Best Adapted Screenplay: 2010

“You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” Not in Mezrich’s book. That’s pure Sorkin.  And true.  100% true.

My Top 10

1. The Social Network
2. True Grit
3. The Ghost Writer
4. Winter’s Bone
5. Toy Story 3
6. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
7. The Town
8. Shutter Island
9. Rabbit Hole
10. Never Let Me Go

note:  A much stronger Top 5 and Top 10 than the previous years.

Consensus Nominees:

1. The Social Network  (720 pts)
2. 127 Hours  (184 pts)
3. True Grit  (152 pts)
4. Toy Story 3  (112 pts)
5. Winter’s Bone  /  The Town  (72 pts)

note:  Social Network has the second highest point total ever behind only Sideways, has the second most wins (10) and ties L.A. Confidential for the second most nominations (10).  It has the third highest Consensus percentage (53.25%) behind Sideways and L.A. Confidential.  Partially as a result of that, 127 Hours is the weakest #2 finisher since 2006 and there won’t be another one that weak until 2017.

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

• The Social Network
  
• 127 Hours
• True Grit
  
• Toy Story 3
  
• Winter’s Bone
  

WGA:

• The Social Network
  
• 127 Hours
• I Love You, Phillip Morris
• The Town
  
• True Grit

Golden Globes:

• The Social Network
  
• 127 Hours
• Doubt
  
• Frost/Nixon
  
• The Reader

Nominees That are Original:  Inception, The Kids are Alright, The King’s Speech

BAFTA:

• The Social Network
  
• 127 Hours
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• True Grit
  
• Toy Story 3

CC:

• The Social Network
  
• 127 Hours
• True Grit
  
• The Town
• Toy Story 3
  
• Winter’s Bone

LAFC:

• The Social Network

NSFC:

• The Social Network

BSFC:

• The Social Network

NBR:

• The Social Network

CFC:

• The Social Network
  

My Top 10

The Social Network

The Film:

“You’re not an asshole, Mark. You’re just trying so hard to be.”  That’s what Mark Zuckerberg is told in the final line of the film.  But his lawyer is wrong.  His ex-girlfriend Erica was right at the beginning of the film: “You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”  Because Zuckerberg is an asshole and he’s done lasting damage to this country and to the world.  This film has the right measure of him, from the opening moments to those final closing moments, where it’s him alone on a computer.  The film brilliantly looks at the way he does the things he does and lashes out at the world and wants to be the only person recognized for his genius.  There’s more in my review here but bear in mind the way that Facebook has actively been a part of the disinformation that has almost torn this country apart and that was long after I wrote that review.

The Source:

the accidental billionaires: the founding of facebook: a tale of sex | money | genius | and betrayal by Ben Mezrich  (2009)

Honestly, like much of Mezrich’s work, this belongs in fiction.  He makes up dialogue and then claims the book is non-fiction.  At least have the class to be like Thomas Keneally and write a novel if you don’t want to focus enough on the research to write non-fiction.  Of course, his source, Eduardo Saverin, stopped talking to Mezrich because of the lawsuit and Mezrich had to just make do with what he could.  It’s a crap book about an asshole who created something people wanted and wants to spin him as a genius.

The Adaptation:

The film isn’t adapted from the book.  It’s not, no matter what the credits say.  Sorkin was working on the script while Mezrich was writing the book and took most of his stuff from the actual depositions.  Yes, Sorkin also created dialogue, but this is a film, not a documentary (or a supposed non-fiction book), so it’s more allowable.  But Sorkin made a deal with Mezrich, so the script credits him and is adapted and not original, which is fine, because then I can give Nolan the Nighthawk for Original Screenplay without any worries.

The Credits:

Directed by David Fincher.  Based upon the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich.  Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin.

True Grit

The Film:

I have already reviewed the film as a Best Picture nominee for 2010.  Thankfully the crap original film wasn’t nominated for Best Picture (though it was nominated for its script by the WGA, appallingly enough).  This version hews much closer to the original book, actually has great acting instead of one blustery performance and a lot of terrible performances and is a fantastic film on every level.  Jeff Bridges had won the Oscar the year before but his performance as Rooster Cogburn I think is actually better than his one as Bad Blake.

The Source:

True Grit by Charles Portis  (1968)

I have actually already reviewed this book from when I reviewed the 1969 film for that Adapted Screenplay post.  I didn’t read the book until after this film came out (because why would the original film have made me interested in it?) but was pleased to discover it was actually a great novel and well worth reading (I own a copy and have now read it several times).

The Adaptation:

There are some small changes to the original story (like LaBoeuf being hidden in a different spot at the hideout shoot-out as opposed to just catching up to them) but for the most part this film follows the original book very closely with a lot of dialogue straight from the page, most notably almost every line Mattie says.  In fact, reading the book what I hear in my head is Hailee Steinfeld straight from the film; even in the narrative, I can hear her voice in it.  She should read it for an audiobook.

The Credits:

Written for the Screen and Directed by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen.  Based on the Novel by Charles Portis.

The Ghost Writer

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the five best films of 2010.  While the film got great reviews, it was met with complete silence from the awards groups, not helped by Polanski’s continuing legal saga at the time.  But it’s a first class thriller, a film that has a captivating subject at its core that deals with the current state of politics at the time (in both 2007 and 2010 but really things haven’t changed all that much in the decade since the book was published and the film was released).  It’s got great casting, especially in giving such a plum acting role to Pierce Brosnan, who is rarely remembered for being as good an actor as he is.

The Source:

The Ghost by Robert Harris  (2007)

Back when I was in college, I decided at one point that I was too unfamiliar with popular fiction and bought some John Grisham and Michael Crichton.  To that end, I bought a book called Fatherland by Robert Harris which looked interesting (the Nazis won the war) and somehow, for years, I just never ended up reading it and then eventually got rid of it.  So this was my actual introduction to Robert Harris.  It’s a solid thriller with a good premise and a fascinating typical thriller like ending.  But it keeps you riveted, doesn’t overstay its welcome and unlike a lot of such books, doesn’t have ADD (it has just 17 chapters instead of averaging just a few pages per chapter like many genre books).

