That’s right folks, it’s that time of the year when Lekha and Danish furiously research IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes to bring to you our Annual Top Ten Movie List!

2012 was a very busy year for me and I did not watch all the movies I wanted to. It was also a pretty unremarkable year in film. All the big, well-advertised films did as expected, but there were such few films where you went in not knowing what to expect and came out as a different person. Still, there were plenty that thrilled. We’ve linked to the reviews that we wrote so you can read them again:

DANISH:

1. Cloud Altas: The best book adaptation of all time, and quite possibly one of my new all time favourites, there are so many reasons to love this movie. It is ambitious on a level that few films today are – whether it be in the manner in which it plays with narrative, toys with language,  or attempts to cast the same actors across six roles in six timelines and then somehow forge a connection between them. Most daring of all though, is the way it keeps its uncynical heart on its sleeve, culminating in a climax that is almost unbearingly moving. Once again, Cloud Altas is what I go to the movies for.

2. Kahaani: Satisfying in a way that few mystery thrillers are any more. A great, labyrinthine plot is aided by a constantly menacing sense of atmosphere and that fierce central performance by Vidya Balan. Throw in one of the great all-time Bollywood villains and that fantastic plot twist, and Kahaani rockets its way to cinematic greatness.

3. Damsels in Distress: If the first two movies on this list can list narrative strength as their USP, Damsels in Distress coasts by with barely a plot at all. A new girl is befriended by three strong willed women at a college. Their project: save people, and volunteer at the suicide prevention centre. Their chosen method: tap dancing, and at some point, inventing a new international dance craze. From this premise, the film just sort of coasts. But it coasts with dialogue worthy of early Woody Allen, a cast that is utterly charming and a sense of such joyous quirk that I couldn’t help but grin through all of it. A trifle, but a great one.

4.  Eega: When I first saw the trailer, I knew I had to watch this movie, simply for how ridiculous the premise looked. I mean come on, guy loves girl, gets killed by another guy, is reincarnated as a fly, and exacts revenge. Also, the film was in Telegu, without subtitles, but who needed plot when all we were going to do was laugh at its inanity? Instead, turns out that Eega was one of the most inventive, witty and thrilling movies of the year, one that somehow managed to make an endearing, expressive character out of a computer generated fly and gave us a satisfyingly bloody revenge saga.

5. Chronicle: If you thought the found footage genre was done to death – and I know I did – along came this movie about three teenagers gaining telekinetic abilities that blew me away. What elevates the thrilling script is the manner in which the direction actually elevates the visual effects – as a critic noted, this movie somehow made special effects feel special again. The best example of this is a mid film sequence where a plane whizzes by our airborne heroes accompanied by the squeal of the audience.

6. Keep the Lights On: Amongst the best gay cinema I’ve seen in a while, the movie follows the course of a relationship that’s marred superficially by alcohol dependence, but is really struggling with the larger problems of an emotional incompatibility. Dropping in on a couple at different moments of their slowly fraying relationship, there is a searingly powerful quality to the way the movie captures the growth and loss of intimacy between two men. It’s the kind of gay cinema we need now, one that moves beyond a pre-occupation with questions about coming out or even homosexuality as such, but also stops short of simply inserting two gay men into a heterosexual story.

7. Ruby Sparks: What would you do if you wrote about the person of your dreams – and they came to life? Made by the people who brought us Little Miss Sunshine, Ruby Sparks starts with this interesting enough premise and then turns it into a fascinating exploration of what it means for us to even try to seek that perfect person. Its helped along by a typically low key performance by Paul Dano, and the refusal of the script to give us any easy answers.

8. English Vinglish: Sure its predictable, but it doesn’t this movie from being utterly charming. Anchored by a great performance by Sridevi, but also aided by the underrated and really quite fantastic ensemble, English Vinglish is a heartwarming winner.

9. Life of Pi: If Life of Pi had somehow just been about that middle hour in the sea, it would’ve easily made it to my top 3. These are visually stunning and viscerally terrifying sequences, aided by Ang Lee’s excellent dialogue-less direction for the greater part of the hour. What isn’t all that great is the faux-spirituality that opens and closes the movie, the ham-handed “Is there a God?” existentialism that we’re essentially force fed, the often clunky dialogue writing. They rob a hypnotic movie of some of its power. Thank god (ha) for Richard Parker then.

10. Skyfall and  Cabin in the Woods: Two “genre” movies make my final cut, in part because they’re sneakily not genre movies at all. Skyfall starts off as your typical Bond movie, but then takes a surprisingly moving detour into becoming a deconstruction of the role of intelligence agencies in general, and this man in particular. Judi Dench’s M gets an extended role becoming the movie’s Bond girl in a way, and the visuals – ranging from a laser light drenched silhouetted fight, to a bleak orange-fire burnished landscape finale – are stunning.

