Tangled (2010)

Rating: [PG]

Director: Byron Howard

Producer: John Lasseter

Writer: Dan Fogelman

Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures

"Look at the detail on the water!" "Oh my gosh, the hair looks so realistic!" "The textures are breathtaking!" "Her eyes actually look irritated when she cries!" "All the movements are so smooth and realistic!" "Think Dreamworks knows how hopeless it is to fight back at this point?"

Disney likes to show off. Welcome to "Rapun--" I mean... "Tangled".

Set in the renaissance age, "Tangled" is a re-hashed version of the well known fairy-tale "Rapunzel", heavily based off the Brothers Grimm adaptation. Within a nameless land there rests a nameless kingdom that is run by, as expected, a nameless king and queen who are about to receive their first born child. The queen becomes dangerously ill during her pregnancy though and so the king has every man at his disposal search for the legendary golden flower whose powers are said to heal all illness and wounds. Little known to the king and queen, the flower had been discovered some time ago by a wicked old hag named Gothel (Donna Murphy), who has kept the flower hidden on the outskirts of the kingdom's forest since she discovered it. One evening Gothel carelessly leaves the flower unprotected and the royal guards happen to come upon its location, quickly unearthing it and hurrying back to the castle. A potion is made for the queen, given to her and the illness disappears, leaving the queen to give birth to a beautiful baby girl with golden hair; Rapunzel (Mandy Moore).

Gothel then proceeds to to kidnap the child because plot development requires that she know about the golden flower's powers transferring to a fetus. Which hit me as a little bit more than odd considering the audience is told its required to sing to the golden flower in order for its magical properties to be unleashed and whenever you wanted to summon its powers you had to sing to it again. Yet the queen was able to have the flower dropped into a bowl of water and ingested, somehow having the same affect. Then it happens to go through her blood stream and into her unborn child who grows up to have magical hair that has to be activated by....singing. My wife explained to me that Gothel was using the flower specifically to keep herself young over the course of hundreds of years and that digesting the flower could have a different affect. That would sit well with me except for the flower's abilities being activated via digestion. Maybe the king sang to her pregnant belly after she ate it, I don't know. This wasn't originally part of the Rapunzel stories to begin with and overall its an interesting exposition but feels...silly.

Anyway, the king and queen spend several years searching for their missing child but have no luck. After the search is abandoned the kingdom makes a ritual out of releasing thousands of lanterns into the sky on Rapunzel's birthday in hopes that it will guide her home. Though why they would give up and throw lanterns into the air is beyond me. Could have done both but okay. Flash forward in time and we're introduced to seventeen, going on eighteen, Rapunzel who is becoming sick of living in her hidden tower and wishes to be taken to the source of the "floating stars" that appear annually on her birthday because she feels as though they are connected to her. Gothel, being the cliche'd surrogate mother that she is, refuses and exclaims that she will be locked in the tower forever. A little bit before this though we are introduced to the walking cliche' known as Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi). He's just gotten finished stealing a plot device tiara from the palace and now has several handfuls of guards on his tail. This leads him to discovering Rapunzel's tower and how this was possible for a lone thief and not several years of searching by trained palace guards and possibly the entire kingdom......WHO KNOWS!

It's at this point that Rapunzel confronts Flynn with a skillet, locks him in a closet whilst he's unconscious, gets Gothel to leave for three days and proceeds to blackmail Flynn into taking her to see the floating lights. I won't divulge any further because its spoilers and I've also reached my "that was in the trailers" limit. Rapunzel's character is very well played and I was surprised at how well Moore did at projecting the innocence and playful curiosity onto the screen. She's got spunk but also has restraint considering her lack of contact with the outside world. I really liked that Disney was able to make a character who actually had multiple dimensions to their personality. She was not only naturally terrified of a world she'd never been into but also very zealous in achieving her goal. A very lovable character who's easy to relate to and who actually feels like a person that changes with their surroundings.

Beyond that we have a cast of cardboard cutouts. You've got one dimensions all over the map, from: badass-always-cunning-you'll-hate-me-now-but-love-me-later-butt-of-the-jokes-expert-thief Flynn to evil-pretends-to-be-nice-has-goals-of-her-own-and-they-are-so-dastardly-straight-out-of-Cinderella Gothel to a horse and a chameleon who both serve no purpose in the film other than to make silly faces and draw the attention of the camera whenever possible in order to put ease onto the abundance of lull moments in the film. That was the most disappointing aspect of the characters, actually. Typically I like silly sidekicks in Disney films but these two were abundantly worthless. They literally served no purpose except for cheap laughs. Heck, the chameleon is literally only given acknowledgment of his existence when needed as a inaudible laugh track. The film would have been a lot less cringe worthy if the sidekicks weren't present this time around.