The Adaptation:

Through the first hour and a half, with the exception of a few minor details (there’s a girlfriend that the main character breaks up with early in the book) the film follows the novel almost exactly.  It starts to differ later in the book (the meeting with Rycroft actually takes place in New York and the flight is from there).  But there are really two significant differences.  The first is that the death scene at the airport is a suicide bombing in the book not a shooting (though with the same result).  The ending is also different – the writer finds out after the party and doesn’t reveal it to Ruth.  In the final chapter he’s still alive though he suggests if you’re reading the book he’s probably dead.  But that final ominous (but brilliant) ending isn’t in the book and I suggested in my initial review (before reading the book) that it probably wasn’t because it’s more of a Polanski ending (remember that he insisted in the dark ending of Chinatown).

The Credits:

Directed by Roman Polanski.  Screenplay: Robert Harris and Roman Polanski.  Based on the book “The Ghost” by Robert Harris.

Winter’s Bone

The Film:

It’s not that often where you get a film that turns an unknown into a full-blown star.  But that’s what Winter’s Bone did for Jennifer Lawrence with the awards attention making up for a lack of box office.  And she turned out to be just about the best actress of the next decade and a genuine sex symbol to boot.  But here she’s just the poor daughter of a meth cooker trying to find out what happened to him so her family doesn’t lose their land.  Bleak and full of despair but very well made and a great performance from John Hawkes that deservedly raised him from small character obscurity.  Brilliant but not a film I wanted to return to.  Full review here.

The Source:

Winter’s Bone: A Novel by Daniel Woodrell  (2005)

This is a really quick read and by that, I mean I read it in well less than two hours sitting in Veronica’s office waiting for her to be done with work.  A bleak story of a resourceful teen who must find out what happened to her father or risk losing her family’s land.  A brutal tale of poverty and crime but Ree is an unforgettable character whose will is second to none.

The Adaptation:

Even though it had been close to a decade since I had last seen the film, there are lines of dialogue that I could hear in my head while reading the book (“Never ask for what ought to be offered.”  “I said shut up once already, with my mouth.”  “That idea has been said already.  Got’ny other ones?”  “Help me.  Ain’t nobody said that idea yet, have they?”) because it’s that close an adaptation.  There is one addition (it’s hinted in the book that Ree will join the army at 18 but the scene with the recruiter is added in) and a couple of subtractions (the book mentions that Ree always wears dresses with her combat boots but in the film she’s always in pants – don’t blame them for that as it must have been damn cold filming and in the book, she defecates after her beating and her friend Gail helps her clean up – nice to not deal with that on film).  But otherwise it it’s an excellent and very faithful adaptation.

The Credits:

Director: Debra Granik.  Adapted for the screen by Debra Granik & Anne Rossellini.  Based on the novel Winter’s Bone by Daniel Woodrell.

Toy Story 3

The Film:

I have already reviewed the film because it was one of the Best Picture nominees for this year (it doesn’t make my Top 5 but it does make my Top 10 so if I did ten films like the Academy it would have earned a Nighthawk nomination).  It is the amazing third film in a trilogy that is better than the second that was better than the first.  I also added a little bit here because it was also the winner of Best Animated Film.

The Source:

characters from Toy Story and Toy Story 2

I also don’t need to write anything here.  I reviewed the second film here and because the second was adapted from the first and I had never reviewed the first, I reviewed it as well.

The Adaptation:

This film, of course, doesn’t do anything that undermines the first two films.  Instead, it just moves us forward a good decade and we see what happens with toys when someone goes off to college.

The Credits:

directed by lee unkrich.  story by john lasseter, andrew stanton and lee unkrich.  screenplay by michael arndt.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film in full in my For Love of Film post on Harry Potter.  This film is interesting because in some ways, it doesn’t really conclude – after all it’s only adapted from half the book.  But it still manages to create an emotional journey and give a strong conclusion to the film itself.

The Source:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling  (2007)

I have also already reviewed the book in full and I did write more about it than I wrote about any of the other books, giving careful consideration as to why, though it is not my favorite of the books (that’s the sixth), I do think it is the best of the books and the one that most graduates into adult Fantasy.

The Adaptation:

This is the film that can be most confusing for someone who is not a devoted fan of the series.  It cuts a lot of exposition early in the film, introducing characters that have been known for a while in the book with minimal bits just so that they don’t have to write around them.  After that, it settles in a bit more and sticks closer to the spirit of the book even when it has to stray a bit from the exact details (such as how the three of them are captured).  But there are also moments that are more poignant in the film (Hermione leaving her parents) and even make more sense than what we read in the book (how Harry’s identity is revealed to the Death Eaters at the beginning).

The Credits:

Directed by David Yates.  Screenplay by Steve Kloves.  Based on the novel by J. K. Rowling.

The Town

The Film:

I grew up (ages 6-17) in Orange County, California.  That’s a mostly quiet suburb (in spite of what the Offspring might want you to think) that doesn’t really count, in one sense, as part of LA.  I have ideas about what it’s like in LA and I was headed to the peaceful protest about the Rodney King verdict before it turned into a nightmarish deadly riot.  But I’m not from LA.  Likewise, Ben Affleck understands the deep core of violence at the heart of Boston as I wrote in my review of Gone Baby Gone.  He can talk like he’s from Southie like in Good Will Hunting or seem like he stepped right out of Charlestown like in this film.  But it’s interesting to remember that Ben Affleck is from Cambridge.  He’s been an actor since he was a kid and his life is nowhere near the life he’s been so good at portraying.  Like me, he’s had the better life and he’s been able to watch it and understand it from afar.  That maybe makes him better at making a film about it than if he was actually from these neighborhoods.

Doug MacRay and Jem Coughlin are from the town.  They’re bank robbers because they were brought up to be.  They’re violent men, raised by violent men, one of whom is dead and the other of whom is in prison for the rest of his life.  They haven’t made it far and they don’t look like they’re making it any farther.  But they are good at what they do, which is rob banks.  They would be even better if Jem weren’t such a hothead, if they weren’t forced to pass parts of their take onto The Florist, a man who goes beyond their own simplistic violence and actively ruins lives, and if they weren’t stuck in Charlestown.  After one particular heist they take the bank manager along with them which complicates things in all sorts of ways and will lead, while in the midst of their greatest score, to their downfall.

