Killers of the Flower Moon

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser, Tantoo Cardinal, Cara Jade Myers, Jason Isbell, William Belleau, Scott Shepherd, Tatanks Means, Sturgill Simpson, Charlie Musselwhite, Pat Healy, Jack White, Barry Corbin, Pete Yorn
Running Time: 206 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There's this chilling moment toward the end of Martin Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon when Robert De Niro's villainous character predicts that any outrage about the murders he ordered won't last. People move on and history fades, until disappearing, rarely given a second thought. Sadly, he ended up being right. Long removed from public consciousness, it took David Grann's 2017 non-fiction bestseller for the Osage Nation killings to be widely acknowledged for the pure savagery it was.

Now the basis for this three and a half hour epic, Scorsese and co-writer Eric Roth are put in the unenviable position of not only doing justice to real events, but molding it into a piece of art and entertainment that doesn't feel like a preachy history lecture. On that front, Scorsese again proves his worth, giving shape and meaning to a gigantic story too well crafted to be merely written off as a cinematic miniseries.   

During the annual "Flower Moon" ceremony, a discovery of oil deposits beneath the ground brings abundant wealth to Oklahoma's Native American Osage tribe, even as their revenues are legally overseen by white court-appointed guardians. But World War I veteran Ernest Burkhart's (Leonardo DiCaprio) return to the states in 1919 to live with his uncle, William "King" Hale (De Niro) soon makes a bad situation worse. A reserve deputy sheriff and local political honcho, Hale's been posing as a friendly benefactor to the Osage inheritors while orchestrating their murders for money. Now with Ernest in the fold, he has even more help.

When not committing armed robberies with his brother Byron (Scott Shepherd), Ernest works as a driver for Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), an Osage whose family owns oil headrights. But after Ernest falls in love and marries her, Hale convinces him they need to target his new wife's relatives to gain control of the inheritance. With Mollie suffering from diabetes and caring for an elderly mother, Hale and his nephews sets their sights on eliminating her sisters first. As the reservation's body count rises, Hale uses his pull with local law enforcement to cover up the killings, until the arrival of F.B.I. agent Thomas Bruce White Sr. (Jesse Plemons) threatens to expose it all.

It's somewhat difficult to reconcile how Mollie marries Ernest to begin with since there's hardly a minute where he doesn't come across as a hopelessly dense creep. And DiCaprio, fitted with bad teeth and mealy mouthed drawl that makes him sound like Sling Blade's Karl Childers, plays this to a hilt, with him initially tagging behind her like a lost puppy. Despite Mollie having a good head on her shoulders and seemingly aware of his faults, Gladstone succeeds in making her believably vulnerable enough to fall for this. The character's sadness over the Osage's plight, her own declining health and continuous family tragedies could be counted as contributing factors she thinks marrying him may lessen.

The gullible Ernest doesn't start out gunning for Mollie's money until his uncle tells him to, knowing once this lost soul feels wanted and important, there's no looking back. And since the grandfatherly Hale's hands are in everything as he projects the aura of an upstanding community leader, covering up these murders becomes that much easier. Ernest expresses occasional doubt about the atrocities he carries out, but mostly because he's too dumb to fully comprehend them. He's also a major screw up who still somehow increases their chances of being caught despite Hale having local law enforcement and doctors in his pocket, declaring the gruesome murders as suicides and accidents. 

After much of Mollie's family is buried, it's easy to assume she must know who's responsible. When exactly that happens we're not sure, which is what makes Gladstone's performance such a delicate dance. Using little other than unreadable expressions and body language, she plays Mollie as outwardly guarded and composed while playing her cards close to the vest, realizing that could be the only remaining chance at survival. 

A lot of the smaller turns add up, such as Cara Jade Myers' role as Mollie's unpredictably promiscuous sister Anna and Jason Isbell's quietly intense Bill Smith, the brother-in-law who spooks Ernest with his suspicions. The most effective subplot involves melancholy alcoholic Osage Henry Roan (William Belleau), a friend of Hale's who finds himself in the crosshairs of hired assassin Alvin Reynolds (Charles Musselwhite). Singer/songwriter Pete Yorn also cameos as an explosives expert, but the artist whose presence looms largest is the late Robbie Robertson, with The Band co-founder's bluesy score proving subtly impactful, heightening the film's most powerful stretches and overall tone. Jack Fisk's production design also aids in that regard, somewhat reminiscent of his work in There Will Be Blood. 

All bets are off when the FBI close in, with Ernest and Hale scrambling to tie up loose ends while a bedridden Mollie is neutralized, hallucinating and wasting away despite being one of the few in the country to obtain insulin. Hardly an appendage, Mollie's story continues uninterrupted into the second half, where her character's physically incapacitated. Teetering between life and death, some of Gladstone's best scenes come as the full brunt of her husband's actions reign down. And while the kingpin role may not be a huge leap for De Niro, you'd have to really go back years to find a part he's been able to devour quite like this.

Jesse Plemons' agent White projects an aw shucks demeanor off the bat, but proves cunning enough to let the perpetrators implicate themselves and each other with their lies. Fittingly, Ernest can't manage to make the most obvious, face-saving choice without briefly getting suckered by Hale and Brendan Fraser's bombastic defense attorney W.S. Hamilton. And even when Ernest comes close to doing the right thing out of circumstantial necessity, it doesn't take long for him to ruin that also, failing to take responsibility for the worst he's done.   

While many will understandably find it taxing to spend the entirety of this picture with DiCaprio's easily manipulated sleazebag character, it could help explain why Scorsese strays from Grann's source material, foregoing a heroic FBI origin story to put increased focus on the victims. This adds some depth, transforming what could have been a law enforcement procedural into a gripping meditation on prejudice and corruption.   

Scorsese finds a completely fresh and inventive device to close on, letting us know what's become of these people in a stylistic approach that puts to shame your ordinary closing title cards that vomit historical data. The movie is more cut and dry than you'd expect, but it's what happened, and for any quibbles about various portrayals, all those continuous murders still hit hardest. No matter how much money the Osage had, they lacked power and a voice, at least until they finally convinced the right people to listen. 

The Wolf of Wall Street

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau, Jean Dujardin, Cristin Milioti, Christine Ebersole, Shea Whigham, Jake Hoffman, Joanna Lumley, Spike Jonze, Ethan Suplee
Running Time: 180 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)
 
You know a film did something right when the discussions, arguments, and controversy surrounding it completely take over, deeming the director's motivations and intent for the project almost irrelevant. But I'll be honest. I didn't think Scorsese had it in him. I didn't think that at age 71 he'd still be able to make a film that's ignited as much controversy and debate as The Wolf of Wall Street already has, or feel as timely and pertinent to the world we live in now. And isn't that what all movies should do? Get us talking. Of course, this could be accomplished and the film still be terrible. It's what many believe of the similarly themed Spring Breakers, with which this would make an interesting, if exhausting, double feature. But the real evidence backing it up is on the screen.