Flynn was the other big disappointment. He was a one liner and it never let up. Even by the end of the film where the creators pulled the very over used "you're going to love me now because I learned so much off camera" stunt, he wasn't enjoyable. Not because he's made out to be a selfish womanizer at first and not because his new and improved self comes off as extremely lazy but because he was just.so.boring. Everything that came out of his mouth was a slapstick attempt at humor that grew to be very irritating. He's like a more mellowed out, human version of Mushu who has a persistent ego trip. Very hollow development all around that left me feeling like I didn't care about anything that happened to most of the characters.

The film is a musical, for those that didn't know. The ad campaigns definitely strayed away from giving this away to audiences. Which seems odd to me because the songs were one of the only parts of the film I truly enjoyed. So I'm sitting there for an hour and forty minutes and whenever a song finishes I think "How in the world did a script with such sloppy and overplayed storytelling get such a great Disney style score?" Well the credits answered that one for me; Alan Menken. He did all of the music and boy did it feel like Alan Menken. The songs felt very "return to form" Disney and even though they weren't the catchiest or most memorable songs in existence, they had a very fitting and magical feeling to them. Sort of like what Disney did with "Enchanted"; gave us songs that weren't going to be part of most children's nostalgic childhood but they complemented the film very well and made us happy. The score is the same deal, excellent. It fit the epic fairy tale mood and blended in to the film, loved it. Might actually get myself to obtain the soundtrack because, who doesn't love Alan Menken's work?

The CG. My goodness. This movie looked breathtakingly beautiful and for a while I could hardly believe Disney was the company to conceive this film (though a look at the credits shows that Pixar had a heavy hand in the production). The textures! THE TEXTURES! The water. The hair. The eyes! The eyes, when someone would cry you could actually see the water slowly develop, the pupils change shape and the blood vessels appear. Everything had such an explicit attention to detail that I swear if you muted the film and played certain sections in loops, you might soil yourself from the sheer beauty. Granted, not everything looked excellent but the environment blew my mind. The grass, the flowers, the trees, the clothes, the buildings, the sky, the lighting, the paper on the lanters and everything, everything looked phenomenal. I swear the only reason Disney released this film was to say "Look what we can do. Look forward to it." I have to say that kids will love this film and for anybody else who doesn't, at least you'll have the visuals to entrance you. That's what I did during the boring moments, I lost myself in the film's aura. The eye thing, that really impressed me. I know that probably sounds extremely silly but you'd have to see it. Oh man were my eyes on fire.

The ending was a disappointment as well. There was a chance for the film to redeem itself in terms of emotional development but instead we get a cop out that is sort of borrowed from the original tale of Rapunzel. It's just too irritating to handle because you feel emotionally robbed when the creators tug at your heart strings and then play the "just kidding, this is a kids movie, duh!" card. To be fair though, there are some good emotional moments in the film. There's a scene in the later half of the film that shows the king and queen mourning on the day of Rapunzel's birth. Nothing is said, not a word and yet it brought me to tears while I heard the people next to my wife and I say "That is so sad.". There's a lot of good moments between Rapunzel and Gothel, including a very Disney-Menken style song between the two called "Mother Knows Best" which was a lot of fun.

In the end the animation, the graphics and Rapunzel herself keep this movie from being somebody dragging you through the land of Dull by your teeth. Every single character beyond Rapunzel is a dull, overused cliche' and the animal sidekicks are silent, worthless, cheap laughs that only serve as a very obvious marketing ploy for the kids and fangirls/boys. The story itself has interesting moments but they all seem to be moments that are borrowed from the original story. Anything Disney added in on their own is lazy and that laziness leads to way too many moments of downtime or slow pacing that aren't unbearable, just no fun. As I said before, kids will love this movie and I suggest taking them. Its got the formula to appeal to so many people and I think that regardless of what I or anyone else says, to see it if you're interested. There's enough fun to get you through it even if you come out feeling the way I did. Beyond that though, I couldn't get myself to enjoy the film for what it is because what it is, -is- lackluster. I still love Disney though. I just hope they do better next time.