Cabin in the Woods is one of the best horror movies I’ve seen, mostly because it also manages to take a detour into becoming a question about why we indulge in a genre at all. With a crackling script by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, Cabin in the Woods deconstructs and scares in equal measure. It also has a murderous unicorn, which single-handedly (single-horndedly?) earns it its place.

Other Mentions:

Best Movie I watched this year that wasn’t released in 2012: Chungking Express

Biggest Disappointment of the Year: The Dark Knight Rises

Most Rewatched Movie of the Year: Pitch Perfect (Glee with acapella, whee!)

Best first-half that is unable to sustain itself: Prometheus

Most purely entertaining movie of the Year, that I can’t objectively call “good”: Aiyyaa

Worst Movie of the Year: Dark Shadows, tied with the thankfully little-seen The Tall Man

Not seen at the time of writing but would possibly make it to this list: Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty.

LEKHA:

10. The Dark Knight Rises: Never has the weak, maskless alter ego been so brutally examined in the superhero genre. While some did not think of it as a worthy successor to The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises was a fitting conclusion to Nolan’s superb Batman trilogy with fantastic performances by Joseph Gordon-Lewitt, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard. Besides, we have this series to thank for the upcoming gritty, red underwearless Superman film.

9. Gangs of Wasseypur:  At once a hilarious take on cinema’s effect on the Indian masses and a documentary of India’s dark coal legacy and the dramatic tale of a family and a film that required one to carry a slang dictionary, Gangs of Wasseypur was easily one of the best Indian films this year with scintillating dialogue pulled off with ease by actors like Manoj Bajpai, Nawazuddin Siddiqui and the well-chosen supporting actors.

8. Looper:  Of all the things one could possibly use time travel for, trust futuristic crime gangs to use it to send their victims back in time to be murdered and disposed off. Like any good time travel film, Looper kept you on the edge of your seat and had a climax that you never saw coming. Of course it had a few loopholes but nitpicking is so passé.

7. Lincoln:  I don’t mind admitting that despite its heavy-handed editing of historical events and unnecessarily dramatic courtroom scenes,Steven Spielberg’s Amistad is one of my all-time favourite films. Spielberg returns to what he does best with this biopic of Abraham Lincoln’s final days. Daniel Day-Lewis is precise as ever, with his deliberate speech and ability to fascinate and irritate audience with the neverending anecdotes and quotes. It’s films like these that make you want to beseech god to bless America.

6. Life of Pi:  It’s a common complaint that since Avatar, few films have truly captured the magnificence of 3D. Life of Pi brought the magic back with jaw dropping vistas of oceans, thunderstorms, jelly fish, whales and night skies that will make you believe the film’s theist message. The dialogue may have been a bit clunky and overwrought but who’s listen when your eyes are treated to such a visual spectacle?

5. Chronicle:  If this is what the superhero genre is going to look like once they run out of comic books, then the genre is in safe hands. Chronicle tells the story of three high school students bestowed with superpowers and will leave you thinking about it for days after.

4. Moonrise Kingdom:  As Wes Andersononian as a Wes Anderson film can get, Moonrise Kingdom was a delight to watch! It was hilarious, funny and touching. Yes, it was what one may call quirky, but not in that contrived Zooey Deschanel way. And Edward Norton had better get a supporting actor nomination for this.

3. Frankenweenie:  Wes Anderson and Tim Burton are two of the most scorned directors today because they happen to love certain motifs. Frankenweenie, a remake of Burton’s 1984 film had all the swirls, ghouls and zombies that one expects in a Burton film but did it feel like we had seen it all before? Not in the least. This was Burton’s loving tribute to the horror film genre and if anything, reminds us why Burton is still at the top of his game.

2. The Avengers:  Dark and gloomy superheroes with dead parents? No thanks. Give us lots of superheroes, explosions and side-splittingly funny lines with a side of The Hulk. Hurry up with the sequel, Marvel Studios!

1. The Hobbit:  Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with this superb and faithful adaptation of the book. Initially, I wasn’t convinced by the decision to split the book into three parts, but now I can see why it made sense and cant wait for part 2 and 3. While there has been some mixed reviews over the format and the length of the film, it remained true to the Tolkienian ethos and honestly, I don’t know why anybody would want to complain about spending 9 gloriously immersive hours in Middle-earth.

Honourable Mentions:

To Rome with Love: A quintessentially Woody script that only suffered from the lack of an overarching theme.

Skyfall: Gritty Bond is fine, but why did they just film The Dark Knight Rises but with guns and Aston Martins?

English Vinglish: An adorable if mildly cliche-ridden film that was was a joy to watch.

