m gonna go with Lynch this time.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series – Drama: Steve Buscemi for Boardwalk Empire
Reason: Long overdue, and he is a member of a new show.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series – Drama: Julianna Margulies for The Good Wife
Reason: Critics love her.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television: Eric Stonestreet for Modern Family
Reason: Why not? He is hillarious, and people are warming up to his role more than other supporting roles.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television: Kelly Macdonald for Boardwalk Empire
Reason: New show, and it might be her year to shine.

Now, personally, I think I am up to give up $2.50 for charity. We’ll see how much more or less I will have to give up tonight! Enjoy the awards!

Not too long ago, I conducted an interview with the Ottawa filmmaker known as Pascal “Colossus” Aka. A former Carleton University student, Pascal proved to his peers that a strong-willed and motivated person can do anything. He made a film called Jamie and Eddie: Souls of Strife that was completed in 2007 after a grueling two-year process. The movie went on to be nominated for several awards at the Los Angeles Action-on-Film Festival and was met with much acclaim. Pascal has also recently completed his latest flick known as Evol. The movie was a huge success when it was screened at the Action-on-Film Festival again, as well as here in Ottawa. Although Pascal has more projects on the way, he was kind enough to take the time to participate in this small Q&A with me. Sit back and learn about a man who made it in the Back Row’s hometown! And no, we did not have tea.

F.J.: First, tell us: what is the history of the Ottawa Action team and how did that come about?

Aka: I was an immigrant international student at Carleton University, in my second year. After being trained at IFCO (the Independent Film Cooperative of Ottawa), I decided to go ahead and make my first project. After a 30 minute version of the Souls of Strife script was written and storyboarded, I sent my grant application to Canadian Council for the Arts and the OAC (Ontario Arts Council) just to find out if I was eligible as an undergraduate student, and an immigrant. Another factor would have been the fact that they felt the idea was better as a commercial project, whatever that means. One of my masters supervised my application, and he ended up sending me a very long email that would have been very painful to read if I was younger. No one had done a project like that in Ottawa, but I decided to go forward with it no matter what. I set up auditions and advertised the movie; about 250 people in total responded and showed interest in being part of it – it was surprising and overwhelming. February 11th 2005 was the first day of auditions for the movie, and that is where I met Jon Welch, André Givogue and most importantly Dennis Lafond. They all auditioned for me along with about 50 other people in total and they easily got in. Dennis and myself eventually built our hierarchy system, where he would be in charge of choreographing the fights and training everyone (including myself). It’s like having a music composer, for example: I write the story and direct the movie, but a specialist is there to interpret the story through a different art form, under my direction.

F.J.: As a film student, it seems to me that most people who are interested in the world of film try making their own movie at some point. What convinced you that this was indeed your true calling?

Aka: I make it clear all the time and people know this without second-guessing: this is not something I do for fun. I’ve never drank, smoked, done drugs, you will never see me at a social party, even my relationship life is kept to a minimum. This is something I knew I wanted to do since I was just 4 years old. There are so many different art forms that I am good at (music composition, acting, graphic/web design.) but what people don’t realize is, these are extensions of me as a director. I love creating, art is my life.

F.J.: Did you like the program at Carleton, which is almost entirely academic as opposed to practical, or were you unhappy with the system? And how did the program inspire you to begin developing your first feature film, if at all?

Aka: I did not like or respect the program whatsoever. The only thing that I take from being at Carleton U was being in Ottawa, which is a city that I ended up loving because of the success I was blessed to achieve here and the professional friends that I was able to make. I can go to a Tim Hortons or Starbucks right now and show you master graduates from that program. I want to be a director, making films, producing films. I won’t spend 4 years talking, hearing and writing about them. If I didn’t start JnE in my second year I would have went insane in that program. My dedication to the project affected my grades but I have no regrets whatsoever, because every job, money, or success I’ve earned stemmed from my actual practical experience as an independent filmmaker and DOP, not as a film student. That program has a lot of issues, because so many people who take it are clearly taking it for the sake of just being in school, not as a tool to help them fulfill an ambition, a lot of them don’t have one.

F.J.: How did the idea for Jamie and Eddie: Souls of Strife come about, and what inspired you to write it?

