ROBIN HOOD review: welcome back, Mr Scott

ROBIN HOOD review: welcome back, Mr Scott

May 13

Where should I begin? I walked into Robin Hood with low expecations. I haven’t enjoyed a single Ridley Scott film made in the last decade: Gladiator was empty and hollow if you removed the action scenes, Kingdom Of Heaven was a confused cop-out of a war flick, and … okay, so I didn’t see A Good Year or American Gangster, but can you blame me? On top of that, I was starting to worry about burned out doing all these reviews of mediocre-to-competent films lately, concerned that I’d lose my way and start giving Brett Ratner flicks high marks while violently abusing Scorsese flicks (okay, that actually happened, but moving on …).

To nobody’s greater surprise than my own, I loved Robin Hood. I loved every minute of it. From the opening frames, the film grabbed my by the heart and mind and dragged me happily through one of the best cinematic experiences I can remember. I’m starting to understand what all those Avatards were banging on about when they cried about Pandora not being real, and wept in anguish as the catharsis of the film faded away — Robin Hood transported me to Europe circa 1199, and I didn’t want to leave. That’s right, I didn’t want the movie to end. I haven’t felt that in a long, long time.

What’s so good about it? you ask with raised eyebrows. Well, that’s the thing about great movies; it’s hard to put into words exactly why they work, exactly why they hit you on an emotional and cerebral level. It probably has something to do with Brian Helgeland’s labyrinthine but compelling script; it probably has a lot to do with the fine performances all around; it’s definitely got something to do with the rich production design and astounding visual effects; and it definitely has a lot to do with the film’s gorgeous presentation. What it doesn’t have anything to with, however, is Russell Crowe.

Patriotism be damned — if Russell Crowe turns in a sub-par performance, I’m going to complain. To be fair, his performance here isn’t so much ‘sub-par’ as it is a little off the mark. It’s clear that at some point in the editing process the tone of the film was changed (for the better), and Rusty’s performance, dedicated to film on set, couldn’t be changed to fit it. So Crowe comes off as dull — yet competent — in a vibrant, thrilling and joyous universe.

And how vibrant it is! The sound of a hundred wooden shafts thunking into the surround sound speakers was enough for me to grit my teeth in instinctive fear. The lilting medieval score gave a kind of mischievous bent to the action, building the England of 1199 as a fundamentally better place than anything we’ve known, somehow; while the gorgeous photography makes the heart yearn for simpler times, when the countryside was green and the sky was silver, when the work was hard but the heart was full.

3D would have absolutely ruined this movie. There, I said it. It’s a home truth, too. What little visceral punch may have been gained by having arrowheads fly at the audience’s face in gasp-inducing 3D would pale in comparison to the beauty bestowed upon the film by the 35mm cinematography. Some of the deep-focus shots of the English forests, with golden beams of sunlight and perfectly-framed boughs of green, are downright painterly in their beauty. So good are they, in fact, that they reminded me of Kubrick’s brilliant Barry Lyndon; and when a modern filmmaker can be compared favourably to Stanley Kubrick, you know to pay attention.

The plot plays fast and loose with history, but given how dubious the record-keeping of the twelfth century was, who really cares? You might as well complain that it clashes with the plot of Robin Hood: Men In Tights or that delightful Disney adaptation — what matters is how the film resonates right here, with modern audiences. And Robin Hood carries with it a message, to which I alluded above, not unlike that of Avatar: without that thing we refer to as “nature,” Homo sapiens is as nothing; and without that thing we refer to as “freedom,” a concept for which there shouldn’t need to be a word, humanity itself is worth nothing. These compelling ideals infuse the plot with urgency and sincerity.

There’s a real sense of time and place, even despite the anachronistic themes of environmentalism and freedom; costumes, sets and locations all speak of a time when death often came at the pointy end of a sword (or the blunt end of a hammer); a time before Shakespeare invented half of modern English; and a time before fashion took ordinary people and twisted them into unnatural creatures in high-heels and make-up and botox. As I say, this seems to be a fundamentally better time, despite the slavery and oppression, and the fact that Robin Hood is doing his best to return the world to peaceful equilibrium with nature is compelling on a fundamental level.