The Town is a fascinating Crime film because you’re not entirely certain who you’re supposed to be rooting for.  While it’s definitely not Jem (played with a simplistic brutality and unnerving efficiency by Jeremy Renner, earning him a second straight Oscar nomination) or The Florist (an even more brutal performance from Pete Postlethwaite which earned him a posthumous BAFTA nomination – he died after the film opened but before awards season kicked in from pancreatic cancer that was already evident in how thin he is) it still opens the film up.  There is Doug, who wants to escape this life and manages to actually fall for the bank manager that they kidnap and just has dreams of his mother coming back.  He is a man haunted by his past and Affleck, who has had his own problems, perfectly brings him to life.  It could be the manager herself, Claire, played by Rebecca Hall, pursued by both the robber and the man hunting him and just trying to figure out how she can pick up the pieces of her life after this traumatic series of events.  Or maybe it’s Agent Frawley, played by Jon Hamm as a relatively straight-laced guy who wants to make certain to take down this group of bank robbers who put lives at risk in their heists.

The film makes use of a lot of cliches when it comes to the story but it knows how to properly make use of them.  It gives us interesting characters and it invests time in looking closely at them.  It gives us the question of who we want to root for and thus allows us to have questions about how feel at the end of the film.  It’s a thrilling film from start to finish, well made and very well acted.  It, sadly, didn’t quite manage to sneak into the 10th Best Picture spot but there’s no question that it was a worthy contender right down to the last minute.

The Source:

Prince of Thieves: A Novel by Chuck Hogan  (2004)

I’ll be honest: I hated this book.  I simply hated it.  I wasn’t liking it much at all, the way that Hogan writes about areas I know (the bank that is robbed at the beginning of the book is the one where I withdrew money to pay for my ALCS Game 7 ticket in 2007 and the movie theater robbed in the middle of the book is the one in Braintree where I saw several films including The Departed), the way that he stigmatizes Charlestown as a town where people are simply raised to become bankrobbers, the way that he can’t actually seem to decide who he wants to win this battle between an FBI agent and a bankrobber so he doesn’t ever really seem to choose.  But then he makes it much worse for me by deliberately naming every part of the book after a U2 song (it wasn’t obvious when the first one was Pride but when the second was When Love Comes to Town it became more so).  Part of his stereotyping of Charlestown is to assume they’re all Irish and they all must love U2.  So I started scanning at that point to just get through the book and put it down.

Adaptation:

For the first half of the film, it follows very closely to the book, from the heist to the kidnapping to the way the agent is brought in.  It takes a major detour halfway through as you might notice from reading the preceding section in that the middle robbery in the film is a movie theater (in which Jem goes nuts and starts shooting up the place).  From there, it then goes back to the book (although, unless I missed it in my quick reading, the whole story of Doug’s mother is not in the original book) for the Fenway heist.  It ends quite differently though, as Doug actually dies on Claire’s floor in the book and doesn’t even make it to Florida.

The Credits:

Directed by Ben Affleck.  Screenplay by Peter Craig and Ben Affleck & Aaron Stockard.  Based on the novel “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan.

Shutter Island

The Film:

Teddy Daniels is not a well man.  From the first shot of him, of course, we know he’s not physically well because he is vomiting up everything in his stomach, a reaction to being on a boat that I fully agree with.  He’s the head federal marshal on a case where he is traveling to a place that is part prison and part mental institution.  Ostensibly he has been sent there because a woman has escaped from her cell.  His real reason for being there will be made clear over the course of the film and has to do with his dark history.

His history and the way he seems to move back inside it is the big clue that he is as mentally unwell as he is physically.  He has serious ghosts from his past, from his actions as a soldier during the war (he killed Nazis who had surrendered at Dachau) to the life he has been trying to lead behind (his wife died and the visions we see of his wife are haunting and terrifying as she will suddenly have blood leak from her or will turn to ash and disintegrate in his arms).  He’s trying to both solve this mystery that has been laid before him (complete with plenty of clues that would seem to suggest a sinister conspiracy at work) as well as potentially track down the man responsible for the fire in his building that killed his wife.  Or maybe didn’t.  Maybe she died some other way and maybe that’s tied into the missing patient.

Martin Scorsese once said that The Departed was the first film he ever made that had a plot.  Shutter Island has a fascinating plot because it’s an intricate mystery and as we start to peel away the different layers we begin to realize that it may not be the mystery that we thought it was.  This isn’t the kind of film that would have worked well for either Marty or Leo early in their adaptations but after several films together, Leo had aged into the kind of man who had this darkness in his past that was staining his soul and Marty began to flow with the story rather than just focusing on characters.

This is an interesting film.  It wasn’t ready for a 2009 awards push so it was pushed back to February, which made everyone nervous about its quality, but then it got really good reviews and fell just short of being Marty’s highest grossing film (domestically), ending up just a few million behind The Departed.  It didn’t get much awards attention because it had come out so early in the year but it still ended up as one of the best films of the year with excellent editing, music and cinematography and a first-rate cast, not to mention a script and direction that keeps you guessing right up until the end of the film.

The Source:

Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane  (2003)

After leaving off with the Kenzie-Gennaro novels, Lehane had gotten more ambitious with Mystic River, a dark mystery that embraced all the darkness in Boston.  Then he followed with this novel.  It’s shorter, less ambitious, doesn’t actually deal with Boston at all (it’s set on a fictional island out in the harbor) and has more of a labyrinthine plot.  We get into the head of a federal marshal who is sent to a prison / hospital to deal with a missing patient but who also has a hidden agenda.  At the end, Lehane comes through and all the things that seem like bizarre eccentricities that would be just ridiculous in most books all get explained with simple credibility.  It’s taught and thrilling throughout.

The Adaptation:

It’s a very faithful adaptation of the book.  There are a few changes, with some streamlining of the story of Laeddis as he is presented but for the most part, what we see on the screen is what we read on the page, straight down to the haunting ending.

The Credits:

Directed by Martin Scorsese.  Screenplay by Laeta Kalogridis.  Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane.

rabbit hole

The Film:

“What’s wrong with the people?  They’ve lost children, too.  They understand what you’re going through.”  “No they don’t.  They understand what they’re going through.”

You can not tell another person how to grieve.  Everyone grieves in their own way.  What’s more, people will not know how they will grieve until grief comes upon them.  Even a shared experience will not bring about the same result, let alone someone else who has had the same factual thing happen (the death of a child in this case) but it happened to them in a different way than it happened to you.