TRON: Legacy (2010)

Rating: [PG]

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Producer: Sean Bailey

Writer: Adam Horowitz

Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures

Something about the praise surrounding 1982's "TRON" has always bothered me; it all stems from the groundbreaking special effects. As I stated in my review of the film, a lot felt stale but it was still enjoyable. Overall though, the film was quite the bore and had an enticing plot with new age special effects but lackluster acting, directing and pacing to compliment those attributes. A major disappoint on my end because I was expecting something along the lines of "Blade Runner", "Minority Report", "The Fifth Element", or any other entertaining science fiction marvel. Regardless of my initial feelings surrounding the original, the announcement of a sequel got me really curious and once the trailers were released, quite excited. Since I watched "TRON" for the first time back in July I have been biting my nails for the sequel's release. Re-watching the trailers over and over again with child like anticipation. Bugging my wife daily about how entertaining I thought the film looked. Though a disheartening moment arose when I looked at Rotten Tomatoes a few days ago to see an extremely low rating for the film, now resting at 48%.

At the time, the fans hadn't weighed in over on IMDB and I wasn't about to spoil everything by browsing forums, so I had no other opinions to go by. Typically I don't pay attention to popular consensus but when I get this excited, I tend to read more than I should. So I did and what I found began to irritate me a little bit. All across the board were complaints of hollow acting, a terrible storyline, agonizing pacing and that the creators stuck too closely to "TRON's" original formula. This struck me as odd considering how much praise that film initially received and how its become a classic in the eyes of many people. One of those "you have to see it" films. Even the positive reviewers only seemed to give the sequel praise over its dazzling special effects but condemned everything else. It didn't make sense to me: "Why would they expect more now? If the only reason the original got so much hype was over the special effects, why did this one have such high expectations?" It's not like the last film was catered for a sequel and in retrospect, we didn't really -need- to see more of the world. On top of this I had people in my life consistently reminding of how awful the trailers looked or how the idea for a "TRON" sequel was too late and pointless or how nothing about it seemed appealing. I was literally being barraged by negativity whenever the topic arose. Regardless, I didn't back down and was still determined to watch with an open mind and that is what I did. The moment the lights in my theater went down I took everything I had heard or seen and put it as far away from my mind as possible.

"TRON: Legacy" is one of the best science fiction films I've ever seen.

"Legacy" begins in 1989 with a quick and effective exposition from the last film via Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) telling his seven year old son, Sam Flynn (older version played by Garrett Hedlund), a bedtime story. The story goes that ever since Kevin Flynn had taken charge of the technological giant Encom, he has been working with Tron (Bruce Boxleitner) and a new version of his self created digital counterpart CLU (Jeff Bridges) to rebuild The Grid into an inhabitable world for programs & users. We are then given the rest of the exposition via overlaying newscasts, reporting on the disappearance of Kevin Flynn, and how Encom was being turned over to somebody else. During this we also learn that Sam's mother had died several years prior. So obviously those lobbies for Cindy Morgan to make a return didn't work. Quickly the exposition turns over to a twenty-seven year old Sam Flynn speeding away from police officers on his product placement motorcycle. We being to learn that Sam doesn't agree with how Encom is charging outrageous amounts for a brand new operating system and how their business practices clash with his father's. At the same time his feeling of abandonment has caused him to exclude those in his life who used to be important, including his 'surrogate father' Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner). Though Sam's character is played off as a nearly cliche' disgruntled child who has been gifted with his father's genius, he's still a very likable character.

I think audiences have become too jaded when it comes to "cliches". When I look at a film, I do notice certain cliches but only if they are shoved down my throat throughout the film's entirety. In the example of Sam Flynn, we have a child whose mother is dead and who lost his father at seven years old after being promised so many extraordinary adventures. After being told he could one day visit The Grid with Kevin and witness miracles for himself. Having one parent die and the other disappear is pretty disturbing for a seven year old and I would find it hard to believe that anyone in such a situation would be mentally sound afterward. The other reason I stick up for Sam's character in the film is because he doesn't retain this badass, angry, disgruntled persona throughout the film. Once he enters The Grid after discovering his father's secret work station underneath the Flynn's Arcade, the magnitude of the situation hits him and causes a fairly quick transition from bratty adult to somebody who is trying to struggle for survival in an unknown world only mentioned in stories via his father. This isn't to say the character's writing is hold and Garrett Hedlund isn't the best actor in the world but I did find myself being interested in him. Particularly after he finally sees his father again (this happened in the trailers and in the first twenty minutes of the film, hardly spoilers). The reaction he has is so genuine and not over the top like audiences are used to. There's tears but no bawling and falling to the floor. It cause the handful of people in my theater to go completely silent and I found it surprisingly touching.