It's not Scorsese's job to "punish" Wall Street crook Jordan Belfort or hold our hands and tell us what he and his cohorts did was wrong. Anyone needing guidance or reassurance in determining their actions are deplorable would likely require help beyond what Scorsese can offer. But that doesn't mean those actions and these characters can't be entertaining as hell when it's presented as a dark, twisted tragicomedy of wretched excess. We're meant to laugh at their idiocy, or not laugh at it, because the ball's in our court. It's a satire, but an unusually savvy one that manages to be both hilarious and horrifying in equal measure.

It's 1987 when young, wet behind the ears Queens native Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) takes a job as a gopher at a prestigious Wall Street brokerage firm before passing the Series 7 and earning his broker's license. When "Black Monday" hits he goes to work for a dumpy Long Island boiler room that specializes in penny stocks, using his master pitching skills to net a fortune and eventually strike out on his own with new friend Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) and a ragtag group of local marijuana dealers. Jordan quickly polishes them up, transforming the newly christened Stratton Oakmont into a major industry force, reeling in millions. Then comes cocaine, quaaludes, sex, strippers, and a descent into hedonism that would make it easy to mistake the firm for a 24-7 orgy. He soon leaves his hairdresser wife (Cristin Milioti) for former model Naomi (Margot Robbie) and begins a rocky marriage, but the firm's illegal practices and suspected securities fraud catch the eye of FBI agent Patrick Denham (Kyle Chandler), who makes it his number one priority to bring Jordan down.

Jordan started by screwing over the poor, then moved on to screwing the rich, and then before all was said and done, he eventually screwed himself and got what was coming to him. Well, not really. And that's the big bone of contention and controversy within the film that never really leaves our minds as we're watching, despite it being entirely faithful to the true story detailed in Belfort's memoir.  From the first frame, Scorsese takes us deep into this world and forces us to hang out with these people and attempt to understand their behavior, as impossible as that seems. There's great use of narration and breaking the third wall right away as Belfort addresses the camera and rattles off all the money he's made and the drugs he had to take just to make it through each day. With his confident, charismatic swagger, he'd seem to be the very definition of an unreliable narrator, if not for the fact that everything he's telling is actually true.

When a senior broker takes him under his wing on his first day and lays out the rules for success on Wall Street (which involves some magical combination of greed, coke and masturbation) over lunch, the speech is so well written by Terence Winter and delivered pitch perfectly by king charisma himself, Matthew McConaughey (in yet another scene-stealing turn), it's easy to see how Jordan fell for his intoxicating pitch of wealth and power. We totally get it. And when Jordan turns around and uses those same motivational tactics on his employees, we're sucked in again. Scorsese and DiCaprio dare us to cheer and laugh at it because it's ridiculous, scary, and also fun. Everyone who takes the bait won't be happy about it, but aren't supposed to be. That's the point. The notion that Jordan could be any one of us or someone we know is tough to face because it's true. That's why the film's three hour running length works to its advantage in a way rarely experienced. We're completely immersed in this world of debauchery, moving a mile a minute from one uproariously memorable sequence to the next, each seemingly more shocking than the last. It's excessive because it needs to be and the party never feels like it'll never stop, making the length seem just right and setting the stage for their inevitable fall. I didn't feel the time at all, a feat the editing Oscar was seemingly created to honor.

In what might be the performance of his career (if not certainly his most rewarding Scorsese collaboration yet) DiCaprio is given the rare opportunity to display his physical comedy chops with in a role that's as funny as it is dramatic. We know he can handle the heavy stuff, but who ever thought him capable of being this hilarious? There's never a moment that feels false or put on and it's unusual to see to the actor lose himself in a character to this extreme, burning the candle at both ends as Jordan appears to be having the time of his life while simultaneously wrecking it to pieces. That he seems completely like this man we don't know and possess so little knowledge of is a credit to how much DiCaprio pours into a performance that makes for an interesting companion piece to his work as Jay Gatsby earlier in the year. A more modern, outsized version of that character, Belfort has even even less of a soul and conscience. It's absolutely thrilling to watch and, nomination or not, will likely be appreciated and revisited for a while, squashing complaints from those down on all the frequent Scorsese-DiCaprio projects.   

Right alongside DiCaprio's tour de force is Jonah Hill's sociopathic, side-splitting turn as Jordan's boisterous associate and best friend, Donnie. Complete with buck teeth, bulging eyes and a colorfully hideous wardrobe even by 80's standards, he offers up what's less a performance than a grotesquely brilliant comedic creation so painfully funny and pathetically tragic you may not even believe it's him delivering it. Ironically it's in this, Hill's most prestigious role, that his gifts as a comedian seem best utilized as he makes Donnie almost uncomfortably real in his desire to fit in and make something of himself. Before things goes horribly awry.

Every line delivery, joke, or physical stunt Hill executes, he hits out of the park, causing me nearly uncontrollable laughter with each appearance. He's been exceptional in other things like Moneyball, but this is on another plane entirely. He and DiCaprio share what's sure to go down as the iconic sequence involving the delayed effects of quaaludes that defies description. Let's just say you'll never want to snack on cold cuts ever again. Actually, there are a lot of scenes like that, walking the razor's edge between comedy and drama to almost absurd extents while still somehow remaining within the boundaries of reality.

At the crux of Jordan's sort of downfall is his tumultuous marriage with "The Dutchess" Naomi and the instant Margot Robbie shows up, I wrongly braced myself for a terrible performance based on her appearance, assuming Leo requested they cast a supermodel for the role. For all I know that could have been entirely true, if not for the fact this is Scorsese we're talking about and the Australian Robbie absolutely nails it, going toe-to-toe with DiCaprio in every scene, while consistently maintaining a Brooklyn accent that never wavers. She clearly hit the jackpot in snagging this role but no one can claim it's a squandered opportunity.

Scorsese also provides director Rob Reiner with an entertaining supporting part as Jordan's trigger-tempered father and security head, "Mad Max" while other fellow directors Jon Favreau and Spike Jonze impress respectively as the firm's legal counsel and a hapless Oakmont employee. Recent Oscar winner Jean Dujardin is also really fun as a slick, Swiss banker with whom Jordan enters into business. Always hanging around the periphery is Kyle Chandler's FBI agent who makes Jordan aware of his presence in one of the best written, unexpected exchanges, and since he's played by "Coach Taylor," we're instantly on his side and know Belfort doesn't stand a chance outsmarting him.  It's fitting that what eventually trips him up is so randomly absurd and ridiculous considering how idiotic his behavior was up until that point. It was only a matter of time before it all caught up with him, and when it did, he still refused to just cash in his chips, even at the expense of losing his family and the firm he built.

Just as it seems Belfort will finally be punished, Scorsese subtly turns the camera on us, showing how the problem's much bigger than he is, with a culture that not only condoned, but often encouraged these behaviors and practices. We still do. He knows the only way to do that is by actually showing us, not telling us. Giving us a morality tale that punishes the character would have been far easier in every respect, but it wouldn't be truthful, nor would it be as dramatically interesting. There's a point where even Jordan worries that the law will come down hard on him, before coming to the realization that he's rich and the rules are different for him. We'll buy his books and go to the motivational seminars where audiences are entranced with the knowledge he has to share. Chandler's FBI agent has won only a very small battle, if he's won at all. He'll still have to ride the hot subway to work, integrity intact. But it's Belfort who will be remembered. Scorsese was stuck between a rock and a hard place in how strong a stance should be taken. If he condemns Belfort he's accused of being preachy, but if he doesn't then he's somehow glorifying his actions. Despite popular belief, he made the right choice in showing an uncensored account of what happened and leaving the judging to us.  

