“Liam Neeson vs. Wolves” is about all I needed to know to get me to buy my ticket for “The Grey”, and while the film did have Liam being epic in every conceivable fashion, the studio/trailers are selling you a different movie.

First off, “The Grey” is a beautifully shot, wonderfully acted film. If this were released later in the year, it would be a serious contender for an Oscar. But here it is, in what Hollywood considers “Dump Month”, which is a shame really, because this film has a lot more depth than what appears on the surface.

Liam Neeson stars as “Ottway”, a hunter employed by oil companies to keep the drillers safe by killing threats that walk on all fours (ie. Wolves). As “Ottway”, Liam brings his A-Game, making him seem like a real human being, with pain and suffering worn on his face. Early on in the film, he writes a letter to his wife, and the emotion in this scene is wonderful, no doubt drawing from Liam’s own personal experience with losing his wife tragically last year.

“The Grey” has a wonderful cast all around, including Dermot Mulroney, Dallas Roberts, and Frank Grillo. The big selling point for me was that real men were cast in the roles, instead of actors that can barely grow facial hair (I’m looking at you, Taylor Lautner!!!). All of the actors brought an authenticity to their roles, be they fathers or ex-cons. When its time for certain characters to bite it (see what I did there? Wolves. Bite it!), you hate to see it happen, as you honestly do care for these characters and the back-stories that they have.

Joe Carnahan co-wrote and directed “The Grey”, and while I feel he is fully capable of handling big action films like “The A-Team”, smaller character centric films like this one are where he truly shines. The film is truly poetic, taking on themes such as faith, mortality, and one’s place in this world without ever missing a step! The script feels real, the shots are beautiful, the actors feel authentic, and the score is magnificent! This film delivers!

Anything to complain about? Eh, my only beef was some of the camera work (a tiny amount) was too shaky, but that was probably because I was too close to the screen. (Note to self: arrive earlier to theater.)

In short, “The Grey” blew me away, and while some people in the theater didn’t exactly enjoy how it ended, I feel it perfectly captured the film’s essence.

Also, be sure to stay after the credits, as there’s an final scene!

Ok, I decided to do a list after all. I considered not doing one this year because I felt like it was kind of a slow year and I was struggling with even coming up with my top 5. Two of the movies on my list (6&7) are technically from 2010, but they were released at the end of 2010 and I didn’t see them until 2011.

I also feel guilty saying this was a “slow year” for movies, because there are a lot of films that I have yet to see that probably would have made the list. There are some (Hugo) that I have no excuse for not seeing, and others that I’ve been dying to see (Take Shelter) that have  still not been released.

I’m just writing a couple short sentences about each of my picks below simply explaining what it is about the film that impacted me enough to put it on my top 10 of 2011. We also recorded a podcast reviewing our best and worst picks. Look out for that, it should be up shortly. I realize I’m posting this a little late, but hey, if Quentin Tarantino can post his “best of” list in mid January than the rest of America should be able to too.

And here are my picks:

10. THE FUTURE

The film is narrated by a cat. I loved it, and I’m not even a cat person.

9. TERRI

Azazel Jacobs dodges all the familiar cliches in his familiar genre and introduces us to some new, talented, young actors.

8. HOW TO DIE IN OREGON

Saw this at SXSW ’10 and there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. Powerful and controversial, this documentary sticks with you long after the credits roll.

7. BLUE VALENTINE

Great acting in a tragic story that is familiar to many. And I know it’s been said before, but seriously one of the best end credit sequences, maybe ever.

6. MARWENCOL

One of the best documentaries I’ve seen in a long time. It’s on Netflix Instant and is a must-see.

5. MELANCHOLIA

Like a bad nightmare that feels too real to forget right away, so instead, your haunted by it all day. Not the most fun to watch, but a powerful piece of work.

4. MONEYBALL

A good story made into a GREAT story by superb writing, and brilliant direction from Bennett Miller.

3. DRIVE

This almost felt like one of Cronenberg’s latest films, but with the fun spirit of a film like True Romance.

2. BEGINNERS

Funny, sad, smart, and sincere. Mike Mills gives us a personal and original film, and takes some directorial risks that seem rare today. I feel like we haven’t seen an “independent” film like this in a while, and I miss that.

1. JUST GO WITH IT

What can I say? I just… went with it. I’m kidding. Adam Sandler, please stop making movies.

