A Summer in Winter

So, yeah, this is where I am.

Oh, hi! I didn't see you there!

So, many of you might be wondering just where I've been since expressing my deepest disappointment in David O. Russell's nowhere-near-masterpiece (and never-shoulda-been Oscar contender) this past New Year's. I admit, it was a very steep drop off of the map, after all. Well, the short answer is that I haven't really been seeing many movies lately, and certainly not at the three-or-four-a-week I was pulling off at my peak. Well, that's no excuse, you might be thinking, just get out there and see more! But it's not quite that easy. And that's where the long answer comes in.

As a number of you know, I left my wage-earning retail job back in mid-October, and after a brief time living off of my savings, I started looking for something new to fuel my movie cravings (and you know, basic daily needs). Unfortunately, nothing really panned out, and as a result I recently (somewhat last minute and without telling anyone) jetted off with all my belongings to Florida to stay with my family until I can get back on my feet. I'm happy to report that progress is being made; I'll be (if everything works as it should) attending classes starting this summer, and I'm already taking on odd jobs to save up some currency. I'm even getting my driver's license while I'm down here (in Boston, that was never a necessity), so it's safe to say I'll be a totally transformed individual when I finally get back to my home city and old life. In the meantime, however, that means I won't be seeing nearly as many new movies as I'd prefer, and it will be a while before I can get around to seeing things I've been awaiting for months or even years (sad face). But while I might be renting movies from the library from now on, I thought I'd take this time to catch you up on the few I HAVE seen, in the meantime. If nothing else, these blurbs will give you some insight on some films you may not have gotten around to as of yet. Besides, all the REALLY good stuff isn't expected for a short while anyway.

It's a shame everyone was wetting themselves with joy over American Hustle's undeserved Best Picture nomination, because there were some films on that list that genuinely EARNED their place without the subsequent buzz, and Philomena was one of them. Based on the true story of Philomena Lee (here played by Judi Dench), it followed her and journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) as they journeyed around the world in search of Philomena's son, who had been sold into adoption by Irish nuns while she was their indentured servant in the 1950's.

The film, directed by The Queen's Stephen Frears, generally focuses on the developing relationship between its two protagonists. And on the surface, that might appear to be a problem. After all, they're polar opposites, with Philomena the pious, naive, kindhearted soul, and Sixsmith portrayed as atheistic, overly-intellectual, and cynical. But under threat of cliches and "odd couple" tropes, Philomena manages to overcome these weaknesses, thanks largely to the strength of its leads. Dench is once again a marvel, a commanding presence on screen and largely Philomena's heart. And it's both interesting and rewarding to see Coogan excel in a serious role - after all, he rose to prominence largely as a comedic performer - as he not only plays the straight man in the relationship but also the narrative force behind the movie itself. Both actors go all out, and thanks to wry, witty dialogue their pairing is one of the best on screen in recent years.

Lovely, but I wouldn't want their winter.

But the greatest part of Philomena might be the fact that, despite painting the Catholic church in a fairly unpleasant light, Frears and his cast and crew refuse to pass judgement. Yes, the individual characters do have their say (in somewhat predictable fashion), but the film itself leaves the heartbreaking events depicted within as open to interpretation. Would God allow this kind of injustice to exist? Should the undeniably evil actions of a religious institution be forgiven? Those questions are left up to the individual audience members to decide, and that's amazingly refreshing in a world where supposedly the greatest directors of our age feel the need to constantly jam their messages down our throats (cough, Spielberg, cough). It helps make this film the masterpiece it is, and one that ought to be seen by everyone.

And the winner of the "Reminded me of Legion (and not in a good way) Award" goes to I, Frankenstein, the graphic novel-based, sci-fi epic from Aussie screenwriter-turned-director Stuart Beattie. Starring The Dark Knight's Aaron Eckhart as Frankenstein's monster, the film follows him as he survives to the modern day as an outcast caught in a supernatural war between warrior Angels and Demons. Oh yeah, Frankenstein also borrows heavily from the Underworld franchise, both in tone and - in some cases - casting. Try to keep that in mind.