Films that are great for a Boring Saturday Night, even if they aren’t great films:

Argo: Look, it was suspenseful and historically accurate and everything, but it is strictly watch on Star Movies at 9 pm stuff.

Men in Black 3: Josh Brolin’s awesome Tommy Lee impression is reason enough!
Films that could have been great, but lacked a certain je-ne-sais-quoi:

The Amazing Spider Man: It wasn’t that it lacked good actors or a solid script, but this film did not manage to justify a remake so soon after the Sam Raimi trilogy.

Dark Shadows: Burton sure knows how to weave the macabre with the funny but it lacked that Burton quality that makes us shiver and weep and laugh at the same time.

Film that I loved even though, in my heart of hearts, I know that it was not a very good film:

John Carter: I’ve already defended this film like it was my first born, so you can just read it here.

Criminal wastes of time and money for everybody concerned:

Snow White and the Huntsman: I don’t want to be a part of the Kristen Stewart Hate Wagon, but my god, she’s a terrible actor who did her best to commit to a godawful script.

Barfi!: I didn’t hate it with a vengeance immediately after I watched it. But now that I’ve seen what 2012 has had to offer, the fact that Barfi was India’s official Oscar entry just makes me hate it with a passion.

Have a great 2013, folks! May all your Oscar bets bring you money (unless you differ in opinion from us, of course).

I’m going to risk sacrilege here.

Pixar is not, as many say, the new “golden age” of Disney.

Pixar is much, much more.

Sure, Disney’s tales were nice enough: the “Little Mermaid”, “Sleeping Beauty”, “Aladdin” – healthy doses of escapism with pat moral truths, often leaning on the Brothers Grimm catalog and twisting those stories into more palatable entertainment fodder for the masses. This, they did well – but that’s about it. They gave us nice, feel good fun. When I think back through a haze of nostalgia to my childhood days of revelling in the splendour of Disney, I find its often just that – nostalgia.

And Pixar? Pixar movies are often, simply put, casually transcendent. Its about time we stopped comparing cheerful fluff that other animation studios churn out with any given Pixar outing; its simply unfair to the others. At any rate, let’s see where this particular offering stands.

“Toy Story 3” does not, at first glance, have a lot going for it. The fact that it’s a sequel is crippling enough, but that it’s the third part of a trilogy puts in the potential company of, oh, “The Godfather – III“; “Spiderman 3“; or “X-Men:The Last Stand“. Notice the pattern? All third instalments of once great franchises that were astonishingly underwhelming – and that’s being kind. The plot itself, when I saw the first trailer, threatened to be a rehash of “Toy Story 2″, so really, TS3 has no right to work, let alone scale the stellar heights we now take for granted from this studio.

But folks – this is Pixar. And so, against all odds, the wizards of animation have fashioned the strongest instalment in the Toy Story franchise, and arguably one of the better films in a very impressive oeuvre.

Our plastic heroes remain timeless – unfortunately, their owner Andy is growing up and now gets ready to head down to college. Fun and games come to a stop as the toys wonder about their fate: Woody is picked by Andy to accompany him to college, the rest land up at a day care centre. All seems well … a little too well actually. Before the toys know it, they’ve entered a darkly dystopian existence, and must get away before, well, their parts fall off or something.

Out of this barebones premise is fashioned a movie that is frequently hilarious and inventive: the great escape scene is one of the most inventive of its ilk that you will encounter in cinema, and Buzz-the-toy-astrounaut-spouting-flirtatious-Spanish is simply inspired. But what makes the movie truly wonderful are the moments when it reaches for the gut. Two incredible scenes towards the end form this movie’s one-two punch, as the characters are confronted with mortality and adulthood. In a moment that serves as a re-introduction as well as a fond farewell, Andy tenderly bequeaths his prized possessions to a little kid. I can give no greater praise for this movie, or for the universality of Pixar’s magic, than point out that both my 11 year old sister and I had strongly emotional reactions based on completely different reasons at the conclusion of the film. She sat in rapture at the little kid getting a new treasure trove of toys – and I reacted to Andy’s final goodbye to his childhood, and to the toys themselves resigning to the idea of mortality with barely controlled tears.

So what’ll happen Oscar night? “Toy Story 3″ will definitely lose out on the best picture award: not because it isn’t on the same level of craft as, say, a “Black Swan” or a “King’s Speech“, but because this is the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences that we’re talking about, with its usual abject refusal to look too much beyond well manufactured high pedigree drama. As far as they’re concerned, this nomination is enough of an award for the animated film. Similar, I think, will be its fate in the adapted screenplay category. That leaves us with the perplexing category of best animated film. I’m glad it exists simply because I think this reliably entertaining medium (not genre) of film deserves that kind of recognition. But how is it in any way a race this year, when, like last year’s “Up“, a best picture nominee, finds itself in competition with an obviously lesser lot ?