"Legacy" has a lot of these moments, in my opinion. Times where you know what's at stake and how much emotional gravity is behind the situation. Particularly in the backstory that takes place between the two films. Without going into spoilers I'll say that CLU is played off as a Hitler style dictator who has corrupted The Grid due to seeing Kevin as an imperfection, which is a very obvious reference to HAL 9000. During the film we get the entire backstory and reasoning behind CLU's betrayal and the fate of Tron, The Grid and its inhabitants. These moments are actually quite powerful and in a movie filled with women in skin tight outfits, shiny lights and nifty action sequences, it amazes me that the creators pulled them off in such a serious manner. There's a specific moment where CLU is trying to hunt down Kevin and fails to do so. After he realizes that Kevin slipped away there is a flashback of CLU's recreation. Kevin tells him that his purpose is to help him create the perfect system. It is seen that Kevin is obviously very excited and proud of his new creation by the very child like remark; "You and I, we're going to change the world forever man." as the two walk off. Its a very emotionally driven moment that serves even more powerful purpose later in the film. The actors did a very good job of keeping you on the same path as the story and making sure you were interested in what they were doing.

About a third into the film we are introduced to Quorra (Olivia Wilde), a special type of program who I can't go into much detail about due to spoilers. Her character is that of a typical protagonist; somebody who shows up in the nick of time and who is always willing to put herself in front of others. But there's a very deep sense of innocence that resonated from her mannerisms and body language that made me care for her character's development. There are a number of new characters who are introduced throughout the film, including an eccentric nightclub owner named Zeus (Martin Sheen) who does an excellent job having fun with his character. Bridges' reprisal as Kevin Flynn has also taken a bit of a new direction with the suggestion that all of Kevin's time on The Grid has turned him into somewhat of a master of zen, somebody who has pushed beyond himself to become one with the world he created and then lost. The new angle is a little more humorous than serious most of the time but its obviously not meant to be taken too seriously. Something that really stuck out in the film for me is that the characters all seemed important in one way or another. Not a lot of time was spent with characters who didn't advance the plot or have some sort of voice or purpose in the story.

The Grid is absolutely breathtaking to look at and like its 1982 brother, "Legacy" is a marvel of special effect technology. So many times I sat there trying to make out what was organic and what wasn't. Even more amazing is the revelation I came across prior to the showing; more of the movie is special effects than real people. Knowing this made the experience even more worthwhile because I could not believe almost everything was created with a computer. Which is ironic in itself. During the film's beginning exposition we learn that The Grid is being completely recreated by Kevin, Tron and CLU. This gave the creators a bit of an excuse to turn the world into whatever they want. I do love the world and feel like its one of the aspects "TRON" was missing. Everything felt a bit hollow and without purpose but in "Legacy" there's an entire world within this computer system that is thriving and expanding with its own rules and forms of entertainment. A lot more time is given to the games from the original and a new spin, where thousands of programs actually show up to watch, provided a very nice sense of importance. The disc battles and light cycle matches were upgraded in the best ways possible and really didn't disappoint. Wonderful choreography mixed with top notch CGI made them feel more epic and entertaining.

One of the biggest complaints I've come across is the film's pacing. I can honestly say I'm baffled by this statement, even when it came out of my wife's mouth. Not once was I bored in that theater and not once did I feel like the two hour running time was overdoing it. Maybe in a movie that gives us so much CGI there's a natural expectation for more action and less explanation through words. People want their stories explained in visuals, I understand that but the story in "Legacy" was so interesting to me. It brought in elements like evolution, abiogenesis, destruction of understanding, the human condition and the realization that perfection requires heavy sacrifice. The film may be rated PG and Disney may not have allowed the script to go into dark waters but trust me, the story is pretty heavy in some aspects and the creators did the best possible job that they could to convey this story to us without breaking the boundaries of Disney law. Something was happening at every moment, characters were providing exposition every minute and when nothing was happening story related? There was action. I felt like I was watching the next great science fiction film. The next big thing that kids would be talking about and what adults would be geeking over. It introduced me to a brand new world of characters, elements and stories. There's not much else I can say about it besides that I do not agree -at all- with the pacing being awful and I honestly cannot take anyone who says the film was ludicrously slow very seriously in that regard.

