Oldies:
2/2- Times be a Changin' Indeed: My Thoughts on the Nominations My Most Anticipated Films for Spring My Most Anticipated Films for Fall
Summer 09,
Winter 08,
Summer 08,
Winter 07,
Summer 07,
Winter 06,
Summer 06
First of all, my apologies for not being able to post the nominees live as they come in this year. It's just that I finally have a real job and my work must come
first. But of course when I got to work and was able to look up the nominees online, I was surprised, and overall relieved.
First of all, regarding the best picture race, I'm sure the Academy CEOs are clinking wine glasses with each other right now after seeing that their idea of
increasing the best picture lineup to ten films in order to nominate more mainstream and alternative types of film actually worked. With two sci-fi films
Avatar and District 9, as well as an animated film Up, the Academy can now make the claim that they aren't out of touch with America
and can expect better ratings at this year's telecast. However, I remain skeptical that this move will work in future years. What if 2010 doesn't feature
several really strong alternative films like Avatar and District 9? Then they'll have to nominate ten boring Academy type films again. So just because
it worked this year, doesn't mean it will work next year. And as I predicted, the expansion resulted in a couple of films that were good but not Oscar good getting
nominated for best picture like An Education and A Serious Man. I guess you've got to take the good with the bad.
As for The Blind Side stealing the best picture nomination away from Invictus is probably the biggest surprise of the morning. Though I felt some
weakness for Invictus, I don't think anybody saw it going to a film that gave no signs it was even in the best picture race. Though I have yet to see
Blind Side, I'm guessing that its financial success makes it a more deserving film than Invictus. And I just realized that even though
The Lovely Bones bombed, Peter Jackson still got a nomination this year since he was executive producer for District 9. Good for Pete.
Moving on, the director, actor, actress and supporting actor categories went down pretty much how everybody was expecting without surprise. Consequently I'm a little
disappointed that none of my bold moves like Emily Blunt or Christian McKay came true. But then supporting actress threw a couple of curve balls. First I'm surprised
Penelope Cruz was still nominated after Nine seemed dead for attention in any non-tech category. And then there was Maggie Gyllenhaal, one of the brightest
moments of the nominations for me. Having earned absolutely no precursor attention, it seemed as though Gyllenhaal was doomed to be snubbed by Oscar yet again after
so many worthy performances before (Secretary, Sherrybaby, World Trade Center, etc). And Crazy Heart was her best performance yet so I
was exceedingly happy to see her make the list. What also pleases me is finally seeing Christopher Plummer get his first Oscar nomination at 80 years old, after such
a long and deserving career. Now we just need nominations for Donald Sutherland and Christopher Lee and all will be as it should be. Other people I'm really happy to
see finally get their first nomination include: Ivan Reitman, Colin Firth, Sandra Bullock, Stanley Tucci, and Vera Farmiga.
Screenplays had a couple of surprises like The Messenger and In the Loop. I'm a bit disappointed 500 Days of Summer got the snub. But the tech
categories threw plenty of surprises. There was more love than expected for The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and less for Inglourious Basterds in the
art direction and costumes areas. But then, Basterds got its due in the sound mixing and sound editing categories, even if it beat District 9 to them.
And even though District 9 did well overall, it managed to lose nominations for art direction and makeup as well. Guess the Academy didn't like it as much
as the guilds did. And I'm personally happy to see the Academy didn't completely overlook Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen when it deserved some
recognition for its sound work. And what's interesting is seeing Precious beat Up in the Air for an editing nomination, which leads me to believe
Precious has the upperhand at winning best picture. And what else is interesting is to see each of the Harry Potter movies score a nomination in what
seems like a different category each time. Between four of the films, the series has now scored nominations for cinematography, art direction, costumes, visual
effects and score, having yet to win any Oscar. Maybe the last Potter film will finally win something.
So overall, I correctly predicted 86 out of 121 nominees or 71.2%. That's a little better than my last two years. But only a few of my bold out of the consensus
predictions came true. I'll try to make up for it next month with my winner predictions. At least I think I'm getting better at taking personal bias out of the
equation. I'll start making my winner predictions throughout the week. I have already updated the precursor chart and my personal picks with the nominees.
Biggest Surprise Inclusions
The Blind Side for Picture
Maggie Gyllenhaal for Supporting Actress (but I'm very happy with that one)
The Messenger for Original Screenplay
In the Loop for Adapted Screenplay
Harry Potter for Cinematography
Dr. Parnassus for Art Direction and Costumes
Precious for Editing
Inglourious Basterds for Sound Mixing and Sound Editing
The Hurt Locker for Score (did it even have a score, and was it eligible?)
Paris 36 for Song (whatever that film is)
The Secret of Kells for Animated Film
Biggest Snubs
Invictus for Picture
Emily Blunt for Actress
Julianne Moore for Supporting Actress
500 Days of Summer for Adapted Screenplay
Inglourious Basterds for Art Direction and Costumes
Up in the Air for Editing
District 9 for Makeup, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing
Transformers for Visual Effects and Sound Editing
The Informant for Score
Partly Cloudy for Animated Short
Unlikely Things I Got Right
Fantastic Mr. Fox for Score
Princess and the Frog gets nominated twice for Song
Avatar snubbed for Song
Broken Records/Trends
-The Blind Side is the first film to be nominated for best picture after receiving absolutely no best picture precursor attention whatsoever.