While baring most of the hallmarks that categorize a modern day Scorsese movie, it's still hard to recognize it is one since it feels edgy enough to have been made by a young, hungry filmmaker with something to prove. I've heard DiCaprio describe the film as being "punk" and it's easy to see how that adjective fits with the action, comedy, breakneck pacing and especially the Robbie Robertson supervised soundtrack, which takes the director's penchant for seamlessly incorporating classic rock and flips it on its head with lesser known covers of famous songs. Truthfully, it's strange to be on the side defending him since I'm usually never as excited about his work as everyone else, often respecting rather than flat-out loving his output. Not this time. I was on board all the way. At this point in his career no one would think any less of him if he just took it easy and cashed some paychecks so it's impossible not to greatly admire what he did here, delivering a work that carries all the urgency and reckless energy of his most respected titles.

By all accounts, the real Jordan Belfort and his associates certainly had fun doing this stuff so the damage needs to be shown, even if the result is as close to an NC-17 as it gets. The drugs. The hookers. The money. The strippers. The drugs. The government didn't punish Belfort so it's unfair to ask the filmmaker to do it. But the larger question might be whether the very act of making this picture is in some way irresponsible or signs off on the behavior. As if he's supposed to be a moral policeman for audiences and critics who can't make decisions for themselves. The film is whatever the viewer brings to it, as the best one usually are. And obviously anyone coming out of this thinking Belfort is some kind of anti-hero is welcome to that. But that's their decision, not Scorsese's. His job was to make a great film. It's ours to live with it.

Hugo

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Jude Law, Christopher Lee
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: PG

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There's this theory that the last two months of each year are reserved exclusively for "adult" movies. Arriving last November, Martin Scorsese's Hugo seemed at least on the surface to be an exception. Based on an acclaimed children's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick and filmed and released in 3D, it felt exactly like the kind of giant family feature that would clean up at the box office, with parents taking their kids in droves to the theater as if it were an early Harry Potter installment. But they didn't. Maybe too sophisticated for children and too kid-friendly for adults, it ended up as a critically acclaimed commercial flop that racked up a healthy number of Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture) and wins. All those wins came in technical categories, which is ironic considering that wasn't even the most impressive aspect of the picture for me. I'm always weary when someone tells me something "has to" be seen in 3D. It actually makes me less interested in seeing it, so in the case of Hugo where my interest level was already minimal, the decision to wait for a home viewing was an especially easy one. My mind won't change on 3D overnight or even with Scorsese's endorsement, but this is still a magical film with or without it.

It's 1930's Paris and a 12-year-old boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives in the walls of the Gare Montparnasse train station with his alcoholic uncle (Ray Winstone) following the death of his father (Jude Law) in a museum fire. When his uncle suddenly disappears Hugo is left on his own to maintain the clocks and continue working on his father's final project: Fixing a broken automaton robot he believes contains a secret message from him. While stealing parts to repair it he's caught by the station's grumpy toy store owner (Ben Kingsley) and attracts the unwanted attention the Station Inspector Gustave (Sacha Baron Cohen), who catches orphans and locks them in cages. His only friend turns out to be the toy store owner's goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) who joins him in unlocking the mystery surrounding the automaton and discovering its strange connection to her godfather's hidden past. It isn't until the full nature of the mystery is revealed that the film really starts to take off as up to that point everything is visually spectacular (deservedly winning Oscars for Robert Richardson's cinematography and Dante Ferretti's art direction), but ordinary from narrative standpoint. That doesn't last long though. 

John Logan's screenplay takes its time for a reason, and since trailers and reviews have been liberal in revealing the secret, so will I. Isabelle's godfather is really legendary A Trip to the Moon filmmaker Georges Melies who's now washed up and embittered, forced into retirement following World War I, with his life's work seemingly lost and legacy long forgotten. Film historian Rene Tabard (Michael Stuhlberg), who's written and lectured on Melies even believes him to be dead. What happens next shouldn't be spoiled other than to say Scorsese merges actual biography and fantasy in a way that needs to be seen to be believed. For about an hour straight this film enters what I like to call "the zone," where you're completely swept away by the story to the point that you forget you're even watching a movie. It's a level of perfection few films reach but Scorsese gets there, at least for the last third of the picture.  The extended middle portion of The Tree of Life played in that area earlier in the year, but there's a flashback section here taking us through film history that's emotionally moving in a way I wasn't completely prepared for going in. It'll probably play best for film buffs but I can't imagine anyone else watching it wouldn't also be affected by how beautifully it's presented.

Having heard about this flashback section beforehand, my biggest worry was Scorsese turning the story into a public service announcement for film preservation (which admittedly wouldn't be the worst cause to force on us anyway) and shoehorning the rest of the movie into that. This doesn't happen, as the biggest relief is how well all the the narrative pieces fit together and tie into the central theme of broken people in need of fixing. It not only extends to Hugo, but Georges' wife and former actress Jeanne (Helen McCrory), as well Sacha Baron Cohen's comical inspector. There's a sub-plot involving him and the station flower girl (Emily Mortimer) that could have seemed completely cornball in another director's hands, but instead comes off as genuinely touching and organic to the story.

For some strange reason a lot of criticism has been leveled against the performance of young Asa Butterfield as the title character and I'm kind of at a loss as to why. He's mainly called upon to look in wide eyed amazement at everything with his expressive eyes and turn on the waterworks when necessary and does that just fine. What's strange is that despite playing the protagonist and being the driving engine behind the narrative, the film doesn't live and die by his performance like you'd figure it would. He's important, but ultimately just a cog in the machine, which is fitting considering the film's central theme. He doesn't give a poor performance at all but if he did or Scorsese picked a less talented child actor, a part of me thinks the picture might not have suffered much at all. It's about Hugo, yet it isn't. Butterfield does good work, but it kind of perfectly blends in, possibly causing an understandable reluctance from many to praise it. Moretz is better but that's completely expected given her experience, and if she looks and even acts a little old for the role (despite being exactly the same age as Butterfield) it's understandable since the Isabelle character seems to be written as slightly older. But this is Ben Kingsley's movie, giving a career-high supporting performance that went surprisingly overlooked during awards season. It isn't off base to claim he's the actor most responsible for the film's success, bringing an uncommon amount of depth and gravity to a bitter man simultaneously running from and toward his past.

Chalk this up as yet another entry in the nostalgia craze that swept through theaters in 2011, joining the likes of The Artist, Super 8, War Horse, Drive, Midnight in Paris and many more. But give this credit for at least depicting a relationship with the past that isn't completely full of the warm and fuzzies, even if does end that way. It only suffers in having a section so powerful that the rest of the film has trouble holding its ground with it. And while it seems we were obligated to honor Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen for just releasing anything, this (unlike 2010's Shutter Island) feels as if it would still be garnering massive praise without the knowledge Scorsese directed it. Yet he's inseparable from it anyway. Given its size and scope Hugo still manages to feels almost embarrassingly intimate and personal. It doesn't at all feel like the work of a filmmaker pushing 70, but one still trying new things and pushing himself in different directions. I may not always agree with those directions but it's impressive he would try something this unexpectedly ambitious when he clearly doesn't need to and could just pump out the same stuff he has been. The nicest surprise accompanying Hugo is that it wasn't listed among the nine Best Picture nominees as a favor to the person who made it, but because it actually deserved to be.