Rabbit Hole is a story of grief.  A couple has lost their child through an accident (he ran out into the street).  It’s not the type of thing where it’s easy to blame (the driver wasn’t drunk or driving badly) but you look for someone to blame.  Sometimes you blame yourself.  Even the strongest marriages can struggle to overcome the death of a child.

Becca (Nicole Kidman, in a fantastic performance that returned her to the ranks of the Oscar nominated) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart, always getting overshadowed yet also always brilliant) are trying to cope.  Becca is turning inwards and pushing things away; she has abandoned their grief group, she is getting rid of his clothes, she even wants to sell the house.  Howie is trying to reach out for some connection, whether it be an attempt for a sexual night with Becca or the friendship of another person in the grief group that won’t quite lead to an affair, or at least not a physical one.  But it’s the next step that Becca takes that leads to a different development.  She decides to meet with the teenager who accidentally killed her son.

Now we meet Miles Teller in his film debut.  Teller is damaged by what has happened and has retreated into his goal of becoming a comic book artist.  He writes (and draws) about parallel worlds and eventually Becca will come to learn about them through him (“This is just the sad version of us.”).  What happens when Howie eventually learns about this odd friendship is almost the end of the marriage, but like with Monster’s Ball, this is a film that understands relationships and understands how things grow and some things remain unsaid and some things, while always in the background, never quite go away.

The Source:

Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire  (2006)

This is a wrenching (and yet at times oddly funny) play about the death of a child and the way that the parents of the child try to cope with the death and somehow move on with their lives.  It’s a small chamber play (one setting, just five parts) that looks at their relationship through various points in their lives all taking place in the house that the wife now wants to sell to escape the memories of their dead son.

The Adaptation:

The film (written by the playwright) doesn’t just open up the play, getting out of the house (in fact a majority of the film is probably outside the house) but also expanding on the actions.  We meet more characters, some that we only hear about in the play and we see a much larger expanded aspect of what is going on with Howie and Becca.  This becomes much more about these two people and how they coping with the hole that has opened up in their lives.

The Credits:

directed by John Cameron Mitchell.  screenplay by David Lindsay-Abaire based on his play “Rabbit Hole.”

Never Let Me Go

The Film:

An opening statement lets us know that this is not the world we live in.  It talks about a cure for most ailments and how by 1967 life expectancy had surpassed 100 years.  But then there is a shot of a young woman looking in at an operating room at a young man who clearly looks like he’s dying.  So what is the real story here?  And how does that factor into the tale we move into, the story of three young teens at a boarding school called Hailsham.  There are hints that there is something strange about the life at Hailsham but it’s not quite clear how it fits into the statement or the opening scene.

Eventually as we follow the story of Kathy (the narrator), Tommy (the boy she loves) and Ruth (who captivates Tommy and manages to have the relationship with him that Kathy wants) through their strange time at boarding school (including a devoted teacher who leaves) and into their young adulthood (when the young actors, eerily accurate as young versions of the older actors are replaced by the stars of the film – Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley) we will learn that they are actually clones and they are being raised to provide organs for transplants.

In a bit of irony the novel that this film was based on was released in 2005, the same year that the film The Island, also about clones who realize that they are being raised to provide organs for the “real” people, was also released.  But that film was a Sci-Fi thriller in which the clones revolt against their intended purpose and they find actual versions of themselves.  This is a much more finely thought out story and deals with the intended place in society for people who are only being raised for slaughter.  It’s not to provide organs for their own likenesses but just to provide organs at all.  And it’s not concerned with the people who need the organs, but with the clones themselves.  The school was actually an experiment to discover if the clones have souls and the desire to find out something about that (and perhaps escape their intended purpose) is what the journey of the film is about.  This is about what happens to these people as they realize what their lives are meant for and decide what those lives will mean, not a Sci-Fi Action film with an idea to jumpstart the action.

This is a slow film, full of thought and purpose, full of desire and betrayal, full of hope and despair.  It is so well-made because it embraces those contradictions rather than utilizing them to further the plot.  It takes a long look at the people in the film and what they come to do with their lives.  It is well acted, well directed and well acted and gives you pause about how we treat life around us and what it is intended for.

The Source:

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro  (2005)

This is a very highly acclaimed book, but like much of Ishiguro’s work, I struggled to get through it (even though it’s less than 300 pages and I had read it before).  It might seem strange to have a Sci-Fi work (even one where the Sci-Fi is such a marginal part of it) from the writer of The Remains of the Day but in the end, it’s about the inability to admit and express emotions and what that does to your soul and your life.  In both works, it’s actually a distant coldness that is the hallmark of the story, not the story elements themselves and that’s what makes them similar and makes them Ishiguro works.  While it was short-listed for the Booker and both Time and The Guardian have pronounced it among the best books of the era, it just doesn’t work for me.

The Adaptation:

The film streamlines things a little bit but since much of the book is Kathy’s narration of things and it’s easy to compress that down when placed on screen, much of what we got in the book actually makes it to the screen and most of what we see is fairly faithful to the book.

The Credits:

Directed by Mark Romanek.  Screenplay by Alex Garland.  Based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro.

Consensus Nominee

127 Hours

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film as one of the Best Picture nominees.  It is quite a good film although it doesn’t rise to the level of a nominee for me (even if I did have 10 nominees like the Academy) with a very good lead performance and great direction, cinematography and music.  The script isn’t quite as strong as should be obvious from its placement down here.  The main thing about this film is the notion as to whether a film is entertainment or art because there’s not a whole lot of entertainment going on here.

The Source:

Between a Rock and a Hard Place by Aron Ralston  (2004)

I honestly have very limited sympathy for people who do dangerous things and then get hurt.  It’s too bad he lost his arm and amazing that he survived like he did but there’s no way I would have read this book if not for this project.  What’s more, most of the book is actually just about his life and I just don’t care.

The Adaptation:

Most of the book actually doesn’t make it into the film.  The injury happens on page 31 of a 354 page book.  Most of the book deals with his life not the actual attempt to get free.  It easily could have just been an article but then Ralston couldn’t have made money off his injury.  So most of the film deals with his attempt to free himself and thankfully leaves out most of the details of his life and how he came to do such adventurous things.

The Credits:

directed by Danny Boyle.  based on the book “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” by Aron Ralston.  screenplay by Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy.

