In his latest movie, Knight of Cups, Terrence Malick asks us to join him, for the third time in a row, on a journey through the meandering thoughts of people lost in life, confessing their innermost moral quandaries to the cosmos as they stumble and crawl across god’s green earth and bask in heavenly sunlight. This time, the setting is Los Angeles, photographed in all its concrete, Art-Deco grandeur by trusted Malick collaborator (and Oscar darling) Emmanuel Lubezki. We follow and listen in on the thoughts of fading movie star Rick (Christian Bale) and, occasionally, his famous friends, as Malick lays out another unbearably thin narrative that’s as deviously frustrating as a 500-piece puzzle with 450 pieces missing. The eminently respected auteur clearly has a firm grip on the art of filmmaking—at his best, he’s one of the greats—but with his work becoming increasingly nebulous and less inviting to audiences, it’s come to the point where patience for his vagaries grows dangerously thin.

In an almost wordless onscreen performance (we hear his voice, but mostly in the form of narration), Bale drifts down the streets of L.A., occasionally jumping in thought to memories from Las Vegas, Century City and Santa Monica. Rick is in a perpetual state of punch-drunk spiritual crisis, surrounded by gorgeous women who glom onto his status, wealth and handsome looks until his emotional ineptness becomes too much to bear, at which point they make way for the next batch of girls to grab at his pants.

Rick’s fleeting romantic partners are played by a dizzying crowd of famous faces: Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, Freida Pinto, Isabel Lucas and more can now add a Malick film to their resume. The roles are thin—Blanchett plays his ex-wife, Portman plays a fling—but isn’t every role thin in a Malick movie these days? Antonio Banderas makes an appearance a Hollywood playboy who throws a swanky house party littered with real-life celebrities playing themselves (“Look! It’s Joe Manganiello! Nick Kroll! Danny Strong! Wait…Danny Strong? Huh?”). Banderas takes over narration duties for a bit, spouting twisted, misogynist philosophy. “Women are like flavors,” he says in his sumptuous Spanish accent. “Sometimes you want raspberry, but then you get tired of it and you want strawberry.”

Malick does a good job of laying out the monstrous, indulgent allure of showbiz that pulled Rick in and broke him down into the wandering, pulp of a man he is. He’s become a phony, just like all the other soul-sapped leeches overpopulating the trashy town that bred them (to be clear, Angelenos, I mean Tinseltown, or the idea of it, not L.A.). Similarly swallowed by the city is Rick’s brother (Wes Bently), a non-famous drifter whose short temper is inherited from his and Rick’s late father. The particulars of the family drama (and, in fact, most of the particulars of Ricks life) are left for us to imagine on our own, but the quality of Bale and Bentley’s performances helps to form some semblance of an emotional arc.

Some (this writer included) would consider it a duty of a true movie lover to meet the filmmaker halfway when a film’s concepts or ideas are challenging or obscure. But with Malick’s recent work, it feels like he’s not meeting us halfway. We can only give so much of ourselves over to him before his movies start to feel like tedious chores. What’s so tragic about this is that, on a cinematic level, he’s phenomenal: he and Lubezki’s imagery is sweeping, evocative and immaculately conceived. Some moments—like a ground-level shot of Bale taking a knee on the concrete as an earthquake shakes the buildings and people around him—are so exquisite you could cry. But without a deeper sense of cohesion, these cinematic feats start to feel hollow as they pile on top of each other for two hours straight. As with Malick’s last movie, To The Wonder, Knight of Cups topples over, leaving us to sift through a mess of pretty pictures in a desperate search of some morsel of meaning. Like his characters, maybe it’s time for us to wake the hell up.

2015 is wrapping up and looking back on the year there have been a fair amount of films that have been emotionally provoking, but The Big Short is in many ways at least equal to Mad Max in blood-pressure-raising cogency. The nearness of so recent a catastrophe combined with Adam McKay’s blended fact-driven drama and absurd-because-it’s-true comedy, ensures a righteous resentment. The film moves quickly introducing a lot of people and breaking the fourth wall often to explain terminology and provide a high level of self-awareness as characters explain when the film is being truthful and when it’s taking liberties for the sake of moviemaking. This candid storytelling builds a level of trust that feels akin to watching a documentary. The roller coaster ride of not being sure when to laugh at the preposterousness and scope of the events unfolding, or when to cry whenever the realization of their truthfulness sinks in, by far makes for one of the most peerless filmgoing experiences of the year.

Based on Michael Lewis’s bestselling nonfiction book of the same name, the focus of this expose is on the unlikely people who not only predicted the collapse (or bursting, if you will) of the credit and housing bubble that led to the crisis of 2008 and contributed greatly to the longest recession in U.S. history, but who also profited greatly when it happened. There’s the awkward Asperger’s-savant hedge fund investor, Dr. Michael Burry played by Christian Bale, who crunches the numbers and predicts the future, pretty much to the month the collapse will happen. He starts investing his clients’ money, betting against the banks, who happily take it thinking such a thing could never happen. His clients are understandably unhappy with the risk.

Word spreads of his crazy actions and soon Wall Street banker Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling doing what he does best, faking a New York accent and being as shmarmy as can be) catches wind and wants in on the potentially huge earnings involved, he manages to enlist outspoken hedge fund manager Mark Baum (Steve Carell) and his team. Baum operates under the umbrella of Morgan Stanley but actively despises the practices of big banks. After doing his research—part of which hilariously involves interviewing strippers on their financial practices in Florida—Baum realizes the truth of the housing bubble and invests. The remaining morally ambiguous underdogs are small timers Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) and Charlie Geller (John Magaro) who started an investment firm out of their garage and are looking to get into the big leagues, without any clout they have to get retired investor Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to do the deals for them. He also agrees out of spite for corporate America and the rest of the film is watching the wool unravel as the banking world parties and denies that anything bad—at least, related to mortgages—could ever happen to them.

It would be easy to focus on the moral ambiguity of the individual men who gained from America’s huge downfall, but the spotlight of The Big Short can’t help but fall on the banks and governmental entities who tried (and in almost every way succeeded) to deny their fraud and negligence. McKay highlights the deceptive nature of the industry even as he pokes fun at it. For instance, the complicated lingo of the banking industry, while possibly useful to those on the inside, is beyond confusing to the layperson, especially when reduced to acronyms. McKay brings in celebrities playing themselves to break down these terms and provide visual explanations. Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez, and a naked Margot Robbie explaining terms like “CDO” and “subprime mortgage rates” is as entertaining as it is informative. That said, a film like this would require multiple viewings to fully grasp the full extent of the economic and fiscal theory playing out and the sheer mathematics that explain all that happened. But this isn’t a documentary, and it’s not meant to be viewed as such.