Oh well, good for you Pixar, anyway.

There was a point last year when I wrote about the issue of “Queer cinema” continuing to be a genre per se. It was, I felt, about time that Hollywood moved onto stories where the alternate sexuality of the characters was merely incidental to the narrative. Instead, the prime mainstream examples that leapt out – “Brokeback Mountain” and “Milk” – featured the idea of the sexuality of the characters at the fulcrum of the narrative; sexuality-as-the-issue so to speak, either personal as in Brokeback, or political as in “Milk”.

And then along came “I Love You Philip Morris“; a romantic comedy with 2 male A-listers in the lead, a movie that was blissfully unaware about the fact that it was a TRAILBLAZING GAY MOVIE. Nope, here we had the queerness of the characters as an established non-issue from the onset, after which the only concern of the movie was to spin a rollicking good yarn, give us a story for the ages – gay or straight.

If Philip Morris demolished notions of what a queer movie could – and should – be, “The Kids are All Right” cheerfully steamrolls over the debris, giving us a neat little family dramedy that refuses to call too much attention to the casually revolutionary nature of its sexual politics.

Nicole (Annette Bening, who deserves her Best Acress nomination) and Jules (Julianne Moore bloody well deserved a nomination herself) are your everyday married lesbian couple with 2 kids from the same anonymous sperm donor. As they near adulthood, the kids want to know more about their dad, and manage to investigate their way to the charming, laidback Paul (Mark Ruffalo has the most unshowy role of the lot, but does it well enough to merit his supporting actor nod). Paul has no family of his own, and his foray into the life of the settled foursome leads to surprising consequences for everyone involved.

Other than a refreshingly unconventional premise at its core, Kids makes a lot of interesting decisions with its turns of narrative. Some are satisfying; Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore play off against each other remarkably well, and its great watching Ruffalo’s character realizing his long-buried need for family. Others, like the closing scenes, don’t ring completely true – there’s a strangely rushed feel, and a lack of deserved closure for one of the characters.

Bening and Moore’s equation is really at the core of the movie, and the two make for a great screen couple. Bening’s the hard-to-like control freak who has moments of fragility; hers is a wonderfully written character, layered with sarcasm and empathy, and the actress masterfully navigates us through these different facets. Moore complements her with an almost balm-like laid back vibe that begins to ignite with the presence of this new person in their lives. “Marriage is hard” she says, in one tearful scene, and we nod in agreement with her, simultaneously rooting for this one to work. As for the kids, they’re, well, pretty all right.

Come Oscar night, and I think this nicely made, well acted, and well written film will probably walk away without any awards. Its probably the weakest in the movie category, as are Mark Ruffalo’s chances for supporting actor. The screenplay nomination contends with the dizzyingly intricate “Inception”, and the sweeping-but-comic “King’s Speech”, both of which I think will leave it trailing. Finally, there’s Annette Bening’s best actress nomination. This right here is possibly the closest the movie could come to snatching Oscar victory, but there’s a raging insane ballerina fighting tooth-and-nail for this one, and the way things look right now, it’s probably Natalie Portman for the gold.

Slow motion punch to face and shimmering, flying drops of sweat/blood/saliva? Check.

Protagonist severely losing, till his trainer murmurs something inspirational about love /friendship/family/America in his ear and immediately turns the match around? Check.

At least one or two training montages set to a rousing tune? Check.

Ding-ding-ding, you made Boxer Movie Bingo!

That’s the trouble with making a movie about boxing. It is simply impossible to avoid the tropes. And then, everybody will do you the enormous disservice of comparing your movie to “Raging Bull” — you just can’t come out looking good from a comparison with Robert De Niro’s brand of crazy. However, if you can ignore the superficial clichés and the de rigueur “underdog wins against all odds” plot, “The Fighter” makes for a very good watch.

This is the story of the welterweight professional boxer, “Irish” Micky Ward (played by Mark Wahlberg) and how he overcame enormous difficulties before he finally took the WBU Light Welterweight title. Unlike other fighters, Micky’s problems did not include the mob or poverty or race or a barely controlled temper; his problem was his family. His large, overwhelming, smothering-in-love family, who make his decisions for him, apparently for his own good.

And then, there is his half-brother Dicky Eklund (Christan Bale), whom Micky and the entire family idolize and worship like a hero. Dicky could have been numbered among the greatest boxers, if it weren’t for his debilitating crack cocaine addiction. But all of them turn a blind eye to his drug problem, because Dicky once fought and knocked out Sugar Ray Leonard. They still live in that moment, despite that fact that it happened years ago and Dicky does not even have a semblance of a boxing career any more. He could make a come back any old time, they figured, and in the meanwhile, he would help his little brother Micky make a name for himself. So sure were they of Dicky’s prowess that none of them thought Micky had a chance in hell without Dicky’s expertise. Sadly, even Micky ended up believing in that. Dicky may be high all the time, but his word was gold. Admiration can be a funny thing like that.