-With Avatar and District 9, this is the first time two sci-fi films were nominated for best picture.
-Up becomes the second animated film nominated for best picture after Beauty and the Beast.
-A Serious Man is the third film by the Coen Brothers to be nominated for best picture, and fourth to be nominated for screenplay.
-The average box-office between the best picture nominees is higher than that of any group before it (although it's highly skewed by Avatar).
-Kathryn Bigelow versus James Cameron might be the first time ever that two people who at one point were married to each other are competing against each other in the
same category.
-Lee Daniels becomes only the second black man to be nominated for director after John Singleton.
-Kathryn Bigelow becomes only the fourth woman to be nominated for director after Lina Wertuller, Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola.
-Meryl Streep increases her record to 16 nominations.
-Christopher Plummer becomes one of the oldest men to get an Oscar nomination.
-Maggie Gyllenhaal is the first actor since as long as I've been watching the Oscars to get an Oscar nomination without picking up any precursor mentions whatsoever.
-This is the eighth nomination for two of the nominated costume designers: Colleen Atwood and Sandy Powell.
-Transformers makes the thirteenth sound mixing nomination for Greg Russell, who has yet to win, thus making him the man with the second-most Oscar
nominations and no win.
-Randy Newman's two nominations for song are number 18 and 19 for him.
-This is only the second time in the history of the animated film category that it features five nominees.
Nomination Totals
The Hurt Locker - 9
Avatar - 9
Inglourious Basterds - 8
Up in the Air - 6
Precious - 6
Up - 5
District 9 - 4
Nine - 4
Star Trek - 4
An Education - 3
Crazy Heart - 3
The Young Victoria - 3
The Princess and the Frog - 3
The Blind Side - 2
A Serious Man - 2
Invictus - 2
The Last Station - 2
The Messenger - 2
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus - 2
Sherlock Holmes - 2
Fantatic Mr. Fox - 2
The White Ribbon - 2
A Single Man - 1
Julie and Julia - 1
The Lovely Bones - 1
In the Loop - 1
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 1
Bright Star - 1
Coco Before Chanel - 1
Il Divo - 1
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - 1
Paris 36 - 1
Coraline - 1
The Secret of Kells - 1
Can Avatar beat decades of narrow-minded voters?
As we draw closer and closer to this year's Oscars, fans and bloggers alike are becoming increasingly convinced that Avatar will be the one
to beat for best picture this year. Sure the film will soon surpass Titanic as the highest grossing film ever, and it has millions of fans
worldwide. But as much as I loved the film myself, I must remain skeptical. The Academy has never given best picture to a sci-fi film before,
and I remain doubtful that this is the film to break that barrier. Of course, what type of film is needed to break that type of barrier? Nearly
every year the Academy has given the best picture award to a drama or dramady set in the present or past in the real world. Fantasies, sci-fis,
real comedies, and superhero films are just a few types that the Academy scarcely recognizes. Let's examine a history of films that have tried
to break down the best picture bias.
In many ways Avatar is this decade's Star Wars. In 1977, George Lucas released Star Wars upon the world and it shot to instant fame like no film
before or after it. It made hundreds of millions in its months of running. It inspired product lines, sequels, conventions, and forever changed
the way films are made due to its breakthrough visual and sound technologies. Few films could be considered as revolutionary as Star Wars was.
It was no surprise that this massive hit was Oscar nominated for best picture in '78. But it was a shock to many that it lost the award to Woody
Allen's film Annie Hall. How could a film that impacted the way films were made for decades to come, be beaten by a simple but well-written and
acted film. Sure Annie Hall was a good film, but does it really deserve the term best picture? Shouldn't best picture go to a film of certain
importance? Shouldn't it go to a film that changes the way all other films are made? Apparently not because in the '70s the Academy was still
fixated on awarding the same type of real-world dramas or dramadies every year. Star Wars failed to break the barrier.
History repeated itself in 1982 when Steven Spielberg introduced us to E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, the tiny wide-faced alien that the world fell
in love with. This love was enough to gross the film nearly $400 million making it the biggest film ever. And it seems as though it came closer
to satisfying the Academy's criteria of being a real-world drama, if it weren't for that tiny detail that E.T. is from outer space. If the film
were rewritten so that E.T. were say, an illegal immigrant from Slovenia, perhaps the Academy would have given the best picture award to the
film instead of the grand-scale epic Gandhi. Sure Gandhi was as big-scale as Lawrence of Arabia and told the tale of one of the most important
people in history. But it did not capture the hearts and souls of audiences the same way that E.T. did. Once again, the Academy chose tradition
over heart.