McKay seems to respect that viewers know how this story ends and that as wrapped up as we get in the characters’ schemes to make it rich off of the evil banks, rooting for them is, in fact, rooting for the failure, financial ruin and catastrophic misfortune of the American people. Any criticism of the film would have to be that very little time is spent focusing on what that misfortune looked like for people. Only one shot depicts a family, met earlier in the film, now homeless and living out of a van. But this seems a smart move as the point isn’t to focus on the sadness invoked by such imagery, but instead to hang on to the infuriation that bubbles up as the full extent of awareness and collusion of the banks and the government is revealed. It’s an unprecedented circumstance in American history and the film spells out just how few consequences there were for those responsible.

The star power of the film is overwhelming, even with Pitt providing the least amount of screen time. Carell is the most impressive, proving once again he has depths barely yet tapped. He brings to Baum all the social disregard of The Office’s Michael Scott with the intensity of Foxcatcher’s John du Pont and adding a moral anger that ties it all together amazingly. Christian Bale—never one to go halfway on any character—combines aloofness with the burden of genius to make his detached character perhaps the most sympathy-inspiring. But the real star is by far the director, who almost retroactively makes his comedies like Talladega Nights and Step Brothers seem even more astute now that we’ve been given such a clear example of how deftly he can comically reflect on true-life drama.

It’s easy to dismiss the complicated mess of the housing crises and collapse, shaking our heads at the math and economic intricacy, and McKay seems to know that his film isn’t going to incite retroactive punishment or propel a revolution. The significance of a film like The Big Short isn’t just a much-needed reminder that we the people should always take the time to understand and reflect on how hardships like this occur, but that comedy is a sharp weapon in shaming those who deserve to be called out.

In a drastic, surprisingly smooth departure from his typical work directing major studio comedies, Adam McKay tackles the dense subject matter of The Big Short, a screen adaptation of Michael Lewis‘ best-selling book about the devastating financial collapse of the mid-aughts. A heavy drama boasting an all-star ensemble (including Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale, Brad Pitt, and more) playing men who watch the world burn to ashes around them from a credit and housing disaster only they saw coming, the film operates in a dark world of complex real estate jargon and impending Wall Street doom. Nevertheless, the film is imbued with a crackling, unpredictable energy a filmmaker with McKay’s comedic and improvisational background naturally brings to the table.

We spoke to McKay in a roundtable interview about the film, which opens this Friday in select cities and expands wide on December 23rd.

As a filmmaker, how hard or easy was it to maintain the balance of making sure your audience understands all of the Wall Street terminology while also being entertaining?
I think what we did with breaking the fourth wall was inspired by Lewis’ book. If you look at his book, he does a lot of footnotes where he says, “You’re still keeping up with what I’m saying. You deserve a gold star.” He kind of talks to the reader a little bit. That inspired us doing that in the movie. I just felt like the movies had to be inclusive. One of the ways the banks get away with ripping us off is by making us feel stupid or bored by financial talk. I wanted to open it up in a fun way because, once you get it, it’s a really energetic, exciting world. I figure if a college dropout who directed Step Brothers can understand it, the rest of the audience can. That was my operating premise. This isn’t that hard—it’s just moving dead money around and giving it weird names.

The balance is a different question. Ultimately I felt like this movie had to be driven by those characters. That’s what drove me through the book—Dr. Michael Burry, Mark Baum, Jared Vennett, the young guys. That’s the meat of this story. They’re us. They’re the people that the rest of the banking world doesn’t respect—they’re obnoxious, they’re weird. There’s also the big question of why they saw [the crisis] when no one else saw it. In the edit room, that was a big thing we looked at, balancing, trying to get the audience to have enough information so that you can go for the ride. But sometimes I’d have to stop the movie and go, “What the fuck is a synthetic CDO?” For the most part, the audiences really love it and feel like it pulls them into the movie more. The only people who have been bitching about it have been super stodgy film formalists.

You come from a theater/improv background where addressing the audience is quite common. Why do you think it’s considered such a radical idea in movies?
There’s definitely a snobbery about it that I’ve noticed. It’s a film school thing. In film school they teach you “show, don’t tell.” They literally do exercises with it. Friends of mine who were in film school talk about how you’d get in trouble if you’d tell and not show. I think it’s become this sort of unspoken rule. But some of my favorite movies of all time involve breaking the fourth wall or using narrators, like 24 Hour Party People. That’s a movie that I love. There’s such an energy to it. American Splendor. Scorsese’s done a bunch—Goodfellas, Casino. You freeze the frame, you talk. That new show, Narcos, does it a lot. I think it’s kind of changing. Early on, there was a power to film in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s where they’re showing. They’re showing a lot. I think now, because there are so many mediums going on, we can blur it a little more. I’m less precious about it. I find it really exciting to [break the fourth wall].

You worked with four A-list actors on this movie. How much direction does each of them require, and are there different techniques you have to use with each of them?
You kind of dial into each actor and what they need. In the case of Bale, he comes to set and he is the character by the time he arrives. But he’s sort of internalized all of the guy’s physical tics and emotional outlook, but we’re trying to find the right pace for it and how much [he] lets out. Do you want to see a full tour de force of what the guy is in every scene? He and I worked a lot on when to use different aspects of the character. We were constantly having a discussion about that. Occasionally, the real Michael Burry’s voice will just get loud for no reason when he’s talking to you, so we talked about when to use that. It’s a constant checking-in with Christian. He’s completely grounded in the guy, but you try to find the right times and places and make sure it feels real.

Carell is very different. Carell almost hunts down the truthful moment like he’s got a pack of dogs. When he doesn’t have it, he gets very pissed at himself. He’s just chasing it and chasing it. When I do comedies with him, it’s not like that, but with this I realized my job was to be like his hunt-master. The two of us would just chase it down. You’re just nudging it and pushing it. When you get there, it’s very cool because he’ll never say “we got it,” but then suddenly, he’s silent. I’ll say “we got it,” and he won’t say anything and we’ll move on. He’s really, really hard on himself in a great way.

Gosling had an odd role in this movie. He’s both inside the movie and outside the movie. He can talk to the camera. So he was closer to a writer-director. The way we’d talk was closer to the way Will Ferrell and I talk. He’s a super collaborative, funny guy. Brad Pitt just came in with this fully formed character. He had the hair, the beard, the look. He knew exactly who this guy is. I was like, “Hey, I want to do this scene in the kitchen.” He was like, “Yup. I want to talk about saving seeds in Monsanto.” Melissa Leo lands, gets off the plane, smokes the scene in fourteen takes, says goodbye, gets on the plane and leaves. It’s like, “Where did that come from?!”