Shutter Island

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo, Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer, Max Von Syndow, Jackie Earle Haley, John Carroll Lynch, Elias Koteas, Patricia Clarkson
Running Time: 137 min.
Rating: R

MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW.

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

If nothing else, Martin Scorsese's much anticipated and long delayed Shutter Island makes a great case for how important it is for a film to finish strong. Unfortunately, that finish was partially spoiled for me beforehand so there's little way of knowing my reaction had I been left completely in the dark. As far as big twists go, this one won't be accused of being terribly original but what's impressive about it is how Scorsese bothers to stick around and explore every facet of it after the reveal. You'd figure an approach like that would result in an anti-climactic fiasco not seen since the psychologist's silly speech at the end of Psycho, but instead, the explanations make the film look better in hindsight and imply that maybe there was more to the story than just a "gotcha" ending. The movie itself almost seems interested in how it arrived there, and as a result, so was I.

Of course, the running joke since the its release early this year was that Scorsese's "slumming it" with a cheesy thriller. He is, but faint praise as this may be, it's no worse than some of the lesser entries in his catalog like Bringing Out the Dead, The Aviator and Gangs of New York and it's definitely a lot more fun. And it's probably the only thing he's directed that's my kind of movie, as even his best films seem to invoke respectful admiration from me and nothing more. So as someone who doesn't hold his work on the gold pedestal everyone else does, my expectations were fully met, even if I'm unsure my reaction would be the same after another viewing.

At its center is an investigation taking place in 1954 that brings Federal marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) to Ashcliffe Hospital, an asylum for the criminally insane located on the mysterious Shutter Island. They're looking into the disappearance of prisoner/patient Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer), a woman institutionalized for drowning her three children, but instead Teddy suspects he's accidentally unearthed a massive conspiracy involving mind control orchestrated by the hospital's chief psychiatrist, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley). As Teddy's tormented by hallucinatory flashbacks of his wife, Dolores (Michelle Williams) who died in a tragic fire a few years earlier, escaping the island with his mind intact soon takes precedence over cracking the Solando case. And it's a good thing it does because the investigation itself isn't interesting aside from the memorably bizarre supporting performances that include Max Von Syndow as a crazed evil doctor, John Carrol Lynch as the Deputy Warden, an unrecognizable Elias Koteas as the man Teddy believes killed his wife and could be locked up in the dangerous "Ward C," and Jackie Earle Haley, who's most impressive of all as the deranged patient harboring important information. Patricia Clarkson (whose pivotal role can't really be discussed) tears it up in a scene at the midway point that re-energizes the story, taking it in an entirely new direction. It's only when Teddy and Chuck attempt to escape the island that everything picks up and its non-stop tension until the finale.

At the risk of possibly giving away too much it is worth examining the nature of this big twist, which bares more than a passing similarity to the one that closed my favorite thriller, 1997's The Game, (fittingly that film's director, David Fincher, was originally attached to this project). It goes without saying this suffers in comparison, as anything would. With nearly identical motivations, this twist calls into question the nature of everything that came before and has you re-think the story's purpose, with the key difference being that The Game was grounded in reality. Whereas that film earned its final catharsis through a carefully constructed series of events, here we have certain things occurring only inside the protagonist's head, others really happening and it's difficult to draw the line between what's real and what isn't. So when the big reveal comes the only thing lacking is genuine emotion because we don't trust it. The script (based on Dennis Lehane's 2003 novel) isn't cheating, but it isn't exactly playing totally fair either. The strength it does share with that film is its willingness to stick around after the reveal to truly explore its ramifications, right up until literally the final line of dialogue.

The exciting and skillful last third of the picture is filled to the rim with disturbing images and it's mostly here where it becomes apparent Scorsese is the director, not some hack trying to make a schlocky potboiler (even if this does still kind of qualify as that). DiCaprio is solid, if unspectacular, until this portion of the film where he has to go all out emotionally and you gain a greater appreciation for what he was going for earlier in the procedural scenes. While I can't say I jumped with anticipation at the prospect of a fourth collaboration between Scorsese and DiCaprio, or they necessarily bring out the absolute best in one another each time out, their partnership is always creatively solid and interesting. No exception here. The dependable Ruffalo delivers as always while Kingsley admirably performs the difficult task of having to explain some pretty insane stuff late in the picture.

I've heard many say the film needs a few viewings to be fully absorbed and appreciated, but I'm conflicted whether it's even that deep. On one hand, I can easily see the film aging well with the twist holding the story up for further interpretation, but it's equally possible this could end up being the kind of routine thriller that exits your mind a week after you've seen it, never to be considered again. I'm still debating which. Anyone claiming Scorsese sold out by making a mainstream genre picture would be just as off base as loyalists claiming it's some kind of overlooked masterpiece because his name hovers above the credits. But when judged exactly for what it is, it's tough to argue that Shutter Island isn't skillfully made and a lot of fun.

Ripping Apart Entertainment Weekly's List of Top 25 Active Directors

A couple of months ago Entertainment Weekly released an absolutely hilarious list of the "Top 25 Active Directors." It wasn't until recently that I had the chance to actually go through it and see just how horrifying it was. In case you haven't heard, EW ceased existing as a relevant publication a couple of years and has recently gone off the deep end in terms of their disposable content, not that it was ever the bastion of journalistic integrity to begin with. It's the kind of magazine you read on the toilet (or maybe flush down it) and has all but become indistinguishable from your US Weekly or OK! Magazine. We should probably just consider ourselves lucky that Michael Bay, McG or Catherine Hardwicke didn't show up on the list.

I'm under no grand delusions that the publication exists for intelligent film commentary and since all lists are completely subjective I approached this one with very low expectations and an open mind. Even still, this has to rank as one of the most laughable movie-related lists I've ever seen. So much so that I had to comment on it. It's just awful, even by their standards. But it's important to look at exactly why.

Their choice of the word "ACTIVE" is curious one, implying that you had to have shown recent results in order to receive consideration for the list. I wholeheartedly agree with that but the problem is that in many cases that was all they looked at and in others they just forgot about it and rewarded certain mainstream filmmakers based on past glory and/or box office receipts. There's more to this than just picking the directors who made the best films since that topic is subjective in itself.

I always thought the fairest way to judge this is by the overall integrity of the filmmakers' body of work--past and present. When you see film, can you tell who's directing it? Do even their bad ones seem to say something important visually and narratively? It shouldn't just be as simple as picking your favorite movies and listing who directed them. The list can be seen here, complete with their somewhat lackluster explanations. Be forewarned though-- it's one of those annoying slide shows. They also ranked the 25 that didn't make the cut, which unsurprisingly included many who should have. Below are my takes on their choices, along with two controversial exclusions I thought were justified.