WGA Nominee

I Love You, Phillip Morris

The Film:

Steven Russell, in the film about him, I Love You Phillip Morris, notes that even though he became famous for multiple escapes from prison and some ridiculous con jobs that he was able to get away with for longer than he should have, that it wasn’t a crime story but a love story.  And he is right.  This film is filled with a lot of crime and early on it’s even filled with considerable sex but that goes away once Steven meets Phillip.  Because his relationship with Morris, while sexual, isn’t about that.  It’s about how much they care for each other.

I basically didn’t even hear of this film until it was nominated by the WGA, a nomination helped by some of the more prominent adapted screenplays being ineligible (Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3).  It had come and gone quickly in theaters and starred Jim Carrey, who I had disliked early in his career when he made stupid comedies and whose time as an interesting actor seemed to have passed by.  But, even though this film had, in the secondary role, one of my all-time favorite actors (Ewan McGregor playing Morris), it was the casting of Carrey that was the best thing about this film.  He would bring the exact right amount of lunacy to Steven Russell and lunacy is what you need when a man is calling the FBI from his own hospital bed to fake being an agent saying that he can go free.  Or being so passionate about a man that you would break out of jail because of him and then go back into jail impersonating your lover’s lawyer.

At first glance this film would seem to follow in the footsteps of Catch Me if You Can, a film that was far less truthful to the actual events but was much more interesting.  But Frank Abagnale was interested in the game itself and living the fake life.  Russell wants to live the real life with Morris and just wants to do whatever he has to do in order to make that happen.

Russell was already living an interesting life well before that, misusing his police job to track down his birth mother who then rejects him, outing himself as gay and leaving his wife and daughter after a horrible car crash (an odd change from reality, in that in the film he is broadsided by accident while in real life he was fleeing a cop car because he was speeding and he rolled several times).  He initially turns to crime because he wants to support the lavish lifestyle he has with his lover but after he is in prison (and his lover has died of AIDS related illnesses), he falls for Morris and his life now has just one goal.

This film isn’t really all that good.  It certainly, given that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I, Rabbit Hole and Shutter Island were all eligible, didn’t belong on the list of WGA nominees.  But what it has going for it is the last worthwhile performance (to date) from Carrey.  He might be a whack job in real life but it turned out that the talent he showed from 1998 to 2004 combined with the lunacy he showed before that was just right for this role.

The Source:

I Love You Phillip Morris: A True Story of Life, Love and Prison Breaks by Steve McVicker  (2003)

A decent enough little book written by the Houston Chronicle journalist who had heard a lot about Steven Russell, the celebrated con man and prison escape artist and Russell agreed to tell his story to McVicker.  McVicker set out to corroborate as much as he could (some of the people involved were dead and some refused to talk about Russell at all).  Russell had certain advantages that worked in his favor (he had been a cop and knew certain things about police procedure and had worked in finance and knew how to manipulate paperwork) and might have been much more successful had he not become besotten with Morris, a young man he met in prison.  Russell continued to try and get Morris out of prison and refused to ever leave him behind and that eventually wound up with him serving a life sentence in spite of never having committed a violent crime.

The Adaptation:

Many of the early details of the book are different from the film (Russell was revealed as an orphan much earlier and got into crime when he was still a teen, so the idea that he suddenly went to crime after being rejected by his birth mother is out of place and he would eventually reconcile with his birth family).  But, amazingly enough, once it gets to his criminal life, many of the details in the film are surprisingly accurate, including some of the more outlandish ones (bribing someone to beat him up and then stealing a medical id, the prosecutor being related to one of the people he ripped off, showing up to see Morris in prison while pretending to be his lawyer).

The Credits:

written and directed by john requa & glenn ficarra.  based on the book by steve mcvicker.

BAFTA Nominee

Män som hatar kvinnor

The Film:

What comes after can have an impact on what came before.  The trilogy of books written by Steig Larsson had all been made into films in his native Sweden before the first Hollywood film adaptation came about but, in spite of BAFTA nominations and strong critical acclaim, how many people outside of Sweden have seen those films?  The films are well-made and they have a very compelling performance at the heart of them in Noomi Rapace, an actress strong enough to make the jump to making films in English (in a strange coincidence, I happened to watch her latest English language film, The Secrets We Keep, just before re-watching this film) but, aside from being foreign films trying to compete in a market where they don’t gain a lot of traction, this film was hampered by the fact that just two years later, a big Hollywood production would be released from a director just off making one of the most critically acclaimed films in years.  I believe I saw these films before Fincher’s film was even completed (the BAFTA nominations for this film were probably the primary reason for that) but they didn’t make nearly the same impact as Fincher’s film.  So the question is why?

It’s not like these are bad films.  As I said, they are quite good and Rapace herself is particularly good.  But part of the problem is that Fincher’s film is better.  It has crisp editing, it has very strong character actors through the whole film, most notably in the role of the uncle who wants to know the truth and the ultimate villain at work.  But it’s really all about the core casting and while Rapace does a strong job (and kudos to the filmmakers for casting an actress who is distinctly odd looking rather than taking a better looking actress and making her appear more odd-looking), Michael Nyqvist isn’t at the same level.  He’s a solid actor, but he doesn’t really make you believe in Blomkvist’s fierce determination and he doesn’t have the core of desirability that makes you understand why Daniel Craig is getting so many of the female characters of the film into bed.

This is a film that is dark because the content is there but it doesn’t have the same oppressive feeling as the Fincher film would later have because it lacks the editing and it lacks the driving force of the Rezner / Ross score.  In fact, look at the opening moments and the way the film gradually develops with the news of the libel case as opposed to the pounding cover of “Immigrant Song” over hypnotic opening titles.

This is the problem at times with how things can develop.  It’s not really possible to look at this film in a vacuum.  It’s a good film with a very good lead performance and a disturbing story but if not for Rapace I would probably find it forgettable and even with Rapace it’s so blown away by the remake that I still find myself struggling to discuss the film itself.

The Source:

Män som hatar kvinnor by Stieg Larsson (2005, tr. 2008)

On one level, this could just be another mystery, the kind of book that I don’t read.  But there are a few things that really kicked this up a notch.  First, it was already a massive sales success in Sweden before it was ever translated, so it had huge buzz (also because Larsson himself had died after writing the first three books but before any of them were published and there was eventually a big lawsuit over who had the rights to the rest of his work).  Second, it is massively fucking dark.  I don’t generally read Mysteries, but I can’t imagine that they are this filled with rape and violence and brutality.