Coming from the world of making really big studio comedies, how easy or difficult was it to pitch yourself to take on a very different project?
You’re one hundred percent right. I’ve tried to make other movies. I tried to make Garth Ennis’ The Boys at one point, and I couldn’t get anyone to make it. That was a case where I went to all the studios in town and I could feel when I was pitching it [them thinking,] “Oh, he’s a comedy guy.” It was a tricky, ambitious project, but it didn’t help that I was a comedy guy in their eyes. In this case, I got very, very lucky. The company that I went to, Plan B, are the coolest people in the world. Really open-minded. The second I pitched my take they were like, “Why didn’t we think of this? This is perfect.” They were one hundred percent behind me from the beginning. And at that point, you have to put up or shut up about the script. When Paramount got the script, they actually liked it. Then we got this incredible cast, so we were good to go. I give all the credit in the world to Plan B for being open enough to talk to me about this. Not only open, but excited to talk about it.

How deeply involved were you with Michael Lewis in translating his book to screen?
Basically, I had lunch with him before we were going to get going. He said to me, “The book was my baby. You take the baby to college now.” He really loved the script. The greatest moment was when he saw our third-to-last screening and just went on and on about it and effusively loved it. Of course, we all reacted like giant geeks!

As a moviegoer, Steve Carell continues to surprise me as his career goes on. He’s always revealing new layers to his gifts. You’ve known him for years—has he always had these dimensions to him or is he really evolving with every project?
I think he’s definitely evolving. He’s got a little bit of Peter Sellers to him in the sense that he’s very meticulous and mathematical in the way he goes about comedy. It’s all very small, precise choices. I always knew he was a very detailed technician. But I don’t think I started thinking, “Oh, wait a minute—he can play these other ranges!” until Little Miss Sunshine. He was pretty frickin’ good in that, but then I thought, “Alright, he’s a good actor, but I’ve always known he was a good actor.” But then he did The Way Way Back. That was the first time I thought, holy shit—this guy’s really good. There’s this anger there and all these emotions. And then, of course, Foxcatcher blew me away. That’s how I ended up casting him in this role. I thought, son of a bitch, I think he can do this. He’s got the anger, he can transform enough. I was knocked over by what he does in this [movie].

What’s it like not working with Will Ferrell?
I can say this: Life is twenty percent less enjoyable. He came and visited us for, like, three or four days on set just because he wanted to hang. We had the best time with him. I always miss him. He’s the best! But I think it was good that we did something separate, you know? I actually was talking to him about doing a cameo, and he was like, “McKay, go do one without me!”

Talk about the pressure cooker of working with Paul Rudd on Ant-Man to craft what that movie became.
I gotta tell you—it didn’t feel like a pressure cooker. It felt like I was in heaven. I grew up on Marvel comics. I met with Kevin Feige and I could tell, “This guy gets it.” Sometimes you meet with these executives and it’s like, “They kind of get it…” The bummer of that is when you write something really cool and they don’t get it. It was so much fun knowing that, if we wrote something cool, Feige was going to get excited about it. We just had the best time, man. It was Rudd and I holed up in a room for two straight months, writing giant action sequences. Everyone assumed I was just doing the comedy, but we rewrote huge parts of that movie. [We got to write] the whole Falcon fight at the Avengers [base]. It was so much fun. I told Feige afterwards, “Any time you need me, give me a call. That was a blast.”

With today’s announcement of the 2016 Independent Spirit Award nominations and now a new official trailer Terrence Malick‘s highly-anticipated Knight Of Cups, you’ll have plenty to talk about over Thanksgiving dinner with the family this year (wait, Malick isn’t a frequent topic around your table?). Our first glimpse of the film came in the form of a rather cryptic trailer ahead of its world premiere at the Berlin Film Festival. And surprise, this new trailer doesn’t offer a whole lot of new information (this is a Malick film after all). Though that doesn’t make us any less excited for the film, which features performances from Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Teresa Palmer, and Natalie Portman.

Knight of Cups opens in theaters on March 4, 2016.

The Angulo brothers—Mukunda, Narayana, Krisna, Govinda, Bhagavan and Jagadesh—are aspiring filmmakers with a background all their own: they were raised in seclusion in a tiny apartment, forbidden to step foot into the outside world until they were close to adulthood. They devoted their lives to movies, watching Tarantino flicks, reading film books and making their own movies, accruing a wealth of knowledge that has a certain purity to it, considering the fact that they had such limited influence from the outside.

While running wild on the NYC streets in Reservoir Dogs-inspired attire, they had the good fortune of zipping past filmmaker Crystal Moselle, who found their childlike exuberance fascinating. She chased after them on foot and, a few years later, we now have The Wolfpack, a documentary by Moselle about the boys and their remarkable family story. Doesn’t get more lucky than that. The film premiered at Sundance this past January and has not only garnered a ton of attention, but has also launched what will hopefully be a fruitful filmmaking career for the brothers from the Lower East Side.

The story of how you met the boys is pretty amazing. Maybe it’s because I’m not a filmmaker or documentarian, but I feel like nothing that amazing ever happens to me!
I feel like you just have to be open to it. Strange stories seem to follow me. I’m just interested in the bizarre.

Do you search for bizarre stories?
Not at all. They literally run past me and chase them down.

I feel like most people wouldn’t have chased them down like you did.
I’m always street casting and trying to come up with ideas and interesting characters and stuff. I thought they were mesmerizing. I just instinctually wanted to know what was happening. I’ve always been very curious, ever since I was young.

What was your creative outlet when you were young?
I lived in the hills and I was always going on these crazy adventures, getting lost and getting in trouble. I’d create these fantasy worlds. We had these neighbors. There was this blackberry bush between our houses, and we’d tell them that we were fairies. Then we felt guilty and told the truth, that we were just the kids from next door. [laughs]

You seem to still have that same playfulness.
I don’t think I’ll ever grow up. I can’t. My dad’s 62 and still goes dancing three times a week and doesn’t stop the party.

Sometimes you see people older than us who’ve let go of that playfulness, and they’re less happy for it.
It really helps keep you alive.

I feel like the boys will never let that go.
They have a lot of sequestered energy that needs to be let out.