The sad part is that this movie actually has some elements going for it. The conflict between the Angels and Demons is pretty fun and compelling, and most of the actors (including Eckhart, Bill Nighy, Yvonne Strahovski and Miranda Otto) are actually quite good, thought they're not allowed to stretch past their limited roles and must be content with chewing as much scenery as possible. The special effects are also amazing, each explosion and disintegration beautiful to behold and belonging on the big screen. There are only a few moments where the CGI becomes obvious, and even those are gone quickly and replaced by either real-life actors or more impressive visuals.

No, he's not ugly, but he sure can act!

Unfortunately, there's just too much working against the potential excellence here, thanks mostly to Beattie himself. Yes, the man wrote Collateral, but that's not enough to justify letting him write the screenplay to the first major film that he's also directing. When you're not a proven director, you really shouldn't be spending somebody else's money on your own half-baked ideas. His biggest problem is pacing, the story introducing a massive, truly impressive battle taking place about an hour in, only for subsequent scenes and battles to pale in comparison. Beattie simply blew his wad (and perhaps his budget) too early, and the second half of Frankenstein plays out like a ham-handed Opera of the kinda-Damned. Another, relatively minor complaint is the casting of Jai Courtney, who to this point has not earned the high-profile roles he has enjoyed these past couple of years. So far he just plays a generic tough guy, which wouldn't be bad if he wasn't being given so much to do, as is the case here.

You should really have your landlord take a look at that...

Still, I'd be hesitant to call I, Frankenstein a BAD movie. Despite it's glaring issues, it does have a cheesy, so-bad-it's-good charm about it, and the acting is MOSTLY good enough to carry it, even if the script and director cannot. The only downside is that it's all but out of theaters at this point, and those excellent special effects simply won't cut it anywhere else but the most technically advanced home theaters. So if you still can and don't mind shelling out some money on a "bad" movie, I, Frankenstein isn't as poor a selection as you'd think. If it's nowhere near you however... you can watch something else. Really, anything else.

As the Pythons used to say, "And now for something completely different." I mean, there was no way I WASN'T going to see The Lego Movie. It comes from directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, who also penned the screenplay...you know, since they proved with Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street that they could actually create good movies. It's also another animated flick NOT from the three-headed monster known as PixaDisneWorks, which makes it interesting in that just three years ago ONE of those studios would have snapped this project up. It's another example of more studios getting interested in producing animated products, and while I still expect the "Big Three" to dominate that particular scene, it's nice to see other companies (in this case Village Roadshow) taking a break from their serious dramas, adult thrillers or uncouth comedies to produce genuine family features.

In what is essentially a rip-off of The Matrix or any similar stories, The Lego Movie focuses on a normal Lego guy named Emmett (Chris Pratt), who is recruited by a band of legends known as the "Master Builders" to fulfill a prophecy as "The Chosen One", who would save the world as they knew it from the machinations of the dread Lord Business (Will Ferrell). Yeah, it sounds dumb. And in ways, it IS dumb... in a good way!

Way better than Christopher Nolan's last movie...

That's because Lord and Miller really know how to pace a movie that doesn't just entertain kids, but has a lot that adults can grab onto as well. Between the catchy theme song (which I guarantee will ironically be nominated for a Best Original Song Oscar next year), colorful worlds and kid-friendly characters, you could be forgiven for thinking that this film was a childrens-only affair. But the truth is that for every piece of slapstick and every silly pun, there are nuggets for adults in both the humor and the message the movie is trying to get across. Characters are both fun and excellently-conceived, played tongue firmly-in-cheek by actors like Morgan Freeman, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett (whose Batman steals every scene) and even three characters voiced by Liam Neeson. On top of that, the amazing special effects really make you feel as though you're inside a world made entirely of tiny building blocks. The directors are talented enough to know full well when to go all-out with the effects and go more for a retro, Ed Wood-style effect to remind you the film's origins, and that's a skill that many filmmakers never seem to learn.

See, this is what happens when you don't wear your seat belt!

Sure, the basic plot is completely unoriginal. Yes, it does have some focus issues (I don't expect a Lego brand movie to be anti-consumerism, but their pro-creative stance is a bit muddled when they're clearly advertising their pre-designed kits and not just the Lego bricks themselves). Yeah, the ending is a tad predictable and more than a little on-the-nose (although that aspect of the movie I still thought to be done well). But those are really the only gripes I can find about a movie that has enormous amounts of heart and character and is suitable for both children and inner children of all ages. If you haven't seen this yet... well, it's still in theaters, though it will eventually make a great home media purchase as well. Whichever way you choose (or if you decide to do both), you won't go wrong.

