Spectre (2015)

Spectre (2015)

Director: Sam Mendes

Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Belluci, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Ben Whishaw

So here we are, the 24^th Bond film. Let’s recap: this is Daniel Craig’s fourth run as Bond and in my opinion, the best rendition of Bond ever. Skyfall (2012), directed by Sam Mendes, was without a doubt in my mind one of the best Bond films ever and thankfully, Mendes is back behind the directors chair, closing the chapter on Daniel Craig’s run as Bond. The film does feel like its definitely closing a cycle, it connects all the three previous films. It feels like the next Bond film will go in an entirely new direction for the series. So anyhow, how was Spectre? Does it up the ante and maintain the same level of quality established by Skyfall? I’d say that yes, it does. This is after all the same creative team we had in Skyfall  and we are talking about the most expensive of the Bond films, so yeah, it gives us more of what we like about Bond films. This time around Bond goes up against Spectre, a top secret society of powerful individuals who rule the world. They are hell bent on destroying the 007 program so they can establish a network that will know everything about everybody, everywhere, all the time.

For a while now, these Bond films have been trying to destroy everything that has been established in the Bond universe.I mean, the MI-6 headquarters was blown to smithereens and M died on the previous film! We got a new Q, and now for Spectre even the whole 007 program is now in shambles. So it’s clear to me that filmmakers are trying to destroy everything previously established so they can create again.  New actors, new faces, basically, they’ve been hard at work at giving the whole franchise a face lift, and they are doing this systematically, from film to film. These new movies have a continuity to them that’s working like magic. Yet at the same time, even with all the face-lifts the franchise is getting, this is still the same old Bond. We still get an amazing credit sequence that’s used to give us a glimpse at what we’ll be seeing in the film. We still get Bond asking for his Martini, “shaken but not stirred”. He still says his name is “Bond…James Bond”, and Q still gives him his gadgets. He still gets a cool car in every movie, followed by an awesome chase sequence in said car. So yeah, the series is getting a face lift, but the new films still follow the formula closely. It’s a tried and true and the producers don’t want to mess with it.

Story wise the film is very contemporary, it plays with that idea that the powers that be are gathering data, they are studying our behavior, our interests, where we go and what we buy. Basically, the film is addressing the loss of privacy due to the advancement of technology, which serves as a double edged knife. On the one hand technology makes our lives easier, it entertains us, yet at the same time, it opens a door wide open to whoever wants to scrutinize our lives. Sadly, this is the kind of world we are currently living in. Interesting part about that we cannot put a face to whoever is gathering and analyzing all this data. What the film does is give a face and a name to “them”, to “they”. I loved that Bond manages to infiltrate this powerful secret society and even gets to listen to one of these secret meetings in which “they” decide the fate of the world. Interestingly enough these all powerful individuals are heard talking about pharmaceutical companies, deceases and about how they can sell us the cure; which is another common “conspiracy theory”. The idea that pharmaceutical companies are making us sick so we have to pay for their cure. So yeah, Spectre plays with some heavy themes.

My only gripe with this new film is that it’s not original in the sense that the “Big Brother is Watching You” theme has been played to death, most recently in films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), hell, even the idea of eliminating the secret agent program was recently used in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015). Still, Spectre has enough subplots and action to keep you interested all the way through, in fact, it’s the most action packed of the Daniel Craig movies. It opens with this amazing action sequence that takes place in Mexico during the Day of the Dead celebrations. It opens the film with a huge bang! Action wise, you won’t be disappointed. I’m glad about this because I thought the first two Daniel Craig movies Casino Royale (2006) and especially Quantum of Solace (2008) were severely lacking in action scenes. Thankfully Spectre does not disappoint in that department; in fact, the franchise even recovers its sense of humor with this entry, a welcomed element in my book. The previous three films were so serious and solemn, Spectre manages to squeeze in a joke or two which was much appreciated, I always like it when Bond gets cocky and sarcastic. So I'm happy to report that the "fun" element has been brought back to the Bond films with Spectre, albeit in a controlled manner. 