Now let's look at a time when a best picture barrier was broken. I am referring of course to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. In
2003, this fantasy film by Peter Jackson not only won best picture and director, but nine other awards making it a perfect sweep and tying
Titanic and Ben-Hur as the all time biggest Oscar winner. Meanwhile, the Clint Eastwood murder drama Mystic River, the film that more clearly
has Oscar written all over it, picks up a mere two acting trophies in its haul. So what caused the Academy to suddenly change from its
narrow-minded focus to accepting fantasy films as genuine filmmaking? I believe the answer to be: baby-steps. Before Return of the King, there
was The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, both of which were nominated for best picture and both of which lost just like Star Wars and
E.T. before them. But therefore, by the third film, there was more a sense that this film had EARNED its Oscar through the two previous films'
nominations. I believe had there been no Fellowship or Two Towers, then Return of the King would have lost to Mystic River. So you could say
that Lord of the Rings broke down a best picture barrier for fantasy films, but they had to try three years in a row in order to do it.
This brings me to the most recent, and therefore I believe the most relevant example for comparison: The Dark Knight. In 2008, Christopher
Nolan's interpretation of the comic book hero soared to $530 million, second only to Titanic. In terms of ticket sales, I'd say Avatar has made
about as much as Dark Knight when you factor in price inflation, and the extra cost for the 3D glasses. Throughout '08, people were talking about
how Dark Knight was going to be the first superhero film to be Oscar nominated for best picture, as well as director and screenplay. It was after
all widely accepted that it was the best superhero film ever, unlikely to ever be surpassed. Alas, on that cold January morning, people which may
have included myself broke into tears upon finding out that the film did not get any nominations for picture, director or screenplay. And we were
kicked while on the ground upon hearing that those vacancies went to The Reader, a clearly Oscar-baiting film that nobody in the mainstream really
liked. This was more proof than ever before that the Academy refuses to recognize mainstream but alternative forms of filmmaking and will only
accept their traditionalist styles. This broke my heart, and my refusal to accept Avatar as a serious best picture threat is because I don't want
to be hurt again.
Though come Tuesday morning, I'm sure we'll see Avatar among the best picture nominees, and probably James Cameron among the directors. Though I
wouldn't be so sure it would make the picture list were they still limited to five nominees. I just find it hard to believe that Avatar could win
best picture when The Dark Knight, which I consider to be a superior film, couldn't even get nominated. Let's compare the two for a second. What's
the reason for Avatar's success? I would say stunning visuals that aid exciting action sequences. That makes it an excellent action film, and like
Star Wars it will influence the way films are made for decades. But I wouldn't necessarily call it best picture simply because of its cliched and
obvious storyline. That is at least I wouldn't call it best picture if running against The Dark Knight, since that film was also an excellent
action film, but also had a brilliantly written screenplay full of surprises, twists, intense dialogue, moral dilemmas, and most importantly of
all: ethos. After seeing Dark Knight, I spent weeks thinking about many of the films implications such as giving into terrorism, mob mentality
and giving people faith. Can anybody say that Avatar really made them think? After the movie was over, I spent little more than five minutes
thinking about its implications. So even though I thoroughly enjoyed both films, because of its thought-provoking story and subtext I would easily
call The Dark Knight more deserving of a best picture title over Avatar. And it is for that reason I doubt Avatar can accomplish what Dark Knight
failed to come close to doing.
Jaws, Towering Inferno, Beauty and the Beast, the list is endless with films that were among the best in their genre, managed to get
best picture nominated, but failed to win due to their lack of satisfying the Academy's need for real-world dramas. Do I think a sci-fi film will
one day win best picture? Absolutely, but it will take a different body of the Academy than the one they have now. Though I loved Avatar, and
would more or less support a best picture win for it, I just can't flat out see it happening. And I say this so that those predicting an Avatar
win as well as picture nominations for Star Trek and The Hangover might take a second look at history and reconsider.
Review: Crazy Heart
The finest male performance of the year spearheads this downbeat wanderer tale that's all but a little too familiar.
I call this film Tender Mercies meets The Wrestler. Actually, come to think of it, it's pretty much just Tender Mercies all
over again, which probably explains Robert Duvall's involvement. But then it borrows from Wrestler by showing just how low a has-been star
can go no matter how hard they try. Frankly, there's been a lot of movies with this plot formula, and Crazy Heart doesn't exactly stand out
in front of the rest.
But what I did enjoy was the music. The film features so many great country songs written by T-Bone Burnett and Stephen Bruton, I find it hard to
believe that they're all original. And I found Jeff Bridges to give the finest male performance of the year (albeit a weak year) for creating the
downbeat character that stumbles over everything he tries to do, then pukes on it. Maggie Gyllenhaal gave yet another fine performance as well as
the mother torn between whether to love this dangerous man or not. And I enjoyed the film's ending, one not quite as depressing as other films of
this type.
Crazy Heart is worth a watch to see some fine performances and entertaining music. But you would probably get the same effect from watching
an E! True Hollywood Story. Other than that, it's kind of the same old alcoholic cowboy story we've seen before. But if you haven't seen it before,
then perhaps you should take a look at this weary kind of film.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actor Jeff Bridges, Supporting Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, Adapted Screenplay, Song
Brief Review: (500) Days of Summer
In the spirit of Once, we are treated with an independent romantic comedy that doesn't rely on big stars, just honesty and heart.