Micky’s problem is clear, almost 5 minutes into the movie. He just doesn’t want to take responsibility for himself—be it his failures or his successes. He’d much rather place the weight of the decision-making on his megalomaniac mother or his unreliable drug addict brother. This way, if nothing works out, he can shrug his shoulders and say he tried. When the clear error of trusting his mother and brother is made obvious to him, he shifts the burden on his girlfriend and father, who are more than happy to get a piece of the Micky Ward pie. In these moments, you really want to shake him and say, “Be more in control of your life, goddammit!” That is why his real victory doesn’t come within the boxing ring, but when he finally takes the reins for his life.

Oddly enough, the most defining scenes from this movie were not of the boxing matches or even of the lead actor, Mark Wahlberg, but were those of his large family of sisters and father and other relatives, all presided by the matriarch, Alice (Melissa Leo). There is one scene when he is with his girlfriend (Amy Adams), and he is arguing with his mother, and his group of sycophantic chorus of sisters take their cues from his mother to disagree with him in unison. They are like a laughter track from a sitcom or a flock of squawking birds animated by Pixar, and brilliantly effective in conveying the sort of bull-headed mentality of popular opinion one must sometimes put up with. Sure they seem caricature-like, but that is precisely what the director intended. And Melissa Leo is superb, as Alice, sitting in the centre of her web, manipulating and controlling, knowing exactly how to guilt-trip her sons. Many are anticipating her to take the Best Supporting Actress Oscar later this month, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she did.

Mark Wahlberg’s self-effacing performances have finally found a place, it seems. In “The Departed”, he was almost invisible behind all the Hollywood heavyweights, and in “The Lovely Bones”, Stanley Tucci stole the show. But in this movie, he is the yin to Christian Bale’s yang. Christian Bale’s wired performance as Dicky Eklund and his manic energy was one of the real standouts of this movie, and completely deserving of the Oscar he will probably receive. But even Bale’s addict personality would have seemed out of place and discordant, if it were not for the strong, steady reliability that Wahlberg radiates through the movie; and Wahlberg’s character would have been anchorless were it not for Bale’s animal magnetism. They really do complete each other.

Ultimately, despite having a superb supporting cast and a lead actor who did not try to dominate the film, “The Fighter” is simply not one for the ages. The lead up to the climax lacked tension, because, as far as the audience were concerned, Micky had already had his victory where it mattered—at home. So the outcome of the climax boxing match was fairly obvious. In fact, if you read the real Micky Ward’s biography, you’ll find that he fought exactly like every single movie boxer in a climactic scene– he’d taken a severe beating for several rounds and then land that one punch that turns the tables. That was his signature move. So you cant really blame the movie makers for the rather predictable finish. Besides, Micky Ward seems like such an overall nice guy, you really are happy for him and his successes. In any case, ‘suspenseful, shocking climax’ was really not what the director was going for, but it would have been nice if he’d aimed for ‘thunderous ending’ or something to that effect.

There were plenty of great moments of cinema too– Dicky’s slow realization of what his life had become in reality is a stunning piece of drama. The way the boxing matches were shot: from the perspective of the spectators, so the noise of the crowd is loud and overwhelming, puts the movie-watcher right there in a ringside seat. This one won’t be winning any Best Picture awards but I’d recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone looking for an excellent movie to watch on a Friday night, which is really all that is going to matter three days after the Oscar mania has died down.

Normally I would have said “no”, and in some cases, the “original” and the re-make merit no comparison at all because of vast differences in quality or storyline or both. In this case though, the 1969 version is useful to appreciate the merits of the Coen Brothers’ version (and also understand where it falls short). Make no mistake, I think both are very, very good films and feature some fantastic work but when we’re essentially in Oscar-comparison mode, one has to pick winners and losers.

Strictly speaking, the Coen Brothers’ “True Grit” is not a re-make as it is sometimes made out to be. It is, like its 1969 predecessor starring John Wayne, based on the eponymous Charles Portis’ novel. The story largely follows the novel in both cases, though the Coen Brothers’ version is considered to be truer to the novel’s plotline. Broadly, the movies and book tell the story of 14 year old Hattie Ross, whose father has been murdered in cold blood by outlaw, Tom Chaney and her efforts to bring her father’s killer to justice by hiring US Marshall, Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn to go into the Indian Territories and bring him to justice. Along the way, they are also joined by LaBoeuf (who calls himself “LaBeef”) a Texas Ranger also on the hunt for Tom Chaney. Apart from some deviations in the plot, both movies stick to this broad outline, though in tone and tenor, though, the two movies are quite different different.