The last movie I'll look at today is the RoboCop reboot, and I think I speak for everyone who has seen it when I say... It's better than I thought it would be.

Naturally, when it was announced that MGM was remaking Paul Verhoeven's 1987 sci-fi classic, there were more than a few dissenting voices. As one who is anti-remakes in general, reimagining a film like this - one that I had just looked at in 2011, and still holds up just fine when you consider the current, bankrupt state of the city of Detroit - seems more than a tad unnecessary. But just because you don't like the idea of something being made doesn't mean that the final product cannot be good, or at least different enough to justify it's own existence. And that's where the English language-debut by Jose Padilha comes in and slowly but surely blows away any of your niggling concerns.

And THIS is why you don't perform double blind tests with everything.

On the surface, the main themes of this new Robocop are the same; near-dead cop (The Killing's Joel Kinnaman) is combined with a machine, fighting crime, only to come face to face with the corruption of the people who created him. The big difference here is scale; Whereas the original was based almost entirely in the futuristic, crime-riddled Detroit (much in the same way Escape from New York reflected a future version of 1981's NYC), this movie has more of a global focus, and that's more a reflection of our time, where global events have a much more immediate an impact on US soil and culture than they did thirty years ago. In that vein, OmniCorp isn't just trying to sell AI-operated policemen, because they've been successfully been using their robots for peacekeeping operations in countries all over the globe. What they're TRYING to do is get a foothold on American soil, where the people are justifiably upset by the idea of logic-driven, black-and-white lawmakers replacing human jobs. So in this case the reason for not going all-robot isn't their obvious defects, but the fact that they're so FREE of defects, that inspires the idea of putting a man inside of a metal suit.

I'd love the smell of napalm in the morning... if I had olfactory senses.

The cast is absolutely brilliant, filled with reliable names such as Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earle Haley, Jennifer Ehle, Michael K. Williams, Abbie Cornish, and even Samuel L. Jackson (as a hilarious Bill O'Reilly-esque TV host), though the standout might be Kinnaman, still relatively unknown outside his native Sweden. He has to essentially play three characters: one, the human, normal cop Alex Murphy, the emotionless, AI-controlled RoboCop, and the MurphyCop combination that gets screwed up on occasion. It helps that the character interactions between Murphy and the others is more fluid; the mystery of his family is never a mystery, as the idea that you could experiment on a near-dead man without the approval of the family is pretty much unheard of in this day and age. And Murphy tries to connect with them, though obstacles (his own embarrassment and pain at his situation, not to mention some unsanctioned personality modification) occasionally get in the way. Despite Kinnaman's talent, the character development for Murphy is unfortunately the weakest aspect of the movie, though it manages to work in some ways (most notably Murphy's interaction with police partner Williams), so this is thankfully an inconsistent issue, and anyway, there's so much great acting across the board that it's easy to forgive.

...Run.

The film has tons else going for it, from the impressive special effects, compelling universe, a cleverly-conveyed message, and a playfulness that is fundamentally (and necessarily) different from the original. Getting past the drastic alterations to the classic costume and the PG-13 rating (both of which I see as both signs of the times and making narrative sense, so can safely ignore) the only thing really lacking is a conversation about crime-ridden Detroit, which seems just as relevant today as it did back in 1987. But considering the larger scale of the story, even that is forgivable, when the focus is more about the differences between the US and the rest of the countries around the world. And for that reason alone, Padilha's new take on the story is 100% justified in its implementation. It's not BETTER or WORSE than the original, but did it ever have to be? I mean, come on people, this is VERHOEVEN we're talking about, not SHAKESPEARE. This RoboCop is all but an original tale, a fun, smart, sci-fi cautionary tale that will hopefully keep this franchise running for a few more decades. The only struggle now is to make better sequels than the original managed to produce. That's all I ask.

Well, I think that's enough for now. I've seen more in the past couple of weeks, but I'll tackle those in my next entry, after I spend some time in the pleasant, 70+ temps we've been enjoying down here. I hope you are all are well, and can't wait to bring you more movie talk in the near future!

... when I'm not in school or saving up money.