I compare this film to Once since I liked them both for their simplicity and truthful feelings expressed in the acting. Also because they
both have an ending that defies the normal structure of Hollywood rom-coms. Though I was still somewhat disappointed in the ending and the message
of "plenty of fish left in the sea" isn't exactly the most uplifting. But I still admire the film for its uniqueness, creativity and fine
performances from Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Actress Zooey Deschanel, Original Screenplay, Editing
5. The Wolfman
We've been hearing about this project for a while. Benicio Del Toro stars in this remake of the classic horror film. As you would expect, Benicio
gets bitten by a wolf and becomes the Wolfman. Horror an murder ensue in the old British world along with costars Anthony Hopkins and Emily Blunt.
Though its release date has been pushed forward three times, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the film judging from the trailers. I think
it will make a good addition to the spring for its classic horror nature and for the always impressive makeup effects by Rick Baker.
The Wolfman hits theaters February 12. Watch the trailer here.
4. Green Zone
Another delayed film is the latest Greengrass/Damon collaboration. After doing two Jason Bourne movies together, the director and star team up
again for this political action thriller about underhanded dealings in the middle east. Damon plays a government investigator trying to get to
the bottom of things.
I think this film will be big if the duo brings what they brought to the Bourne movies: fast and dynamic action sequences in fascinating locations
intermittent with fine dramatic performances. It's odd to see this type of film in the Spring, but I think it will be some intense fun.
Green Zone hits theaters March 12. Watch the trailer here.
3. Clash of the Titans
Sam Worthington has quickly risen to the A-list thanks to Avatar, now here's his chance for a big follow-up. In this remake of the classic
Greek mythology story: Worthington plays Perseus, a warrior who gets thrown into a war between the Gods Zeus (Liam Neeson) and Hades
(Ralph Fiennes). The clash is laden with effects-heavy action and mythical dazzle.
It also looks like a summer release, but I think it will fit well in the spot where 300 did so well. Sword and sandals films have seen a
big resurgence since Gladiator and this is the latest to add to the fine mythological collection.
Clash of the Titans hits theaters March 26. Watch the trailer here.
2. Shutter Island
I guess after finally winning his Oscar, Scorsese was allowed to make a film that wouldn't be trying to get the award. So here he's making
his first thriller since Cape Feare. The story is set on an island asylum where the US Marshal (Leonardo Dicaprio) is investigating
the case of a missing patient, and discovers there's something really suspicious about the island. Reminds me a lot of the PS3 game
Batman: Arkham Asylum I've been playing a lot lately.
Like several films on this list, this film had its release date pushed thus taking it out of Oscar consideration. Though I'm happy to see Marty
make a film that isn't necessarily an Oscar film, just a fun thriller that he clearly wanted to make. If it gets the great reviews I'm expecting,
I'm sure it will be as fast and intense as any of Scorsese's other pieces.
Shutter Island hits theaters February 19. Watch the trailer here.
1. Alice in Wonderland
Frequent viewers of this site know I have a weakness for Tim Burton films. The man is insane, but at the same time a genius. No other director
can take ordinary scenarios like a suburban neighborhood, a factory owner, or a murdering barber, and make them twice as creepy and mysterious
as they were before.
Burton's latest piece is an adaptation of the classic Lewis Carroll book about Alice who falls into a rabbit hole and enters the wondrous world
of Wonderland. She encounters the Tweedles, the Caterpillar, and the Chesire Cat. Burton regulars Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are
onboard again as the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen respectively.
I understand the criticism around most previous adaptations that had Alice essentially just meeting one odd character after another. Burton says
this time there's an actual plot, while still staying true to the novel. I'm going to see this film just because it's Burton and everything he
touches turns into a swirly, creepy, monochromatic masterpiece.
Alice in Wonderland hits theaters March 5. Watch the trailer here.
Likely to be disappointments:
Everything else, it is Spring after all
Undecided:
Edge of Darkness, I Love You Philip Morris, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wall Street 2
Review: Up in the Air
Being one of the most relevant films to reflect on this year's era of technology, business and the economy, Up in the Air takes a good look
at who we are and what we're becoming.
What's best about this film is the relevance. Scene after scene includes somebody being laid off of their job, something that's occurring all too
frequently this last year, and it really puts a face on those statistics. The aspects of air travel, from the slow security process to the first
class privileges, the film showcases how travel has created a schism between the inefficient and the experienced. And lastly it shows how
technology, from instant messaging to texting, has caused people to lose a personal touch in communications, perfectly exemplified in a comparison
between getting fired by internet as getting dumped by a text.
Furthermore, it's a personal story about whether a guy who has essentially lived in solitude his whole life is willing to finally commit to
something. It's a common theme in film, but this one works well in a different setting. George Clooney does an okay job at this role, but like
I've said before with Clooney, he's just playing the same character he always plays, but on a different day of the week. Vera Farmiga does a decent
job, but I think young Kendrick is the real star for portraying that fresh out of college, determined to take on the world, but so inexperienced at
life young person that I can totally relate to.