Whereas the 1969 version focuses more on Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, the Coen Brothers’ focus theirs on the girl, Hattie Ross (played brilliantly by Hailee Steinfeld). Whereas the 1969 version has the feel of an adventure story with thrills, spills, danger and good old fashioned frontier-humour, the Coen Brothers bring their very Coen Brothers touch to the movie. It is much darker, the setting grimmer and one involuntarily feels the cold landscape in watching the movie. Whereas all the action in the 1969 version seems to take place in autumn daylight, much of the action in the later version takes place in the cold and grim winter. Not that one is necessarily preferable to the other, but it is an interesting example of how in the hands of an expert storyteller, the mood and the feel of a story can change quite dramatically without any adverse impact on the storytelling itself.

The Coen brothers did the right thing, I think, by bringing Hattie Ross back to the centre of the story. Instead of becoming just another Western with cowboys and Indians (the less-pc kind), it becomes a story about about justice on the wild frontiers of a country still trying to become a nation.In Hattie Ross’ constant evocation of the law justifying her actions (and her ultimate weapon of last resort, famed lawyer J Noble Dagett!) we get a sense of a new order (literally and figuratively) emerging on the “wild and savage” frontier. Also this has allowed them to unearth a stunning talent in Hailee Steinfeld, of whom enough praises cannot be sung. Just go watch it for her pitch-perfect performance.

The Coen brothers’ biggest drawback, unfortunately, is the gross miscasting of Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn, the one-eyed, frontiersman/US Marshall/”encounter specialist” (as we say in these parts). Admittedly the 1969 version focuses more on Cogburn than the Coen brothers’ version but John Wayne brings so much more to the character than Jeff Bridges even comes close to suggesting. John Wayne’s Rooster Cogburn is equal parts pathetic, tough, foolhardy, drunk, indisputably brave and canny. When someone calls him “old and fat”, one look at him and you know they mean it. It did help that John Wayne was indeed 61 and quite fat when they shot the film but then you realize that’s just part of the impression that Cogburn wants others to believe; to hide an essentially tough and uncompromising character. His relationship with someone who seems his diametric opposite in every possible way (but just as tough and uncompromising) is the emotional core of this film. John Wayne won the Best Actor Oscar for this role, (deservedly so) and anyone who would reprise Rooster Cogburn had fairly big boots to fill.

Jeff Bridges comes off as a lucky drunk.

It probably doesn’t help that the last time Jeff Bridges worked with the Coen brothers, it was for the cult hit, “The Big Lebowski“. For those of us who loved and adored the movie and its slacker hero, its a bit hard to swallow “the Dude” swagger and stagger around pretending to be an over-the-hill frontiersman. It doesn’t help that Jeff Bridges looks exactly the same in almost all his movies. One almost expects him to take a gulp of a White Russian and blather on about his slacker philosophy. It is the cinematic equivalent of having Ellen Page of “Juno” fame play a sassy, mouthy, cringe inducing Hollywood’s-idea-of-a-teenager, Hattie Ross.

Fortunately, we get the infinitely more bearable (and talented) Hailee Steinfeld, who was all of thirteen when this movie was made and will probably go on to be one of the youngest Oscar winners come February 27th.

Matt Damon is of course a vast improvement as the blustering and bombastic LaBouef from the fairly wooden Glen Campbell in the same role. Long time fans of the Coen brothers will also be thrilled with the smaller roles that seem to add nothing to the story itself but somehow create an atmosphere that, in retrospect, seems impossible without them. Those who’ve seen “No Country for Old Men” and “A Serious Man” will know exactly what I am talking about. The landscape, in Coen brothers’ movies, whether it is the arid, red Southwest or the cold, freezing wilderness, always has this feeling of menace and discomfort that few other film makers capture so well. It is no different in “True Grit”.

Much as I liked “True Grit” (despite its one major flaw) with eight nominations, I think “True Grit” has overperformed in the nominations front. At best, it looks as though Hailee Steinfeld will win the Best Actress in a Supporting Role (a curious nomination since I think, she was pretty much the female lead of this film). If she does, it will be nothing less than entirely deserved making her the second youngest winner of the Award.

The Coen brothers are unlikely to win Best Director (they’ve already given it to them for a better film) or Best Picture (odds on favourite being that-facebook-movie). Jeff Bridges also just won Best Actor, and I don’t see the Academy giving him one more so quickly (Also, I don’t think the members of the AMPAS would want to give John Wayne another reason to rise from his grave and scalp them all). Ignoring the technical awards (they are only there to make the numbers anyway), I think True Grit’s next best shot at an Oscar is the Best Adapted Screenplay award; and it will be in a close contest with “The Social Network”.