25. Jon Favreau-This is almost too laughable to talk about and further proof that Iron Man has emerged as one of the most overrated films of the past 5 years. What scares me most about the pick is the possibility that many reading the magazine may actually agree with it. A superhero movie comes along that's slightly above average for a change and everyone's wetting their pants. The further away I move from the movie the less I appreciate about it. Elf? Zathura? Decent films, but please. I suppose I should just be grateful he's in the last spot. By the way, Mickey Rourke looks ridiculous in those photos from Iron Man 2.

24. Pedro Almodóvar- I have not seen a single film this man has directed. Right now you're either you're rolling your eyes in disbelief at how I could have not seen any films from the legendary Spanish director Pedro Almodovar or you're thinking, "Me neither. Never heard of the guy." If it's the latter that's proof that EW just did this as an attempt to add "prestige" to their list and include a foreign filmmaker. I hope not because I've heard nothing but great things about his work. It would be a shame if he was included for the wrong reasons.

23. Paul Greengrass- Having shamefully still not seen any of the Bourne films I'm not the best person to be judging the merits of his inclusion on this list or his placement. But that should hardly matter to EW who I'm sure gave him the spot primarily on the basis of the amount of dough that franchise raked in.

22. Paul Thomas Anderson- Upon seeing the title "Top Active Directors," a couple of images raced through my mind. The first was of Rollergirl. The next was of womanizer Frank Mackey reduced to tears at his dying father's bedside. The last was of Daniel Plainview, drilling into an ocean of oil, his hand emerging from below covered in black. I prefer Fincher slightly for the top spot but it's VERY, VERY close and I wouldn't dare argue with anyone who would rank PTA number one. But they ranked him at... 22? Really? This guy wrangled an Oscar-worthy performance out of Adam Sandler for crying out loud. That has to count for something.

21. Ang Lee- No arguments here, especially in this slot. What I didn't realize until recently was that he hasn't really directed that many films despite being known to American audiences for over a decade now. Regardless, The Ice Storm is one of the '90's greatest and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain proved that accomplishment wasn't a fluke. His Hulk joins Michael Mann's Miami Vice as one of the decade's most intriguing and creatively ambitious commercial failures. It doesn't hurt his standing with me in the slightest.

20. Ron Howard- This is a tough one. As a director he really never doesn't do anything special but he's one of the most consistent on here, with only a few occasional missteps (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, EDtv and from what I've heard the recent Angels & Demons). Sorry, but I loved Willow. When he's on he's really on (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon, Parenthood) but too much of his work falls into the middling mainstream category. Most of the directors on here (even those I don't care for) have at least one film that can be considered an Earth-shattering accomplishment. He doesn't and nothing really sets him apart from the pack and I still say his most impressive achievement will always be as as co-creator/producer/narrator of Arrested Development. Nothing he's done in the film world even comes close and that's a testament to the show, not a swipe at his directorial career. 20 is a fair ranking.

19. Clint Eastwood- This is disgusting and I'm not even a huge fan. If this list meant anything at all, diehard devotees of his work (of which there are plenty) would be up in arms at this lowly ranking of 19. Not only at age 79 does he boast one of the most impressive, expansive filmographies of anyone on here (Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, A Perfect World, In the Line of Fire, Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby) but he exemplifies the word "active" having made two important cinematic contributions in the past year (Gran Torino, Changeling) with another one already in the can. What were they thinking?

18. Danny Boyle- I'll give credit to them for at least showing restraint with this somewhat plausible #18 ranking for him. Looked at from afar his entire filmography is a mixed bag (A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach) with some gems thrown in (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later). For shame, I still haven't seen Sunshine. Slumdog Millionaire is by far his pinnacle, but unlike Nolan with The Dark Knight, Boyle wouldn't have made this list without his 2008 entry. But he did, and EW didn't really overrate him, which was nice.

17. Darren Aronofsky-Despicable ranking. An atrocity he isn't AT LEAST in the top 10. If looking at the names of some of the filmmakers ranked ahead of him doesn't make you throw up in your mouth a little I don't know what will. But what's so scary about my surprisingly adverse reaction to his placement is that like a few other directors on here I've discounted, he's only made three films (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler). That means those three films were more memorable and powerful than many other filmmakers' entire output that's spanned decades. And I don't even LOVE those three movies. But they're distinct and were made by someone with considerably more vision than most on this list. Snubbed by the Academy also, Aronofsky just can't ever seem to catch a break.

16. Zack Snyder- Ha Ha. Obviously, having only directed three films thus far he's done nothing to earn a spot on this list but in his defense I don't think he in any way deserves to be thought of as a hack or mentioned in the same breath as a Michael Bay or a McG, as many have unfairly been doing. His worst film (300) was an emotionally empty, visually dazzling exercise, but even that misfire wasn't exactly forgettable. As Watchmen proved, he obviously has talent and could eventually work his way on to the list, as unlikely as it seems. The editors at EW are idiots for putting him on it now.

15. Sam Raimi- The sell-out of all-time. Awful choice. Probably my least favorite director on here. If he had just retired after the Evil Dead films then maybe they could have made a case for his inclusion. Maybe. But he went on to helm the Spider-Man franchise and ruin the once promising careers of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Recently tried to regain some cred by going horror again with Drag Me to Hell which I have no interest in ever seeing since there's nothing unique about his filmmaking style. Now he's threatening to give us Spider-Man 4. Make it stop. He's ranked at 15 but any number would be too high for me. The anti-Nolan.

14. Judd Apatow- If this were a list of the most influential people in the movie industry today or a list of the most important writers or producers Apatow would be ranked #1 hands down. How he's changed the face of comedy over the past few years can't be undersold and he's one of the few on on here who have real substantial achievements to brag about. But unfortunately, this is a list of the best active DIRECTORS. He's only helmed three films, with his latest, the dramedy epic Funny People just hitting screens now to surprisingly lukewarm notices. Based on his output so far you'd fare better arguing he isn't a great director than he is, with sometimes shaky control over tone and an aversion to the editing room. And even those who think he's a master behind the camera would still have to admit he's a far better writer. But I still understand how they couldn't avoid the temptation to include him. His contributions to comedy so far are immeasurable...just not as a director.

13. Tim Burton- Ask anyone and they'll probably tell you their favorite Burton film is Edward Scissorhands. Good answer, considering he's devoted his entire career to remaking it over and over again (Batman, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd) without stepping out of his comfort zone once. And that's my main problem with him. He's one of a kind but is unable to stretch or trying anything different, or at least hasn't proven yet that he can.

Every film he's made looks exactly the same and plays in exactly the same dark, gothic style featuring a bizarre, misfit protagonist (usually played by the similarly overrated Johnny Depp). The only time he strayed slightly (VERY slightly) from that was with Big Fish. He also has some real junk on his resume, like Sleepy Hollow and that ill-conceived Planet of the Apes remake. Alice in Wonderland just looks like more of the same from him. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

12. David Fincher- You think The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had anything to do with this disrespectful ranking? If so, that's good for a laugh because Fincher's supposedly "weakest" work is leagues better than so-called masterpieces directed by EW's filmmaking legends class here. I'd say Panic Room is his weakest and even that's still better than most of these directors' best. The most talented filmmaker working today and my choice for #1.