Then there’s the cast which is beyond amazing, this is Daniel Craig at the top of his game. By now he’s got Bond down flat. Christoph Waltz as the main villain is the icing on the cake. I mean, I love it when they put a great actor to play the Bond villain, I mean, how cool was Javier Bardem in Skyfall? Memorable in deed. On Spectre we get the cool and calculating Christoph Waltz as the all seeing, all knowing Blowfeld. Sadly we see very little of Monica Belucci in Spectre, she’s a cinematic goddess that deserved a better role, she seemed wasted. Finally, Spectre is a great Bond film, with good action, beautiful dames, exotic locales and a fantastic cast. Important things happen to Bond on this film, this could be the last time we see Daniel Craig as James Bond film, but considering how much money Spectre will make at the box office, I don’t doubt he’ll be back for “one last film”. Looking forward to seeing Craig again, but if Craig and Mendes don’t return, it will be interesting to see who they give these roles to. Whoever they end up being, they’ve got big shoes to fill! Spectre, like Skyfall, is a solid entry in a franchise that is enjoying some of its best moments.

Rating: 4 out of 5 

         

Skyfall (2012)

Title: Skyfall (2012)

Director: Sam Mendez

Cast: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris

Review:

Through the decades, various directors have taken a stab at directing a Bond film. Usually directors  chosen to direct a Bond film are not what you’d call “popular” or well known directors. Usually they are directors who have made a successful action film at some point and so they are given the opportunity to take Bond for a spin, but it’s not like we’ve seen a Bond film directed by Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson.  Most Bond directors can almost be labeled as anonymous in the industry; they’ve done a successful film or two, but they aren’t house hold names. It seems that with this new cycle of Bond films, producers are attempting to change that; Skyfall was directed by Sam Mendes, the director behind such amazing films as American Beauty (1999), and Revolutionary Road (2008), two films that have nothing to do with action or espionage, yet are extremely well written, acted and directed. He was also the director behind Road to Perdition (2002), a gangster film that was also heavy on the drama. So I think it’s great that for Skyfall we get a director with a solid background on drama, taking that into consideration, what did Mr. Mendes bring to the world of Bond?   

On this Bond film, Bond has to protect ‘M’ from an old foe who wants to exact revenge on her and all of MI-6. Problem is that Bond has taken something of a sabbatical and is simply enjoying the life, hanging out at the beach, getting drunk, partying. He is taking advantage of the fact that the folks at MI-6 think he is dead. But when M’s life is suddenly in peril, Bond decides to step out of the shadow life he’s been living to protect M; considering how out of shape he is in, can Bond still be Bond? Is Bond as indestructible as he’s always been?

One of the elements that I’ve enjoyed the most about the new Bond films is that Bond isn’t the indestructible super spy he’s been in previous films. Unbelievable as it may seem, Bond’s only gotten shot in two of his films and Skyfall is one of them; so we can deduce that Skyfall aims to make Bond a more vulnerable character. On these last three bond films Casino Royale (2006), Quantum of Solace (2008) and now Skyfall, Bond has been portrayed as a hero with an element of mortality to him, he makes mistakes, he gets beaten to a pulp by villains, in fact, on Skyfall he is practically falling apart, no longer able to pass the physical test that MI-6 gives to its operatives. But I like that about this new Bond, it makes him a bit more real and therefore, more interesting. On this one we get a partied out Bond who’s having a hard time readjusting to the secret agent lifestyle.  Daniel Craig does a great rendition of Bond; dare I say that he has proven himself to be one of the best and most credible Bonds ever? Well, yes, I do dare say it, because that’s exactly what he’s become. When I compare Craig’s Bond with the old ones, the old ones feel like cartoon versions of Bond, while this new one feels so much more credible and serious. He doesn’t have that smirk on his face so much, he’s not about the classic one liners. He comes off as a Bond with lots of inner turmoil. 

  

Actually, you will notice that this film makes fun of the way the old movies were, for example, when ‘Q’  gives Bond his new weapons, Bond asks “is that it? A gun and a radio?” and Q answers “What did you expect; pens with lasers shooting out of them? We don’t do that sort of thing anymore” making an obvious statement at how much more realistic these next batch of Bond films will be. To be honest I welcome this more realistic rendition of Bond…for now. Chances are that at some point Bond will revert to that jokey version of himself at some point? Who knows, all I know is that right now, I like this super serious version. Daniel Craig does a fantastic job on this one. The filmmakers behind Skyfall have not only humanized Bond more, they’ve also made this film decidedly less technological. By that I mean, Bond doesn’t have all these unbelievable gadgets like exploding toothpaste or cars that turn invisible. On this there’s less unbelievable gadgets; things are made more difficult for Bond this time around. In fact, the car Bond gets on this one is a Silver 1965 Aston Martin DB5, no doubt it looks stylish and slick, but it’s very retro, not cutting edge. It does shoot missiles out of it though, so we still get that. But in many ways, this stylish yet old car represents Daniel Craig’s Bond, he’s growing old, yet he’s still got it, he can still kick ass. 