There are a few moments that make you stop and go "Wait, why?" or "How does that work". There's also a few important plot points that are quickly talked about and I feel like audiences might miss them and then wonder what is going on by the end of the film. A couple of cheesy moments are thrown in here and there. The cliches are there but what is surprising is both the cheesy moments and cliche developments aren't shoved in our faces. There's no forced romance or drawn out epic battles or "twists" and nothing over the top happens that shouldn't be over the top to begin with (such as action sequences). In a way this hurts the movie a little bit because it does make you start begging for more information and wishing to see a more expansive perspective on The Grid. This is another complaint that has been floating around: "Why did this happen?" "When did that happen?" "How does that work?". When did the meaning of science fiction turn into explaining everything and have it bound to the laws of reality? Everything needs to be explained word for word and obey all the laws of physics? Everything that takes place in the film is explained to the extent that it needs to be in order to create an engaging story. We're given a solid plot with an end goal and some interesting tidbits on the side. Exactly what any fiction movie should be. The film isn't trying to kid itself or take itself too seriously or be something it isn't.

The music is scored by Daft Punk and boy what a treat that was. I honestly don't like a lot of what they put out but this film is causing me to consider re-listening to their previous works to see if I missed anything really good. The score fit with the world and with the actions being made by the characters. Very electronic, trance and dance style, loved it. They also make a very amusing cameo appearance as .mp3 files.

As for how it holds up as a sequel, I kind of wish it wasn't a sequel. With a little added script this would have been an excellent start to a TRON trilogy or something of that nature. Making this the sequel to something that is now hailed as a classic is hurting the film in its own way. Even though I cannot fathom how people are "expecting" anything after seeing the original, I can understand why there is a want for something much greater and epic. Though I firmly believe the film delivered in this regard, a lot of people feel otherwise which has caused me to really scratch my head. Either way, the other film is pretty dead in my eyes after this. It gave way to a great idea but failed on so many other levels. "Legacy" is everything the original should of been but was incapable of pulling off due to restrictions.

One last thing; this film borrows heavily from other film such as 2001, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Blade Runner, respectively. There are certain instances where you won't be able to help but make the association between these films. It doesn't ruin the film at all, mind you. The homage is done in a way that you still feel like you're watching "TRON" and not a cheap rip off of a Lucas classic.

There's so much I like about this film that its difficult gathering all the words and expressions to convey my excitement. People may laugh at me for my claims but I do stand by them with confidence. You're thrust into worlds beyond your own imagining with complicated and beautiful creations that work in mind bending ways. A feeling of otherworld importance is put in front of you and there's a sensation of wanting to jump into the screen and immerse yourself in the adventure. "TRON: Legacy" is filled with special effects so breathtaking that for a few moments I forgot "Avatar" ever existed. But beyond the dolled up look of the film there -is- a great, emotional and heavy story there with the potential for another installment. Excellent directing, excellent cinematography, really good acting and overall, a thrilling adventure. In my top favorite science fiction films ever, hands down and I know that forever will I be in the minority on this one. Arrogantly though, I have to stand my ground in saying that the people who disliked this film so much must be being held back by nostalgia and the expectation of something more. Though I honestly cannot take the popular consensus seriously when films like "Transformers 2" and "Inception" perform as well as they did. Maybe mainstream audiences didn't get it. Glad I did and I sincerely hope you'll believe me when I say this film is worth your time.

Black Swan (2010)

Rating: [R]