What’s cool to me about the boys is how talented they are at making movies. I made movies with my friends when I was their age, and our movies sucked. The boys’ minds seem to work differently than most other kids, creatively.
They had a lot of practice. If you think about it, all they did on their free time was watch movies. They’d spend two days writing these scripts, and they’d practice and practice and practice. It was more like performance art. They weren’t filming all of the performances; it was really more about becoming these characters and going into these worlds, these movies. The filming stuff came later. At first, it was about building the world. Filming would interrupt all of that. They went for it, like a play. Their audience was each other. Finishing things is hard, a movie, a short film, a painting, whatever. They did, like, 50 different films.

I feel like their minds work so differently because their upbringing is so unique. It can’t really be duplicated, so there really aren’t any other filmmakers like them. I’m excited to see their stuff.
They just sent me a treatment they’re working on. It’s so cool!

Are you going to be involved with their work at all going forward?
They’re starting a Wolfpack Pictures production company, and I’m helping them.

Do you learn stuff about filmmaking being around them?
Yeah! What was cool is that they read so many books about movies, so they’ll tell you about crazy affairs that happened on set and stuff. They know the backstory about films none of us would ever know. They also study directing books. They know the techniques, and now they’re in the process of finding their own voice.

If I were to grow up in the situation they did, I imagine I’d have been pretty scared of the outside world. The boys are the opposite. They’re fearless and curious about everything.
Throughout this process it’s really been about letting go of fear. They had so much fear, but once they realized the monster wasn’t underneath the bed, they got out there and did it. The first thing Mukunda asked me was, “What do you do for a living?” I said, “I’m a filmmaker.” He said, “We’re interested in getting into the business of filmmaking.” He was very serious about it and straightforward and ready to go. When I first met them in the park, they all had little notepads and they were taking notes. They’re very, very passionate and ready to learn.

It goes back to the idea of finishing things; they motivate me to finish things. I had to finish the film for them. When you’re working on a documentary, not only are the subjects in your hands, but you’re doing it together. No matter what, it’s a sort of collaboration. Mukunda gave me a stack of VHS tapes. He said each of them had ten hours of their childhood on it. I was going through a lot of archival stuff. Govinda would go around shooting B-roll of the neighborhood and stuff. It was an interesting process. The boys are so resourceful and resilient.

What was the biggest challenge of structuring the film?
I worked on this for 4 1/2 years with Enat Sidi, who’s the editor. She’s brilliant, and I learned so much from her. The way she cuts is about working with the motion and finding scenes that speak to you. Once you have the scenes cut together, you just start doing this mix-n-match. It took a while to get to the end. It’s so simple, but there are so many ways you can go. And you have to kill your darlings. The movie’s about the family and what they went through and how they’re dealing with their new lives.

Were you scared to film their father?
At first I was kind of scared. I didn’t film the dad for the first two years. He was there, but when I’d come over, he’d leave. Everything flowed in the right way. I asked him to interview eventually, and he was excited about it. He was very kind to me and thanked me for helping his kids. By the time I came into their story, he had been overthrown. There wasn’t anything to be scared of. I had no idea what was happening in the first year or so.

What do you mean?
I was just interested in the kids because they were cool and fun to hang out with. They have this openness that you don’t really see in New York; everybody has this jaded vibe, like they’re too cool. [laughs] It was cool hanging out with them, but I didn’t know about their history. Slowly, it started unraveling and I’d pick up little clues here and there.

My favorite moment in the movie is when they go to the theater and are so stoked that their money is going to Christian Bale and David O. Russell. It made me emotional because I think most of us take for granted how cool going to a movie is. I loved that they were so excited to support the industry.
Being there was really emotional. This is their obsession, and they’ve never gone to a theater.

The Dark Knight scene with the Joker blows everyone away. The acting is so good!
These kids! These kids! Look at them! [laughs] I love that part. It’s so good.

You mentioned killing your darlings.
There was a great scene that was on Tarantino’s birthday that we had to cut. They celebrate it like it’s a holiday. I’ll find another way to bring that in as a DVD extra or something. But you have to go with the narrative.

Tarantino’s a filmmaker people naturally gravitate to because he’s so beloved by everyone. I like that, even though the boys grew up in this bubble, they still gravitated toward Tarantino, without any outside influence.
I know, right! They saw Pulp Fiction on TV and they were like, “Bring us all his movies!”

What are they like at Q&As?
They’re really funny and open and not nervous, like I usually am. I’m getting better at it, but they’re super cool. Krisna’s like, “You know, I’m more into ’80s rock now.” [laughs]

Are they ladies’ men?
I think they’re getting their mojo. They really liked Chloe, the girl in their movie at the end. The idea for that movie was really brilliant. It came from something deeper and had emotion to it. I thought it was pretty cool.

Shortly after the announcement that Knight of Cups would have its World Premiere in competition at the upcoming Berlin Film Festival, the latest project written and directed by Terrence Malick has followed up with a first-look trailer. Full of strangely framed shots from renowned cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (who last worked with Malick on The Tree of Life, make sure to watch our video essay on the Screen Poetry of Terrence Malick), several of them upside down, the Knights of Cup trailer gives brief glimpses at the infidelity and celebrity status that the film might ultimately be about.

Starring Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett and Natalie Portman, the well-known cast extends well beyond its three leads including names like Brian Dennehy, Antonio Banderas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Isabel Lucas, Teresa Palmer, Imogen Poots, Armin Mueller-Stahl, the voice of Ben Kingsley and others who may or may not survive the final edit. Knight of Cups’ official synopsis is about as cryptic as the trailer:

Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.

Rick’s (Christian Bale) father used to read this story to him as a boy.

The road to the East stretches out before him. Will he set forth?

The Knight of Cups trailer is available online through FilmNation, watch it below:

The story of Moses liberating his people from the oppressive Ramses and leading them out of Egypt to freedom is arguably one of the most famous, familiar stories of all time. It’s been told who-knows-how-many times in every medium there is, with movies being no exception (there have been at least a dozen screen adaptations). What is the purpose, then, of Ridley Scott bringing the burning bush, the plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea back to the big screen in Exodus: Gods and Kings? Does he bring anything new to the table?

Exodus‘ biggest selling point, without question, is the deluge of digital effects you’d naturally expect from a big-budget biblical epic in 2014. Never have the Plagues of Egypt looked so dazzling: millions of frogs hop and tumble over each other in the moonlight; swarms of locusts and flies are nightmarish and gross; rivers of blood look really, really…um, red. Honestly, the visuals are staggering, and the bravura plague scenes are totally convincing (especially the frogs–yuck). But it doesn’t really matter because the rest of the movie, the vessel that ferries all the CGI extravagance, is so hole-y (see what I did there?) that it sinks before the visuals can make a real impression. Scott’s retelling of the classic story simply doesn’t work, and unfortunately for the talented effects teams, it’s the difference between the film being spectacular-looking, and the film being merely expensive-looking.