And what is Bond without a good villain and a good cast of characters to populate his world? For years now we’ve had the same actress play ‘M’ the motherly brains behind MI-6, I speak of course of the awesome Judi Dench. But it’s time for her to move on, and I found it interesting how they’ve structured a whole Bond film around M’s retirement. It gives the filmmakers a chance to show the mother/son relationship that M and Bond have always had. Bond’s an orphan, so he sees M as his mother and she sees him as her son. The dynamics that stem from that relationship offer us some of the most heartfelt moments on this Bond film, this is something rare in a Bond film; heartfelt moments. But we do get those, because thanks to the involvement of director Sam Mendes, this film has an emphasis on drama and characterization. This Bond film isn’t about saving the world, this is a more personal film, with a villain who has a more personal agenda in mind. It’s a different type of Bond film in that sense. We get a mad man, but his vendetta is personal. Javier Bardem eats up the screen whenever he’s on proving once again that he is one of the best actors of his generation.  I mean, I loved how this film has such an amazing cast, we even get Ralph Fiennes playing the new ‘M’. So expect a Bond film whose emphasis isn’t so much in action, but more in characterization, good performances and a well developed story. It might not be the most action packed of the Bond films, but it’s brilliantly acted, you might find yourself more invested in the characters with this film. But fear not action lovers, the film does have some spectacular action scenes, the opening of the film for example is a good twenty minutes of nonstop action. 

It’s no surprise that Skyfall has turned out to be one of the most successful of all Bond films. It’s a well made film, with an amazing cast. Sam Mendes has made a Bond film that pays its respects to everything that came before it, while shaking things up and establishing a whole slew of new characters for future films.  Sam Mendes also infused this film with a great visual flare, there are lots of colors, beautiful locations and vistas, the images conjured up are simply beautiful. Aesthetically speaking, this is one good looking Bond film. The opening credit sequence with Adele singing her bond song, awesome visuals! That opening montage was one of my favorite things about the film. It’s like we get the elements that make a traditional Bond film (gadgets, bond girls, sex, martinis, cars and bullets) but with enough new stuff to keep us on our toes. Skyfall redefines Bond movies for years to come; it shakes the status quo of things, nothing is the same after this one, for this and many other reasons, it’s a special Bond film, highly recommend checking it out in theaters.

Rating:  5 out of 5

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Title: Clash of the Titans (2010)

Director: Louis Leterrier

Cast: Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Sam Worthington

Written By: Travis Beachman, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi

Review:

Wow, I haven’t been this disappointed with a film in a long time! Normally, when I write a review, I give a bit of a backdrop to the film, but with this movie I’m just going to go right out and say it: this movie was freaking awful! It was such a disappointment on so many levels! Im not a remake hater, I like to give remakes their chance, and Ive actually been one of the ones who has been anxiously awaiting for this movie for a while now. The original Clash of the Titans (1981) was such a classy film. Lush production values, a great sense of adventure, an amazing musical score, and the unforgettable stop motion animated creatures of the legendary Ray Harryhausen. So of course I was pumped to see this film! I even took five of my friends with me to see it, because I thought this remake was going to resemble the original, and maybe improve a thing or two. Sadly, after the film was over I got all the blame for taking them to see this terrible remake. Where did this movie go wrong? Well, they changed some story elements around. I’m going to do a lowdown on the changes they made, just to keep you, my readers informed.

Louise Leterrier the director of this remake. Somebody please, unleash the Kraken upon him!

Thematically speaking, the first film was a love story. It was all about Perseus trying to find a way to kill The Kraken, a gargantuan sea monster that’s supposed to destroy the city of Argos. He wants to destroy this creature because he is in love with the princess that is supposed to be sacrificed to it. At heart, the original Clash of the Titans was two things: First a monster movie and second, a love story. On this new one, the filmmakers decided to make it about revenge. They changed, what was originally a lighthearted adventure story into a story about revenge, about men going against the gods. In this sense I think the movie looses some of the innocent charm that the original had. Why does modern and contemporary have to equal gritty, dark and angry?