The performances are exemplary across the board, and the board is broad indeed. Rusty turns in a heartfelt if misplaced performance as the eponymous archer, while the likes of Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Danny Huston, Max von Sydow and William Hurt all turn in equally exceptional work: each one of them is clearly in the head and heart of their respective character, and the authenticity and sincerity they bring to their roles really helps enrich the film’s overall atmosphere. Cate Blanchett’s performance could have been a little more internal, but her determined character works well opposite Crowe’s Robin regardless. This is all proof not only of the actors’ skills, but of the director’s, and age hasn’t dulled Scott’s sensibilities in the slightest.

Rounding out the cast are a handful of lesser-known but no less talented folk, populating England and France with memorable and honest characters. Oscar Isaac’s King John is an almost sympathetic character, anachronistically modern in his “me-me-me” attitude, but relatable nonetheless, while Matthew McFadyen puts in an amusingly down-trodden turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin’s future nemesis. Robin’s merry men, who are sadly neglected in the film’s third act, bring a real sense of wit and fun to the proceedings, which took me completely unawares.

And that’s what really propels Robin Hood over the line, from competent historical epic to potential classic of the genre: a sense of fun. Those who endured Ridley Scott’s Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Kingdom Of Heaven know that jokes are few and far between in his films. But in Robin Hood there is a constant and palpable sense of adventure, a sense that has been lacking from cinema for far too long. Last year’s Star Trek had a stab at it, but it hasn’t really been nailed since the Lord of the Rings films, and Ridley Scott was the last person I expected to bring adventure back to the big screen.

The action scenes, too, don’t disappoint (like they did in Kingdom of Heaven): seamless (and I mean, seamless) visual effects lend credibility to thousands-strong battle scenes that are gritty, grimy and glorious. Ridley Scott hasn’t lost his eye for visual perfectionism, and some beautiful third-act battle photography tugs heartstrings as much as it stirs heroism. My only complaint in these scenes is that they are bloodless. Several characters take severe neck wounds, which, for the sake of a PG-13 rating, don’t bleed. Not even a little bit! Remember that cringe-inducing femoral artery surgery scene from Black Hawk Down? Blood made that scene. Here, while it far from breaks the scenes, the bloodlessness does dent one’s suspension of disbelief.

The fun, the performances, and the battle scenes would be fine on their own, but to top it all off, there’s a complex and rewarding narrative composed of multiple threads that all tie together towards the end. Though some early scenes seem a little useless until backed up by later scenes, Scott uses this technique to build the viewer’s attention: attaching names to faces, castles to shires, and people to movements puts you in the world, and it all pays off handsomely in the end.

I could dribble on for considerably longer about Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, perhaps comparing it with Mel Gibson’s equally good epic Braveheart, but suffice it to say, this is the most cathartic, most immersive, and indeed best movie I’ve seen in a cinema in a long, long time. Easily the best film yet of 2010, and better than anything I can remember from 2008 or 2009, to boot: Ridley Scott has kicked off the new decade with trademark style and bravado. Let’s hope it’s a trend he can maintain.

Robin Hood score

96/100

MEN IN BLACK 3(D) gets a release date

MEN IN BLACK 3(D) gets a release date

May 10

You’d better get used to 3D blockbusters while you can, because by 2012, you’re going to be drowning in a veritable tidal wave of the buggers. Men In Black 3 (which will be in 3D), has just been slapped with a release date: the 25th of May, 2012. This is slap bang in the middle of Hollywood’s big summer line-up, which is, as usual, headlined by sequels, 3D blockbusters, and the occasional combination of the two.