Aka: I am a huge fan of martial arts movies, and one of my favourite movies at the time was Tai Chi Master/Twin Warriors starring Jet Li and directed by the legendary Yuen Woo Ping. I loved the idea of a feud between 2 people who were best friends in a Shaolin Temple. In my case, it was a secret agent academy. I also wanted to play around with the image of Canada as a peaceful country separated from the political conflicts of the world.

F.J.: Now, I’m pretty damn sure that you are a fan of the action film genre. Are there any particular films, actors, stories or directors from any genre that influenced or inspired you?

Aka: Action films are what I grew up watching. They’re pretty big in Africa so it sometimes surprises me how the genre is not as popular in North America. The genre is extremely big in Asia, from China, Japan, India (Bollywood) so at times it can be uncomfortable when presenting or talking about the genre to North Americans because they are not as familiar with international art, usually just their own. I actually grew up on the double-J’s, Jet and Jackie, especially Jet. I loved the creativity of the action in his films and the way they were shot, I am very big on cinematography and creating a visual roller coaster for the audience. Other than that Arnold and Stallone were the presidents of the larger than life hero that I felt was what should be the norm for North American protagonists. Stallone took an effort to bring in emotion and positive messages that are often ignored, the first Rocky and the first two Rambos are good examples of entertaining action films that inspire with a positive moral at the end. That’s what I love to do.

F.J.: I understand that it was a bit of a struggle to film Jamie and Eddie: Souls of Strife, as far as funds, time and manpower. Over the course of two years, how were you able to get as many people involved in the film?

Aka: There was a large pool actors who were looking for experience at the time, some more serious than others. I believed in the project very much and everyone else followed, I guess. I knew that the more I exercised my motivation and dedication, the more everyone would be inspired to follow.

F.J.: I’m guessing you filmed a majority of the film at nighttime and after the university hours?

Aka: Most of the film was shot on the Carleton U campus, after university hours, a lot of it during weekends. We always made sure everything was left clean after shoots, though.

F.J.: How did you come to meet Andre Givogue and Dennis Lafond, two of the stars of both of your films?

Aka: A lot of people who know me from EVOL tell me that I’m lucky that I have talented friends. But they don’t realize that I had to build those friendships, and we first met professionally. Dennis and André auditioned for me about 6 years ago at the JnE audition and Dennis’s interview was more of an interview/conversation, which was followed by a demonstration. My jaw dropped to the floor, I felt like we were a match made in action movie heaven.

F.J.: The heart of Jamie and Eddie seems to be about loyalty and brotherhood. Was that a theme that you felt strongly about?

Aka: It was an interesting theme to tackle. I felt there were so many things you could do with that theme with the different relationships and groups that were contained in the setting of the film. Conflicts between family members, the older generation and teenagers. I also felt Jack Michaelson’s character (played by André) was interesting because he was the character that was in the middle of everything, so to him it was a matter of picking a side or finding an unorthodox way to end it all.

F.J.: Mixed Martial Arts makes up a huge part of your films. Were you experienced with that sport prior to filming this project?

Aka: I wouldn’t say that my Tae Kwon Do training was enough to say that I’m experienced in martial arts. My music-making, acting and fine arts kept me very pre-occupied as a teenager, directing is my main thing. I believe I got very good at performing on camera as a fighter After Souls of Strife, for a while I was Dennis’ go-to guy for test fights, but not too long after that I stopped. My character in EVOL also ended up being a non-fighter, that’s when it became official that screen fighting for me is in the past.

F.J.: How often did the actors train for their stunts? And how many of the choreographers went on to become part of the crew for Evol?

Aka: There was a lot of training for JnE‘s fight scenes, but a minimum of 3 months of training and rehearsals through Dennis is required before you go on camera. Some people are better than others; my performance was not that great, in my opinion. There’s only one choreographer and that’s Dennis. Dennis and André had a great popular fight scene in JnE, it’s currently circulating on YouTube somewhere. It took us 7 days to shoot and it was the first thing that we did that won us respect from independent action filmmakers/performers online. Dennis and Andre are the only real fighters from JnE who are part of EVOL. We have another guy, Aaron Thompson, who was a trained stuntman and part of our team. He’s now working in the industry in Vancouver, you might have seen him on TV a couple of times.

F.J.: Is acting something you were always interested in? And do you plan to act in any future films that you direct?