The problems begin with the film’s most egregious failure, the borderline offensive casting of white people with bad spray tans as Egyptians. (I say borderline because I’ve been so numbed to these kinds of injustices by Hollywood that all I can do now is chuckle as a single tear runs down my cheek.) Christian Bale plays Moses, who was raised as a brother to the petulant, preening Ramses (Joel Edgerton), Egypt’s oppressive Pharaoh. They speak to each other in vaguely British accents because…why the hell not? Ramses’ father is played by John Turturro, and his mother is played by Sigourney Weaver. Sigourney Weaver. Sigourney freaking Weaver. And she speaks with an American accent. Wonderful.

To be fair, the blow is softened because the actors do a solid job with what they’re given here. Bale and Edgerton have a dynamic rapport, volleying chest-puffing machismo and brotherly empathy with equal intensity and fire. Bale’s Moses is, by and large, the same shepherding, wise, long-haired Jew Charlton Heston’s was, though Heston’s brio is replaced by Bale’s signature brooding and weariness. It’s one of Bale’s more rigid performances, and he perhaps shows too much restraint. Scott claims that if he had cast an actor named “Mohammed so-and-so” (his words, not mine) in the lead role, the film would have never been financed. Sad thing is, I believe him. If he was forced to plug white men into the lead roles, Bale and Edgerton were good choices. Still, it doesn’t make the white-centric casting any less wrong.

All that aside, the fundamental issue with the script is that it feels emotionally disengaged. When Moses is exiled by Ramses and finds the love of his life (María Valverde) in a small peasant village, we hardly see the couple interact. They meet and, in a blink, they’re married with child. More screen time between Bale and Valverde would have been welcome (they’re sweet together) but…dammit! We’ve got a sea to part! No time for silly things like love and tenderness! Move along, move along. That’s the thing: every time the film begins to reveal a bit of humanity in its characters, we get ripped away by the plot’s current.

The way Scott portrays Moses’ conversations with God is unique, and one of the more compelling things Exodus has going for it. God is embodied by a mischievous British preteen (Isaac Andrews) who antagonizes Moses with cryptic messages, insults, and nasty snarls. These exchanges are shot in a queasy, fever-dream haze and benefit from Scott’s acuity for existential sci-fi. To portray God as an irritable child is fascinating to me, but it’ll probably ruffle the feathers of folks dedicated to 1-for-1 bible literalness. It’s a bold move, and a good one artistically.

The Red Sea isn’t cleaved in the same way it always has been in every previous Moses movie; here, the water is displaced in a more spherical shape, like God sticks his giant thumb down into the seabed and then removes it, causing the water to rush back to the center. Other than mild deviations from scripture like this, Exodus is mostly concerned with going through the biblical motions and battering us with extravagant set pieces that, while impressive looking, aren’t supported by enough character work to be stirring. Scott probably fancies his film an insightful, radical play on the classic liberation tale, but it winds up feeling pretty unnecessary and trite, though you’ll still be wowed by the light show.

Christian Bale‘s Moses calls down a world of hurt for Joel Edgerton‘s Rhamses in the freshly released trailer for Ridley Scott‘s new biblical epic Exodus: Gods and Kings.With plenty of graphic effect, the plagues have never looked so threatening and we’re treated to previews of hail, blood red rivers, and even the parting of the Red Sea itself.

The trailer focuses on Moses and Rhamses, but we got a glimpse of Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, Rhamses mother, with plenty of Egyptian eyeliner. The film also stars Aaron Paul, Ben Kingsley, John Turturro, and Indira Varma.

We’re excited to see Scott back in his comfortable domain of historical drama, sword-and-sandal being one he’s especially good at. As long as the film stays on the Gladiator end of the spectrum and less of the Kingdom of Heaven side, we anticipate a thoroughly enjoyable and larger than life experience.

The film comes out December 12th of this year.

What started out as one of the most competitive categories of the Oscar race is looking to be the easiest one to predict. The Oscar statue is now Matthew McConaughey’s to lose, but is his performance as Ron Woodroof truly the best performance of the year? I’d say no, as I can name at least 2 other actors in the category who deserve to win over him. Of course, McConaughey is good in Dallas Buyers Club and, as we all know, he lost around 50 pounds to play Woodroof. My problem is that the film works for McConaughey rather than with him. It’s an incredibly transparent actor’s showcase, and considering the material it’s based on it’s a tasteless move to push a true story like this to the background (Ask yourself: Have people even talked about the actual subject matter of this movie, or has it all been dedicated to gabbing about the performances?).

At first the category seemed lined up for Chiwetel Ejiofor to win. He’s brilliant as Solomon Northup in 12 Years A Slave, at times carrying the film on his shoulders. The arc that director Steve McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley portray, as Solomon goes from a free man to accepting his role as a slave, wouldn’t have worked nearly as well if it wasn’t for Ejiofor’s performance. The other truly great performance in the category belongs to Bruce Dern in Nebraska. Dern’s character, Woody, is a man who keeps to himself and never really says much throughout the film. The film starts out looking like Dern would play a one-note character, but as more details about Woody’s life are revealed the layers of Dern’s performance become clearer. Woody is not meant to be likable, but Dern communicates so much through his understated performance that it’s impossible to not sympathize with his character.

For me, my choice for who deserves to win comes down to Ejiofor and Dern. As tough as it is to choose, I’d give Dern a slight edge over Ejiofor as Dern completely elevated Nebraska into a better film than it actually was. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great as Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street. It’s a manic, over the top turn for him that might be his best work yet, but it won’t appeal to Academy voters. I’m sure one year DiCaprio will finally win an Oscar, but it won’t be this year. As for Christian Bale in American Hustle, well, does anyone even remember that movie by now? It had a brief moment in the spotlight, but it feels like it was only there to shake up a pretty cut and dry awards campaign. Then again, I’ll probably be completely wrong here. American Hustle had as much staying power as a gust of wind for me, but a lot of other people love it dearly. Either way, Bale doesn’t have a chance of winning this year.