What else is due in May / June of 2012? Joss Whedon’s Avengers, JJ Abrams’ Star Trek sequel, Peter Berg’s Battleship (yes, that Battleship) adaptation, Christopher Nolan’s third Batfilm, and Marc Webber’s teen Spider-Man reboot, which will all do absolute monster business. Except Battleship, which will hopefully flop like a dead fish.

For the record — I reckon Battleship and Spider-Man will be in 3D, with 50 / 50 odds on Avengers; I trust Abrams and Nolan to resist studio pressure, but there’s still about a 25% chance of their big franchise sequels being shot or processed in 3D. God, can you imagine Star Trek in 3D? The dynamic lights and constant camera motion were dizzying enough in 2D, thanks.

Anyway, why did I bring you here again? Oh yeah, Men In Black 3. 25th of May 2012. Will Smith re-teaming with director Barry Sonnenfeld. Tommy Lee Jones in talks to reprise role. David Koepp going over a script by Etan Coen. Got it. Leave Johnny Knoxville and Lara Flynn Boyle behind this time, okay? Ta.

THE LOSERS trailer is full of yellow things

THE LOSERS trailer is full of yellow things

Apr 07

 

I sure hope you like the colour yellow, because The Losers appears to have a lot of it: cars, locations, explosions and even lights fill the screen with colours like gold and custard and mustard and … why do those words rhyme? Because they’re both yellow foods? Huh.

The Losers is about a bunch of special-ops soldier-types who get betrayed by their agencies and decide to take revenge. Pretty dull on paper, but it’s the characters that’ll likely sell you, and the actors portraying those characters. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (from Watchmen) heads up the team, with Idris Elba, Columbus Short and Óscar Janaeda filling out the ranks; meanwhile Chris Evans plays (against type) a curiously bespectacled, bright-coloured-shirt-wearing fellow who appears to be the comic relief. Seeing Evans in flexible, self-deprecating roles like in this and Scott Pilgrim Vs The World will be a nice change of pace until Captain America hits screens, that’s for sure. Then there’s Zoe Saldana, from Star Trek (and that other sci-fi film from 2009), who brings suggestive poses, sexy-time and double-entendres to the proceedings. Oh, and Jason Patric shows up as the bad guy, if you’re wondering.

Besides dripping in yellow, The Losers trailer contains a hint of some inventive action scenes, and a glimpse of the kind of sarcastic wit that will be employed in place of character development. Being a comic-book adaptation, we can’t expect too much from The Losers — or can we? Shouldn’t comic-book movies be just as good as any other movie thrown onto a giant silver screen? Unfortunately the trailer for The Losers is so disjointed and discombobulated that it’s hard to tell how well the action and one-liners work in context, so we’ll just have to wait and see what it’s like when it hits screens in a few weeks’ time.

The Losers comes out in the UK in just two days (crikey!) on the 9th of April, 2010; US release set for the 23rd of April, with Australia again lagging behind with a 20th of May release. Directed by Sylvain White, based on the Vertigo and DC comics.

TREKKIES review: celebrating geekiness

TREKKIES review: celebrating geekiness

Feb 25

If you think Star Trek is ‘lame’ or ‘uncool’ then you are still manacled to the ball-and-chain of high-school mentality populararity contests, and should probably go back to listening to Green Day and reading Harry Potter and watching Avatar, you soulless humbug. Star Trek is a forty-year-old institution, a supporting pillar of modern pop culture, and beyond being a hideously outdated and camp piece of television, it actually attempts to tackle mature themes in an intellectual, thoughtful and ultimately optimistic manner, utilising its futuristic setting as a sort of distortion, allowing pertinent, modern issues of race, gender and sex, war and peace, science and technology to be discussed in a fun, intellectually-stimulating manner. The original Trek (the one with Spock and Captain Kirk) gave rise to a host of sequel shows: The Next Generation, with Shakespearean Picard; Deep Space 9 with quirky Sisko, the one on the space station; Voyager, the one with the female captain Janeway; and Enterprise, a show that you will never hear any Trek fan talk about with anything other than the utmost disdain. Trekkies is a documentary shot in the late 90s that deals with the rampant, runaway fanatacism involved with Trek over the years, and as such, it is just as entertaining and stimulating as the show that inspired its subject matter.