Aka: I take acting very seriously; I won several awards in high school for it. I actually think it’s silly if someone directs actors without having much knowledge of the acting method, or if someone tries to be a fight choreographer without any martial arts education under their belt. Acting is a big passion of mine, which is an extension, a branch of my filmmaking passion. It’s not something I do for fun, I practice and work on my craft constantly. I co-starred in JnE, and due to popular demand I returned in EVOL as Miles Harrison. I am thankful for the numerous positive emails about my acting that I got after the premiere. People really loved my performance.

F.J.: How did Jamie and Eddie rise to success once you were done filming?

Aka: Well, once we were done shooting in 2007 we had a small-scale premiere at Carleton U. Afterwards the film collected dust while I finished school, worked on other projects and trained some more. I sent JnE to Action-on-Film Festival in the summer 2009. It was not hard to get the press excited about it. The buzz was used to spark initial interest about EVOL. It was around that time that I released the first trailer for EVOL and the response was insane.

F.J.: What led you to go on to film Evol?

Aka: Making JnE was mostly my team and I asking the questions “Can we do it? Can it be done?” The answer was yes, at the end of the day. I was not particularly happy with JnE‘s end result, so I felt it was best to use what I had learned to make a brand new project from scratch with a better story, better acting, fighting, cinematography and editing. It was a huge improvement from the first project, considering that the budget was the same. The result was close enough to what I wanted; it was very satisfactory and successful.

F.J.: One thing that originated from Jamie and Eddie: Souls of Strife is that you became known for taking part in many facets of production, like filmmaker Robert Rodriguez: writing, directing, editing, acting and composing music for your films, among other things. Leaving directing out of the picture, which of those “chores” do you enjoy and which one is your least favourite?

Aka: Acting and composing music are my favourites. It’s harder to enjoy acting the way I’m supposed to, since I’m usually under other challenges. Not a lot of people know this, but most of my big scenes had to be done in very few takes, even when they were long monologues. So much time had to be spent on other actors’ takes, especially André who is not too good as an actor and was always a struggle to work with. Acting aside, composing is what I enjoy the most because it’s just me in my home office with my keyboard and the movie; it’s an environment where I feel very connected and intimate with the scenes. Composing has its disadvantages as well, since movie soundtracks are usually overlooked. At the moment, there’s not a huge audience that cares for the music that much.

F.J.: What are you thinking of when you write your music?

Aka: It’s the same process as when I act or write a script. I meditate and alienate myself from the outside world as much as I can in order to transport my mind into the realm of the movie. The music needs to fit the mood, every note and every instrument; percussion sequences need to flow to the rhythm of the movie and the characters in it. It needs to be in sync to the point where the audience could easily guess what’s going on in the film just by listening to the tracks.

F.J.: Obviously Evol was your next official feature, but did you have any other projects in mind besides Evol? If so, why did you turn them down?

Aka: Originally, the movie that I wanted to do with the name EVOL was supposed to be a romantic thriller. It was going to be controversial and violent. I came up with the story at a dark time in my personal romantic life. I plan on working on that project not too long from now. I decided to make the action EVOL mainly because, well, who wouldn’t want to make an action feature with Dennis Lafond as the lead star? He’s doing well right now working as a stuntman in the industry, but selfishly, I don’t care how big he becomes, because I get to brag about being the first director to make two features with him. One with him as the villain, and another one with him as the hero, and he choreographed the award-winning fight scenes for both of them. Other than that, my personal bad taste for JnE‘s technical and artistic flaws motivated me to work on something better from scratch, something that I felt would be a better representation of me as a director as well as everyone else’s talent.

F.J.: With Evol, the stakes are higher, and the themes are broader than Jamie and Eddie: Souls of Strife. Do you feel there is a connection between the two films? And how personal were the themes of Evol to you?

Aka: JnE was about war and peace, Evol is about good and evil. The themes tackle more of the internal moral battles that human beings face. Regardless of what story I write, I always tend to have a moral premise, the story needs to end with an inspiring lesson or something universally deep to think about.

F.J.: Were things less stressful during production of Evol or was it worse than Jamie and Eddie? And how have the availabilities of the cast and crew members, as well as other resources, improved since your first feature?

Aka: Things were a lot less stressful while making EVOL. I was more mature, experienced and wise. We did not have an actress quitting in the middle of production after her third day of shooting like JnE. I also felt that the cast and crew respected and trusted me a bit more with EVOL. I created a much better shooting system that worked very well, the shots looked great and I felt that every shoot was a lot more organized than they were with JnE. In this case, I owned about ten grand worth of equipment which all helped make my shots more creative and professional than those in JnE. Other than that, the handicaps you get working with a volunteer crew are always there, it’s just a matter of knowing how to handle them.