11. Guillermo del Toro- Mixed feelings. On one hand it's impossible to argue against the technical prowess of someone who brought us Pan's Labyrinth and the Hellboy films. On the other, that's really all he's brought us so far and while he's been working since the early 90's he's only just hit his stride now. Most everything else is forgettable (Blade 2) or just unimportant (Mimic). Ranked a little high but with a couple of more films under his belt he'll likely earn this spot sooner than later.

10. Joel and Ethan Coen- A no-brainer. Not even EW couldn't screw this up. A perfect example of filmmakers with their own distinctive storytelling style and unlike some other picks on here their best days don't seem to be behind them. Some of their more recent efforts (No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading) beyond being quite great can stand side by side with the classics (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona) without embarrassment. Most importantly, they're always challenging themselves and going in new directions. No personal favorites of mine but credit where credit is due.

9. James Cameron- Um... I thought we said "ACTIVE." Cameron hasn't made a film in over a decade. I'm all for quantity over quality but let's not get carried away here. He doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. And am I the only person not at all looking forward to Avatar?

8. Michael Mann- I really like this pick. It just feels right. "Feels" is actually a great word to use because all of his films have a visually distinct one that only he seems to be able to pull off. I can't name a single one of his films that would rank among my favorites but you have to respect what he brings to the table. Actually could stand to work more but I'll take quality (Heat, Ali, The Insider, Collateral) over quantity any day of the week. Say what you want about Miami Vice (and believe me I have) but it was one of the best SHOT movies of the past 5 years. And it took guts and a lot of artistic ambition for him to do that to his own television series whether you agree with it or not. It's the kind of brave flop other directors on here wish they had the talent to have made. Public Enemies may have hurt his standing in the public's eyes but I haven't seen it yet so can't comment.

7. Quentin Tarantino- He's representative of the kind of choice that makes sense not necessarily because he has the strongest resume on here (far from it), but because even his lesser films contribute something important to the overall body of work. Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and Kill Bill definitely aren't for everyone but no other director on this list could have made them. And this coming from someone who's far from a Tarantino fanboy and thinks he believes his own hype way too often. When you're watching a movie directed by Tarantino YOU JUST KNOW he directed it. The man knows how to tell a story with the camera almost as well as he can with words. That's often overlooked. Great choice.

6. Ridley Scott- I've actually enjoyed most of his films (save for the recent Body of Lies) but nothing he does ever strikes me as truly unique, nor do I feel he has a distinctive voice that greatly differs from other filmmakers, especially in the action genre. An impressive craftsman without a doubt (Alien, Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down are nothing to sneeze at) but worthy of being named one of the top ten working directors today? Probably not. Check out Gladiator if you don't believe me. A strong film, but completely pedestrian.

5. Steven Soderbergh- Interesting selection but I don't agree with it and especially not at #5. After a promising early career he went on autopilot and started turning out safe, unchallenging mainstream fare like Erin Brockovich while occasionally throwing in arty, experimental efforts (Full Frontal, Bubble and the recent The Girlfriend Experience) that yielded mixed results. But what ultimately keeps him off for me are those Ocean's films. Hollywood superficiality at its peak. Takes risks, but not as often as he should. The filmography might be there but the quality isn't. Ranked a bit too high.

4. Christopher Nolan- I don't have a big problem with this. Sure, #4 may seem a little high but that's only because the rest of the rankings are so screwed up. And as a "of the moment" pick it has a lot more credibility than, say, Danny Boyle. His previous work (Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins and The Prestige), while not perfect, support the kind of singular vision that deserves top notch placement on a list like this. That vision was realized in The Dark Knight, making those aforementioned films look even better in hindsight.

3. Martin Scorsese- While not one of my personal favorites, even I can recognize when I don't have a leg to stand on in an argument. I have no case here that he's overranked. One of the all-time greats whose recent work (i.e. The Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed) can stand its ground.

2. Peter Jackson- I shouldn't even be commenting on this since I haven't seen any of The Lord of the Rings films, but what else has he done that warrants a spot this high? You raked in a lot of cash-congrats. Just based on his placement it seems like another crowd pleasing, monetarily motivated pick from EW.

1. Steven Spielberg- I knew they'd do this and I take issue with it not because I dislike Spielberg or his films (how can anyone?) but because the reasoning behind the selection is so dubious when you consider his underwhelming output this past decade. Two words: CRYSTAL SKULL. He needs to get back on the map quickly if he wants to re-claim his throne. And it's a good thing we're judging his work as a director not a producer (Eagle Eye, the Transformers films) or he'd deserve to fall off the list completely. The word "active" does him no favors in evaluating the merits of his #1 ranking. That said, I can't argue he doesn't at least still deserve be in the top 5 or 10.

Didn't Make it and I'm Glad
Spike Lee- The most overrated filmmaker alive. I'm sure many were up in arms when they didn't see his name, feeling this exclusion symbolizes the list's inaccuracy, but I felt like clapping. His films range from preposterously overrated (Do The Right Thing, Inside Man, and just about everything else) to flat-out awful (the recent Miracle at St. Anna). But at least there's one other person as thrilled as I am that he didn't make the list: Spike Lee. Now he has a new excuse to cry racism and blame Clint Eastwood for all his problems. The fact is his films just aren't that great. Yes, of course he's a lot better than some of the choices up there, but just because they didn't deserve to make it doesn't mean he should.

Woody Allen- As much as it pains me to say it, you'd have to go back to the 70's or early '80's to make a strong argument he deserves a place alongside the best active directors, if only because he's been so wildly inconsistent since then. Unlike Lee however, I'm actually a fan of his work and find even his lesser efforts to at least be interesting. It seems we just keep waiting and waiting for the next truly great Woody Allen picture to come along and it never does. It's getting frustrating. For every movie that flirts with greatness (Match Point) there are a dozen others that don't (The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Celebrity, Scoop, the list goes on and on). The output is just too uneven to warrant inclusion. A good call by EW.

Should Have Made It (these names jump out at me as outrageous omissions but there are probably more)
Wes Anderson
David Lynch
David Cronenberg
Richard Kelly
Lars Von Trier
Sam Mendes
David Gordon Green
Oliver Stone
Spike Jonze
Gus Van Sant

The Oscars: Was It me or...

Was it me or....

After seeing the pre-show did you think that Richard Roeper should probably just stick to film criticism?

Should a telestrater only ever be used in a football game, and most definitely not to describe what someone's wearing?

Were you ready to shoot yourself if one more interviewer asked: "Who are you wearing?"

Were you happy that for over three hours you (hopefully) wouldn't get to hear anything about Anna Nicole Smith?

Wasn't that Eroll Morris skit to open the show painfully boring?

And unfunny?

And overlong?

Weren't you relieved they changed up the format this year so all the crappy awards would be given out first?

Was that relief extinguished when you realized you'd have to sit through all of them in one shot and it actually worsened the pacing of the show?

Was that Jack Black/Will Ferrell skit a contender for the funniest in Oscar show history?

Weren't their singing voices surprisingly good?