The show is presented by Denise Crosby, who Trek viewers will remember from Next Gen (she dies at the end of the first season, so casual viewers may, in fact, not remember her). Crosby brings a kind of insider’s perspective to the doco, which makes for some interesting interviews with fellow cast-members, and some hilarious interviews with visibly nervous fans at conventions and the like. The documentary is comprised of anectodes from the stars of Trek from the original 60s show through to the mid-90s trio of Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager, who discuss their brushes with crazed fanatics and gentle admirers alike. As a film Trekkies is eminenty watchable to a vast audience–everyone’s seen at least five minutes of at least one episode of at least one of the five discrete series of Star Trek, and as such have something to relate to in this documentary. It’s fun, fast, and a little short, but you never get bored and it never gets bogged down mocking its targets, which would have been a very easy trap to fall into.

A lot of the comedy you’re expecting from comes in the first half, when we meet some of the extreme fans and hear some of the more disturbing anectodes from stars and convention-organisers. For example, there’s a totally bananas little lady, not even five feet tall, who had the balls to wear her “Starfleet” uniform (sloppily tailored and clumsily festooned with poorly-rendered replicas of the show’s props) to jury duty. That’s nuts. What’s worse is that she actually believes she is setting a “good example” for “her crew” (she’s only a Lt Commander, for crying out loud — Riker outranks her in all his beardy glory) and that “her ship” needs to be run with the kind of discipline symbolised by the donning of nonexistent uniforms to important real-world events — it’s clear from her humourless interviews that she actually believes this stuff, believes that she’s paving the way for the Star Trek universe to become true by living her life by its tenets and philosophies. It’s absolutely clear that she’s stark raving mad.

Then again there are people who actually believe that Rapture is just around the corner, and that credit cards and nuclear war are prophesied in Revelations as signals of the End of Days. There are a lot of parallels between religion and Trek-worship, in fact: Trek-fans gather at big events at weekends to argue canon and sing songs and trade merchandise, as well as meet luminary figures of their universe; Trek-fans are inherently insular and unaccepting of outsiders; and Trek-fans have little time for non-believers, and a lot of time for their favourite hobby. It was about midway through Trekkies that I realised the documentary wasn’t about how silly Trek-fans are, it’s about how peculiar and funny every single person on the planet is, and that it’s okay to define ourselves and each other by our peculiarities, be they obsessive religious zealoutry, insane Star Trek nerdship, or a proclivity to stalk and worship celebrities.

I’m going to go off on a slight tangent here, but it’ll be worth your time, I think. Loving something like Star Trek (or Star Wars, or being heavily into desktop role-playing games, or obsessing over anime, or collecting stamps, or whatever) carries a lot of social stigma. Getting nitty-gritty with the trivia of fictitious universes is a fascinating and worthwhile activity to a lot of people. It makes them happy, it gives them some form of satisfaction, it keeps them busy, helps them to socialise, and that’s great; so what’s up with society’s violent failure to tolerate the harmless, cute geeks and their action figures and trading cards?

Turn the tables around, and it’s cool for a bloke to be into sports. It’s cool to know by heart the names of all the players on all the teams of your chosen competition; it’s awesome to know each player’s individual style, affiliation history, weaknesses, and, if you’re a really special person, you’ll even keep abreast of their off-field shenanigans. Local news coverage goes nuts whenever a sports star misbehaves; they make headlines for weeks; if it’s Beckham, he’ll make headlines all over the world for a few days. The daily news even has five minutes at the end dedicated solely to the competitive endeavours of local and international teams, like it matters that Arsenal lost 2 – 1 when racial genocide is being committed somewhere in Africa. Sports fans meet up every weekend to watch “the game.” They discuss tactics, question techniques, reminisce about past matches, and all of that kind of thing is totally acceptable in society. It’s considered healthy. Sure it’s a male-dominated pastime, but wives and girlfriends see “watching the game with mates” as a positive activity to be encouraged. In fact, women have their own hobbies to pursue: fashion and celebrity gossip consume many a young woman’s mind, and not knowing what Paris Hilton was wearing when she fell loudly out of a taxi last weekend is a serious faux pas.