When it comes to who should have been nominated, well that can be tough. Let’s go through some of the great performances from lead actors this year: Joaquin Phoenix in Her, Ethan Hawke in Before Midnight, Oscar Isaac in Inside Llewyn Davis, Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips, Isaiah Washington in Blue Caprice, Michael B. Jordan in Fruitvale Station, Toni Servillo in The Great Beauty,  Mads Mikkelsen in The Hunt, Miles Teller in The Spectacular Now, Paul Eenhoorn in This is Martin Bonner and Simon Pegg in The World`s End. It’s a huge list (and I haven’t even mentioned additional great performances), but my pick goes to Robert Redford in All is Lost. There’s something truly impressive about the way Redford simultaneously makes himself a blank slate for the audience while giving enough screen presence to still make his character feel distinct. Redford is just the kind of actor who can carry an entire film on his shoulders and make it look like a breeze.

All in all, whoever takes home a statue on Oscar night is among very good company.

Category Predictions

Best Actor Nominees

Christian Bale – American Hustle (review)

Bruce Dern – Nebraska (review)

Leonardo DiCaprio – The Wolf of Wall Street (review)

Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave (review)

Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club (review)

Previous Category Analysis

Best Shorts
Best Supporting Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Foreign Film
Best Documentary
Best Actress

For American Hustle, David O. Russell assembles a cast largely comprised from his previous two crowd pleasing films, Christian Bale and Amy Adams from 2010’s The Fighter, and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from 2012’s Silver Linings Playbook. His cast selection proves to be a winning formula as the most pleasing aspect of the film is the superb acting. Because the film features con artists at work it is easy to anticipate the lies on top of lies procedure, therefore, the love triangle that forms between the three leads becomes the real emphasis of the story. Regardless of being able to predict what will happen before it does, American Hustle is still a ride despite its many shortcomings.

The film begins circa 1978 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City as an overweight man named Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) is seen gluing hair on his head in an attempt disguise himself as the con-artist he truly is. Irving recalls being surrounded by shady schemes all of his life—first one involved breaking store windows as a youngster because his dad owned a glass business. Since then he has dabbled into a wide range of schemes from stealing art pieces to running a dry-cleaning store that does more than just launder clothes. His partner in crime as well as love is the dashing Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), who exudes just as much confidence and wit as Irving, only without the comically bad hairdo.

Just as the duo begins to hit their stride in scams the undercover FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) busts them red-handed. In exchange for prison time Richie offers them a deal if they can setup a sting to catch four high profile targets. Their biggest target is the beloved yet corrupt mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who sometimes does shady things for good reasons. Everything goes to plan until Irving’s wife Rosalyn Rosenfeld (Jennifer Lawrence) threatens to ruin the plot by running her loud mouth.

American Hustle’s breezy pacing makes the runtime feel half as long, but also makes the out of focus structure even more noticeable. The hard part is telling whether or not it was Russell’s intention to make such an inconsistent film. For seemingly no reason the camera will zoom in on a body part or apply a tracking shot when movement is not necessary. Often the music works brilliantly as a companion to what is happening on the screen, but then there is the out of place “Live and Let Die” sing-along that falls completely flat. The film asks whether it is the original painter or the counterfeiter who is the true master, and it is that fine line that the film itself walks on.

Although most people are likely to remember Lawrence’s flashy and loud performance, it is Adams more understated role that is most impressive. Adams convinces the audience to continuously change their minds on what side she is really on—sometimes faithful to Bale’s character and other times overly flirtatious with Cooper. The one thing all characters share in common is neither one of them have many redeeming qualities.

The individual parts that make up American Hustle work well on their own right, but do not fit seamlessly when assembled together. There are times where the comedy works, the characters are engaging, the cinematography is purposeful, and the soundtrack fits; though it is rare that any of them occur at the same time. The final reveal is remarkably simple considering the layering of lies involved within the film. But despite the overall messiness of the arrangement, American Hustle remains watchable thanks to the wonderful acting performances.

American Hustle trailer

When you consider Out of the Furnace is packed with a star-studded cast and a director who demonstrated outstanding talent in his previous film (Crazy Heart), it is disappointing that the biggest surprise of the film is just how underwhelming everything turns out. Much of the film relies on telling the audience how to feel rather than actually making an emotional impression. Scott Cooper’s atmospheric character drama greatly benefits from its cast, but its predictable narrative lacks too much ambition to allow for the characters to truly shine.

Right off the bat Out of the Furnace begins with a deplorable opening scene that lets you know what you are getting yourself into. The drug-dealing villain named Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson) force-feeds a hotdog to his date at a drive-in theater before her screams are heard by others parked around them. One bystander comes to check on her, prompting Harlan to get out of the car and swiftly beat up the innocent man. There is so much commotion caused by all of this that everyone is pauses from watching Clive Barker’s The Midnight Meat Train on the outdoor screen to see what is happening. While the film never reaches the same level of spontaneity or pacing as this scene had, it does at least set a gritty tone from the very start.

The film centers around an off-duty solider Rodney Baze Jr. (Casey Affleck) who has racked up a great deal of gambling debt owed to John Petty (William Dafoe). Rodney’s older brother Russell (Christian Bale) just finished some prison time after a drunk driving accident caused a couple people their lives. Now Russell works at a mill in town and does what he can to help Rodney pay off his debts. Rodney insists on entering underground boxing matches to help with his debts, even though Russell practically begs him to get an actual working job. But Rodney’s stubborn personality prevails and eventually leads him to enlist in a high-stake fight that crosses paths with Harlan and his gang.

Although there are times when the characters express emotions, they are rarely ever felt. For example, it is easy to understand that their father’s passing would be difficult to deal with, yet the film does not do a great job with making the audience actually empathize with its characters. The same can be said about the subplot between Russell and his ex-wife (Zoe Saldana)—save for a brief moment later in the film. The other part of the problem is that the film does not spend enough time with the more stimulating characters such as Affleck and Harrelson, and instead we are forced to spend the most time with the inert Christian Bale.

The best assets of Out of the Furnace by a long shot are the performances from the talented cast members. Despite the script not allowing Bale’s character a lot of depth, he does a good job commanding the lead role when its needed—especially considering what he had to work with. While the fate of Affleck’s character was destined for destruction from the very beginning, he breathes life into the film that desperately needed it. The roles of Forest Whitaker and Salanda were so secondary that they were merely serviceable despite their commendable efforts.

While the beginning scene blindsides you with its unpredictable action, the rest of Out of the Furnace stays on the same level of excitement without any real surprises. Because of this, the second half of the film is only mildly interesting enough to keep watching. The slow and methodical approach works better when there is something to sink your teeth into as a viewer—this offers little more than some atmosphere and good acting. Unfortunately when the film does attempt to spice up its narrative with some minor “twists”, they end up not carrying the significant impact that they should.