F.J.: How did you come to meet Gary Peterson and have the opportunity to work with him on Evol?

Aka: I always have my eye out for local actors. His previous work was okay, but after having meetings with him and exploring Officer Wintley’s character, I gradually began to notice that he had something powerful to offer. People really love Gary’s performance and his character. It was neat how he applied method acting for his role, going to work as an officer.

F.J.: One of things I liked about this film more than Jamie and Eddie is how you managed to cross over different genres into one film. You have martial arts mixed with a gangster film, which comes off as a neo-noir action film overall. I understand the writer crafts his own world where things are created the way he wants them to be. Did you have any concerns that audiences may not take the blend of martial arts with the gangster/cop battles in an Ottawa film very seriously?

Aka: The only type of people who may not be used to this blend are North Americans. You go to Asia and they will welcome it in two seconds because that is exactly what they’re used to; from Yakuza films in Japan or the modern martial arts films in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, gangster films have martial arts in it 90% of the time. As far as Ottawa is concerned, yes we made the movie here but the film itself does not reference it. The movie is set in “the city”, and people do not realize that the actual name is not once mentioned in the movie.

F.J.: Looking back at both features you’ve made, which of the two is your personal favourite, as far as all aspects are concerned?

Aka: Evol is by far the better movie, in my opinion.

F.J: Do you see yourself working in Ottawa for your next project or will you be leaving for other endeavors?

Aka: As it is right now, it looks like I will give Ottawa 2011 and that will be it. I do plan on going to California someday, but I will tackle Toronto and Montreal before I go. So far, I have a few big projects that I’m excited to do which I cannot talk about in detail at the moment. I am very active on Facebook, so anyone who is interested in what I am up to could add me on there.

F.J.: How optimistic are you about your future career in the film industry?

Aka: I am very optimistic, when I receive three to five emails a month from people I don’t know telling me that I inspire them or they’re very impressed with my work, it’s very refreshing. It means I’m actually doing something right. The people who trained me are treating me like one of their own, I’ve received offers to do some guest speaking and teaching at schools and universities. It is quite a huge difference from where I started. There are many big doors open to me right now and I hope to be one of the people to make my continent proud in the film industry. I’m 25 right now and the future is very promising.

F.J.: Pascal, thanks so much for your time!

To buy the Evol dvd, you can visit the film’s website: http: www.evolthemovie.com

The next Academy Awards will be interesting if the recently released Golden Globe nominations are any indication. The contenders for best motion picture, best actor, best actress, and best director are all quite diverse and I’d say that most of them have equal chances of winning. Who knows who will take the grand prize at the end of the day?

There were a few shockers for me when it came to the list of nominees, though! Look under the cut for my thoughts on the highlights, the interesting tidbits, and the stuff that came right out of left field.

1. Angelina Jolie got nominated for The Tourist? WTF? I mean WTF?! To be fair this is just for the comedy/musical category but really? Also I did not see the Casino Jack nomination for Kevin Spacey coming.

2. Johnny Depp nominated for The Tourist and Alice in Wonderland! I mean maybe he was good as the Mad Hatter but damn: two nominations in that category! Whatever. It is a comedy category, and there weren’t many standout comedies this year, I guess.

3. Finally, nominations for both Darren Aronofsky and Christopher Nolan in writing and directing. I’m hoping this means that one of the two of them will get their first Academy Award come 2011.

4. No nomination for Affleck’s direction of The Town? Come on.

5. Nice to see Bale finally get a long overdue nomination. Things are also shaping up for Andrew Garfield with his first golden globe nomination. Good start, man! At least The Town did grab a nomination in this category for Jeremy Renner’s performance in the film, but still just isn’t enough, in my opinion.

6. I guess the “comedy/musical” category means that movies that don’t have a chance at the Academy Awards have a chance to shine here. The nomination for Red was surprising. I mean, it’s a comic book movie, and not a great one (it’s decent, but not outstanding). But The Tourist and Burlesque ? I guess the nominations were done pretty early.