How is being a sports-geek, or a fashion-nerd, any different from being a Star Trek fanatic? All groups go into the same level of detail about their chosen passion, but two of them are socially acceptable (“normal,” even) while one is perceived as being solely for basement-dwelling virgins who reek of body-odour and fantasise about Counsellor Troi making out with Doctor Crusher on a regular basis. This isn’t fair, now, is it? The fact that all the macho alpha-male bully-types gravitate towards the sports-option, and all the popular, pretty girls orbit the glamour-option, doesn’t help the repressed state of the humble Trek-fan, and the fat, obnoxious stereotype imposed on sci-fi geeks isn’t always inaccurate, but they’re still human beings with thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc., and their hobby satisfies them, so who are you to judge?

Another thing this movie made me think of goes even deeper. Twenty-thousand years ago, before we even dreamed of agriculture or taming the wolf or writing stuff down, did our humble cave-dwelling ancestors have hobbies? Brainless pastimes to occupy their every waking thought? Was there always that one especially hairy cave-man who sat in the corner meticulously drawing onto the cave-wall the silhouette of each and every leaf he picked up on his hunts? Or the one guy with an expansive collection of entirely useless rocks, about which he was obsessed? I don’t think cave-men had the time for geeky hobbies like that (what with all the hunting, gathering and primitive society-building to be getting on with), so with that in mind, our current state of consciousness evolved without the goal of geeky hobby-obsession in mind. It’s all just some freak offshoot of neuro-evolution that everyone has to manifest in some way or another — collecting stamps, knitting, ceaselessly organising photo albums, watching every match of “the game,” watching every episode of Star Trek (repeatedly), scouring the bible for clues to surviving the apocalypse — these are all completely and totally useless ventures that serve little to no practical use. But they are part of what make us human, and as long as your particular hobby isn’t rape or murder, I say hobbies should be wholeheartedly supported no matter what form they take.

It becomes clear through watching Trekkies that the majority of the fans at least agree on one issue, even if they can’t decide who the coolest captain is (Picard, natch): Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future is so inspirational in its optimism, and so relevant in its themes and symbolism, that anyone with an ounce of wonder for the cosmos or fascination with the future or connection to the present can and will fall in love with at least one episode (or season, or entire series) of the hundreds and hundreds produced over the decades. Not only that, the Trek future is an important beacon of hope to many people. One short example: Whoopi Goldberg was inspired to be an actress after she saw portrayed on the home television a black woman who wasn’t a maid. Uhura from the original series may have been a junior officer, but she was a black woman — black — woman — on the bridge in the 1960s; the studios wouldn’t have allowed it if the show weren’t set in the distant future, but there she was, representing the hopes and dreams of many fine young individuals who eventually grew up to become astronauts and computer scientists and engineers and so on. This is just one small aspect of Star Trek‘s cultural power, and it seems to be a power for good.

Listening to the Trekkies wax lyrical about their favourite hobby, it’s hard not to get swept up into the fantasy escapism that is the Star Trek universe. It has defined science fiction film and television since its inception, and it has given hope and faith in the future to countless people across several generations. The people who really, really dig it might be a little weird, a little wacky, but they’re good people inspired to be better by the show they love. Trekkies is an important historical document in that respect, and it’s also a fun, light but intellectually stimulating romp through some of the more amusing denizens of the socially unpopular underground.