But, forget the Oscars. (2008 is the date historians in the future will reckon as the beginning of the end as “Wall-E” and “The Dark Knight” weren’t even nominated and, ugh, “Slumdog Millionaire” won. When our children ask us why they no longer have the Oscar awards, be sure to tell them that about the time when two all time classics lost to a movie starring Anil Kapoor.)

Just go watch this movie.

Between the 500 million status updates reading, “Just watched that Facebook movie and it is awesome/totally untrue/misogynistic/loveXXX” and Zadie Smith’s review, it’s all been said, and then some. The only movie that I’ve spent more time reading about is “Inception” and its three million crackpot theories. So instead of another review about how this movie totez defines my(?) LOLtastic generation, how about we discuss its prospects at your office’s Oscar betting pool?

Let’s do the easy ones first: Aaron Sorkin is practically a shoo-in for the Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay Award. If nothing else, “The Social Network” (TSN) was a dialogue-centric movie. It didn’t underestimate its viewers and it didn’t come off like a bunch of guys wildly hypothesizing on what “smart folk probably sound like”. Sorkin has years of experience writing snappy, witty dialogue for the critically acclaimed TV show, “The West Wing“, and it really comes through in this movie. Besides, Sorkin was the one who wrote, “You can’t handle the truth!“. Give the man an Oscar already.

If it were up to me, I’d give the Best Cinematography award to “Inception” just for the zero gravity fight scene. Otherwise, it’s a close call between Black Swan and TSN. Despite being a movie about entitled computer nerds, TSN was a visually stunning movie, especially the (now much-talked about) Henley Royal Regatta scene. But “Black Swan” just had more opportunities to showcase creative artistic devices and moody lighting, what with all the beautiful women looking scared/ flitting gracefully across the set.

As the (apparently fictional) stony-faced, socially inept Mark Zuckerberg, Jesse Eisenberg was chillingly convincing. From the odd gait to the twisted lips, Eisenberg played the part to perfection. But his real achievement was, despite having to play such an unrelatable character who almost seems robotic at times, he managed to humanize him. While the audience’s sympathies may have been with Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) at having been shafted by his best friend, it was Eisenberg who claimed our empathy. The Best Actor Award– will Jesse win it? Doubt it. He’d have to beat Colin Firth in “The King’s Speech“. Everybody knows that the Academy has an enormous crush on the British monarchy and can barely restrain itself from flinging all its statuettes at movies about them. And Colin has already won at the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild Awards, both of which are considered good indicators of which direction the wind is blowing. Besides, there was something so endearing about Colin impotently gasping for words, unable to express himself. If Colin wins this one, you won’t hear any cries of protest from the TSN bandwagon.

As for the Best Director Award, the Coen brothers won recently, so I doubt they’ll be taking the trophy home this time. Tom Hooper though, is the dark horse who just may end up taking the prize home, after his recent win at the Directors Guild Awards. For me, it is a close call between Darren Aronofsky and David Fincher—both of whom have made iconic movies in the past and are extremely deserving of every accolade being heaped on them for their latest effort. Fincher ought to beat out Aronofsky because it takes a special kind of skill to make a movie where computer programming+vodka shots is passed off as a nail-biting action scene, and actually manage to get us cheering wildly.

People saw the non-nomination of “The Dark Knight” in the Best Picture category as an egregious lapse on the Academy’s part. [The AMPAS should have been publicly flogged, drawn and quartered. - Alok] Lest they be called doddering old snobs who love them some prunes, the Academy made some major changes to update themselves to accommodate the v2.0 crowd. This meant having younger hosts for the ceremony and having 10 nominations for Best Picture so the cooler movies get nominated too. This whole get-with-the-programme strategy of the Academy also meant they had to invite Miley Cyrus and Kristen Stewart to the ceremony, but so long as the draw the line at Snookie, I think we can all agree that it’s a fair trade-off, now that movies like “District 9” are finally getting their due.

Of course, it will be a few more centuries before the Academy actually starts giving the Best Picture Oscar to certain genres of movies, so we can safely rule out the following movies from this year’s contenders: “Toy Story 3″ (token animated movie), “Inception” (token sci-fi movie), “Winter’s Bone” (token hard-hitting indie movie) and “The Kids are All Right” (token quirky family drama).