Just as a mere screenplay this film would be an entertaining read for its snappy modern dialogue between real-world people dealing with their
real-world lifestyles. Though I think the ending could have gone in a better direction, I still love the content of its film for holding up a mirror
to what today's business society has become and what it does to the people who try to succeed in it.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor George Clooney, Supporting Actress Anna Kendrick, Supporting Actress Vera Farmiga, Adapted Screenplay,
Editing
Review: Inglourious Basterds
By rewriting history with what would have been the most appropriate and entertaining chapter ever, Quentin Tarantino has outdone himself and made
his best film to date.
I think the greatest strength of Basterds is its screenplay, a talent Tarantino has always possessed and now is his best. The story is
brilliant in the way three journeys intersect so perfectly, and the film is concluded in an ending I could not have predicted but is even more
perfect than the one I had imagined. And even though it completely messes with history (such as how Hitler died), it is such an enjoyable
misinterpretation that every kill move, no matter how inaccurate, would have gotten a big cheer from the audience (so I assume had I seen this in
a theater). And as always, Tarantino loads the script with extended dialogue scenes, but it turns out his dialogue writing abilities aren't limited
to discussions of foot rubs, Superman and quarter pounders with cheese. He can write period dialogue that plays an integral role to the story such
as making a parallel as to why the Nazis instinctively hate the Jews. Furthermore, a complaint I've always had with Tarantino's films is that he
sure takes his sweet time with scenes. The same is true here since the film is long and the scenes are few. But this time they're drawn out not by
pointless conversations but by character development and tension building.
Performances are great, most notably Christoph Waltz as the charming but vile Jew hunter. Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger are great in their
heroine roles. And though it wasn't Brad Pitt's best performance, I don't think he detracted from the film like most say he did. And all other
technical aspects were strong such as the cinematography and set design.
Though as is common with all of Tarantino's films, they should not be viewed by anybody with a weak stomach. But if you can stand the scalping and
other violent acts, you will love Tarantino's film for its brilliant story, dialogue and adding a new chapter to the history books where all can
take pleasure in seeing Hitler being gunned down by a swarm of Jews. Ironic as it may be, it's the feel good movie of the year.
Stars: 4 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor Christoph Waltz, Supporting Actress Diane Kruger, Supporting Actress Melanie Laurent, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Sound
Brief Review: Julie and Julia
It's pretty hard to get me to enjoy rom-com chick-flicks, but due to its dual-biopic style, Julie and Julia made me pleased and hungry.
Aside from fine performances by Meryl Streep (deserving of another Oscar), Amy Adams and Stanley Tucci as Julia's husband, I enjoyed the film for
its dual storyline and how parallels can be drawn between two women separated by fifty years. It's when history relates to the modern world on
screen that I really enjoy a good biopic. Still, it was a little too much of a cutesy romance for my complete enjoyment, but I'd recommend it for
men and women nonetheless.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actress Meryl Streep, Supporting Actor Stanley Tucci
Review: Nine
This decade, there has always been the annual Oscar-hyped musical adaptation of the year. Unfortunately, this one offers too much of the same and
not enough of the original.
Over the last several years I've slowly learned what makes a good musical adaptation. I believe that it all has to do with being in the theatre
balcony versus seeing it on a screen through a close-up camera. On the stage, we are impressed with the lavish sets and eccentric dance numbers
because this display of talent is shown before our eyes. Whereas on the screen, we are not as impressed with sets and dance numbers since they're
nothing compared to the flashy stuff movie audiences see in fantasy and sci-fi movies. Instead, since the camera is up close on the actors, we'd
rather see their internal acting and display of character expressed. That is why this decade I have preferred simpler dramatic
performance-driven musicals like Dreamgirls and Sweeney Todd as opposed to over elaborate flashy group dances musicals like
Chicago and Mamma Mia. And I think that is Nine's biggest problem: too much effort on the musical numbers, not enough
on the characters.
However, the musical numbers were well-directed and choreographed themselves. Daniel Day-Lewis continues his streak as the best performance in
any movie, but this one hardly lives up to his impressive work in the past. But at least I can tell he tried giving the character more than his
director gave him. Penelope Cruz might be the only other decent performance outside of the musical numbers. And as is typical with musicals, the
sets, costumes and cinematography are all pretty strong.
The final big problem is that the film seems to be trying to get by merely on its high-profile Oscar-winning cast, and this is proven when you
look at the list of actors who were also considered (Javier Bardem, Gwyneth Paltrow, Catherine Zeta-Jones, etc). Though the film should be admired
for its well-directed musical numbers, its style, and a couple of fine performances, it should be hung from a flagpole for all directors to see
as a demonstration of how to remove all plot and character from a musical adaptation. If you want to see this, maybe just watch some music
videos on VH1, it would be cheaper.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Daniel Day-Lewis, Supporting Actress Marion Cotillard, Supporting Actress Penelope Cruz,
Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Sound, Song
Review: Avatar
Thirty-two years ago, George Lucas introduced audiences to an imaginative world he called Star Wars and filmmaking was never the same again.
Avatar will be this decade's Star Wars for it introduced an imaginative world that will change filmmaking again.