Perseus circa 1981, and modern day Perseus

Thematically speaking, it is true that this movie is angrier. I guess that’s to be expected considering the times we are living. Many people are angry at governments, religions and generally, the way things are being done in society. This movie tries to mirror those feelings by having its main character, Perseus reject his rights as the son of Zeus. Zeus and his gods represent governments in power, and how in their lost for money and power they are forgetting about the people and their suffering. Considering how films are mirroring what happens in our world, I understood that the movie wanted to go in that direction. People are not so easily fooled anymore, people know whats going down. Or at least have a decent idea of the incredible amount of injustice that is going on in the world. On this film, humans suddenly reject the gods, destroying their statues and burning their temples. Declaring this era as “the era of man”. I liked that line of dialog when the Queen says “we are the Gods now!” To be honest, this was really the only thing I enjoyed about this remake. Too bad these themes were not backed up by a good film.

The residents of Mount Cheese Ville

And speaking of dark and angry, on this film Perseus is just that. He is angry at the gods for having killed his family. Hades is the god responsible for this, so Perseus wants nothing more then to destroy Hades. Along the way, he will also save the people of Argos and the Princess, but love is no longer what motivates him. It’s anger, its revenge. This goes in contrast with the Perseus from the original, who was simply a guy in love, who accepted the gifts from the gods and did what was right. The new Perseus wants nothing to do with the gods! He is fine with being “just a man”, he wants to stick with humans and their suffering, suddenly turning into a Christ like figure. By the way while watching this movie based on Greek mythology, I was paying attention at just how much Christianity copied elements from Greek mythology and incorporated it into their mythology. It is an interesting game you can play while watching this movie, trust me, you are going to need something to keep you awake, because believe it or not, this movie has its slooow moments. Perseus even rejects this awesome "gift from the gods" that turns into a sword only when he holds it, kind of like that sword He-Man used in the Masters of the Universe. In one scene, Perseus even calls upon the power of Zeus and lightning comes down from the skies and hits the sword! Just like He-Man! Maybe Leterrier is saying he wants to direct that new Masters of the Universe movie that is in the works?

So we’ve replaced love for anger and revenge this time around. Fine, this movie is darker. But was it a good monster movie? This is actually one of the few things that pissed me off about this new Clash of the Titans. Let’s take the Medusa sequence for example. I remember the original sequence in which Perseus and his men are venturing into Medusa’s temple as being a truly eerie and mysterious sequence. It had lots of suspense and atmosphere to it! Medusa was a horrifying monster! She had snakes on her head and scaly skin! She was green! She was for all intents and purposes a monster! And when we finally get to see her, what a movie moment! Not so on this new one. For some reason, they decided to make Medusa a hot chick with snakes on her head. Such a disappointment! Medusa is supposed to be horrifyingly ugly, that’s what her curse was all about, making her horrendous! To top things off, the creature itself was not well achieved. The CGI looks like CGI (never a good thing) and in my opinion, these new Medusa didn’t do a “one up” on the original Ray Harryhausen creature. The original Medusa was better! What a wasted opportunity to do something cool.

Heres another example of a missed opportunity. The director also decided to do a homage to Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts (1963) by including these black winged demons flying around, pestering our heroes. Unfortunately, these little winged demons ended up being another bunch of disappointing CGI creatures. All you see is a blur, you don’t really get a good look at these creatures which is always something bad in a monster movie. In a monster movie, the audience will always want to get a good look at the monsters or else they will feel cheated. And that’s exactly how I felt with these little winged demons. I could hardly take a look at them because they were moving so fast! Cheap and lazy animation? You be the judge! One of the many things that the original Clash of the Titans got right was how it relished that moment when they finally reveal the creatures! Because that’s what we came to see, cool Greek mythology monsters! I got an idea for you Mr. Leterrier, if your going to pay homage to a classic, make sure you do it right!

Another downer: the scenes that take place in Olympus were so cheesy! Zeus and his god buddies got nothing better to do then stand around on top of pedestals, looking at each others shinny armor! Ha! In the original, Mount Olympus had this grand majestic feel to it, not so on this one. Mount Olympus was actually kind of laugh inducing! When you make class a actors like Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes look bad, you know you are in a bad movie. Sam Worthington is not a likable hero on this film, for most of the film; he simply does not look like he wants to be there. He doesn’t infuse life to his Perseus, it’s a very stale and uninspired performance. When you have a hero that audiences cannot identify with, you got a problem.