Wasn't it funny when Jack Black said he was going to elbow Leo DiCaprio in the larnyx?

Do you have as tough a time as I do believing anyone could find Helen Mirren "hot?"

Was I regretting not going with my gut instinct and changing my pick to Alan Arkin for Best Supporting Actor?

Weren't you happy Eddie Murphy didn't win?

Did you kind of wish he had after hearing Alan Arkin's "speech?"

Did you catch Abigail Breslin yawning during it?

Were you wondering, just on the basis of that thirty second clip, if maybe Djimon Hounsou should have won for Blood Diamond?

Weren't they stupid having no place for the winners to put their Oscars while they gave their speech?

Shouldn't they at least have had someone hold it for them?

Wasn't Meryl Streep great when she played along with that joke?

Didn't you feel bad for Jaden Smith screwing up his lines?

Then feel good when he recovered pretty well?

Was "losing" the Presidential election the best thing to ever happen in Al Gore's life?

Should President Bush make a movie, then he'll become popular? (okay, maybe not)

How could you possibly blame Gore for not wanting to run again when things are going this well for him?

Doesn't he have excellent comic timing for a guy who was called "boring" just a couple of years ago?

Isn't it amazing Melissa Etheridge could sensibly work the phrase "An Inconvenient Truth" into a song?

Doesn't she deserve an Oscar just for that?

Isn't it amazing Dreamgirls (A musical! With 3 nominations!) couldn't win Best Original Song?

Does that confirm just how popular Al Gore is right now?

Wasn't Jennifer Hudson's speech really classy?

Didn't you expect her to thank Simon Cowell?

Can that girl sing or what?

Aren't you curious to see what happens (or doesn't happen) with her career now?

Was everyone (myself included) cursing and ripping up their prediction ballots when Pan's Labyrinth lost Best Foreign Film?

Is it pretty sad when the only award I got right was the Honorary Oscar?

Isn't it pretty cool though that there were that many surprises?

Didn't Ellen Degeneres seem really comfortable and relaxed even when some of her jokes missed?

Wasn't it funny when Scorsese told Ellen her screenplay even has the word "Screenplay" on it?

Doesn't she deserve to come back as host?

Isn't Tom Cruise a really articulate presenter who seemed like he was genuinely happy for Sherry Lansing and was honored to be there?

Doesn't that make some of his other off-screen behavior that much more dissapointing?

Didn't Kirsten Dunst look terrible?

And really, really pale?

Didn't Reese Witherspoon look incredible?

Is Ryan Phillipe a complete idiot?

Weren't you, like me, glad DiCaprio was nominated for Blood Diamond instead of The Departed because it meant you got to see a Jennifer Connelly clip?

Were you thinking the way things were going that Ryan Gosling would have the title "Oscar winner" in front of his name before the end of the night?

Weren't you happy for Forest Whitaker?

Doesn't it make you want to go back and give his feature directorial debut, First Daughter starring Katie Holmes a second look? (no, me neither)
Were you thinking "who doesn't belong" for reasons other than what they intended when George Lucas was standing there with Spielberg and Coppola?

Wasn't it moronic on so many different levels for Lucas to question why he doesn't have an Oscar?

Didn't those presenters confirm who was going to win?

Didn't that make the Scorsese victory that much more special?

Doesn't he seem like a really great guy?

Is Jack Nicholson's "new look" not quite working?

Did you almost fall out of your seat from shock when The Departed won Best Picture?

Do I look like a fountain of Oscar prediction wisdom for typing this comment in my last blog: "It would be interesting to see The Departed pull an upset but I can't see it happening"

Aren't you glad this whole Oscar thing is finally over with?

Oscar Predictions

Looking forward to the show tonight as I have a feeling there could be some major upsets and the Best Picture race is arguably the toughest to call in years. So here they are along with my thoughts on the major categories:

Best Picture: Babel
The Departed is too violent for the Academy and if Goodfellas didn't win this won't. Little Miss Sunshine is too slight. The Queen is viewed as an excellent t.v. movie. Letters From Iwo Jima was lucky it got a nomination. This leaves Babel, which is exactly the kind of film the voters love to reward so they can pat themselves on the back for recognizing a serious issue film. It's a grand, sweeping epic that takes on social concerns and FEELS like a Best Picture winner. That goes a long way in a race like this. That said, it is really tight this year.

Best Director: Martin Scorsese (The Departed)
Stephen Frears (The Queen) and Paul Greengrass (United 93) stand absolutely no chance. Greengrass far less so. Mixed reaction to Babel will hurt Inarritu in this category. There isn't enough support behind Iwo jima for Clint to pull an upset. Scorsese finally gets his due. Look for a very long standing ovation and lots of emotion.

Best Actor: Forrest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland)
Voters have already forgotten about Will Smith's film and his performance. Gosling's nomination is reward enough, as is O' Toole's. DiCaprio should have been nominated for The Departed so he stands no chance. That leaves Whitaker who's powerful performance should make voters forget he directed First Daughter. One of the few locks of the night.

Best Actress: Helen Mirren (The Queen)
Unfortunately the lead acting categories are very predictable this year, but at least it guarantees everyone two correct in their Oscar pool. Kate Winslet will eventually win an Oscar but the support just isn't there for Little Children, which I hear is unbelievable by the way. Penelope Cruz can go home happy knowing her work was at least recognized. Meryl Streep's performance in The Devil Wears Prada is a supporting one. Judi Dench has the biggest chance to pull off an upset for Notes on a Scandal, but won't. Helen Mirren winning is the surest bet on the entire show as she's one every single critics award.

Best Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls)
I really, really hope I'm wrong. If you asked me the one thing I don't want to see on this Oscar telecast it's Murphy winning. This must be the ten millionth Eddie Murphy "comeback" where he gets our hopes up he'll become a real actor. Instead we all know he'll shove the Oscar in his closet and continue to waste his talent making Norbit 2 and The Nutty Professor 17. With his body of work this past decade how could the Academy possibly endorse him? I don't care how good he was in Dreamgirls. Unlike Murphy, Little Children's Jackie Earle Haley and Little Miss Sunshine's Alan Arkin are real comeback stories. Reward one of them. Please.

Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls)
The Academy loves to recognize fresh blood in this category and it doesn't come any fresher than Hudson, making her acting debut. This should be an exciting acceptance speech if nothing else. Too bad Cate Blanchett won this a couple of years ago or she'd have a chance. Rinko Kukuchi deserves to win for Babel but will split votes with co-star Adriana Barraza. Abigail Breslin proabably won't join Tatum O'Neil as the youngest Oscar winner in history. Keep your eyes peeled for a shocking upset in this category. It's happened before.