That brings us to the title.  The original Swedish title translates to Men who Hate Women (a title I suggested could have also been used for Murakami’s 1Q84) but the English language editions are The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  First of all, not only is that a much better title, but it also changes the focus.  Though Blomkvist is arguably the hero of the book, it is Salander who is the most compelling character.  By changing the title, it focuses the book on her and away from the horrific actions of the main story in the book (and to be fair, that title kind of gives away stuff in the book because you don’t really find out that about these men until very late in the book).

It’s a compelling Mystery.  It’s not great, but like all readable books in the genre, it keeps things moving at a quick pace, gets you involved in a plot (and in this case, memorable characters) and gives you an ending that you are okay with. But it is extremely dark and while I read the book around the time the film was released, I have deliberately avoided reading any of the other books.

The Adaptation:

This film is oddly, both more and less faithful to the source material than the remake would be.  It makes much more use of Larsson’s full ending (as opposed to truncating it) but it changes the opening considerably, in the way that Salander and Blomkvist come to be teamed up on the case in the first place.  It doesn’t shy away from the darker elements of the book but it doesn’t seem to embrace them the way that the Fincher film does either.  It’s a fairly faithful adaptation and the changes that it does make are really more superficial.

The Credits:

En film de Niels Arden Oplev.  Baserad pä Stieg Larssons roman.  Manus: Rasmus Heisterberg, Nikolai Arcel.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

note:  This list increases significantly over the previous years even with 127 Hours being reviewed up above (it was 13th on my list).

• Tangled  –  A brilliant take on the Rapunzel tale that, even as a box office hit, was under-rated as I pointed out here.
• OSS 117: Lost in Rio  –  Sequel to the Cairo film and still doing a satirical (and also straight) take on the novel series from the 50s and 60s.  Sadly, after its star and director won Oscars in 2011 they stopped making these.
• How to Train Your Dragon  –  The first film based on the children’s book series is quite good but not quite great.  Full review here.
• Barney’s Version  –  High *** (a 75) Comedy based on the novel by Mordecai Richler.
• The Company Men  –  The Academy listed this as Adapted eligible but I can’t see why.  Solid ***.
• Green Zone  –  High ***.5, based on the non-fiction book Imperial Life in the Emerald City.
• The Tempest  –  Another high ***.5 for this adaptation of a Shakespeare play that has never been adapted often enough.  Truly magnificent cast.
• Love & Other Drugs  –  Another 75 film, this one the rare Rom-Com based on a non-fiction book (Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman).  Nice re-pairing of Gyllenhaal and Hathaway.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

note:  The adaptations go back down with 7 fewer than the year before.