Our angry, angst ridden hero

The movie did get a thing or two right. The Kraken is freaking gargantuan and gigantic, I liked those scenes with The Kraken emerging from the ocean with those giant tentacles. I just wish his scenes would have been a bit more extensive and that he could have caused a lot more havoc. As it is, he emerges for a couple of minutes to wiggles his tentacles around a bit. He had to be a much bigger menace considering his power and his size. Still, The Kraken was an awesome sight to behold. Another thing this movie did a one up on was The Pegasus. On the original film, Pegasus was a stop motion effect that I was never happy with. Apparently, animating feathers was not an easy task, so the final effect of Pegasus flapping its wings around and flying wasn’t that well achieved in my book. Not so on this new one, Pegasus really does look like a horse that can fly. I was happy with the effect for Pegasus this time around. The Scorpion scenes stand out as one of the highlights of the film, but then inexplicably, the same creatures that attacked the good guys in one scene, end up helping them out in the next. There are a lot of little inconsistencies like that one in the movie, for example, exactly how does Perseus remain so clean cut and shaven? He looks like he just shaved! How does he get his hair cut so perfectly short, while all his fellow adventurers have beards and long hair? Why do the princess and many of the other actresses wear eye liner and lipstick?

And finally, I want to extend a hearty FUCK YOU to WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, for having duped me into believing I was going to see a 3-D movie. Yes, I had read all the complaints about the 3-D, but honestly? I never thought it was going to be this bad! I went in thinking I was going to have fun with a little bit of 3-D, even if it was considered bad. What most reviews are failing to explain is that the film does not have the 3-D effect…EVER! You never feel as if you are watching a 3-D movie at any moment. My friends and I kept taking off the glasses to see if there was any difference. We realized after a while, there wasn’t really that much difference. This was just a low blow from Warner Brothers to the movie watching audiences. It was simply a quick way of making some extra cash. Riding the 3-D craze that is sweeping the nation for all its worth. I felt cheated, I really did! I hope Warner Brothers doesn’t pull this type of sleazy move on its audiences again, after all, if it wasn’t for us, they wouldn’t be here. The least they could do is treat us with respect and give us a decent 3-D movie if that’s what you say I’m going to be watching. I’m surprised nobody has sued Warner Brothers for their shameless faulty advertising. I got an idea: somebody unleash the Kraken upon Warner Brothers! Please!

Rating: 2 ½ out of 5

The Hurt Locker (2009)

Title: The Hurt Locker (2009)

Director: Kathryn Bigelow

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse

The Hurt Locker is the movie with all the Oscar Buzz this year (2010) and if you ask this Film Connoisseur, it actually deserves it. In my opinion, sometimes the Oscars make this big deal about a certain movie, and when you actually get down to seeing it you end up asking yourself if that was in deed the best movie that the American film industry had to offer that year. Some nominations make you think that maybe the people in charge don’t really care much about good cinema. Sometimes it feels like they are just looking for the cutest film that they can market and make money with. Juno and Sunshine Millionaire come to mind. Not that they are bad films. But damn it, did they really deserve all that buzz and attention? This years Oscar nominations have not been announced yet, but if the attention that this film is getting is any indication of what we can expect at the Oscars, then The Hurt Locker is going to be THE movie to win awards next Oscar night. The film has already won many other respected awards across the world. The critics seem to love it and recommend it. So what’s the big deal with The Hurt Locker? Is it really as good a film as it’s being hyped up to be?

The Hurt Locker follows a group of soldiers in Bagdad who belong to a bomb disarming unit. Basically, the story develops right smack in the middle of the invasion of Iraq. United States has forcibly occupied the nation, they have invaded it by force. The people from Iraq are not happy with this so they organize terrorist attacks, by planting bombs in cars and buildings and even in the middle of the street. This is their attempt at somehow thwarting the United States ever growing control over their country. So in comes this small military unit in charge of dismantling these bombs. It’s a tough job but somebody has got to do it. What kind of toll will this war take on the psyche of these young men?