Trekkies score

83/100

BAFTA awards snub AVATAR, earn my respect

BAFTA awards snub AVATAR, earn my respect

Feb 23

Ah, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts: Britain’s answer to the Academy Awards. I don’t think I know any people who speak of the BAFTAs (or the Golden Globes, for that matter) when comparing the calibre and critical worth of films; it’s always the Oscars that everyone talks about ten years after the fact. But the Oscars are weird and unpredictable, especially when it comes to Best Picture and Best Director, where the Academy feels obliged to honour a director because he “deserves it after all these years,” not necessarily because his latest movie is the best of the year (see Scorsese’s 2006 win for The Departed). I don’t know how the BAFTAs are decided, but the results make sense to me, so I’m starting to warm up to these weird little golden faces.

The fact that Avatar was even nominated for Best Picture and Best Director for the BAFTAs made me roll my eyes; it’s like these awards are obliged to recognise James Cameron regardless of what he’s putting out, since the mammoth awards haul he pulled in for Titanic back in the day. Sure it’s nice that dull period dramas and depressing character studies aren’t dominating the awards this year, but it makes you wonder if academies like BAFTA aren’t just bowing to public demand rather than recognising genuine critical worth.

But what’s this? The results of the BAFTAs rolled around on my birthday, and Britain’s gift to me was to snub Cameron’s juggernaut jungle-smurf epic in favour of the taut and brutal war flick The Hurt Locker. Thanks, mate, this definitely beats the socks you sent me last year! I don’t know how the BAFTA awards are decided, but it seems like there are seem free-thinking people on the panel, that’s for sure.

The Hurt Locker snatched Best Picture from Avatar and Up In The Air (thank god), while Best Director was given to Kathryn Bigelow over James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino (for his Inglorious Basterds). I hope Bigelow’s sex wasn’t an important criterion to the panel of judges — it would be condescending to give it to her just because she made a good movie despite being a woman (like that’s some kind of artistic handicap). Sure the industry is dominated by men, and it’s great to see a lady show the blokes how it’s done, but I’d prefer the woman to be honoured for her work, not for the fact that she’s “up there” with the men.

The winning streak didn’t end there, though. The Hurt Locker also waltzed away with Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, and Best Sound, going against Avatar and District 9 in all three categories. Inglourious Basterds was also in the running for Cinematography and Editing, but Quentin Tarantino’s latest love-it-or-hate-it love letter to film didn’t go home empty handed: Christoph Waltz nabbed Best Supporting Actor for his charming / chilling portrayal of Nazi nutjob Hans Landa, a role for which he truly deserves such recognition.

A little focus was put on the British industry, too. A movie called “Fish Tank” won Outsanding British Film, but I’d never heard of the flick till I read the BAFTAs results. An Education was all over the nominations, and won Best Lead Actress for Carey Mulligan’s performance in the film. Duncan Jones won Outsanding Debut By A British Writer, Director Or Producer for his brilliant Moon. I reckon Moon should have been up there in the Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, and at the very least Best Lead Actor categories, especially as Avatar and District 9 got noms in these directions. Sam Rockwell’s performance(s) in Moon is brilliant and integral to the film as a whole, indicative of the genius involved at all levels — script, direction and production. But I guess the movie was too indie, too “genre” to be recognised in such a way.

Avatar didn’t leave without its candy: Best Production Design and Best Special Visual Effects are probably the two awards Avatar most deserves. The fact that Avatar was even in the running for Best Cinematography bugs me a little, though. Sure the tech is new and boundaries were pushed, but the movie’s 90% cartoon; you may as well nominate Up and The Fantastic Mr Fox if you’re going to play that game. Up In The Air got the Best Adapted Screenplay gong, which is a shame, because the writers will now be encouraged to rest on their laurels and continue to put out flabby, faux-sophisticated scripts, rather than pushing themselves in new, challenging directions.