7. No Mary-Louise Parker nomination for Weeds? What is going on here?

8. What the hell is up with the love for Alec Baldwin, anyway? 30 Rock is OVERRATED! Yeah, I said it.

9. I loved the score of The Social Network, so it makes me glad to see Trent Reznor get nominated for it. Also, the scores for Inception, Alice in Wonderland and 127 Hours were all brilliantly composed so their nominations are well-deserved.

10. Boardwalk Empire bagged 3 nominations for best TV series: in the “drama” category, the best actor category for Steve Buscemi (which is great because he has been snubbed for a long time) and the best supporting actress category for Kelly Macdonald.

11. I don’t hate Mila Kunis or anything, but was she really that good in Black Swan? I guess we’ll have to see. Also I had a feeling that Jacki Weaver would be nominated, and I hope she gets the Oscar (I haven’t seen Animal Kingdom but from the trailer, she looks like a show stealer).

12. The “best actress in a motion picture – drama” category is almost too good. Really diverse, and almost leaves you wondering who will take home the award. Natalie Portman, perhaps?

13. I heard great things about Emma Stone’s performance in Easy A and while I know she won’t be nominated for an Oscar, I do have a strong feeling that she will take the Globe home with her.

14. The lead actor nominations in a motion picture are pretty good picks. Does Mark Wahlberg truly deserve it, though?

15. Things are shaping up for Black Swan and Inception at the Academy Awards thanks to their nominations here. There is no way either of them will be snubbed.

Almost all the nominations for TV are fine and unsurprising (finally Al Pacino gets nominated again after all these years). I think this will be an interesting awards show, and it should lead to an even more interesting awards show when the Oscars premiere in January. Glad to see many people getting nominated who have never gotten nominated before. I think Aronofsky will have an even better career now that he has finally been nominated after at least three major snubs (The Wrestler, anyone?).

I’ll be posting my picks for the winners before the awards ceremony takes place.

All the hype, all the praise and the comparisons to the films of Alfred Hitchcock are all well deserved. I saw Buried with a good friend of mine recently, and neither of us had any idea that it was going to be as good as we found it to be. It is damn good, it is very serious about its subject matter and it does not cop out.

Paul Conroy, an American contractor, awakes to find himself buried alive in a coffin, a few feet underground somewhere in Iraq in 2006. He has little knowledge of how and why he was put in there in the first place. Armed with only a few provisions, which include a mobile phone, a canister containing some whiskey (or some other alcoholic beverage), a flashlight and a pencil, Paul struggles to find a way out and tries to get in contact with people on the other side.

The film runs a little over an hour and a half and it is very well paced. Director Rodrigo Cortes does a great job of capturing the claustrophobic, torturous and traumatic experience of being buried alive within one set location. Chris Sparling also turns in a very tight and thoughtful script, which gives Ryan Reynolds’ character enough emotional depth for the audience to get invested in him. It really goes to show how a film crew, with a good story and even a single location, can truly work around those limits and come up with something powerful and effective. Hitchcock’s Rope, Rear Window and Lifeboat have all proven that notion, making them cinematic classics. (Other good films with minimum set productions include Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men and Joel Schumacher’s Phone Booth).

The film’s subject matter regards the aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, where hostage taking, suicide bombing and insurgent attacks became common occurrences. With the United States and England battling terrorists, revolutionaries and radical militants in the war torn country, many civilians and government appointed workers of all varied nationalities have become unfortunate victims of collateral damage. Paul Conroy is one such victim, just a working man trying to make a living for his family.

We as the audience, never really leave coffin and we only see what Paul sees. We only hear what Paul hears. We also understand how Paul is just an average Joe who has been trapped in the crossfire. Because of his status as a regular no-name employee, he does not believe that his government will help him. Buried questions governments and also suggests a parallel between them and the people they fight. The real horror of the film is wondering whether the people who sponsor Paul can truly save him before his time is up.

With echoes of Poe mixed with Hitchcockian suspense, Buried is the type of film that Hollywood wishes it could make and should consider small budgets and better scripts for their future endeavors. Ryan Reynolds does not hold back in this film. He gives it his all and you find yourself continually rooting for him. It is a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination, and I hope he does get some recognition for a Bafta Award at the very least. The film is a must-see, and is highly recommended you do view the film on the big screen. It is not for the faint of heart (as overused and corny as that phrase may be). Buried is without a doubt, one of the best films to come out in 2010 and also one of the best (if not the single greatest) films to tackle the subject of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its consequences.

4.5 out of 5