• The American  –  Clooney’s a hit man in this adaptation of the novel A Very Private Gentleman.  High ***.5 but the script is the weak bit.
• A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop  –  Zhang Yimou gives us an almost slapstick remake of Blood Simple.  Low ***.5.
• The Killer Inside Me  –  A rare year to have three 75 films (highest *** possible) just among the Adapted films.  The Jim Thompson novel becomes a fascinating Crime film.
• Nanny McPhee Returns  –  A new stellar British cast (and Maggie Gyllenhaal) in a sequel titled Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang in Britain.  Takes place so long after the first film that the baby in that film has grown up to become Maggie Smith.
• Alice in Wonderland  –  The final dance from Johnny Depp almost kills the whole film for Veronica but the Art Direction and Costumes are so amazing that it’s a visual treat to watch even when the story goes astray.
• Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief  –  First film in the series adapted from the YA book series.  Unlike Golden Compass and Inkheart it would get a second film although no more after that.  Watching this film the first time, I stopped and wondered “who is that beauty with the blue eyes?  She’s a stunner.”  Welcome to my film world, Alexandra Daddario.
• Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps  –  In the era of the long-delayed sequel, Wall Street gets one 23 years later but it’s actually fairly good in spite of Shia.
• Iron Man 2  –  After the first Iron Man, the quality of the MCU wouldn’t be all that strong until the first Avengers film but that still makes for pretty good films.  Plus, Natasha.
• Nowhere Boy  –  A biopic covering John Lennon’s teen years based on the biography of him by his half-sister.  He forms a band in the film.
• Jack Goes Boating  –  Philip Seymour Hoffman had starred in the play by Robert Glaudini so decided to make this his only directorial effort.
• Shrek Forever After –  Oh that’s right.  There was a fourth Shrek film.  I tend to forget and so does everyone else.
• Chloe  –  Atom Egoyan’s remake of the French film Nathalie.
• Confessions  –  Japanese Oscar submission (making the semi-finals) based on a novel by Kinae Minato.
• The Runaways  –  Story of the band which is more fair to Joan Jett than you would imagine since it’s based on Cherie Currie’s memoir.  Kristen Stewart reminding people in the midst of the Twilight films that she could still act.
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader  –  I thought this might be the best of the series and it did have some moments but overall was okay (we’ve reached mid ***) and it was the last of the series.
• Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl  –  Manoel de Oliveira adapts a Eça de Queirós short story.
• Tamara Drewe  –  This Stephen Frears film comes from a graphic novel that had been a comic strip which had been loosely based on Far from the Madding Crowd.
• Mesrine: Public Enemy #1  –  The second part of the two part film based on the French gangster’s autobiography.
• Mesrine: Killer Instinct  –  The first part.
• Flipped  –  Rob Reiner’s best film in 15 years was sadly not a hearkening of a return to form.  Adapted from the YA novel.
• The Way Back  –  This is the “walking away during WWII” not the “Affleck as alcoholic coach” film by this title.  Adapted from the memoir by the man who Jim Sturgess plays.
• Ward no 6  –  Russian Drama based on the Chekhov story.
• Robin Hood  –  Even though I love Robin Hood and Cate Blanchett plays Marion, I’ve only seen it once and it made very little impression.  Ridley Scott’s take on the legend.  BOM says it made over $100 million domestically and my brain just doesn’t remember that.  The Academy considered this original.
• Fair Game  –  It’s Elizabeth Banks who’s the dead ringer for Valerie Plame but Naomi Watts is a bigger star so she got the role in this adaptation of the separate books by Plame and her husband.  The horseshit over her outing as a CIA agent is a reminder that the world shouldn’t forget how awful W was as president just because the next Republican was even worse.
• The Duel  –  Chekhov again but this time in English.
• John Rabe  –  True story of a man who used Nazi citizenship to save Chinese from the Nanking Massacre.  Based on Rabe’s diaries.
• RED  –  The comic series becomes a ridiculous but also fun film which is why it’s not terrible.  Either way though we’ve still hit low ***.
• Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky  –  Rumored affair given life in a 2002 novel and then in this film.
• Ramona and Beezus  –  Film adaptation of the Beverly Cleary series with the title of the first but apparently the plot pulled from later books.
• Today’s Special  –  Aasif Mandvi adapts his own play.
• The Taqwacores  –  Adaptation of the novel by Michael Muhammad Knight.
• Let Me In  –  An unnecessary remake of a great film.  I would say that Chloe Grace Moretz could make any film compelling but I’ve seen Tom and Jerry.  Also, she’s too feminine to match up to the book’s actual character.
• Wild Grass   –  French film from Alain Resnais based on the novel L’Incident by Christian Gailly.
• Tirza  –  The Dutch Oscar entry based on the novel by Arnon Grunberg (which had been a Dutch best seller).
• Aisha  –  Bollywood version of Jane Austen’s Emma.
• Scott Pilgrim vs. the World  –  Yes, there are good things about the film so I kind of understand why it’s become such a cult hit (when you barely make the Top 100 at the box office but have a group of very, very passionate fans, you are definitely a cult hit).  Visually interesting, although undermined a bit by having such a bland lead, having the most attractive female in the film be the sister rather than any of the love interests and by not giving enough time to Kieran Culkin who steals the film every time he opens his mouth.
• My Dog Tulip  –  Animated film adapted from J.R. Ackerley’s memoir.
• Tales from Earthsea  –  Miyazaki’s son follows in his footsteps directing this Studio Ghibli adaptation of the Ursula K. Le Guin series.  If you’re interested in Le Guin (and you should be), learn more about her here.
• The City of Your Final Destination  –  Middling Merchant Ivory film without Merchant as producer.  Based on the novel by Peter Cameron.
• The Girl on the Train  –  The first of far too many films by this title in the last dozen years.  This one is French and based on a play.
• Like Dandelion Dust  –  Drama based on the novel by Karen Kingsbury.
• Little Moth  –  A 2007 Chinese film based on the novel by Bai Tianguang.
• Khatta Meetha  –  Hindi-language remake of a 1988 Malayalam film.
• Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue  –  Like all of these films, decent entertainment that was basically made for video and given a short theatrical release in one theater in LA to qualify for Oscar consideration.
• Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time  –  Down to **.5.  Adapted from the video game, this is the first of the films with Gemma Arterton as the sex appeal in mediocre (or crappy) Fantasy films.  The subtitle likely meant they hoped to have sequels but a $90 million domestic gross on a potential tentpole doesn’t get you sequels.
• The Girl who Played with Fire  –  The second Swedish film in the series.
• Life During Wartime  –  Quasi-adapted in that it makes use of characters from Happiness with new actors.  But with Happiness, Solondz was edgy and interesting and here he’s just become boring.
• The Sorcerer’s Apprentice  –  Not as bad as I feared but not good enough to justify the title.  Apparently based on the Goethe ballad.
• Tron: Legacy  –  I had a co-worker who was excited enough to see this with his grown son at midnight but they had loved the original.
• The A-Team  –  I’ve seen maybe a couple of episodes of the show and I saw this film and then forgot about it.
• Terribly Happy  –  Danish Crime film based on the novel by Erling Jepsen.
• Raavan  –  Down to mid **.5 with based on the Sanskirt epic.
• Veer  –  Hindi version of Gogol’s Taras Bulba.
• Dinner for Schmucks  –  U.S. remake of the French Dinner Game.
• Diary of a Wimpy Kid  –  The books are wonderful for kids but the films are kind of bleah.
• Death at a Funeral  –  Totally unnecessary U.S. remake of the hilarious British film.
• Housefull  –  Hindi remake of a Tamil language film that would become a hit franchise in India.
• If You Are the One 2  –  Chinese Rom-Com sequel.
• Bluebeard  –  I expected more from a Catherine Breillat version of a dark fairy tale.
• Tees Maar Khan  –  More Hindi remakes – this one of After the Fox.
• Mao’s Last Dancer  –  20 years after undeservedly winning Best Picture, Bruce Beresford is still boring me.  Based on the autobiography of Li Cunxin.
• The Karate Kid  –  Remake of the 1984 hit with one great scene (where Jackie Chan fights off the kids without ever once hitting them) and a lot of unmemorable ones.  With this we hit low **.5.