So anyway, those are my rambling thoughts on the BAFTAs. I think, by and large, the awards have been delivered to the right doorsteps. I wish Moon and District 9 had gotten some wins, but I’m glad something serious but fun won the big gongs. This also gets my hopes up for the Oscars. I really hope Avatar doesn’t sweep them like it did the Globes, and if the yanks’ Academy is anything like the poms’, we might actually see some justice come March 7.

What are your thoughts? Reckon Avatar should’ve got the gongs over The Hurt Locker? Has anyone even seen An Education or Precious? Can you vouch for their quality? We’d love to hear what you think!

Full list of categories, with winners in orange:

BEST FILM

• Avatar
• An Education
• The Hurt Locker
• Precious
• Up in the Air

LEADING ACTOR

• Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
• George Clooney (Up in the Air)
• Colin Firth (A Single Man)
• Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)
• Andy Serkis (Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll)

LEADING ACTRESS

• Carey Mulligan (An Education)
• Saoirse Ronan (The Lovely Bones)
• Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
• Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
• Audrey Tautou (Coco Before Chanel)

SUPPORTING ACTOR

• Alec Baldwin (It’s Complicated)
• Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles)
• Alfred Molina (An Education)
• Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
• Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

 SUPPORTING ACTRESS

• Anne-Marie Duff (Nowhere Boy)
• Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
• Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
• Mo’Nique (Precious)
• Kristin Scott Thomas (Nowhere Boy)

OUTSANDING BRITISH FILM

• An Education
• Fish Tank
• In the Loop
• Moon
• Nowhere Boy

OUTSANDING DEBUT BY A BRITISH WRITER, DIRECTOR OR PRODUCER

• Lucy Bailey, Andrew Thompson, Elizabeth Morgan Hemlock, David Pearson (directors, producers – Mugabe And The White African)
• Eran Creevy (writer/director – Shifty)
• Stuart Hazeldine (writer/director – Exam)
• Duncan Jones (director – Moon)
• Sam Taylor-Wood (director – Nowhere Boy)

DIRECTOR

• James Cameron (Avatar)
• Neill Blomkamp (District 9)
• Lone Scherfig (An Education)
• Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
• Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

• The Hangover (Jon Lucas, Scott Moore)
• The Hurt Locker (Mark Boal)
• Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino)
• A Serious Man (Joel Coen, Ethan Coen)
• Up (Bob Peterson, Pete Docter)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

• District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell)
• An Education (Nick Hornby)
• In the Loop (Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche)
• Precious (Geoffrey Fletcher)
• Up in the Air (Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner)

 FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

• Broken Embraces
• Coco Before Chanel
• Let the Right One In
• A Prophet
• The White Ribbon

ANIMATED FILM

• Coraline
• Fantastic Mr Fox
• Up

 MUSIC

• Avatar (James Horner)
• Crazy Heart (T-Bone Burnett, Stephen Bruton)
• Fantastic Mr Fox (Alexandre Desplat)
• Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll (Chaz Jankel)
• Up (Michael Giacchino)

 CINEMATOGRAPHY

• Avatar
• District 9
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• The Road

EDITING

• Avatar
• District 9
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Up in the Air

PRODUCTION DESIGN

• Avatar
• District 9
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• Inglourious Basterds

COSTUME DESIGN

• Bright Star
• Coco Before Chanel
• An Education
• A Single Man
• The Young Victoria

 SOUND

• Avatar
• District 9
• The Hurt Locker
• Star Trek
• Up

SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS

• Avatar
• District 9
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
• The Hurt Locker
• Star Trek

MAKEUP & HAIR

• Coco Before Chanel
• An Education
• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• Nine
• The Young Victoria

 SHORT ANIMATION

• The Gruffalo
• The Happy Duckling
• Mother of Many

 SHORT FILM

• 14
• I Do Air
• Jade
• Mixtape
• Off Season

THE ORANGE RISING STAR AWARD (voted for by the public)

• Jesse Eisenberg
• Nicholas Hoult
• Carey Mulligan
• Tahar Rahim
• Kristen Stewart