Open Letters Monthly: Despicable Me 2

In 2010, Despicable Me came out of nowhere to steal hearts and hearken a new challenger to the dominance of Pixar and DreamWorks over the animation landscape. Three years later the former villain Gru and his cute and cuddly Minions are back, sowing seeds of adventure and fun throughout theaters around the country.

Gru has turned into a model parent caring for his three adopted daughters. But with a new bad guy arriving in town and a plot to take over or destroy the world seeming likely, the Anti-Villain League recruits Gru to get inside this new bad guy's head and beat him to the punch. At first, Gru is simply interested in returning to the spy game, but when the evil El Macho threatens his family by turning his Minions into dark incarnations of themselves, the Single Father of the Year must step up, save the Earth and get the girl before it's too late.

Despicable Me 2 is directed by Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud, and stars Steve Carrel, Kristen Wiig, Benjamin Bratt, Miranda Cosgrove, Russell Brand, Steve Coogan, Dana Gaier and Elsie Fisher.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Strike Twice

We're finally in August, and as most of this past summer has featured one major movie a week with very little in the way of alternative fare, it's nice to finally see more than a few options on the table. This August not only adds more titles I want to see than existed the entirety of the last few months, but some of the films I've been most anticipating this year. One of those films was the second film directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Ruby Sparks. Their eventual follow-up to the surprisingly wonderful 2006 movie Little Miss Sunshine, this was a tale with a talented cast, seemingly proven directors, and a fascinating story.

In the screenplay by Zoe Kazan, Calvin (Paul Dano), a once-successful novelist is suffering from a severe case of writer's block. Ten years after writing an extremely popular work of fiction, he is frustrating his agent and publisher with his inability to get anything down on paper. Regular visits to his therapist are little help, until Calvin  literally discovers the girl of his dreams. Inspired, Calvin creates the life of Ruby Sparks, a 26-year-old with a history of romantic follies and a bubbly personality of which he cannot get enough. Calvin falls in love with Ruby, even as he knows that he cannot practically fall in love with his own creation. Then the most amazing thing happens. After a night of writing, Calvin descends into his kitchen to discover Ruby Sparks, just as he has written her. And she is very much real.

Tell me you wouldn't want to wake up to this just once.

That magical element of Ruby Sparks is what makes the film so interesting, and certainly lays the groundwork for the moral dilemmas and questions of what makes you and I real that fill the script. Upon discovering that whatever he writes about Ruby comes true, Calvin at first makes the correct decision and decides not to write anymore, determining that he loves Ruby just the way she is (Ruby in turn doesn't know she's a fictional creation). But when the "honeymoon" portion of their relationship ends and Calvin finds some of Ruby's personality quirks irksome, he is tempted to write one sentence and "fix" things (as you can tell, it doesn't always work out the way he thinks). Burdened by the fallout of his previous failed relationships, Calvin doesn't want to risk losing the supposed love of his life. In Kazan's story, we get to see both sides to the issue, and how none of the decisions made are done so lightly.

Yes, they play brothers. No, I don't buy it either.

Of course, while these moments abound in the film, so too do many dry spells and dead spots thanks to uninteresting or unnecessary characters and a lack of solid ideas. This wouldn't be a problem if the film exhibited the same sort of natural charm that helped Little Miss Sunshine succeed, but the directors strangely struggle in replicating that effort here. That certainly didn't help, especially as every moment past the film's halfway mark makes Calvin less and less sympathetic a character, and unlike his Sunshine co-stars Steve Carrell or Abigail Breslin, Dano does not seem to have the ability to exude charisma on his own. Better is co-star Kazan, who is a ball of energy that can be redirected anywhere at a moment's notice. All of their co-stars, which includes Antonio Banderas, Annette Bening, Steve Coogan, Elliott Gould and Chris Messina, are good talents, but the script restricts just how much they contribute to the story as a whole.

That's a LOT of foliage...