1. THE TREE OF LIFE

Critics went from loving it to calling it self-indulgent and pretentious to loving it again. Personally, I think it is an undeniable masterpiece. Not only the best film of the year, but maybe the decade. Just because more people are familiar with Terrence Malick and his signature style does not make him any less credible.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:
THE DESCENDANTS
SUPERHEROES (documentary)
HESHER
DRAGONSLAYER (documentary)

WORST:
WARRIOR (Overrated and chock-full of cliches.)

TV (BETTER THAN MOST MOVIES RELEASED THIS YEAR):
BOARDWALK EMPIRE
TREME
BREAKING BAD
LOUIE
GAME OF THRONES

MOVIES I HAVE YET TO SEE:
TAKE SHELTER
SHAME
THE INTERRUPTERS
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN
A DANGEROUS METHOD
CERTIFIED COPY (Now on Netflix Instant. Really need to watch this.)
HUGO (Shameful, I know. Scorsese is one of my favorites and I have still not seen this.)
MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE
WAR HORSE
50/50
THE ARTIST
A SEPARATION
TYRANNOSAUR
MARGARET
PARIAH

Ok, so I watched Buck on Netflix last night, hoping to learn something about filmmaking. Although it won an audience choice award at Sundance last year, this film taught me less about filmmaking and more about what type of audience to expect at the nation’s premier film festival. You might find it inspiring if you like horses, or if you’re a big proponent of treating animals and people with respect. The film constantly draws parallels between parenting and horse training.

I like documentaries that are deep, character driven stories. Buck offers a two-dimensional image of a man who’s already undergone his most important human changes. There’s nothing in the way of real, onscreen character development. It’s all backstory.

I had to pin my eyelids to keep them open. Buck’s pace plods like an old mare, or more accurately, as slow as the main character’s cowboy drawl. I mean no disrespect to this man, of course. He’s quite amazing, actually. He can have a bucking bronco eating out of his hand in minutes. He rides a horse like it’s his own four legs. He can rope and shoe and saddle, and out-cowboy anybody. Yes, Buck’s quite the man. It’s the film that makes him boring.

We learn of his childhood with the ubiquitous panning photographs and testimonials from friends. It is indeed a painful history. Buck’s mother passed away when he was small, and his drunkard father beat him cruelly. Instead of succumbing to this pain, Buck has overcome it. He’s broken the cycle of abuse, and uses gentleness and empathy to break wild horses to the saddle. The film chronicles this journey with emotional interviews, interwoven with scenes from Buck’s traveling horse-training clinics.

The cinematography is simple and steady. It is very TLC. Some moody, brooding imagery could have really helped me get into the story, but alas, it was woefully lacking in art and style.

The film also features a cameo from Robert Redford, who hired Buck to work on the set of The

Horse Whisperer. Together they tell a little anecdote about how Buck coaxed one of his horses to walk over and nuzzle the main character. The sequence doesn’t add much, rather it feels like a cheap way to get Redford to appear in the film. But, maybe I’m being too harsh.

The most excitement comes when Buck’s assistant gets bit in the face by an ill-tempered young stud. Buck waves some flags at it, but eventually tells its owner that there’s no hope for the beast. I was hoping to see him tame this one. But, hey, this is real life, not a movie. He also has some choice words for the horse owner, which he delivers in his standard, avuncular tone: “This horse tells me a lot about you.” He tells her in no uncertain terms that it’s her fault that the horse is out of control. He approaches people and horses alike with the same, no nonsense honesty, and they actually listen to him because they sense that he cares. He’s quite winsome.

We also learn about how he’s close to his daughter, and his wife, and his foster mother. His family relationships show how he’s avoided repeating the mistakes of his father. The whole film has no dramatic arc, no character change, no plot, really. A documentary must either show a character change, or attempt to change audience perspective. A good documentary’s foundation is a real story, not just a portrait. This film is only worth watching if you want to see what sort of movie is adored by Sundancers. Frankly, I expected much more.

by Jackie Richard

Dragonslayer is such an honest glimpse into a complex group of idealistic punk-metal, skate kids that are entirely focused on right now. They live to skate and party and be with friends. Nothing else really means anything.

I love documentaries where the filmmaker stays out of the way. This film was such an honest portrayal of the young skate legend Josh “Skreech” Sandoval, a 23-year-old Fullerton, CA native. Like many street skaters, Josh is a nomad. He bops around from couch to RV to tent to the woods to the streets. He isn’t driven by money, or food, or security, so his character is at times difficult to relate to. Especially because he’s too far gone half the time to say anything insightful. His only ambition is to skate, and to numb and suppress his emotions as much as possible with drugs and alcohol on a daily basis.

While he’s obviously flawed, there’s also such an intense sadness about him that makes his decisions seem more pathetic than outrageous. It was clear from the beginning of the film that his family wasn’t a priority or even present at all. And it’s unclear how many years that’s been the case. The guy definitely had the cards stacked against him.