(Director) Darren Aronofsky

(Writer) Mark Heyman

(Producer) Jon Avnet

(Distributor) Fox Searchlight Pictures

Darren Aronofsky is no stranger to the profound and undeniably queer aspects of the human psyche. Anybody who has seen his reincarnation themed tale of loss and redemption, "The Fountain", or the strung out "Requiem for a Dream", can easily make this claim. I seem to be personally drawn to these directors, the ones who come off as self described slaves of vague and pretentious expression. Maybe because I like to believe that their films mirror the intense, wayward outlooks they have on people and life itself. The idea fascinates me, to think that there are fellow humans out there who think so differently than the rest of us and on some level, may even be considered mentally unstable. Yet they walk amongst us and direct our Friday night movies. Kubrick, Lynch, Aronofsky, Miike, Trier...the list goes on. These people reach out their hands, take ours and ask us to plunge head first towards recognizing our own inner demons. "Black Swan" is about just that...somebody whose desire to achieve is fueled by their own self hatred. A combination that leads to personal destruction.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a young, timid, and emotionally withdrawn professional ballerina who lives with her mother Erica Sayers (Barbara Hershey) in New York City. From the very beginning it becomes apparent that Nina lives in an unstable environment. Due to a mother who seems to have made the lifelong attempt to live through her child, Nina has developed a ritual of self mutilation via the violent scratching of her skin during times of emotional turmoil and self doubt. Unfortunately stress rears its ugly head as the new ballet season rolls around and chief director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) visits a dancing practice to choose a replacement for prima ballerina Beth Maclntyre's (Winona Ryder) starring roll in his upcoming re imagining of "Swan Lake". Out twenty or so girls, Leroy chooses a small handful and Nina is lucky enough to be one of the chosen. Though immediately after, a bad audition where Leroy claims "you have shown me your white swan but I do not see a black swan anywhere in there", begins a never ending downward spiral of Nina's mental state.

Intense. That would be the easiest way to describe the 108 minute journey through the tortured mind of Nina Sayers. Aronofsky made damn sure that the audience would be experiencing every little unstable thought or complex emotion our self loathing main character was going through. An excellent job was done at capturing that intense feeling of needing to succeed even if it meant destroying yourself in the process. Somehow this came across so well that within the first twenty minutes I felt the sudden hiccuping of tears because I felt so pressured. Just this sensation of pressure, anxiety and the feeling that you're completely alone in the ordeal. Natalie Portman has never been one of my favorite actors and after her role in the Star Wars prequels I tried to avoid her atrocity as often as I could. In "Black Swan", her emotions looked so raw that its simply baffling to witness. You know how there's often times where an actor will cry in a film and you can't help but give a little smirk because it comes off as entirely forced? Well I swear Aronofsky was standing behind the camera, threatening to shoot her, because every emotionally weary moment seemed genuine. Every tear, every cry, every reaction to her delusions felt real. It was a lot to take in and sometimes really hard to endure.

The main focus of the film from the very beginning is Nina's internal development into the "black swan". Leroy consistently tries to push her into a darker direction via sexual temptation but nothing seems to be able to crack Nina's hard shell. This problem becomes easily worked around because very early into the movie we are introduced to Lily (Mila Kunis), a replacement dancer that has been flown in from San Fransisco. From the get go its fairly obvious that Lily is Nina's metaphorical "black swan". Nina is fragile, innocent, sheltered, anxious and extremely timid. Lily is vicious, spunky, rough and well....she's from San Fransisco. Aronofsky throws this extremely "subtle" hint at us by having Lily wear black throughout the entirety of the film and Nina wear.....well, what's the opposite of black? The two girls end up developing a sort of "let me take you on a trip to the wild side" relationship. Lily uses her carefree and live-life-however charm to lure Nina into some pretty wild and very new "situations". If you feel uncomfortable watching lesbian sex scenes, lots of crotch groping, and a persistent theme of orgasmic female lust...might want to pass on this film (or be less of a Nina).

About a third into the story, things take a turn for the losing-itself and the film seems to get lost for a little bit. Which is too bad because its during this time that Nina is making the haunting dive into black swan territory. So its kind of disheartening to see things get pretty silly. Luckily the climax is heart wrenching, depressing and robs you of all positive emotions. So enjoy those "bad acting/writing" laughs while they're available.

There's some pretty shoddy CGI every now and then that will either have you feeling squeamish due to the subject matter or slightly rolling your eyes because you saw how beautifully done the CGI was in "The Fountain" so you're going "The hell Darren?!" Honestly though, the bad effects only become an after thought because during the actual viewing you are far too busy getting emotionally beaten down with sorrow to even notice. There is one CGI'd scene at the end that left me breathless. Not because the effects were good but because it builds up to this giant explosion of emotion. Like heavily exasperating after finding out you aced the test that was getting you into a top notch university.

"Black Swan" is just excellent. The directing is actually pretty groundbreaking, in my opinion and I'm not trying to over-exaggerate. The entire feeling of the film portrays Nina's emotions. The whole thing. Not once do you ever get to breathe and that's because she never gets to breathe either. The cinematography is stunning. The soundtrack is gold to fans of classical ballet scores. The acting makes me want to slam my head into a wall because now I'll be curious as to the future career of both Portman and Kunis, actresses whom I've never liked in the past (that means the acting was superb). Everything was good except for those thirty minutes or so in the later half of the film but its easily excusable because the emotional ride was mind blowing.