If there's one word with which I could describe how the film made me feel, the most obvious that comes to mind is "uncomfortable". That's mostly in relation to the romance between Calvin and Ruby, and in a way it's the reason the film's story is as solid as it is. Romance in Hollywood tends to be uncomplicated, clean and without major issues. Romance in Ruby Sparks is complicated, messy and full of unseen dangers. In other words, the relationship between Calvin and Ruby is at times uncomfortable to watch because real relationships can in fact be uncomfortable, and being with your "soul mate" is never as easy as fiction would let you believe. Unfortunately, while Kazan manages to encapsulate the ups and downs of real-life romance, it doesn't make for a particularly lovely experience, unless you happen to thrive on conflict. The reason Hollywood romances starring Channing Tatum or Ryan Gosling are so beloved is that they're pipe dreams. Plenty of people already know how complicated real life can be. That's why Sparks is only playing at about a dozen theaters around the country.

As my compatriot used to call it, a "Hot Mess".

Still, I can't help but like Ruby Sparks, even if it didn't live up to my expectations. Kazan is a breakout star, and does a great job carrying the film, whether it was on the acting or writing sides. This movie is a complex mix of fantasy and reality that, while at times seeming a bit too much, really makes you change your perspective on what makes for a "successful" relationship. It's a quality release, and one I'd recommend seeing, though perhaps a film that would be better explored on the small screen.

A New Year Doth Beckon... But 2010's Films Ain't Done Yet

2010 is coming to a close. In less than two weeks we'll be smack dab in 2011, with a whole new release list of films to watch. January isn't known for it's great film releases; In fact, it would probably be safe to say that Hollywood tends to save its weaker films for this time, since they figure they won't have an impact come next award season. Then again, there's always something to watch, even if the ones I'm truly interested in (The Mechanic, maybe something else) are far outnumbered by ones I'll only see if I have to (Green Hornet, Season of the Witch, The Company Men). At worst, I can always go revisit 2010 for any films I missed (odds of seeing Blue Valentine when it releases on December 31'st are slim) but I'm truly excited to enter the new year with the same goal: to see and review these films for you my readers. So since I'm running out of time in 2010, I decided to quick review a couple of films I didn't see in the theaters this year but kind of wish I had: the comedy The Other Guys and the indie drama Winter's Bone.

 For me, this was an easy choice. I missed the theatrical run of The Other Guys because, while I WANTED to see the film, there kept springing up films that I wanted to see MORE. Some were good, some were bad, but either way this comedy directed by Adam McKay (The man who brought you Anchorman) ran under my radar without comment. Despite being told on multiple occasions that it was a good film, I simply never got around to it. Despite this, I still remembered several jokes from the trailer while watching it, and I STILL enjoyed every moment.

You smell that? Someone had the bean burrito...

The Other Guys stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg as New York City police detectives Gamble and Holtz. After the city's two most decorated and reckless cops (Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson) are killed in the line of duty in tragic and hilariously stupid fashion, Holtz decides that he wants to be the new top cop in town, dragging his partner Gamble, a transfer from police accounting, along for the ride.

Holtz and Gamble don't exac... OOH, spider solitaire!

The film would be for naught if they didn't have the right cast delivering the funny. Ferrell is a blend of conservative nerd with a spot of renegade as Gamble, a man who got into police accounting because it was a safe way to serve his country while somehow being quite successful with the ladies, especially his ultra-hot wife (Eva Mendes). Wahlberg plays Holtz as a cop trying to earn his redemption from an incident earlier in his career that had him accidentally shoot Yankees star Derek Jeter. Holtz learned a number of odd things growing up (ballet, for instance) for the expressed purpose of teasing and bullying the kids who actually studied those things. He's also fierce in his attempts to prove himself, to the point where he goes into almost pointless rages because he doesn't have a suitable outlet for his frustration. Steve Coogan plays one of the film's antagonists, a corporate big-wig whose Ponzi scheme is the focal point of the story, and is being hunted by the film's other antagonist, a security contractor played by Ray Stevenson. Michael Keaton makes a random appearance as Gamble and Holtz's police Captain, who does work on the side at Bed Bath and Beyond. All these actors have great lines and never miss a beat, and the film's humor is much better for having them than it would be otherwise.

Here Coogan attempts to deflect bullets with his teeth, with hilarious consequences

 The great thing about The Other Guys is that you can pretty much take it out and watch it anytime you want. Whether you want to be in a good mood or already are, this film never drops the ball and delivers an entertaining experience with its viewing. Of course, if you could do with less of Marky Mark, Anchorman is probably still the penultimate film for Ferrell and director McKay, and with even better dialogue and a better supporting cast. But The Other Guys gives a rare opportunity to see Wahlberg in a comedic role, and he does so well with it you wish he would do more. Then again, when The Fighter is as good as it is, you can understand why he might stick with more dramatic roles. Either way, The Other Guys is one film you should see if you want to laugh.