Contrasting layers of reality helped add dimension to how Josh’s story is portrayed. Life for Josh and his entourage is gloomy and sporadic, but the backdrop of their lives is perpetual Southern California sunshine. Their whole life’s a never ending party, without rules or regulations, yet they appear trapped in their existence.

Director Tristan Patterson captured these complexities really well with the steady pacing, bumpy handheld camerawork, and quick cuts. The film’s editing really helped establish the mixed tone and subtle melancholy that left the viewer doubting how good of a time everyone was really having.

This film definitely offers a fresh look into a youthful subculture that’s existed for decades and that isn’t going anywhere. A subculture that almost feels more like an epidemic than a choice.

THEATRICAL SCREENINGS
OPENS NOVEMBER 4- NEW YORK, NY @ CINEMA VILLAGE
OPENS NOVEMBER 11- LOS ANGELES, CA @ DOWNTOWN INDEPENDENT
OPENS NOVEMBER 18- SAN FRANCISCO, CA @ ROXIE THEATER
OPENS NOVEMBER 18- DALLAS, TX @ TEXAS THEATRE
OPENS NOVEMBER 29, DECEMBER 6- MINNEAPOLIS, MN @ THE TRYLON
OPENS DECEMBER 2- SEATTLE, WA @ NORTHWEST FILM FORUM
OPENS DECEMBER 2- PORTLAND, OR @ HOLLYWOOD THEATRE
OPENS DECEMBER 2- BELLINGHAM, WA @ PICKFORD FILM CENTER
OPENS DECEMBER 9- SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA @ PALM THEATRE

by Ray Velez

Let’s get this out of the way first: “The Thing” (2011) is a good monster movie. It has the scary jump moments, the CGI creature effects, the gore…pretty much everything that would make it a good monster movie. The problem is that, in making it a prequel to an awesome film (John Carpenter’s ”The Thing”), you have asked me to at least expect your film to play by a particular set of rules. Rules that were set up in the 1982 film.

Like I said, this is a good monster movie. But what made the 1982 film so good was that it wasn’t necessarily a monster movie. It was a film that played with paranoia, and when the monster did appear, the practical effects (which will ALWAYS be better than CGI, in my opinion) made you cringe with disgust. This monster was really there. But again, the monster only appeared out of necessity! It wanted to survive, and the best way for that to happen was to lay low until it was called out by Kurt Russell’s magnificent beard! Which I hear can cure cancer, but that’s neither here nor there. In the prequel (or reboot or whatever they are calling it), the monster is almost predatory, spending most of the film giving itself away, hunting most of the crew in its monster form. One of the scenes is reminiscent of the raptors-in-the-kitchen scene in “Jurassic Park”, which is NOT what “The Thing” should be! The people behind this film had an opportunity to make a film on par with the John Carpenter version, dealing with claustrophobia and paranoia. Instead, they just turned it into a loud affair, with very little subtlety.

All that said, the movie was nice to look at. The cinematography by Michel Abramowicz was beautiful, the direction by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. was visually appealing, the script by Eric Heisserer was strong, and the actors were all very good. Mary Elizabeth Winstead takes the lead, with Joel Edgerton as the helicopter pilot, minus any sort of epic beard. The rest of the cast, filled with what I assume are popular Swedish/Danish/Norwegian actors, were all very good, and believable in their roles. The lack of any real stars made it less obvious who was going to perish. And bonus points to the director and writers for having a good portion of the film in Norwegian with subtitles.

The score evoked John Carpenter’s film in some of its score, but again, most of the time just turned into a loud mess. The CGI effects of the monster were good, but the 1982 film still holds up today because of its practical effects. Sadly, this film’s special effects will be outdated in a few years. There were a few questions that I did have throughout this film that kind of bugged me. When Mary Elizabeth Winstead discovers for the first time what the cells of the creature are actually doing, she doesn’t tell anyone except her friend. Why!? Call me crazy, but you would have caught me blaring it over the loud speaker, writing the message in the snow with my own urine, and leaving post-it notes for everyone to find! Also, if this is a Norwegian base, why are most of the items in the background in English?

All in all, “The Thing” (2011) is a good, effective monster movie. I just wish they would have played with more of the elements that made the John Carpenter film such a classic. And though they left the film open to a sequel, I highly doubt we’ll get the opportunity to see it due to this film’s low box office numbers. Sad really, given that when the new Twilight film comes out in a month, it will more than likely break records… I miss the horror films of the 80’s.