Clearly, the best aspects of this film are the stunning imagery and the advances in technology that can clearly be seen on screen. James Cameron
has designed a more captivating realm than Peter Jackson did in Lord of the Rings and made more thrilling CGI battle scenes than Michael
Bay did in Transformers. These spectacles are treats for all the senses. And the film would nearly deserve four stars on this alone.
If there's one thing holding the film back, it's the story. If James Cameron wrote the first draft back in the mid-nineties, you'd think he'd
have time to tweak it and make it more original. Essentially, the story is what you saw in the film's trailer with nothing unpredictable happening.
It's essentially another way of telling the tale of Pocahontas and John Smith. No wonder South Park has lampooned this film as Dances
With Smurfs, possibly a more fitting title.
Though clich�d, the story is still strong and the audience will enjoy it. But what they'll enjoy more is seeing the technology on screen. Cameron's
new method of motion capture performances really helped the performances and the action sequences. Most of the acting was fairly good, but the
biggest compliments should go to Zoe Saldana for taking a CGI character performance more seriously than any other actor since Andy Serkis played
Gollum.
Also, I saw this film in 3D, only the second film I've done so for after Up earlier this year. After seeing Up, I didn't think it
was worth the extra $3 since the effect wares off in about fifteen minutes. But Avatar was completely different. In every jungle scene,
there are a million dimensions in the screen and objects flying through them and the audience is surprised every time. And it's only in dynamic
high-flying action movies like this where the 3D really adds to the enjoyment. Unlike some films, I'd say seeing this film in 3D is worth the
extra $3. But I did find one flaw in the technology: if an object is out of focus because it's in the foreground, but is also protruding in 3D,
looking directly at the out of focus object feels unnatural and hurts the effect. Hopefully as they perfect the technology, this can be dealt with.
I can often measure my enjoyment of film by the number of times I look at my watch. During Avatar I didn't look at it once. Despite how
incredibly long the film is, it isn't too long since the scenes never drag and there's nothing unneeded. Though we all know the story, we'll all
enjoy watching James Cameron's latest masterpiece for its pure visual ride experience. For years I've been wondering if this project would live
up to the immense level of hype. To my surprise, it certainly has.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing, Score, Song
Review: Invictus
The story of Nelson Mandela's first year in office makes for an interesting slice of history, but forgets what it's supposed to be about.
Invictus, a name that refers to a poem that inspired Nelson Mandela, is a fascinating story of what Mandela accomplished. Eastwood and
screenwriter Anthony Peckham did a fine job in portraying Mandela's efforts, on both big scale and small, to heal the broken country. This is
especially well portrayed in a side story about Mandela's newly integrated bodyguards.
At the same time, perhaps the story focused too much on this rugby victory as if it were Mandela's only real accomplishment. When the team wins
the world cup at the end (I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the team wins since it's a historic fact, plus the movie would be pretty bad
if they didn't) the cheering celebration lasts an unnecessary ten minutes of screen time. There was plenty of time to cover more of what Mandela
accomplished.
As for the actors, Morgan Freeman isn't bad, but too often does he feel like the majority of his performance is just trying to get the accent
right. His only strong acting points are when he seems to have dropped the accent completely. Matt Damon does a fine physical performance, but
it's nothing exceptional either.
Yet I'd say that the film's biggest problem is that it was trying to be two stories. This is similar to another of Eastwood's recent films
Changeling which started off as a historical drama about the corrupt LAPD, and turned into a thriller about a murdering psychopath.
Invictus starts out as a biopic of a famous man, and turns into a clich�d inspirational sports film. You can actually feel it turning
from Morgan Freeman's film into Matt Damon's film. It feels far too much like two separate films instead of two parts of one blended story.
Acting is mediocre, the story is short, and historical accuracy makes for a high-stakes but relatively dull final rugby game. Though the story
is interesting and inspirational, Invictus fails in being the great filmmaking experience that it was meant to be due to a too narrow
focus and a rugby field-sized gap between two distinct stories.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Morgan Freeman, Supporting Actor Matt Damon, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing
Brief Review: Angels and Demons
Ron Howard's sequel to The Da Vinci Code is a little too fresh but a little too similar to its mega-hit predecessor.
In some ways I'd say it's better than Da Vinci Code as suspense scenes are better-directed and the eventual surprise twists are less
foreseeable. But at the same time it feels a little too much like a repeat of Da Vinci as we see Langdon go from location to location
finding clues and slowly get betrayed by each person around him. However this time the extent of Langdon's intellect seems reduced to looking
at which direction statues are pointing.
Perhaps the film can be enjoyed by those who haven't seen Da Vinci Code, or by those who loved it so much that we want to see it again
and again. But those two categories make very few people, so the rest of us might be a little dulled by its repeatability.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: none
Review: An Education
One of many films well-directed by women this year, An Education is a sweet but simple story about adolescence and priorities.
This film does hold a mirror up to a common imperfection in society, and that is young women who prefer older men and those men who take advantage
of them. It explores the psychology of this phenomenon by showing how young women wish to escape their boring lives and only successful men can do
that for them. A few social taboos are explored making the audience a little uncomfortable, but not nearly as much as say Precious did. And
I'm pleased to see that the conclusion is that Jenny ultimately chooses education and individual achievement over a life of luxury. I would agree
that a conformity factory like college is a smarter choice than freedom and rebellion. It seems like a Philistine's ending, which is why I'm
surprised to see it in an independent film like this.