From The Other Guys to the other film, Winter's Bone was a film whose existence I had knowledge of before I decided to watch it, but mainly as an icon on my local Redbox machine. I think I remotely remember the film's theatrical release in June only because of the mention of co-star Garret Dillahunt, who I loved on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Then actress Jennifer Lawrence goes and gets a nomination for best actress at this year's Golden Globes, and suddenly Winter's Bone goes from an indie hit and critics' darling to a must-see film with upset potential at the upcoming award shows. I had to see what all the praise was about..

Just realized her film is stuck in a dual review

Winter's Bone stars Lawrence as Ree Dolly, seventeen years old and already thrust into a large amount of responsibility with a sick and mentally disabled mother and two younger siblings to care for in their impoverished Missouri Ozarks shack. Her father, a long-time cooker of crystal meth, had been arrested by the local law but now has disappeared, and had put the house up for his bail. Soon, Ree must find her father and bring him back so that her family will not lose what little home they have left.

Remember, pull this trigger when you see Gianni pop around...

To get to the point, all the praise for Jennifer Lawrence is completely justified. An amazing actress, Lawrence shows amazing range for someone young. Ree practically runs the film by herself, between caring for her two siblings and fearlessly facing her extended family, who may or may not know what happened to her father. In all this Lawrence is truly a fearless performer, mastering the screen and we are unable to take our eyes off her as she undertakes this potentially dangerous journey. When she's not running the show, co-star John Hawkes is equally as compelling as Ree's uncle Teardrop, a drug addict who takes up the reigns at times on the hunt for his brother. He's amazing in the role, and if it wasn't for Lawrence he would probably be the one everybody remembers from this film. It's certainly a huge leap from the last role most people remember him from, that of the Other Lennon in the final season of Lost. I was hoping for more screen time for Dillahunt, as he does a good job but ultimately has a small role as the local sheriff that gets slightly bigger towards the end of the film. And characters played by Lauren Sweetser, Dale Dickey, and Shelley Waggoner do a great job as neighbors with their own motivations to help or hinder the search for Ree's father. Director Debra Granik did a great job putting this cast together, and the Cambridge, MA native also did a good job recruiting locally for talent, as the regular folks who appear in the film are all solid performers. Nobody slacked off in making this film, and that's half the reason that it's as good as it is.

Just in case this film wasn't dark enough, here's a graveyard scene

The film follows themes of family ties, both close and distant. Almost every major character, and many of the minor characters, are related in some way to Ree and her family, which makes their unwillingness to help her more tragic. Other themes include self-sufficiency, the power and speed of gossip, and rural poverty, all of which are well-covered over the course of the film, and the dark themes are enhanced by what seems like an endless overcast, the skies constantly gray and dark. Throughout her journey, Ree is confronted with obstacle after obstacle, each more impassable than the last. Yet it's her strength and determination that lets her overcome these problems en route to her final goal.

An audition for Secretariat fortunately didn't work out

I really liked Winter's Bone, though I wish I could say I loved it. I didn't have any problem with the film, per se. I loved Jennifer Lawrence in the lead and could rarely take my eyes from the screen for the entire film's 100-minute run. I just felt that the film didn't live up to it's Sundance-winning pedigree, and especially that the film left a lot out that might have enhanced the story at parts. Still, it does paint a harrowing picture of everyday life in the Ozarks region, when there's often little chance of opportunity to change your fortunes, when you often are forced not by people but by circumstances to do things you never thought you'd do before. That alone would be enough to recommend this film, but the strong performances put the cap on top, and I definitely recommend this title to anyone with a pulse. It's certainly more important to see this film than the overrated Social Network, and the fact that more people have seen the latter is a terrible shame.

So what's next for The Latest Issue? We'll be busy wrapping up 2010 soon, with The King's Speech, Tron Legacy, True Grit, Somewhere and The Tempest getting reviewed or making their debuts soon, and of course my Worst Films of 2010 compilation. Can't wait to share all those with you soon!