Out of the Furnace trailer

Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy comes to a close with The Dark Knight Rises and if anything the series is done being nice. Long gone are the days when little one liners would pat the audience on the back and let them know it’s going to be alright. Gone too is the series’ sense of excitement and adventure. The Dark Knight Rises is instead filled with a flat out serious tone that prevents the series from ending on a high note.

The Dark Knight Rises begins with Gotham in a grand state of peace. Essentially all organized crime led by the Joker in the previous film has been shut down with literally thousands of criminals locked up under The Harvey Dent Law. It’s been nine years since the last events took place. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become secluded to his mansion with no one seeing him for years except for his always faithful butler Alfred (exquisitely played by Michael Caine). Wayne now walks with a cane after years of crime fighting have taken their toll on his body.

We get introduced to a couple of new characters early on, one of them being Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway). Faithful followers of comics and Batman will know her as Catwoman, the slinky sexy antihero of the Caped Crusader universe. I don’t feel guilty giving this tidbit away since virtually everyone knows this and it is revealed very early in the film. Another character we meet is beat officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Levitt probably gives the best performance in the film other than Caine. Blake becomes a trusted ally of Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). One of the few he can trust. Blake eventually gets promoted to the role of Detective after impressing Gordon when he hunts down certain clues that ultimately reveal what’s really happening in Gotham.

Miranda Tate, played by the luscious French vixen Marion Cotillard, is a mysterious billionaire who is trying to work with Wayne Enterprises on a new secret project that could allow Gotham to live in a more energy efficient manner. I had suspicions about her character early on, mainly because she reminded me of a character from the Batman cartoon that aired in the 90’s. However, I’m done talking about her character.

We all know by now that the main villain in Rises is the mask wearing, muscle bound brute known as Bane (Tom Hardy). Nolan’s version of Bane is a far cry from the abomination Joel Schumacher used in his terrible Batman & Robin. In that film he was a doping bumbling idiot of a bodyguard. Here he is cold, calculating and most of all, uncompromising. He is an out and out terrorist. Where he comes from and he thirst for destruction I will not reveal here as it is one of the better pieces of the film.

The opening scene of the film holds a lot of promise. It’s unfortunate that the rest of the film never quite reaches these heights, except for once. The CIA takes a few men in hoods aboard a small plane and flies them over some truly beautiful landscape. But make no mistake. This is no site seeing trip. They want to know the mystery behind Bane. Little do they know that Bane is actually one of the hooded men. All of a sudden a bigger plane is flying above them. Men drop from this second plane hooked to wires and grab onto the smaller plane eventually busting the wings off it and let it dangle like a carrot from a string. Bane makes a grand escape from this plane with a mystery man in tow.

Along with his thirst for pain and his conquest for destruction, Bane is a man made of rock. With his massive shoulders and gigantic biceps, he intimidates anyone who crosses. In most cases he would just grab someone’s head and snap their neck. He is remorseless. Where the Joker’s agenda was to playfully offer ways out of his traps for his victims while he would gleefully chuckle at their inevitable failures, Bane is here to merely destroy any kind of system. Whether it’s that of a city or that of a man’s soul, Bane simply does not care about anything or anyone. He is the meaning of destruction.

After the film’s hair raising opening, the film then settles into a weird rhythm that it unfortunately doesn’t break away from during the film’s remaining runtime. Other than one scene in the middle of the film, Rises is not exciting for a second. Gordon, one of the series’ best characters, is bed ridden for most of the runtime while he has the Levitt character running all over town for him.

The best scene of the entire film is a showdown between Batman and Bane in an underground fortress controlled by Bane and his henchmen. Nolan handles this scene with pure brilliance. Instead of letting the loud and intrusive score (by Nolan faithful Hans Zimmer) and flashy editing intrude on the scene, he lets the scene unfold in silence. Only the sounds of a waterfall ignite the soundtrack as Bane verbally and physically decimate Batman. Shots of Bane’s henchmen as they watch, almost ashamed to follow such a crass leader, are inter-spliced with the action showing how ruthless Bane truly is. The look on their faces as they watch Batman beaten to a pulp is at times hard to watch. Even they can barely watch such reprehensible evil exist.

Unfortunately after the showdown, the film settles back into a state mediocrity. The film trudges on for what feels like forever to a final conflict that feels way too sprawling for the series. I know what we are essentially watching is a comic book/superhero movie, but the final hour seems too illogical to ever really happen. Bane’s ambitions are not unimaginable, just the way he goes about them. Some of these scenes are interesting, but they always require a lot of faith from the viewer. For me it was too much. For the sake of the virgin viewer’s eyes, I will not go into detail.

After everything that happens with these climactic and insanely sensational scenes we are given a closing montage that is a little too ridiculous. One character is revealed to be a crime fighting torch bearer in a stupid wink wink moment and another is given a second life after we are lead to believe of his demise in a stupid gotcha moment. It’s too much and it feels like Nolan, who is a director who almost never comprises, has finally given in to his audience’s demands. I don’t think The Dark Knight Rises is a bad film at all. It’s very well made. All the dollar signs are on the screen and Christopher Nolan is still one of the best and brightest Hollywood directors working today. The film simply does not rise out of its consistent state of complacency. It takes itself too seriously and lacks the straight up excitement of the first two films. A summer blockbuster can be brainy and serious while it hurtles itself through explosions and vibrant action if it wants to, yes. But you still have to have fun while you do it too. Unfortunately, The Dark Knight Rises flies to close to its villain’s coattails to realize this.

The King’s Speech took top honors with Best Picture at the 83rd Academy Awards Sunday night, along with Tom Hooper for Best Director and Colin Firth for Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay for that film. Natalie Portman got a well deserved Best Actress win for her role in Black Swan. Christian Bale received Best Supporting Actor and Melissa Leo won Best Supporting Actress both from the film The Fighter. Inception won most of the “tech” awards as it was predicted to do.

See the full list of nominations

The King’s Speech

Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

Christian Bale, The Fighter

Melissa Leo, The Fighter

David Seidler, The King’s Speech

Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

In A Better World

Toy Story 3

Inception

Alice in Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland

“We Belong Together”, Toy Story 3

The Social Network, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

Inside Job

The Social Network

The Wolfman

Inception

Inception

Inception

Strangers No More

The Lost Thing

God of Love

David O. Russell’s The Fighter is based on a true story about the boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg). Micky involves his entire family around his boxing career; using his half-brother Dicky (Christian Bale) as his trainer, his mother Alice (Melissa Leo) as his manager and his seven sisters act as sort of his cheerleader squad.