The Other Categories:
Best Original Screenplay: Little Miss Sunshine
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Departed
Best Foreign Language Film: Pan's Labyrinth
Best Documentary Feature: An Inconvenient Truth
Best Documentary Short: The Blood of Yingzhou District
Best Animated Feature: Cars
Best Animated Short: The Little Matchgirl
Best Live Action Short: Binta y la gran idea (let's see if I keep up my streak of missing this category like I do every year)
Best Original Score: The Queen
Best Original Song: "Listen" (Dreamgirls)
Best Cinematography: Children of Men
Best Art Direction: Dreamgirls
Best Visual Effects: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Best Film Editing: United 93
Best Sound Editing: Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest
Best Sound Mixing: Dreamgirls
Best Costume Design: Marie Antoinette
Best Makeup: Pan's Labyrinth

The Departed

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Vera Farmiga, Ray Winstone
Running Time: 152 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

There's been a lot of talk lately about where The Departed stands in the pantheon of legendary Martin Scorsese pictures. I never considered myself a huge Scorsese fan so this concerns me very little. His films are always expertly made and technically brilliant, but for some reason have always failed to connect with me on a personal level the way the Kubrick or even Spielberg could. It could be because nearly all of his movies center around organized crime, family, and betrayal that it seems like he's making a different version of the same film every time out.

They're all fantastic, but you can't help but get the feeling you know what to expect when Scorsese is behind the lens. When he tried to stretch a little bit with The Gangs of New York and The Aviator it was met with tepid reception, if not from critics, then from audiences who wanted their old Marty back. They were right but while both films were overlong and tedious, no one could say they weren't interesting.

With The Departed, a remake of the Hong Kong crime thriller Infernal Affairs, they have him back. He's at the top of his game and has made his most exciting, audience friendly picture yet. I can honestly say, of all of Scorsese's films, I had the most fun watching this one, and if I had to, would rank it ahead of many of his others. It also features some of America's best actors giving the performances of their careers. Like most Scorsese films, I can't promise you it'll stay with me forever, but for it's entire two and a half hour running time it had me captivated and on the edge of my seat. That counts for something.

Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Frank Sullivan (Matt Damon) both grew up on the rough streets of Boston with the goal of becoming a police officer. Scorsese shows us, within minutes of the picture, the different paths they take to get there and sets the stage for one of the most fascinating battles between good and evil seen recently in films. Costigan, who has a checkered past and virtually no family left, enrolls in the Boston police academy with the hope of becoming a state trooper while Sullivan joins as a mole to provide inside information to crime boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), who's been a father figure to him since his youth.

Immediately Costigan is tapped for a deadly assignment by Capt. Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Sgt. Dignam (an inexplicably Oscar nominated Mark Wahlberg). He must infiltrate Costello's inner circle and leak information back to the cops so they can finally get something on him. Meanwhile Sullivan, who's quickly becoming the department's golden boy, is feeding police dirt back to Costello. Each are aware of the other's existence but not their identities. Complicating matters further is that both men are also, unbeknownst to one another, in love with the same woman (a psychiatrist played by Vera Farmiga).

A cat and mouse game boils throughout the film as Costigan and Sullivan come closer and closer to discovering who each other is and Costigan is always seconds away from being discovered by Costello as the mole. Every moment he's in the presence of the volatile, unhinged Costello he knows the next breath he takes could very well be his last. The tension this creates is palpable and cuts like a knife through the motion picture. At times it's as unbearable for us as it is for Costigan. Over the course of two hours, every scene, every moment and every action is building toward the inevitable confrontation between Sullivan and Costigan and the possibilty that Costello will discover Costigan's true allegiance. There are twists and turns and if you, like me, haven't seen the Infernal Affairs trilogy this is based on, you're in for some serious surprises. I've never seen a Scorsese film where the stakes were this high and believe me the actors sell all of it with everything they have.

What works best about The Departed is that everything isn't really black and white or simply about good and evil. It cuts deeper than that. Sullivan's a crooked cop feeding information to a mob boss, but he's humanized by the fact that he's really just a product of his environment. In one of the first scenes in the film we flash back to his first encounter with a young Sullivan in a diner. We see a confused little boy being taken in by a guy who really on the surface would seem to a kid to be really cool. He's charismatic, funny and generous. He just happens to kill people. Sullivan shows loyalty to the one man who would give him the time of day. What's so bad about that? It's only as the story progresses that we realize that loyality comes at the expense of his own integrity and self worth as a human being.

Throughout the film Damon has this vacant look on his face and a cold emotionless demeanor that shows us it's not even registering anywhere inside him what he's doing. No matter how bad things get he never panics and remains steadfast in his loyalty to Costello. It's scary. DiCaprio has a tough job here because he really has to give two performances. One as the screw up from the wrong side of the tracks who can't pass his police exam and the other as a terrified undercover cop who must pretend to be brave or he's dead. He has to make us feel his fear and nervousness but make us sure Costello can't. He has to give a performance playing a character who's giving a performance. How hard is that?

For a long time DiCaprio struggled to find roles that properly showcased how strong an actor he is. For a while he was pigeonholed by his youthful appearance and not taken seriously. In recent years he's done a lot to correct that image and could easily qualify as one of the best we have right now. No role has ever fit him better than this as he owns every scene and is the timebomb that makes the story tick. I think as time passes people will better appreciate the work he's done as an actor and he'll be remembered as one of the greats. And to think he's barely over thirty and his best work could be ahead.

Nicholson fans will not be dissapointed with his "should have been nominated" performance as Frank Costello. He manages to be vile, sadistic, giving, funny and dangerous all at once. This isn't just Jack hamming it up like we've been used to. He's playing a tortured soul with real motivations and it's one of his most entertaining performances (which covers a lot of ground). I have no idea why Mark Wahlberg was nominated for Best Supporting Actor over Nicholson. As a tough talking, sarcastic Boston Sergeant he pops in for a few scenes, yells and curses a lot and then leaves. Then he pops in to do it again. He nails the character and does a good job in a small, insignificant role, but it's hardly Oscar worthy. In fact I enjoyed the more subtle work of Martin Sheen as the Captain who becomes a father figure to Costigan and Alec Baldwin as the head of the task force assigned to take down Costello. Vera Farmiga (who I've never seen before this) also turns in solid, interesting work as the love interest.

I understand a lot of people had a problem with the ending of this film. I didn't. Let's just say when your movie is called The Departed there's a pretty good chance a lot of the characters are going to die. Was there one death too many? Perhaps, but I didn't feel it stretched credibility in the least given the course of events and it kept in tone with the gritty, realistic nature of the film. I thought the ending was effective and worked on the levels was intended given the story. Scorsese leaves his comfort zone a little on this film as he trades in the streets of New York for Boston and the change of location is a welcome one (even if it was mostly shot in New York it feels like Boston, which is all that matters).

Like most Scorsese pictures the soundtrack is a character and he always knows just where to sprinkle the song to get the desired impact. Here we're treated to The Rolling Stones (a Scorsese favorite), Van Morrison and Dropkick Murphy's. Even if Scorsese's work may seem repetitive at times it's tough to fault a director for making films about topics he's passionate about, especially when they're done this well. I think even Scorsese's biggest fans would be surprised how consistently entertaining this movie is and how fast it flies by.

The dangerous, heart-pounding game between the two main characters and the visceral energy DiCaprio and Damon infuse in them is where the meat of the film lies, making it one of Scorsese's most psychologically complex works. This is a movie about choices. Both good and bad. The Departed isn't a masterpiece but's it a solid four-star movie worthy of it's Best Picture nomination. It should earn its director a very well deserved and long overdue gold statue on his mantle.