• The Perfect Game  –  A true sports story (1957 Little League World Series).  How was this not made by Disney?
• It’s Kind of a Funny Story  –  I somehow doubt this forgettable film based on the novel by Ned Vizzini is the reason Disney chose Boden and Fleck to make Captain Marvel.
• Machete  –  Considered an Original Screenplay by the Academy but I think by their rules the character should be adapted because of the fake trailer in Grindhouse (plus he had been in Spy Kids).
• Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole  –  Maybe this should have been the first clue that Warners shouldn’t be entrusting franchises to that talentless hack Zack Snyder because I know they wanted to make more than $55 million domestic.
• The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest  –  The third in the Swedish series.  They weren’t getting better.
• The Extra Man  –  Mild Kevin Kline Comedy based on the novel by Jonathan Ames.
• Golmaal 3  –  Third in the Hindi language series.
• Marmaduke  –  Based on the comic strip which I never much read but which I think about all the time because there’s a dog at the top of the stairs in our complex who looks just like him.
• Pure Country 2: The Gift  –  18 years after his original, Christopher Cain makes a sequel.  I was today years old when I learned the director of Young Guns is the stepfather of Dean Cain who is the star of the film.
• Edge of Darkness  –  Proving that Casino Royale was the odd film out in his post-1998 directing career, Martin Campbell remakes a BBC series.  High **.
• The Wolfman  –  Remake of the 1941 film with good makeup and little else.
• Clash of the Titans  –  Remake of the 1981 film which I have a fondness for which is part of why I saw this in the theater.  The other reason is that I had not yet seen Avatar and realized how truly awful Sam Worthington is as an actor.  Recently rewatched it to see people I didn’t really know at the time (Nicholas Hoult, Liam Cunningham, Rory McCann) and it’s still awful.  Once again Gemma Arterton as the sex appeal.
• Eat Pray Love  –  Based on Elizabeth Gilbert’s memoir.  I’ve met Gilbert and if she gets to be played by Julia Roberts then I get to be played in my memoir movie by Clive Owen.  Mid **.
• The Next Three Days  –  Paul Haggis remakes a French film.
• The Crazies  –  Yet another remake, this one of the 1973 George Romero film.
• Predators  –  20 years after Predator 2 the franchise is revived if not reinvigorated.
• The Switch  –  If you’re gonna make a Rom-Com based on a Jeffrey Eugenides story this is what you’re gonna get.
• The Oxford Murders  –  Mediocre Suspense film based on the novel by Guillermo Martinez.
• The Last Song  –  Sappy crap film based on sappy crap Nicholas Sparks novel.  Probably rated too high.
• For Colored Girls  –  Good poster, strong Black female cast, interesting idea to base a film on a poem, but directed by Tyler Perry and it’s bad.
• The Cry of the Owl  –  Adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel.
• The Losers  –  Several future MCU stars (Evans, Saldana, Elba) in a bad Action film based on the Vertigo comic series.
• Charlie St. Cloud  –  Like many films based on novels that are “fables”, it’s schmaltzy and lame.
• Step Up 3  –  Down to low ** with this film whose technical title is Step Up 3D which tells you all you need to know.
• Jolene  –  It’s based on a Doctorow story and it’s got the film debut of Jessica Chastain and it’s still a dud.
• The Nutcracker: The Untold Story  –  Yes, the untold story of the story everyone sees every Christmas.
• Get Him to the Greek  –  Yes, because that’s what people wanted after Forgetting Sarah Marshall: more of the Russell Brand character.
• Kick-Ass  –  I’m kind of with Roger Ebert on this one.  Based on the comic by Mark Millar and like all of the super-violent non-Marvel comics by Millar, widely avoided by me.
• Extraordinary Measures  –  The Oregon film curse strikes again.  Based on the true story documented in the book by Geeta Anand.
• The Trouble with Terkel  –  A 2001 Comedy album turned into a 2004 Danish Animated film with a 2006 British dub released in the States in 2010 and later released again in 2017 with a US dub.
• Twelve  –  Given that she is as beautiful as her aunt, perhaps someday Emma Roberts will be in good films like her aunt.  This isn’t it.  Based on a novel by Nick McDonnell.
• Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Undead  –  Possibly could be considered original but it’s got enough of Hamlet and R&GrD that I’m leaving it as adapted.  Either way it’s bad.
• Dear John  –  Sappy crap film based on sappy crap Nicholas Sparks novel.  At high *.5 this one is probably about right.
• A Nightmare on Elm Street  –  The trend of just rebooting Horror franchises with sub-par remakes of the original hits Nightmare.
• Piranha  –  Another pointless gory Horror remake.
• Why Did I Get Married Too?  –  Why did you make this sequel, Tyler Perry?  Low *.5.
• Youth in Revolt  –  This one has the measure of Michael Cera better than Scott Pilgrim as he tries to lose his virginity.  Based on the novel by C.D. Payne.
• The Garden of Eden  –  High * adaptation of Hemingway’s posthumous novel.
• Repo Men   –  Not a sequel to Repo Man but an adaptation of a Sci-Fi novel by the guy who wrote Matchstick Men.
• Gulliver’s Travels  –  Terrible adaptation of the first part of Swift’s brilliant novel.
• The Tourist  –  Shitty remake of a French film (Anthony Zimmer) that was nominated for three Globes because they’re a bunch of star fuckers.
• Survival of the Dead  –  Down to mid * with George Romero still continuing to make zombie films.  Which is still better than . . .
• Resident Evil: Afterlife  –  Where this Zombie franchise, ironically, somehow continues to not die.
• Little Fockers  –  This stupid series gets a third film and they keep getting worse.  Thankfully there was a big box office drop for this one and they haven’t made another.  Made more money than The King’s Speech.
• Twilight Saga: Eclipse  –  A good comparison spot to the previous year’s list as this is three spots higher than the previous film in the series in spite of being no better.  But there are also two fewer overall films on this list.  In spite of an opening weekend half the size, it ended up outgrossing Deathly Hallows domestically.  Thankfully the rest of the world had better taste and the worldwide gross for this film barely surpassed the international gross for DH.
• Jonah Hex  –  I didn’t read the comic because I prefer super-hero comics to either Westerns or Sci-Fi (it oddly went from one to the other) but it had to be much better than this crap.  Low *.
• Paranormal Activity 2  –  Is there a difference between films in this series?  Certainly not in the quality.
• MacGruber  –  Yes, parody one of my favorite shows from growing up and make it not funny in the slightest.  That will win kudos from me.
• Sex and the City 2  –  The original film wasn’t good but this was just a disaster across the board.  This made almost $100 million domestically which only made it the fourth highest grossing .5 film of the year (Grown Ups isn’t listed below).
• Saw: The Final Chapter  –  Like Twilight, a good barometer.  Two spots higher than the previous film.  Also, the title is a total lie and the the other version of the title makes me want to vomit (Saw 3D).
• Yogi Bear  –  This awful live action version of the cartoon did just barely make $100 million domestically, outgrossing Social Network, The Fighter and The Town.
• Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore  –  At least this sequel was unsuccessful enough that I haven’t had to sit through more of them.
• The Last Airbender  –  With a domestic gross of $131 million but a rating of 4, the 15th most offensive film of all-time in terms of dollars per point but only the second worst of the year (Vampires Suck, which was original, made only $36 million but it earned a 1).  This year joined 2003 as the only years with 4 films with more than $20 million per point (2011 would also join it later).  For the record, only one good film (Avatar) has even broken $10 million and the highest great film is Force Awakens at just under $10 million.  The only films worse than this to earn more money domestically are Big Daddy, Grown Ups 2 and 2012.
• I Spit on Your Grave  –  Disgusting, tasteless remake of a disgusting, tasteless 1978 film.  This film earned less than $100,000 domestically and yet still managed a sequel.  Yet, even at zero stars, not the worst film of the year thanks to Human Centipede.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

• none

I have seen every film in the Top 150 at the box office and the only films in the Top 300 ($150,000) I am missing are both Christian films I skipped (Letters to God, Preacher’s Kid).  Hatchet 2 at #376 is the highest obvious sequel.

I am missing 9 Oscar eligible films (including both skipped films) and all of them are listed by the Oscars as Original.