The film's direction and screenplay are rather basic and nothing special. Carey Mulligan gives a great breakout performance that will likely help
launch her career and result in an Oscar nomination. Peter Sarsgaard and Alfred Molina are all right but I was expecting a little better from such
talented actors. I could see a possible best picture nomination in store for the film due to its performances and exploration of the youthful
teenage mind. However, the story seems somewhat short and simple without any unexpected twists. I could see how it makes for a good memoir,
but on film it seems to lose some of its personality.
Oscar pundits should see the film for its performances and engaging story, albeit a simple one. Others should see it for their reflection on the
transitional period of the '60s and how it parallels society today.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actress Carey Mulligan, Supporting Actor Alfred Molina, Supporting Actor Peter Sarsgaard, Adapted Screenplay,
Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Costumes, Score
Review: Precious
Based on the acclaimed novel Push, Precious is a painfully disturbing piece of reality to watch, but succeeds in making inner city
dangers into a work of art.
Probably the greatest strength of the film is the performances. Sidibe doesn't exactly look like your typical Hollywood actress, but in one role
she's shown more talent than most of them. Mariah Carey is impressive in a small role as a social worker, and when I say impressive I just mean
she's not terrible unlike her previous acting jobs. But Mo'Nique gets the acting gold trophy here for being willing to portray such a horribly
abusive woman that even when she breaks down and explains her sorrow we hate her even more. Certainly I'd say an Oscar nomination is secure for
her, but I'm not so sure about winning. This will be the most unlikable Oscar-nominated character since Alec Baldwin in The Cooler.
When voters vote, they vote for the character as well as the actor and I find it hard to believe that voters will want to choose such an
unlikeable character no matter how good of a performance it is, unless of course your name is James Coburn.
I also admire Lee Daniels' direction with his inclusions of fantasy sequences and showing what's going on inside Precious' head. And there's
something to admire about being willing to show the brutal truth, like what Spielberg did in Schindler's List. But then again, I'm
disappointed how that is essentially the whole story. The plot seems a little too much like every bad aspect of inner city life thrown onto
one character: abuse, incest, obesity, AIDS. I mean it's not that difficult to make a film where so many bad things happen to a good character
and have it make an impact on people. That's just the natural reaction. And I thought that having to sit through so much horror would be worth
it by getting an uplifting ending. That didn't quite come true since the ending is only about half-happy.
Though it's probably worth seeing for its strong performances, its mirror holding to society, and its exposure of the problems with the welfare
program, anyone who sees Precious should be the same people who can sit through the Saw movies, for they can witness atrocious
acts without much of a positive outcome and come out having enjoyed themselves. Certainly, that would be a select few.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actress Gabourey Sidibe, Supporting Actress Mo'Nique, Supporting Actress Mariah Carey, Adapted Screenplay,
Editing, Song
Review: A Serious Man
Joel and Ethan Coen have always been a leading force in innovative unusual storytelling. Normally this has worked, but this time they just went too
far.
Essentially seeing this man's life problems is the whole story and when nothing gets resolved you come out as disappointed as Larry. Though
Stuhlbarg puts in a good performance, his character isn't that likeable since most of his misfortunes he lets happen to him. If he were a
tougher guy who stood up for himself he wouldn't be in these predicaments. No other characters are likeable including his wife played by unknown
actress Sari Lennick who shares a striking resemblance to Linda Hamilton.
But the biggest problem is the ending. The Coen Brothers have made an unusual sudden drop-off ending a trademark of their last several films. But
with No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading that weird ending wasn't a problem because pretty much all the story details
were wrapped up anyway. In Serious Man literally none of the details get wrapped up, some new ones even pop up right before the ending
and are never resolved. Were it not for the end credits I would have believed that the projectionist forgot the last reel of film. Everybody
walks out of the theater unsatisfied.
There are a couple of good things to say about A Serious Man such as a few fine performances from Stuhlbarg and Richard Kind as his
problematic brother. And you always have to give credit to the Coens for creating something original, and also for having the guts to do
something with all complete no-name actors. And I'm sure there were lots of religious inside jokes that certain audience members got but
I clearly didn't seeing as how I'm not Jewish.
Though I've only seen seven of Joel and Ethan Coen's films, I would have to call this one the worst. It seems the brotherly team have gotten
high on their own style and abused their power of creativity. Hopefully their next film will have the same structure as all normal films: beginning,
middle, end.
Stars: 1 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Michael Stuhlbarg, Supporting Actor Richard Kind, Original Screenplay, Cinematography
Brief Review: Zombieland
On an invitation from my roommates, I attended the opening weekend of a film that doesn't fall into my typical film viewing palette but was a
moderately enjoyable exception.