The reasons for all the hoopla are simple; this is a very well directed, acted, edited film. There are a couple of things that make it a special production though. Number one, the film was filmed in Jordan. Bigelow and crew flew themselves to East Asia and shot this film right there, in the eye of the storm as they say. Filming a movie this way, under a difficult political climate is not something new. It was done before in 2004 for a film called Turtles Can Fly from director Bahman Gohbadi; a very touching film that talks about the U.S. invasion of Iraq but from the perspective of the children who live there. Children who earn their money picking up live mines and re-selling them on the black market. It’s a very sad film, I highly recommend it if you enjoyed The Hurt Locker. But just because its been done before doesnt mean that filming The Hurt Locker was any less challenging for Bigelow and crew. Shooting a movie this way is a gargantuan task. To pull off such a good movie under those circumstances makes the film a great achievement in my book.

Kathryn Bigelow is known for making ‘macho’ films, even though she her self is not a macho. She’s a woman, which is really what makes her films stand out. It’s what has always set her apart from other female directors, who tend to focus on less action oriented films. And her films aren’t just action films, they are guy films. Main characters are guys being tough, robbing banks, jumping off airplanes and now, going to war. Bigelow put all her filmmaking experience on to this film. One look at it and you know there’s an experienced director behind the camera, the shots, the angles, the style. The documentary style is of course a great choice because it gives it all a news reel footage feel which we commonly associate with war images. Plus it puts us in on the action. But the handheld isn’t abused on this film. It’s a controlled thing, similar to what we saw in Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (2008) where most of the film was filmed documentary style, but keeping camera movement under control. Loved that about The Hurt Locker.

The thing about The Hurt Locker is that it’s a great war film. It shows us not only the horrors of war, but it also shows us how the soldiers who go to war are affected by it on a personal and psychological level. These guys see death and dismemberment on a day to day basis, for real. These guys are shooting and killing and getting killed for real. Literally, your next breath might be your last. It’s hard to keep a sane mind under those circumstances and I loved how the movie addresses this from various angles. From the angle of the level headed soldier, doing his job, to the crazy loose cannon who’s all about doing things the reckless way. We also get to see things through the eyes of the one soldier who cant take the horrors of war and looses it. This movie is concerned with letting us know how these guys are transformed by the experience of war. They are never the same. I felt echoes of Stallone’s First Blood; where the man turned into a killing machine can no longer survive in a ‘normal society’. War calls him, like a drug. These soldiers are never the same when they come back. They are fractured souls and minds.

Other things I liked about the movie? Loved those moments when they are going to disarm a bomb. Lots of tension on this moments, especially when the people of Iraq are watching from their homes as these crazy American soldiers are disarming bombs in the middle of their streets. Bigelow directs the suspense with great precision. I liked that every now and then through out the film we get great little cameos that make the film better. Like Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes and David Morse. Kathryn Bigelow’s movies have always had a good soundtrack, always rock and rollish, and this one is no exception.

Performance wise, the movie wins as well. Jeremy Renner is getting all the buzz for possible Oscar nomination. He does a cold as stone soldier, living on the brink, with a devil may care attitude about him. Anthony Mackie out does himself as well, as the more level headed soldier, following the rules and the protocols, he hides his emotions, but at one point in the film he completely lets them out and it’s a great moment.

This is an all around excellent movie. Good production from all angles, made all the more special because of the circumstances and localizations in which they chose to shoot the film. One of Bigelow’s best. I hope she will continue making movies, and I hope she wins the Oscar for best director. Let’s face it; the best director award has NEVER been given to a woman! That has to do with the fact that not many women direct films, which is also wrong in my book. But I still find it surprising that only three woman have been nominated for this award, and it surprises me even more that not one of them has won it. I think The Hurt Locker is a film that the academy cannot ignore, and Bigelow’s direction is hard to miss as well. Here’s something interesting to think about: if Bigelow is nominated for best director for The Hurt Locker, and James Cameron gets nominated for best director for Avatar, then these two ex love birds will be fighting for the prestigious award. It will be interesting to see if she gets the nomination, and more interesting to see her beat Cameron to it. I loved Avatar, but between you and me, I’m rooting for Bigelow! After all, she was directing a tough film in the real world, sweating bullets underneath the dessert sun! Putting her life in peril behind the camera in a real location, not safely seating behind a computer monitor.

Rating: 5 out of 5

You go Kathryn, we're all rooting for ya!