The Fighter begins in 1993 in Lowell, Massachusetts as an HBO documentary crew is there to film the older brother Dicky. The crew follows him around the streets and his daily interactions with the locals. Dicky believes the documentary crew is capturing his comeback into boxing as he once had a successful but short career himself. The highlight of his career, and quite possibly his life, is that he knocked out Sugar Ray Leonard. A fact that you will not forget as he will remind you at any chance he gets, although many people speculate that Sugar Ray Leonard tripped.

But the real reason behind the documentary is not to showcase his comeback but instead a look on how a one-time boxing hero is now a cocaine addict and criminal. Because Dicky spends most of his time getting high he is often late to training, still you can tell that he is very passionate about boxing and wants to see his brother succeed.

Up to this point, Micky is just considered a “stepping stone” of a fighter, one favored fighters use for as an easy win to climb the ranks. Although he has the talent to be a greater fighter, his dysfunctional family may be getting in the way. Micky credits everything he knows about boxing to his brother Dicky, whom he greatly idolizes even with his setbacks.

Micky’s new girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) confirms his suspicion of his family hindering his chances to advance his career into something he can be proud of. Micky is obviously torn between his family and his desire to win a championship belt and Charlene is there to guide him along.

The opportunity to train in Vegas is given to Micky under the condition that he leaves his mother and brother behind. Charlene sort of pushes him to accept the offer as it would eventually lead him to a championship fight. Alice was never very accepting of Charlene’s new role in Micky’s life but more so as a mother than a manager. Alice thinks Charlene is trying to control Micky rather than seeing she is actually trying to help.

Still, Alice and Dicky follow them down to Vegas where Micky is ultimately forced to decide between his new crew including his girlfriend Charlene or his family. Micky breaks down and tells his family his is about him and his shot at winning the championship, he wants to decide how things will be ran. Doing so may result in losing his girlfriend, loyalty to his family or not winning the championship. It’s a tough fight for him already and he is not even in the ring yet.

The scene that stood out to me the most was when Dicky watches the documentary made about him, all excited for it only to realize it is about his addiction instead of his career. It not only embarrassed him but acted as a wake-up call for him, a blessing in disguise. Given the opportunity to go back to his old lifestyle when he runs into his old coke addict friends, he declines. That had more of an impact on me than any other part of the film.

Christian Bale might as well be working on this acceptance speech as he is a clear choice for Best Supporting Male at this year’s Oscars. He shows off his amazing talent portraying the cocky, twitchy and passionate ex-boxer now trainer. His dedication for the role is visually shown as he lost a significant amount of weight, repeating what he did before in The Machinist (then he was then forced to put it all back on for his role as Batman). Bale easily steals the film and is what makes it amazing.

It is hard to judge Mark Wahlberg’s performance because he, for the most part, stays out of the way. But he does this on purpose as the story is more focused on his brother Dicky. Micky is not supposed to have a huge personality but instead just be determined to win. Wahlberg was definitely physically built for the role and the fighting scenes looked real.

On the surface, The Fighter is just another boxing film that we have seen before in Raging Bull, Rocky and Million Dollar Baby, but somehow it stays relevant and memorable. The story is enjoyable but the acting is what makes this film so great. It does not get much better than Bale as far acting goes and Wahlberg, Adams and Leo follow his lead with solid performances as well.

Ricky Gervais hosted the 68th Golden Globe Awards this year. Even though The King’s Speech had the most nominations with seven, it was rather unsurprising that The Social Network ended up with the most of the film awards that included; Best Picture, Best Screenplay, Best Director, Best Original Score. I was very happy to see Natalie Portman won Best Actress in Motion Picture Drama, it was very well deserved. Glee had the most awards for TV with three total wins. I was happy to see Jim Parsons win Best Actor in a TV comedy or musical. Not only do I enjoy The Big Bang Theory but it was nice to see someone in a comedy or musical get some respect other than Glee. Here is the full list of winners:

FILM

Best Motion Picture – Drama:
The Social Network

Best Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical:
The Kids Are All Right

Best Director:
David Fincher, The Social Network

Best Actress – Drama:
Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Best Actor – Drama:
Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

Best Actress – Comedy or Musical:
Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Best Actor – Comedy or Musical:
Paul Giamatti, Barney’s Version

Best Supporting Actress:
Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Best Supporting Actor:
Christian Bale, The Fighter

Best Foreign Language Film:
In A Better World

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture:
Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Best Original Score – Motion Picture:
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, The Social Network

Best Animated Feature Film:
Toy Story 3

Best Original Song – Motion Picture:
“You Haven’t Seen The Last Of Me”, Burlesque

Cecil B. DeMille Award:
Robert De Niro

TV

Best Drama Series:
Boardwalk Empire

Best Comedy Or Musical:
Glee

Best TV Movie/Miniseries:
Carlos

Best Actress – Drama:
Katey Sagal, Sons of Anarchy

Best Actor – Drama:
Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Best Actress – Comedy or Musical:
Laura Linney, The Big C

Best Actor – Comedy or Musical:
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Best Actress – TV Movie/Miniseries:
Claire Danes, Temple Grandin

Best Actor – TV Movie/Miniseries:
Al Pacino, You Don’t Know Jack

Best Supporting Actress – TV Series:
Jane Lynch, Glee

Best Supporting Actor – TV Series:
Chris Colfer, Glee

You know it’s a good movie when you have such high expectations for it and after seeing it, it surpasses what you expected. In fact, it made me want to go see it again in the theater, something I never do. Thanks to the brilliant director, Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight is easily one of the best superhero movies of all time.

This relatively long movie (2hr 30mins) flys by so quickly due to the non-stop action and fast scenes. You don’t get a chance to breathe. It’s the highest rated movie currently on IMdb’s website (granted it’s only been out for a week). This movie follows the previous Batman movie Christopher Nolan directed, Batman Begins, in that it is not your typical superhero movie. It is much more realistic and believable. Much as the title subtly states, this movie has a dark mood to it. It’s chaotic and mesmerizing.

I’ll say it now, I will be completely surprised if Heath Ledger doesn’t win an Oscar for his role. The Joker is played absolutely perfect. You honestly get the feeling that the character is an unbalanced maniac. Christian Bale was solid as well. Some parts had me wondering how it kept it’s PG13 rating. The storyline is incredibly fluid and logical. My only real compliant about the movie is a small one. There are some scenes where Batman’s voice sounds like an incomprehensible gurgled mess. It’s a small flaw that thankfully doesn’t appear frequent.

I haven’t seen a better movie more recently than The Dark Knight since There Will Be Blood. Although it’s a completely different kind of movie, it falls just short of a masterpiece for this genre. Highly recommended.