I call this movie Dawn of the Dead meets Little Miss Sunshine, because it's just as much a comedy about a dysfunctional family as
it is about zombies. I've seen few if any zombie movies, so it's hard for me to compare this film to others, but I'm betting it stands above most
of the rest for making itself into an original comedy. It is however somewhat short and the story is simple, but for those who can stand watching
zombies it might be an enjoyable fest of humor and blood.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: none
5. Where the Wild Things Are
As early as kindergarten, Where the Wild Things Are is one of the first books I recall ever reading, right up there with
The Cat in the Hat and Go Dog Go. I never really imagined a film adaptation of it, and making one seems like a real challenge.
Oddball filmmaker Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) however took up the impossible mission.
Like the book, this is a simple story of a boy who goes into a fantasy land of his own imagination where friendly monsters roam. If I recall, the
book is only about twelve pages long, which means it's a really short story to turn into a film. Such problems have made children's literary
adaptations like The Grinch and The Polar Express less than stellar for needing to extend scenes and add bad subplots. The same will
likely need to be done here, and I'm just hoping that when the running time is at full, all that's left serves the wonder and imagination that the
original book dreamed up. And I hope adults can enjoy it too.
Where the Wild Things Are hits theaters October 16. Watch the trailer here.
4. 9
Four years ago a film called 9 written and directed by Shane Acker was Oscar nominated for animated short film and lost. It was a shock to
many (even though I accurately called the winner that year) since 9 was quite an imaginative and hauntingly beautiful fantasy tale. Now
that it's been made into a full-length film, perhaps it can get a little more recognition.
9, as is my understanding, takes place in a post apocalyptic world where mankind is all dead and all that survives is a group of small rag
dolls invented by a scientist before his death. It's in this dark and dreary world that the dolls try to survive. What I'm hoping is that if the
short film was Oscar material, that this full-length version will be so as well, and be one of those rare animated films like Wall-E that
has a deep understanding for adults to enjoy. Plus being produced by Tim Burton is always a plus.
9 hits theaters September 9. Watch the trailer here.
3. Invictus
Clint Eastwood-directed films have become almost an annual tradition this decade, and occasionally we're blessed with two in a year. This year
it's Invictus, based on the true story of Nelson Mandela shortly after he was freed from his 27-year prison sentence and became president
of South Africa. Anybody who's so little as seen a picture of Mandela would have suggested the same actor to portray him: Morgan Freeman. This is
the biopic he was clearly born to play.
I honestly don't know a lot about Mandela, but I'm always eager to learn. I believe this film will focus on his time uniting the country and
hosting the world rugby championship (with Matt Damon as a head rugby player). What I hope this will accomplish is allow Freeman to give one
of the best performances of his career, and allow Eastwood to complete the decade with yet another brilliant film to add to his already impressive
collection.
Invictus hits theaters December 11. Watch the trailer� when it comes out.
2. Avatar
I claim to understand a lot about the movie business, but I fail to understand how this original film, with no famous material adapted from, no
big stars on the marquee, and not being a sequel to a successful predecessor, could possibly have generated so much hype. The internet has been
a buzzing about this sci-fi film from James Cameron, his first film since Titanic twelve years ago. I suppose the hype is based mostly on
the fact that Cameron is such a brilliant director and fans have been waiting so long for his next film, no matter what it is. That's a lot of hype
to live up to, so the pressure is definitely on.
Avatar is a futuristic sci-fi film starring Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation) as a handicapped military man who leads some
sort of expedition on a far away planet inhabited by some sort of blue aliens. But it sounds like the real prize is supposedly the ways in which
this film is to revolutionize filmmaking. It's in 3-D, a rarity for live-action films, but it has also supposedly made great advancements in
motion-capture technology and other areas of visual and sound effects. Personally, it didn't look that revolutionary by the trailer, but Cameron
has amazed us before, so I can certainly hope that he'll do it again.
Avatar hits theaters December 18. Watch the trailer here.
1. The Lovely Bones
After seeing Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, I grew into a fan of Peter Jackson overnight. After seeing and loving the
remaining two Lord of the Rings films as well as King Kong, my fanship became a loyal dedication. I'm now eager to see whatever
film Jackson comes out with next, even if it's something drastically out of his normal zone like The Lovely Bones.
Based on the acclaimed novel, Lovely Bones is about a young girl named Susie (played by Atonement's Saoirse Ronan) who is brutally
murdered by her neighbor. While her parents (played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz) grieve and search for the killer, Susie is stuck in what's
known as �The Inbetween� a land neither Earth nor heaven. This magical realm is probably going to be what gives Peter Jackson his fantasy fix. I'm
sure like he did in Lord of the Rings, he'll be able to create this amazingly magical world, and at the same time get brilliant performances
from his actors, namely Ronan, Weisz and Stanley Tucci as the creepy murder suspect.
What I'm hoping to see, and right now seems very possible, is for The Lovely Bones to become this year's big Oscar frontrunner. Sure Peter
Jackson, his writers, producers, and other production team members have several Oscars as it is, but I want this film to show that Jackson can do
more than just fantasy. I know he can bring a tragic story about the real world to life, and that's what I'm sure he'll do this December.
The Lovely Bones hits theaters December 11. Watch the trailer here.
Likely to be disappointments:
2012, Amelia, Capitalism: A Love Story, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess and the Frog
Undecided:
A Christmas Carol, Jennifer's Body, Nine, A Serious Man, Sherlock Holmes