This leaves the following serious contenders: “True Grit“, “The King’s Speech”, “127 Hours”, “Black Swan”, and TSN. Of these, I’ve a very strong feeling that the victor will be TSN. This is, after all, The Year of Facebook. Zuckerberg has been constantly in the news, becoming Time magazine’s Person of the Year and donating millions to charity. Contrary to what Zuckerberg’s PR people feared, TSN does not vilify him. He comes off as an incredibly dedicated, simple guy who is, despite all his billions, just a boy at heart; which is far better press than bequeathing all your money to charity can buy.

A couple of weeks ago, Delhi had a minor earthquake in the middle of the night. All the shaking woke me up, and since my computer was right there, I lost no time in updating my Facebook status to “Earthquake!” patting myself on the back for being the first. And that’s when I noticed that at least 3 people had already updated their statuses about the earthquake. This could only mean one thing: these people were updating their Facebook statuses during the earthquake instead of, oh I don’t know, crawling to safety under their desks.

Yes I don’t think we need to worry about the imminent zombie apocalypse finishing off humanity any more—we’ve already lost our sense of self-preservation. Thanks, Mark Zuckerberg! How about, in retaliation we get Hollywood to make a movie about how you (probably) stabbed your best friend in the back, make it a box office success AND critically acclaimed (you know the twain rarely meet) and ironically talk about it endlessly on Facebook?

Your move, Zuckerberg.

It comes as no big surprise then that “The King’s Speech”, a handsomely mounted period piece about yet another British monarch, starts the Oscar race as the frontrunner, with 12 nominations, ranging from the obscure technical categories (someone explain how sound mixing is judged, please?) round to the grandslam of movie-directing-acting honours. It has won a fair few awards in the pre-Oscar race too, and from what I figure, the best picture win is coming down to a photo finish between this and that-facebook-movie-we’re-tired-of-praising.

Point being, I went into this one with hugely heightened expectations. I really wanted to like this movie – and I did. Just, well, not as much as I wanted to. See, I wanted to come out of the experience gushing about it, with that transient state of headiness that undergo emerging from a defining movie experience. Instead, I came out simply, well, pleased. Content, even – which, mind you, would make most movies a towering achievement, but, well, that’s great expectations for you.

So here we have Colin Firth (absolutely, and expectedly, astonishing) playing the-then Duke of York, who in the opening sequence in 1925 sets out to address a crowd at Wembley. A tap of the microphone, a sharp intake of breath, he mutters the first few words, and then … nothing. His mouth seizes up, the words are lost somewhere in his throat. The crowd looks on derisively, almost piteously, as the son of the king is unable to even make a salutary speech in public.

The Duke has by his side a wonderfully supportive wife – Helena Bonham Carter in a remarkably uncharacteristic role plays the eventual Queen Mother – who leads him to a succession of speech therapists, all of whom are unable to help.

And then the couple comes across Lionel Logue. As essayed by Geoffrey Rush, and impressively rounding out a great trio of central performances, Logue is brash, unconventional, and quite possibly the Duke’s only hope. The stakes are raised when it looks like the Duke might just become the next King of England, and in the process be required to make some particularly impassioned speeches, even while down south in Germany, a short man with a toothbrush mustache is giving some very powerful speeches indeed. And so the stage is set for an inspirational, typically rousing, period drama,

Which honestly, is the only issue “The King’s Speech” has – that it’s predictable, that there’s a paint-by-numbers feel threatening to come out of the woodwork, that it’s got all the expected elements so firmly in place. It’s that unquantifiable difference between achieving cinematic greatness on the one hand, as opposed to manufacturing it. If this sounds like nitpicking, well, I suppose it very much is – and yet I have to point this out to you to explain why I fell short of unabashedly loving this seemingly perfect piece of film-making.

Because, yes, its almost, just about perfect otherwise. The cinematography is casually stunning – 1930′s London plays hide-and-seek with the mist, while long tracking shots waltz with, and around, the King. The climactic walk down the corridors of the BBC is a particularly masterful bit of filmmaking; Roger Ebert interestingly observes that the long tracking shots might be evoking the king’s constricted vocal passages as he tries to get his words out. The screenplay is often hilarious and alternately touching; the performances I will say nothing more about, but that those 3 Academy Award acting nominations are absolutely well deserved.

In the end, then, the speech that King George VI delivered was one of guiding the country, the empire, towards hope in the darkest of times. That it is as much about his own personal triumph in being able to make that speech at all is the real power of the story.

Come Oscar night – I will be cheering this one on for the Acting nominations. Firth and Rush are almost certain to win their categories; Bonham-Carter a little less so, but that’s primarily because of a little girl in “True Grit” who steals the show from under Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges collective noses. As for the big two? Nyet, and nope. The other directors on the list pretty much all leave a greater stamp into their work, and as for best movie – well. “True Grit” is more satisfying, “Black Swan” more intense, “Inception” more challenging, and that-facebook-movie-that-we’re-tired-of-praising was pretty darn great too.